AUSTRALIANS DECLARED ABSOLUTELY USELESS; Third Worlders clutching 457 visas come to rescue

We used to be told we needed immigrants to do the work that Australians did not deign to lower themselves to do (although it was never explained who did the this work before the advent of imported drudges); now we are being told we need imported workers because Australians just don't have the necessary skills (presumably because they are too lazy, stupid or addicted to drinking beer and watching sport to acquire them). Of course these terms are never officially employed; rather, we are constantly informed about a 'skills shortage', very much along the same lines as a water shortage, the type of natural disaster the cause of which is so mystifying and altogether beyond human control that insurance companies, although not exactly hot-beds of religion, employ the phrase, 'act of God'. The god being worshipped though through the sacrifice of the Australian worker is the god of Globalisation.

If there is indeed a skills shortage, and most tend to agree there is, there are only two possible ways this could have come about: either A)through criminal neglect by politicians who would not have the foresight to pack an umbrella on a rainy day or B)by being willfully engineered by the same politicians whose crimes are far more serious than the neglectful kind.


As it is extremely difficult to believe that our illustrious leaders could really be so cretinous as to allow something so valuable as our skills base to run down to such a catastrophic level by accident, one really has no option than to go with B). In scrambling like terrified recruits to fall into line with the New World Order, and obeying the orders of multinational corporations like beaten currs, they prove themselves beyond doubt to be deadly poison to those whose interests they lie about serving and who pay their salaries.

Because of the 'skills shortage' we needed the 457 visa arrangement to cater to a new type of immigrant - a type of guest worker, but one with the skills appropriate to plugging the many holes that had mysteriously opened where once there had been endemic unemployment. What exactly were these skills that were so unexpectedly in demand? Think of a skill - any skill. In fact, if one were to superimpose a list of the occupations eligible for a 457 visa onto a list of all the (even marginally skilled) occupations that existed, an almost perfect match would be found. More than a few 457 occupations barely make it into the skilled category. These include: amusement centre manager (probably advertised as a 'fun job'), post officer manager (notwithstanding Australia Post's army of employees), railway station manager (ditto for State Rail), residential care workers (normally employed straight off the street) massage therapists (happy ending?) and florists (tried Oxford Street?) Hairdressers, although admittedly skilled, also figure but who would have thought Australia needed any more hairdressers? Truck drivers were also included for a short time but given that most people with a car licence could learn to drive a truck with a few hours practice, a hasty retreat was beaten from this position. Possibly though it was the catastrophic potential inherent in big rigs driven by those not entirely sure of which side of the road should be on that soured this plan. Whichever, when Australia finds itself with an unskilled shortage, it will probably be about time to give the game away all together.

Is there any chance whatsoever of the 457 visa having a detrimental effect on the employment opportunities of Australians? Oh ye of little faith! How could you think such a thought? But just a minute. It seems that the self proclaimed protector of the Australian worker, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has thought such a thought. Normally as tame as a pet puppy, it was moved to express mild concern in its submission to the Review of Australia's Labour Migration and Temporary Entry Program of April 2003. In amongst its lamenting the conditions of temporary workers, and the concomitant skills drain on their countries of origin, it observed '... the Federal Government's review of nursing's estimated shortages over the next five years to be in the order of 35,000. At the same time Australia (sic) young people have been turned away from training at the rate of nearly 2000 a year since 1997, as a result of the systematic de-funding by the Federal Government of training courses. In Victoria it is reported that in 2002 some "1300 Victorian students had missed out on a nursing career this year and the situation would worsen next year"'.(The Age 8/9/02) Perhaps not wanting to ruffle too many feathers, the ACTU was quick to add that it nevertheless saw globalisation as inevitable and that it was proud of its role as a full partner in its facilitation.

So why train workers when they can simply be ordered from overseas when the need arises? This no doubt is the sentiment being sweetly murmured into the pearly-pinks of our quislings by the corporate big wigs they stand in awe of, not a few of which are heading the multinationals who pay little or no tax here. This after all, as if we need reminding, is all about globalisation that is leading us all into the promised land. Understandably, overseas corporations have a predilection for importing their own people into management of their Australian operations, especially when there are language considerations. There is not a great deal to worry about in terms of opposition to this practice. '...[T]here should be minimal regulations in relation to personnel falling into the executive, managerial, professional and specialist categories ... globalisation of production in both goods and services was both good for Australia and [of course] inevitable.' This sums up the view of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as expressed in the Roach Inquiry of 1997 into the issue.

There is though a safeguard here and that is an onus placed on employers to check whether a position can be filled with local talent before importing it. Unfortunately the drawback is that this is pretty much an honour system as - get ready for it - THERE IS NO LABOUR MARKET TESTING. This effectively means that an employer can go right ahead and make that overseas call without the inconvenience of demonstrating that, try as they might, they simply could not find anybody in all of Australia to do the job in question. What a godsend this is to those mambers of ethnic groups, which unlike mug Australians, retain strong racial consciousness and would rather employ even the most incompetent of their own kind rather than any Australian, because ... well let's face it, they don't really like Australians.

There is an added, turbo-charged advantage to the importation of 457 holders, and that is that a Damocles sword hangs by a thread over the head of the person whose Australian residence is dependent on his keeping his job. He will of course go to far greater lengths to protect it than will his native equivalent. No condition will be too repugnant to him, no danger too threatening. As John Sutton, the national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) told ABC radio on 14/4/08 '... three workers on 457 visas were killed on the job last year ... workers were badly underpaid ... living twelve to a house in appalling accommodation .. pay packets tampered with ... money deducted without permission'. Why wouldn't unscrupulous employers be lusting after 457s? Note that this union official's sympathies seem wholly with the woes of the imported worker who, in the final analysis, has probably never had it so good in comparison to where he's come from (invariably the third world). This is a rich irony given that joining a union is probably the last thing these people would risk, while the plight of Australians paying union dues which pay his salary, and whose jobs are put at risk by the 457 visa is effectively ignored.

If the thread breaks and the sword drops, much more in fact is at risk than the loss of temporary residence and, if no other sponsor can be found, then it's home you go. Just like the holders of student visas being handed out like free condoms in Bangkok, the holders of 457 visas are automatically in the draw for permanent residency. And to speed things along, both student visa holders and 457 workers can now gain permanent immigration status 'on shore'. No crystal ball is needed to predict an exponential growth in this back-door immigration. In the financial year 2007 to '08 roughly ninety per cent of the 17,760 of those gaining permanency via employer sponsorship were former 457 visa holders.

By amazing coincidence the US, a country that just like Australia got to where it is by the innovation and ingenuity of its people, now also finds itself with a 'skills shortage', the only remedy for is to go offshore for the required talent. Perhaps if just a little patience could be exercised, the jobs being exported could be married up with the overseas skills therefore cutting out a laborious stage of the exercise but that's another story. The American equivalent of the 457 visa is H1-B visa. This though has much more class than the Australian version. Firstly, a Bachelor's degree is the usual minimum prerequisite, and secondly, with a population many time's greater than Australia's, a cap of 65,000 per fiscal year is placed on the issuance.

Compared with that, in Australia it's more open slather than what the drunk say after the explosion in a shaving cream factory. At last count, there were 110,500 people working in Australia on 457 visas. In one year, 2007 to '08 there was a 27% increase. That rate of increase will, if continued and there is absolutely no reason to believe it won't, (the smart money will be on an increased rate) obviously see a doubling every four years. Remember, there is no actual test of whether any particular job could be undertaken by a native before an import is sought. So what jobs are we likely to be left with? Traffic intersections can only accommodate so many windscreen cleaners.

Keen monitoring my even be rewarded by the recognition of such deviancy as reclassified jobs. Remember 'domestic care officer'? That's simply bureaucrat-speak for someone who does housework and personal care such as helping with showers and meals. So be on the lookout for something like 'Personal Relaxation Officers' - formerly known as prostitutes.


Whatever the visa is that allows people to live and work in Australia, be it 457, student visa, or the working holiday visa that currently soaks up 90,000 jobs, they all come under the one major heading: SCAMS. They are simply different schemes to pack more and more people into the country that an already unprecedentedly bloated immigration scheme simply can't cope with. Get used to it; you are being globalised.

MULTICULTURAL MYTHS ... and cold, hard reality

Myth 1: Diversity is morally good This is seldom stated so baldly but rather implied by the opposite: people opposed to multiculturalism are morally bad or even evil. Just as seldom are reasons given for why multiculturalism is morally good; it is simply asserted, just as if enough people claimed for long enough that drinking urine was morally good, it might be hoped that it would eventually become morally good.

So, as we are not told why multiculturalism is morally good, we have to ascertain for ourselves why it is so. Notwithstanding that most people who make the claim are generally Humanists, whether they know it or not, and so atheistic, could the assertion be backed by an appeal to religious authority? No; search as enthusiastically as you like and you will not find any moral judgements on multiculturalism inscribed on tablets or written in holy books.

But, as already noted, God's opinion on multiculturalism is not sought, even as the devilishly problematic nature of attempting to construct a moral doctrine in the absence of a supernatural umpire has dogged great thinkers down through the ages. All too often a slippery slope appears, leading all the way down to 'if it feels good, do it'. Nevertheless, an admirable attempt at this was Utilitarianism, a relative of Humanism, which placed an action on the good/evil continuum depending on whether it promoted happiness or unhappiness. This, appropriately enough was termed the 'Greatest Happiness Principle'. Happiness, perhaps unfortunately for this doctrine because it tended to legitimate hedonism, was defined as pleasure. By unhappiness was meant pain and the deprivation of pleasure. Perhaps trying to head of the hedonism charge, it was claimed that the greatest good for the greatest number was what was really intended.

So how does multiculturalism stack up when weighed on the Utilitarian scales? Judging by the persistent underground rumblings of the host population and the constant collective complaining of the ethnic groups for whom the system was devised, it would appear that not much happiness is being created at all. And as multiculturalism is a zero sum game, that is, because there is only so much gravy to be shared, every gain is someone else's loss, and because it's a one-way street, the unhappiness of the losers (those who've had multiculturalism inflicted upon them) can only increase. Ergo, by this secular measure Multiculturalism cannot possibly be passed as morally good.

Human conscience is a notoriously unreliable guide in moral philosophy simply because good and evil tend to change places so often depending on the era and place that human conscience tends to find itself in. Cannibalism, for example, is one man's meat, but another man's poison. To give another example, polygamy, to some, is debauchery; to others it is the most fun that can be had without your clothes on. But putting aside this qualification for a moment, some common threads do tend to connect the human conscience throughout time and place. Practices such as murder, theft and cheating appear to be universally frowned upon. Rape too is something unlikely ever to be warmed to - especially by women. Ironically though, if we use such a generalisation to measure the morality of multiculturalism, we find that throughout 9.9 tenths of human history, multiculturalism was also frowned upon as a moral negative. How can we deduce this? Simply because it would not have been touched even with the proverbial barge pole.

It could be said that Nature has its own moral code. Simply stated, it is this: what is conducive to survival is good; what isn't is bad. Multiculturalism and the mass immigration fueling it are not conducive to the survival of the white race in Australia.


Myth 2: There is unity in diversity. This is pure Orwellian anti-logic, identical in style to such gems as 'war is peace' or 'slavery is freedom'. 'Strength in diversity' is often how the same idea is phrased. The sheer nonsense of such slogans is testament to the power of propaganda, or at least to how powerful it is perceived to be by the social engineers behind it. Once again, it is obviously believed that if a modification of the mass mind is to be effected, all that is needed is that, if the required adjustment is encapsulated in a short, snappy slogan and repeated often enough for long enough, it will take root. This will happen, so the mind-controllers believe, even if evidence of the exact opposite flourishes all around. And flourish all around it does, pulsing out the unmistakable signal that diversity equals fragmentation and weakness. If a symbol was needed to illustrate the 'strength' in diversity, none would be better suited to the task than the opposite of the fascist symbol of the tightly packed bundle of sticks or fascio, essentially shooting a message straight to the brain which says 'unbreakable'. Conversely, the symbol for diversity would see each single stick placed in a row on the ground - practically begging to be broken. Not for nothing have the words, 'divide and conquer', been the golden rule of tyrants since conquest appeared as the ultimate career move.

Myth 3: Australia is a land of immigrants. This insipid offering implies that Australia's history began circa 1945 - '46 by effectively white-outing all that went between 1788 and World War 2. Australia is no more a land of immigrants than any other land, with the possible exception of Africa, if one is willing to place any stock in the 'out of Africa' theory. It is simply a matter of how far back you want to go.

This by far is the most obnoxious element of the immigrant-land claim, implying as it does that Australia before the boom in post-war immigration was a void just waiting to be knocked into some kind of form and shape and given substance by the industrious and enterprising 'New Australians'.

To most true Australians, the land of immigrants mantra is an insult, particularly those who can trace their Australian ancestry back many generations. Just how many generations of ancestors of Australian birth does one have to claim before having the immigrant tag removed?

For the immigrant-land claim to hold water, the human cargo of the first fleet would have to be classed as immigrants. If a medium could interview member of this band of hapless human transplants and then inform him that he had been one of Australia's first immigrants, the element of surprise would no doubt be of the same grade as being ambushed. One would suppose that embedded in the meaning of the word 'immigrant' is another word: voluntary. One thing we can be sure of is that there were no 'volunteers' in the first fleet, be they soldiers, sailors or convicts, perhaps with the single exception of Arthur Phillip who would govern the infant colony. Moreover, even if a sprinkling of adventurers was contained in this odd human assortment, as there was in later fleets, how exactly does one immigrate to a country that doesn't yet exist?

It still barely existed when free settlers began arriving. These people thinking of themselves as immigrants would have been as unlikely as them thinking of themselves as space invaders. The operative word here is 'settlers'. They had come to settle a singularly uninviting land. As a visit to a pioneering museum will attest to, this meant hardship, hard labour, sacrifice and an often untimely death. Not many immigrants would sign on for that.

There is a corollary to Myth 3 which for convenience will be termed Myth 3A, and that is that Australia has always been multicultural. This is absurdly based on the observation that the first fleet contained not only Englishmen, but also Irish, Scottish, Welsh and even the odd Black. Apart from the latter, these groups were so alike racially and culturally that an outsider such as a German, also closely related racially, would have been hard pressed to sort them into their appropriate categories. The claim is so risible as to not be worth exploring any further except, suffice it to say, that, if the word 'multicultural' had ever assailed the ears of a first-fleeter, a futile searching of dictionaries would have ensued.


Myth 4: Multiculturalism promotes harmony and understanding
... and just in case it doesn't, we have various Human Rights Commissions, and laws against racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. How we managed to live quite happily without these encroachments on our lives in the two hundred years or so before multiculturalism remains something of a mystery.


Harmony, one would think would not require enforcement, especially with its being seen as a byproduct of multiculturalism as natural as a Spring shower. The extra control over our lives that is in fact required to promote this myth is simply another of the many penalties of being on the losing side in the zero sum game.

Experiments have shown that when even the most docile and peaceful of animals are crowded to together, murderous rage is often the result. There is no logical reason why humans, a special kind of animal, would not react the same way. This is simply another case of bleeding heart theory impaling itself on the horns of Nature. When those being crowded together share no real affinity or empathy apart from the attempted artificially induced kind, it stands to reason that the result will be even more disastrous. Again, being willing to learn from Nature, the animal world brooks no such thing as shared territory. This is one of the primary reasons being red in tooth and claw is such a strong characteristic of the natural world.


And the foregoing doesn't even begin to take into consideration the seeds of destruction sown at the very birth of institutionalised multiculturalism - tiny seeds that grow imperceptibly slowly into mighty trees and are then fashioned into battering rams. The smouldering resentment of the host population, fueled by its losses, grows and grows. The corresponding resentment of multiplying ethnic groups, fueled by disappointment at the entitlement they have been led to expect being not quite forthcoming, grows and grows.

The supposed philosophical base of multiculturalism being nothing more than a shower of assertions, it is unsurprising to find that the claim that multiculturalism will teach Australians to be more understanding is simply more of the same. No attempt has ever been made to explain why Australians should be more understanding or even want to be more understanding. This supposed public education is no more than the mental version of fluoride being added to the water supply (it's good for you and you'll take it). This however presupposes that multiculturalism does make people more understanding of the Other, which in point of fact is wide open to debate.

Recent studies have shown the trend of Australian society to being less trustful, more suspicious, with less sense of community - even within homogeneous areas - being a correlation of multiculturalism. And why should this be surprising? Have Australians learnt to understand enough about the foreign that is positive enough to counter the abysmally negative such as: gang rapes committed against Australian girls because they are Australian; gangs forming along racial lines; soccer riots; violent political demonstrations against perceived wrongs that have nothing to do with Australia; jihad; likely fifth columns; demands for Australians to change to accommodate aliens; the whittling away of Australian traditions lest they offend the newcomer. To someone with even less than average hearing, none of this sounds anything remotely like harmony.


Rather than being force-fed the illusion of harmony and understanding, there has always been an option for those with a burning desire to learn more of various, national cultures; that of course was foreign travel. Those who weren't interested stayed at home where it was once possible to simply enjoy one's own culture

BEWARE THE REPUBLIC

'Oi Oi Oi, Aussie Aussie Aussie!' This is a chant heard all around the world wherever Australians have gathered. Even money says that these chanters, who would probably not be averse to a new Australian flag featuring the boxing kangaroo, perhaps with the chant stenciled underneath , would be sympathetic to the idea of an Australian republic - after being told for so long that this is what they want. For make no mistake, the push for a republic is coming from above rather than below - there never being a grass roots movement desiring a republic. It has been more an exercise in public education, rather like anti-littering campaigns, than a spontaneous outburst of an urgent need for an independence of snowflake-like purity.

If such a need existed, perhaps some thought may have been spared for a few other niggling impediments to such a Utopian independence, such as: international banking, multinational corporations, binding treaties signed with the United Nations, the influence of giants like China and the US, the International Monetary fund, the World Bank, and that's not even to mention the shadowy but real powers behind the throne with names such as the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the soon to be announced World Government - names meaning nothing to most Australians.



But 'Oi Oi Oi, Aussie Aussie Aussie!' chant the flag-wavers, screaming themselves hoarse and wearing war-paint and funny coloured wigs at international sporting fixtures. 'My country right or wrong. It's simple; let's keep it that way. Don't bore me with intricate details'. This of course is the 'patriotism', the social pressure valve, so beloved and encouraged by the elite, in stark contrast to the nationalism loathed and feared by the same coterie. Mister Rudd himself is a patriot of the castrated kind. Why else would would the political pygmy currently enjoying the perks of being Prime Minister be making so many references to 'the national interest' - count them - when the nation state, the interest of which so enthralls him, is being dissolved at the behest of his New World Order masters? National interest indeed! But then again the star of an ego such as this can only rise so far in the local solar system. Nothing less than an entire universe is needed to provide the appropriate dimensions.

If only it was that simple. If only all we had to do was free ourselves once and for all from the nasty, oppressive British who, let's face it, secretly pine for the days when their red coats were a precursor to the black of the German SS, and we would stand atop Olympus like gods unto our own selves.

Given that our illustrious leader currently has his hands full saving the planet, the issue of Australia becoming a republic has been left to quietly bubble on the back-burner, but as any cook worth his salt knows, from simmer to boiling takes very little time. And Rudd is a confessed, dyed-in-the-wool republican. Belying his supposed skills as a diplomat, Rudd confided to his British counterpart in 1998 that sooner or later Australia would be getting rid of the Queen - only several hours before meeting her for the first time. Sooner seems more likely than later. As reported by Telegraph.co.uk on April 4, 2008 '.. [Mister Rudd] declined to set a timetable but suggested it would occur while the Queen was on the throne.' Assuming the Queen shares her mother's longevity and that she will never be over enthused on passing the sepulcher to the son who, one assumes, is a perpetual spring of bitter disappointment, this opens a decidedly wide time-frame.

One however suspects that this lack of precision is little more than a smoke-screen (let's not scare the horses just yet)and that the assault on the constitution will come much sooner. After all, just as the election of Hamas to a majority in the Palestinian parliament in 2006, even though the result of fair and democratic voting, this outcome like that of the 1999 referendum on whether Australia should become a republic was not what was wanted. We'll just have to keep trying until we get it right.

A more accurate indication of when we can expect republicans to begin mobilising was given by TimesOnline of April, 21 2008 in quoting Mister Rudd who said, 'Under plans outlined yesterday, a plebiscite on becoming a republic would be held, probably alongside the 2010 federal election. A “yes” vote would trigger a referendum to decide on the model, probably in 2013'. This would be a 'big step forward ... after the issue dominated a conference of the country's top minds'. The country's top minds! Well according to the organisers who stacked the so called 2020 Summit with party faithful and lick spittles.

Apparently these geniuses smell nothing the slightest bit putrid in, after finding the front door closed to them, opting for a slimy, back-door approach. Simply ask the mob if they want a republic - any kind of republic. This overcomes the obstacle that stymied them the first time around: a prospective republic fleshed out and given form. The general public was keen, if not zealous, but Gott im Himmel, they wanted to choose the president themselves. This was the iceberg that wouldn't get out of the way of the Titanic. This really wasn't what the politicians and their cronies wanted. They wanted to choose the president themselves because, as anybody with more than no political nous at all would know, a popularly elected president would set up a competing centre of political gravity. Nobody really likes competition - especially politicians locked in a perpetual struggle to hide the despot within.

Jumping at the chance to show their patriotism, it is likely the word 'YES' will roll on a wave of mass hysteria. To make it an even surer bet, because the way in which a plebecite (non binding) or referendum (binding) question is worded is crucial and can make all the difference, it may even be worded as 'do you want an Australian as head of state?' That would lift the roof off.

The next simple step would be to craft a question in the following referendum that would deliver the required result. How they would do this is a question still perculating in devious minds but having climbed this far up the ladder they can expected to be extremely cautious in avoiding the excruciating frustration of sliding back down a cold, slimy snake. As an insurance policy, an unrelenting barrage of propaganda will fill the space between the plebecite and the referendum. Crucially though, they are banking on the ignorance of the public; a poll conducted in recent years showed that a depressing forty five per cent of respondents didn't know that Australia had a constitution.

So what other advantages are there to being a republic which will come at the cost of millions of dollars in reprinted stationery alone - other than being able to kid ourselves that we would now be a truly independent nation? In a word, none. The constitution we have has proved to be work of genius, based as it is on the best of the British, American and Canadian constitutions with a nod to the Swiss model of amendment solely by referendum. In a world of instability, it has kept us as stable as an aircraft carrier in dry dock.

What are the disadvantages? Let us count the ways. On second thought we can't; they're unpredictable. As the Reverend Kameel Majdali puts it in Australia's Constitution, Crown and Future 'To tamper with a good constitution is like playing around with the foundations of a building; [if] disturbed, it can send cracks up the building walls ... or worse'.(http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/republic/kmajdali/majdali2.html) Oh look; here's Pandora's box. Let's see what's inside. Canada is a striking case in point. It is not outside the realms of possibility that some seemingly innocuous tinkering with its constitution may eventually lead to the disintegration of that country with Quebec leading the charge into the ruins.

By contrast, in spite of what the 'minimalist' crowd claim, the changes needed to convert Australia from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, will, instead of tinkering, result in whole sections being torn out. It will be nothing less than the most massive restructuring of the constitution in the history of Australian referenda.

These cold, hard fact have to be obscured from Australian eyes with the smoke and mirrors of obfuscation, diversion and distraction. In this, the Royal family become an easy target, as indeed it is for republicans in the UK. Obviously this particular family has had its problems but contrary to republican white-noise, the current royal family is NOT the monarchy or the Crown. The meaning of the Crown has evolved from being synonymous to the monarch. Again quoting Majdali, 'the constitutional emphasis is on the principle of the Crown, not the actual person who wears it.' And according to Walter Bagehot, whose English Constitution (1867)remains an evergreen, 'the Crown is an embodiment of people and state'. Moreover, 'the Crown is duty- bound to represent everybody, (italics mine) What a contrast this is to the duties of politicians and their parties to represent only like-minded sections of their constituencies.

The human faces are deliberately confused with the institution. British royal families, like others, have experienced their fair share of cretins, imbeciles and lunatics, a member of the latter category being seated on the throne (when not 'confined to bed') when Australia was claimed for Britain. However, just as Nixon, Clinton and George W have failed to put so much as a dent in the institution of the American presidency, the monarchical institution has not only survived but flourished.

Now here's the dirty little secret of why this revolution from above is being instigated: in a constitutional monarchy there is a power above the politicians, which, preferring to be supreme, they do not relish. To be sure, this 'reserve power' is something of a mystery. Like a frog lying dormant just below the surface of the desert waiting for a rainstorm that may never come, it sleeps peacefully. Some say that because the Queen has been remiss in not using these powers as the hereditary protector of the people in, for example, not standing against membership of the EU or mass third world immigration, these powers have become nullified by convention. But we simply do not know this. What we do know is that the Queen, has, if not real power, then de facto power. (Even the late Queen Mother, because of her immense popularity shared in this power) This could be demonstrated at any time if the Queen chose to vigorously oppose Parliament on any major issue, thereby creating a British politician's worse nightmare. Even though this is extremely unlikely, who is able to predict the character of a future monarch?

But enough said about the British royal family. We can rely on republicans to keep the spotlight relentlessly trained here, even though Australia once and for all ended forever any possible influence of the Queen or the British government or courts with the Australia Act of 1986 which ceased the possibility of any Australian court appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Interestingly, if any further evidence is needed of Australia's complete independence from Britain, if the UK were to suddenly become a republic, Australia would be placed in the curious position of being a constitutional monarchy bereft of a monarch.

Our real concern here is with the Australian head of state. Isn't that the Queen? No. According to Sir David Smith who was secretary to no less than five governors general, Australia has two heads of state: the Queen is the symbolic head of state; the governor general is the constitutional head of state. Constitutional trumps symbolic in Politics 101 anywhere. Where did that rug just go out from under the feet of those droning on about wanting an Australian as head of state?

As the Australian representative of the Crown, remembering that the Crown in Australia, as in England, is the embodiment of the state and people, he or she, being above politics, acts as a kind of umpire in constitutional/political tussles. Whereas the reserve powers of Britain's head of state may have become a little dusty through lack of use, the reserve powers of the governor general were dramatically demonstrated in the constitutional crisis of 1975.

Ironically, an Australian president as proposed by the republicans would have identical powers to the governor general (who is deemed not to be an Australian head of state). The one stark and all important difference though would be that a president could not be apolitical, above the sordidness of politics. This would be the deadly joker in the pack.

There is one other dirty little, not so secret secret about the push for a republic. A quick look at some ALP election material will reveal it: 'Labor believes the monarchy no longer reflects either the fundamental democratic principles that underpin the Australian nation or its diversity.' (italics mine) Fundamental democratic principles! Like the fundamental democratic principles that saw the flooding of Australia with third world immigrants and the institutionalisation of multiculturalism against the will of the overwhelming majority of Australians. And a republic will be in the interests of beatified diversity - all those cranky ethnic groups who must be shown special treatment and to hell with the still seventy to seventy five per cent of real Australians of British stock who may be interested in retaining links with their history and heritage rather than see them dropped down the memory hole. This is exactly where republicanism and multiculturalism link arms.

Hard core multiculturalists are correct in ascertaining that Australia's multiculturalism is largely fictional; monoculturalism is still a monster whose heart needs a stake driven through it. This cannot be achieved while there are still vestiges of the institutions dear to those who used to be called Australians, but in the spirit of our brave new world are now called Anglo-Australians. True multiculturalism will not be achieved until all these symbols of a special claim have been eradicated and the descendents of the nation's creators have been relegated to the status of just another ethnic group. It apparently occurs not to the proponents of this vision that once this situation has been manufactured the country will be virtually unlivable - a jungle over-filled with murderously warring tribes.

The republicans are biding their time but are in a hurry. They say Australia's becoming a republic is inevitable but it still needs a little help in being brought to reality. These kind of contradictions are reminiscent of the now defunct old school Marxists who saw that the collapse of capitalism was inevitable but still needing a nudge to finish it off.

Death and taxes, as we are constantly reminded, are inevitable. So is the eventual dying of the sun. Not much else is. The Australian republic is certainly not. In constantly harping that it is, republicans are simply whistling in the dark - but not too loudly, just in case they awaken the Australian people.

ASIANISATION: still just a figment of our imagination?

When the first few loads of boat-people arrived in Darwin harbour in their creaking, leaking, alien looking vessels there was consternation and foreboding. The Vietnam War had just concluded with the wrong side winning. These people were escaping the aftermath. Although we couldn't tell the difference, many of these people were ethnic Chinese who were roundly hated in Vietnam. That would have surprised many here who had been taught that racism was the preserve of white people.

In a classic exercise in overkill, the murmuring of discontent that bubbled up deep from the collective Australian psyche that had always been haunted by the 'yellow peril', was met with a torrent of abuse from that special Australian elite class with their mercenaries in the media leading the chorus. 'Bigots, racists, rednecks, fools,' they screamed, neatly encapsulating in these few epithets the entire populace of ordinary Australians the elite so loath. The perceived racism of the Australian people is a god-send to the class, so self-worshipped for its supposed tolerance and enlightened liberalism, which so fervently desires to distance itself from the great unwashed.

'What were these ignoramuses so afraid of?' the enlightened ones asked each other in feigned bemusement. 'A piddling few pathetic, emaciated refugees arrive from Asia and you'd think the end of Australia as we know it had arrived on our door-step. And do these whiners really need to be reminded that the new arrivals were here because of the death and destruction we helped bring to their country.' They had us there. That shut us up. A war that we had no choice in whether we waged it or not, was bringing us consequences we could do nothing about. Thank God for democracy!

They did have a point though, on the broad face of Australia, those first boat people weren't so much as a tear-drop. The new Asian presence was infinitesimal. But then again, so is the Anthrax bacillus when first introduced into the unsuspecting human host. How rapidly however it proliferates. Like the bacillus, the first boat borne refugees were the very thin edge of the wedge.

It was cleverly presented as a tiny historical accident, a temporary aberration. But of course, in retrospect it can be seen as being far from an accident. Rather, as can be easily deduced, it was part of a grand design. The shock of racial transformation would no doubt prove to be a little too electric unless delivered volt by deadly volt. The execution would have to be performed in humane stages just as in death by lethal injection. Tried and trusted Fabian gradualism would again be the modus operandi.

The killing of the white Australia policy had been performed in a similar prolonged fashion. The coupe de grace had only been delivered a mere few years before the Vietnamese junks had appeared on the Arafuran horizon. It was also only a few years earlier, in 1965, that the Shabbat goy, Edward Kennedy, was instrumental in wrecking an immigration policy that had kept America as its founders had intended it to be - white. Like parallel rails, these two developments were a shining indication that it had been decreed that the white race was no longer entitled to its own homelands.

The general Australian population, conditioned to believe that what they were reading in newspapers to be objectively observed facts, and of course blithely unaware of the work of the evil genius, Edward Bernays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays) could be fairly likened to the proverbial fish in a barrel as the guns of propaganda and mind control were quietly trained on them. Little did they suspect they were being conditioned to their own demise. It is not unduly difficult to imagine the title of a training manual for dummies: How to be dispossessed without stress.

Australians were learning that all the ideas they had grown up with were wrong, silly and downright dangerous. Worse still, they had become as unfashionable as men's braces. These were fast moving times and naturally enough people didn't like to feel left behind. Who wanted to be seen as uncool?

Academia seemed to have been swept clean of the grey-headed, musty old thinkers with their musty old ideas, one of the most prominent being that Australia had been foundered by brave pioneers, settlers and explorers. That was apparently a fantasised image that should have faded with the British Empire. It was to be replaced with a litany of sins for which Australians would have to atone for ever more. Their only way of really expunging the terrible guilt that clung to them like tar was to effectively erase themselves from world history by committing racial suicide.

As people came to be acclimatised to this new way of looking at their history, they probably little suspected that this was a deliberate dynamiting of the central foundation pillar of their very existence as a nation. As they slept, ate, made love and went about their daily business how could they have known they were being stealthily robbed of their legitimacy. If in fact their ancestors had stolen the country from the Aborigines to whom it rightfully belonged, their current possession was fraudulent. It didn't belong to them. If so, how could they have any possible right to claim exclusive ownership or even complain when that ownership passed to new waves of immigration - as alien as whites had been to Aborigines?

Other academic schools were also busy white-anting the beliefs and values that had cemented the nation together, chief amongst them being Sociology and Anthropology, the latter turning its earlier incarnation on its head. Whereas old Anthropology had seen the separate races of man to be a self-evident fact, the new Anthropology saw races to be a fiction a social construct There was only one race - the human race. Australians in general weren't to know that the original proponents of this theory were powerfully motivated by their own hidden agenda or that it had originally been gotten single-handedly off the ground by a man who found it exceedingly unenjoyable being a member of a minority: Franz Boas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas)

To say this was a controversial idea, given that it flew in the face of all Anthropological thought that had gone before it, was putting it mildly. To say that it was wide open to dispute would have been fair comment. To say that it had only a tenuous link with reality would not have been an exaggeration. Notwithstanding these stumbling blocks, all reservations were swept aside in the stampede of new age, new left, liberal power-wielders who didn't want to be left behind in embracing ideas that would have been sheer lunacy to earlier generations. To those who would destroy Australia, this upside-down Anthropology was manna from Heaven. With race so superficial as to be non-existent, one only needed to take a Chinaman, for example, dip him in the Australian culture and tens of thousands of years of separate evolution would instantly drop away and the result would be a brand new, 100% dinki-di spirit, merely slightly repackaged.

The new ideology was processed into a product that could be easily ingested by those perceived to be lacking in critical thinking skills and drip-fed to them. This is where the media, another great accomplice in unparalleled betrayal were handed the baton. Our hearts were broken and rebroken by stories of courageous little people battling great odds and risking all just to breath the freedom hanging in Australian air like humidity. Then there were the success stories: tales of how people arriving with little more than the tattered shirts on their backs had within supernaturally short times had established flourishing businesses by simply working their fingers to the bone. These stories were often set in counter-point to scandalous tales of bone-lazy, home-grown deadbeats. But most surprising of all, we began hearing how Australia was now part of Asia geographically. Who had been asleep at the wheel while the country had drifted so far off course?

The boobs were apparently lapping all this up. They weren't, but their murmured dissent wasn't being heard by the movers and shakers. How could it be when they steadfastly refused to listen? And if any protest did manage to break through the artificial sound-barrier, the standard insults would simply be reloaded into the propaganda artillery and scatter-gunned at whoever dared to raise his head above the trench.

1984 was a significant mile-stone in the Asianisation of Australia. In that year, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, a mild mannered but leading Australian historian and respected academic lecturing at a Melbourne university was invited to give a talk at a Victorian country town meeting. It was here that he made the grave error of observing that 'Asian immigration may be getting ahead of public acceptance'. To the ordinary people, this would no doubt have been seen as an innocuous, objective statement of fact. But to the grand rulers and their army of sycophants, this was an outrage of colliding comet proportions. This was no boob voicing his uneducated opinion to other no-nothings propping up the bar. This was a highly intelligent, highly educated nationally known figure. Special treatment was called for.

Special treatment was indeed handed out. The talking heads and prostitute-scribes shrieked and hissed and frothed and spat. Notwithstanding all his academic achievement, the fellow was a complete fool. Couldn't he see that this overabundance of Asian immigration, as he saw it, was merely a touch of Oriental spice added to our rich multicultural stew? Why the alarmist paranoia when a gilt-edged guarantee could virtually be given that such a tiny proportion - projected to be never higher than two per cent - would never effect the racial make-up of Australia?

Fellow academics, tame academics, backed away from Blainey as though he were ringing a leper's bell. They went back to his work with renewed interest, fine-combing for other evidence of racism that they missed first time around. Eventually he was driven from his teaching post. This was a type of event rarely, if ever, seen before in Australia, indeed seen outside the Soviet Union of the 1930s. The only things missing were the tortured-out self-accusation and show trial. To the shrewd observer, this should have been seen as a symptom of a creeping cancer in the Australian social/political life, a sign that things were not as they seemed and that there was much more than met the eye. Why had this man been so cruelly treated, torn apart as it were by maddened inquisitors?

The dust settled. Things got back to 'normal' just where our social engineers wanted them to be. All the while the Asian bacillus continued to spread through the body politic like squid's ink in a Sea World tank. But we continued seeming to sleep with the wool over our eyes, that is, until the next eruption when through an odd twist of fate a female political neophyte stumbled out of the bush and was caught like a bunny in a truck's headlights. This woman, Pauline Hanson, signed her own political death warrant by including in her maiden speech to Parliament the sentiment that 'we were in danger of being swamped by Asians'. The treatment Blainey had received was ramped up several orders of magnitude and eventually Pauline was gaoled on trumped up charges.

That was obviously an object lesson. It was far safer to believe that Australian wasn't being over-run by Asians. But while we were pretending to believe this, what were our deep thinkers saying about the matter? Let's take a quick peek:

'A revolution is sweeping across Australia. The old order is gone, a new order is taking shape with astonishing speed and force...Unlike most revolutions, this one is bloodless but it is no less profound and consequential, shattering to some, liberating to most; the one thing that can be said for certain is that nothing is unaffected, old order can never be restored.

'...it is a transformation of the spirit and the body. I speak of the Asianisation of Australian life' (Greg Sheridan, Sydney journalist)

'It is to cast our minds forward - say 50 years - to a time when we are totally cheek by jowl with our Asian neighbours, when every facet of Australian life, from entertainment to industrial relations to political party platforms will be affected by Asian societies and cultures, because we will be part of an Asian political confederation...'
'I am a constant champion when I am in Asia for Australia and for the great success of Asian immigration and the many other things which make this a lovely, honey-coloured society.' (Professor Fitzgerald)

' ...Australian society as close partners in a political confederation where the weight of numbers will be Asian. I am not one who believes in a fixed single Australian identity.' (Professor Fitzgerald).

'By 2025 Australia was likely to have ceded some sovereignty over population and some financial and legal matters to a grouping based on our closer neighbours in the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) countries'(Phillip Ruthven, Chairman IBIS Business Information).

'The penny is beginning to drop that there's more to APEC than a bunch of mostly middle-aged pollies (politicians) gathering once a year in funny shirts in exotic locales (countries)'(Terry McCrann, Sun Herald columnist).


'Asianise or atrophy' (Professor Stephen Fitzgerald)


'The Asianisation of Australia is inevitable'. (Professor Fitzgerald)

'Australia must cease being a branch office of empire (British Empire), become a republic and aim for enmeshment in Asia. The case for re-defining Australia as an Asian country was grounded on the assumption that economies over-rule culture in shaping the destiny of nations'. (Former PM, Paul Keating)

'Australia is destined to become...a prototype Eurasian nation'. (Phil Scanlan, businessman)*

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth, or rather, from the mouths of a whole race meeting of nags. The burning question of course is WHY, why are they doing this to us? The standard answer, if we persist enough with this question, is that it's needed for trading purposes. In other words, we have to be like them in order to trade with them. Any lingering perceptions of Australia as the evil, racist nation that it once was could be highly detrimental to trading with our Asian neighbours. This is patent nonsense. As Professor Blainey pointed out in his book All for Australia, our trade with Japan took off during the height of the White Australia policy.

Obviously the answer lies elsewhere. Could it perhaps have anything to do with the regional blocs the world is being divided into? Four are crystallising into shape: the European Union, the most advanced, and may continue to expand until the Middle East and Russia are included, the North American Union, also rapidly progressing, an African bloc, and in our little corner of the world, APEC, which is being touted more often and more loudly as being modeled on the European prototype. Our own Mandarin speaking, embarrassingly obsequious Mister Rudd is one of the most vociferous touts.

Just as the US will, at least in the period of transition to full blown world government, be the engine room and wheel house of the North American Union, so will China be in APEC. It is already warming to the task. Take for example its increasing interference in Australia's domestic politics. This bullying can only increase as its military and economic power expands exponentially.

Seated in a position of world power will not be wholly unfamiliar to the Chinese. This is after all where China sat in its classical period when it was located at the centre of the world - as the so called Middle Kingdom. The order that prevailed at that time was known as suzerainty. Translated into modern gangster terms, this was basically a system kept running by the extortion of 'protection money'. Weaker nations dominated by China were allowed to remain unmolested, and even to retain a degree of autonomy as long as they paid tribute. Found to be such an efficient system in the ancient past, it is being resurrected. Australia is already paying tribute in the form of the prices we charge China for raw materials being effectively dictated by the customer. How long would a private business survive using this system?


How will being part of Asia in every way as is being envisioned by the Asianisers play out in reality? To big business - both local and international - and their political stooges, it will no doubt appear to be heaven on Earth. But it should be borne in mind that there is something drastically wrong with these people who after all are human number-crunchers only capable of thinking in terms of wealth and how to gain more of it. People - normal people - to them are simply economic units - nothing more, nothing less. Quality of life, the deaths of nations, the destruction of cultures, incompatible tribes forced together and tearing each other apart? Where do they show up on a balance sheet?

None of it counts, so yes, Heaven for the elite in their gated communities and air-conditioned condos and a jet waiting on the tarmac for whenever things get too rough. But for the Australian people: Hell. This is what living in Asia will mean: for most, subsistence level living; corruption so endemic it's like gas finding its way into every available nook and cranny; human rights, or the lack thereof, not seen in the West since the Dark Ages (for public works development in Burma - an APEC member - truck-loads of peasants are simply rounded up and enslaved) and a lot more Penny Wongs - a lot more. And when enough Asian hands have a firm grip on the levers of political power, what type of immigration policy will we have then? It will be an immigration policy that will drive whites into being a despised minority in their own country - 'the poor white trash of Asia', as Lee Kwan Yuan so poetically put it.

A plain black and white poster was once seen pasted to a power pole in a dingier part of Sydney's inner city. Lonely and forlorn, its simple message was nevertheless powerful enough to rivet at least one observer to the spot: AN ASIAN AUSTRALIA? NEVER!

One day, before it's too late, if Australians still have the guts they've exhibited in the past, a forest of picket signs bearing this same message may surround the fools and traitors who are trying to do this to us. And they will know better than to argue.


*(Many thanks for these quotes to John Burge, author of The Silent Destruction of Australia. For the entire blood-boiling collation of quotes, go to:
http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Misc/JOHN_BURGE_1.htm)

THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN MUG

During the great fratricidal war that smashed Europe and the optimistic belief in unswerving human progress during the early part of the twentieth century, a parallel conflict tore Australia asunder. It comprised the two fiercely fought campaigns that preceded referenda on conscription.

A factor that wove through these battles and arguably proved to be the clincher for the NO camp was the fear of non-white labour that more than likely would be needed to fill the vacuum created by shipping reluctant Australians to the European slaughterhouses. A further horror filling Australian minds was that of the miscegenation that would be brought in the train of non-white labour. This would be, according to the thinking of the day, nothing less than an offence against nature itself. These were fears that the opponents of conscription, including Ben Chifley, the man who would become one of Australia’s few truly legendary prime ministers, had not the least qualms in exploiting.

The population then was 98% white. It was also unashamedly, unapologetically, and by today’s perverted standards, damnably ‘racist’.

How did the Australia of those days become the Australia of today, which to Australians of the early twentieth century would no doubt be a monstrous, nightmare world which if it could be glimpsed then could only be understood in terms of armed invasion and conquest that had been resisted to the last bullet?

A reasonable answer would be one provided by some historians in their explanation for the collapse of civilizations. This theory sees such collapses preceded by the collapse in the value system of the hapless society. Inextricably connected to its value system is a people’s belief in itself, which, once proud and implicit, becomes eroded to the point of despair and nihilism. This phenomenon can be most graphically seen in the fate of indigenous people whom history’s trajectory has brought into head-on collision with technologically advanced civilizations.

The difference between the collapse of previous civilizations and the teetering structure of modern Western (White) civilization is that the latter is fueled by a collective death-wish. After reaching undreamed of pinnacles and lifting the rest of the world with it, the white race now flagellates itself for its very success. This susceptibility appears to be a peculiarly white characteristic linked no doubt to the universal altruism inherent in the Christianity which for two thousand years monopolized the spiritual life of the West. No other race exhibits this fatal flaw. It also appears that no other race has any qualms in benefiting from the exploitation of the fatal flaw. The thinking would go something like this: If indeed the white race is intent on sacrificing itself on the altar of brotherly love, who are we to object? If Western man cannot be prevented from poisoning himself with guilt over his perceived sins against the rest of humanity, might we not strengthen the poison in order shorten the suffering and hasten his end?

Whereas the chosen weapons of mass self-destruction in Europe and the US are, respectively, Islamisation and Mestizo reconquista, Australia has opted for ‘Asianisation’. This process was once relegated to the realm of conspiracy theory; only nutters and crack-pots could possibly believe that such a thing could be happening. But as the racial transformation became self-evident on the streets of major cities, with the overflow siphoned off to country towns, the social engineers with their god-complexes could obviously no longer keep their evil secret. ‘Australia is changing. We're an anomaly as a European country in this part of the world. There's already a large and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country... I happen to think that's desirable.’ So said Bill Hayden as Australian Foreign Minster in 1983.

But even with the emperor now seen to be wearing no clothes and mocking the Australian people for their gullibility, the transformers had little to fear. Their faith in the efficacy of Fabian gradualism was well placed. There is a little understood, but self-evident component of human nature that allows just about any crime to be perpetrated against people just as long as it’s done slowly and accompanied by constant assurances that it is being done for the victim’s own good.

It seems to matter little that before it was done, the most emphatic promises were made that it wouldn’t be done.

At least since the 1850s when the Chinese swarmed in seeking our gold, the collective Australian psyche has been plagued by a fear of the swarming hordes to our north. It was little wonder then that a ripple of unease spread throughout the country upon the arrival of the first ‘boat people’ fleeing Vietnam in 1975. This reaction, we were instantly informed, was little more than to be expected from a nation of entrenched insularity and xenophobia. It was though the height of embarrassing, girlish silliness. What after all could be so threatening about a few leaky boats and their pitiful human cargoes? There may even be more of them. But given we were part of the team responsible for raining death and destruction on their country, did we not have a moral responsibility to offer refuge to those fleeing the wreckage?

As more and more boats arrived, our fears were similarly assuaged in the fashion of a parent soothing an upset infant. Those that thought they may have been witnessing a thin edge of a wedge were dealt with in a slightly sterner manner. Asian immigration, it was proclaimed, would never be more than a thin trickle; it was negligible and it would be a sheer impossibility for it to have the slightest effect on the racial make-up of the nation. So there! Get over it!

It goes without saying that such blatant lying could not have blinded almost an entire population to what they were seeing with their own eyes in the years to come without the aid of some fearfully powerful instruments of persuasion in the form of the mass media: TV, Radio, Newspaper and film, bolstered of course by the indoctrination that had subsumed the various levels of formal education. This was propagandizing raised to the level of a reality constructed to the specifications of those with most to gain.

Not only was acceptance of the Australian people’s replacement by alien races being manufactured, but so was the complacency surrounding the shipping off of the jobs not already taken by foreign workers to the lands they had come from. Although this culminated in virtual deindustrialization, the people were naturally told that this also was for their own good. Generally speaking, they were not to know of something called the Lima Agreement that lay behind this and bound the country to a siphoning off of its wealth. It was signed in 1975 by an Australian government enthusiastically supported by the so called Opposition and said in part:

‘developed countries should assist the developing countries in raising the competitiveness of their production . . . they should adopt . . . elimination or reduction of tariff barriers in order to ensure increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products . . . from developing countries ….

‘Special attention should be given to the least developed countries, which should enjoy a net transfer of resources from the developed countries in the form of technical and financial resources as well as capital goods’.
If the Australian people had been paying attention to these goings on, they may have noted an odd contradiction. After decades of being lectured to on the evils of Communism, here was Communism being ratcheted up several orders of magnitude far greater than anything Marx could ever have dreamt of. Instead of individuals or social classes having their wealth redistributed to the needier, here were entire nations involved in the redistribution. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need indeed.
The process of unrelenting dispossession was however not perfectly smooth, that is, if perfects smoothness was in fact really in the interests of those channeling history; perhaps the odd ruffle may have added a dab of paint to the fading image of ‘democracy’, and the odd ruffle there was. Usually erupting and then slowly disappearing like pimples, one though proved a little more difficult to remove. This was the outburst of nationalist resentment unwittingly given rise to by an amateur politician named Pauline Hanson. Largely a creation of the media after her star-quality newsworthiness was realized, this shooting star’s trajectory became so steep that the liberal establishment and assorted hangers-on were shaken out of their smug complacency by a social earth-tremor. When all else had failed: ridicule, vilification, character-assassination, the problem was eventually solved by Pauline being jailed - becoming in fact a political prisoner.

Like a cattle prod to keep the human cattle in line, the charge of ‘racism’ showed no sign of losing its almost magical potency. Racism had in fact become the cardinal sin of the UN endorsed religion rapidly superceding Christianity: Humanism. Racism had become expertly linked with ‘Hate’, the first emotion to be effectively outlawed. If Hate could in any way be seen as the motive for a crime, the crime was then deemed far more heinous than the same crime committed for a different motive.

Australians, just like other members of the white family in far flung corners of the world, had been taught that their race was really the only one capable of the crimes of racism and hate. There were though isolated instances of other races straying into these forbidden areas but they were such an anomaly as to require a different term, that of reverse racism. This cemented in place the concept of white racism being the original sin.
Australians moreover, after being thoroughly drenched in guilt regarding their ‘invasion’ of the continent on which they had constructed their civilization, and the ‘genocide’ of the original inhabitants, were then encouraged to reflect on the hurt they had inflicted on the people they had once thought of as the ‘yellow peril’. There was of course only one way to atone for this and that was to reverse the thinking that had informed ‘White Australia’ by opening the flood gates, thereby creating a Yellow Australia. This also could be seen as an act of appeasement, as an Asian invasion was a historical inevitability just biding its time. Better to pre-empt the inevitable and thereby hope to gain kinder terms of surrender. This logic could easily be seen as a variation of the thinking made famous during the Vietnam War: ‘we had to destroy the village in order to save it’.

Being amongst the inventors of racism, it perhaps does not occur to many Australians that the people we have slighted so long could be capable of harbouring similar dark thoughts. These innocents would benefit hugely from a perusal of The Asian Mind Game, by Chin-ning Chu, an international lecturer and expert on Asian psychology. In it she writes:
‘To some racially sensitive western readers, discussions of the characteristics of separate ethnic and national groups might seem to border on racism. The Asian concept of racism is very different than the western concept. Concepts of racial superiority have never been questioned as they have been in the West. There are strong feelings among the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans on the subject of racial superiority even though the peoples are very closely related from an evolutionary standpoint. The idea that one people is racially superior to another is almost universally acknowledged. Whether that race is Chinese, Korean or Japanese depends on whether you’re listening to a Chinese, Korean or Japanese person expound his views on the subject.

‘Asians do not have the same sensitivity to racial issues as do Americans [or Australians]. The issue is not as emotionally charged for them. Asians regard it as natural to feel that their race, their nation … are better than yours. Westerners exhibit most of these same attitudes and refer to them in mildly pejorative terms as “chauvinistic”, “nationalistic”, “provincial”. But “racist” is a very ugly word in English, even though it often only expresses the same common weakness of mankind to believe that mine is better than yours.’
‘Asians do not feel guilty about thinking in racial terms but they do understand that westerners … do. They will often use accusations of racism to disarm their Western opponents. The same Japanese politicians who loudly impute racist motives to American criticism of Japan believe implicitly that they are racially superior to Caucasians and also to their Korean and Chinese neighbours. They will never admit these beliefs to a Westerner, but among Asians, thinking in racial terms is too commonplace bother with denial or guilt.’ [Italics mine]

It would seem that Australians, along with the rest of the European racial family have been patiently indoctrinated into a state of what psychiatrists term ‘cognitive dissonance’. This is when two conflicting ideas are retained in the mind at the same time with the resulting frustration being kept largely below the level of consciousness. Australians could not be unaware that people of other races exhibit racist tendencies but are yet led to believe that these are so inconsequential as to be non existent. By the same token, whites have been hypnotized into believing that multiracialism and multiculturalism will lead to paradise on Earth but seldom wonder why only white homelands are the only recipients of such wondrous gifts. Here is another glaring contradiction that rarely sees the light of consciousness: if, as it seems, whites are considered worthy of the multicultural experiment because they alone have attained a higher moral standard, is this not paradoxically the height of true racism, rampant and arrogant?

Questions such as these float over the heads of Australians like puffy but unnoticed clouds on a balmy summer’s day. Citizens of the ‘Lucky Country’ tramp obediently off to polling booths at regular intervals blithely unaware that the stooges they vote into power will be simply branch managers of the New World Order. They cannot conceive of their country’s sovereignty being all but leached away by the signing of an untold number of international treaties and agreement. They watch, for example, politicians from Team A and Team B pretending to argue over immigration policy when control was long ago ceded by both teams via the signing of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which is effectively interpreted to mean that Whites need not apply.
And so as blissfully ignorant as cattle being herded towards the gates of the slaughter-house, Australians continue to watch mind-rotting television, dress like clowns in the colours of their preferred football teams, read the news selected for them by newspaper owners and thrill to the antics of celebrities while their birthright and heritage are quietly slipped out from under them. It seems only a miracle can save them.

THE FOUL PLAY OF FLUOIRIDATION

What you are about to read may shock, dismay and outrage. It may undermine fundamental beliefs about government, society and democracy. Your mind may even recoil in sheer disbelief. But rest assured, the facts are well documented and can be easily verified.

These events have actually happened, are happening and will continue to happen until enough people are aware enough and outraged enough to stop them. This is the story of fluoride: a story of greed, duplicity, naivety, money and power.

Fluoridation, the process whereby millions of people are 'medicated' whether they like it or not, has an interesting history. The main part of the story begins where the second world war ends. Straight after the cessation of hostilities the US government sent, along with an entourage, the biochemist Charles E Perkins, to take over the giant IG Farben works in Germany. This was a chemical conglomerate without which Hitler would not have been able to wage war.

I G Farben had links with the American aluminium producers, Alcoa, which were maintained even during the war. Both concerns produced prodigious amounts of fluoride as a waste product. A story sneered at by scientists on both sides of the fluoridation debate but nevertheless refuses to die, has it that during the war, a scheme was initiated by German scientists and later adopted by the German General Staff to add sodium fluoride to the drinking water in occupied countries.

It had allegedly been discovered by German scientists that repeated doses of this chemical slightly damaged the hippocampus, an area of the human brain. It appeared that people so affected displayed less aggression and independence of action, leading to a docile, easily controllable population. If this were true, Charles Perkins would no doubt have learnt of this scheme. This episode is described by Dr Hans Moolenburgh in his book Fluoride: The Freedom Flight.

(1) In this same book, Moolenburgh quotes an informant who claimed that the Russians were fluoridating the drinking water of German POWs because "it kept the Germans calm." Not surprised by this claim, Dr Moolenburgh pointed out that: "25% of major tranquilisers are connected with fluoride." Also cited by Dr Moolenburgh, it is perhaps for this same reason that the Indonesians fluoridate the drinking water of the unruly Irian Jayans in spite of the fact that no other part of Indonesia is fluoridated and the inhabitants of Irian Jaya have always had perfect teeth!

But we digress. Back to the beginning where the story takes a decidedly sinister turn. Enter one Oscar Ewing who was appointed Director of Social Security in charge of the US Public Health Service followed quickly by his committing the PHS to the promotion of fluoridation. By this time he was a member of President Truman's cabinet. According to author Eustace Mullins, in a book published by the US National Council for Medical Research: "Ewing and his minions were also aware of Soviet studies showing that fluorides were extremely important in introducing a docile, sheep-like obedience in the general population."

(2) It had also been well known for years that cattle breeders valued the efficacy of large doses of fluorides when dealing with the more intractable of their bulls. (Consumed by the bulls that is, not by the cattlemen!) Formerly, Ewing had been the legal counsel to Alcoa. This thickening of the plot is best appreciated when it is noted that along with the production of fertilizers, the aluminium industry is a major bi-producer of fluoride, essentially a toxic waste. Even then, when the green movement was only the gleam in the eyes of isolated fanatics, the deadliness of this waste was well known.

As far back as the 1850s, it was recognised that when iron and copper factories were spewing fluoride into the air, plants and animals, as well as people were being poisoned. The major difficulties inherent in its disposal had also been long known: only so much could be converted into rat poison and pesticide. The remainder was accumulating in the environment (as it does in the human body). It does not biodegrade. Industry was worried - not about people or the environment, but about possible law suits and billions lost in the cost of pollution-control. It was in the 1930s that the evil genie first stirred in response to the desperate dilemma of the industrialists.

A tenuous connection was made between water supplies containing traces of fluoride and lower rates of tooth decay. See, fluoride was actually good for you. The genie's bottle was rubbed even more vigorously in what must have been an ecstasy of triumph. In a Pittsburgh industrial research lab, Alcoa-sponsored biochemist, Gerald J Cox fluoridated some rats then noted that they had good teeth. Voila! - the proof conclusive: fluoride promotes healthy teeth.

(3) In 1939, Cox went on to make the first public proposal that the US should 'altruistically' fluoridate its water supply. Cox, bear in mind, was still working for a company still squirming beneath the Damocle's sword of fluoride damage claims. His proposal, while aiming to administer only minute doses of fluoride to each individual, would mean hundreds of thousands of tons of fluoride added to the water supply annually. With Cox as front-man, the aluminium smelting industry was quietly manoeuvering in the background.

The dam walls containing the deadly fluoride were beginning to crack as an insidious stream of propaganda swept up more and more adherents. A US chemical industry publication, Chemical Week, succinctly encapsulated the spirit of corporate victory: "They are riding a trend urged upon them by the US Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, various state and local health bodies, and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation."

In 1945, shortly after the war and Charles E Perkins' visit to Germany and his assumed acquaintance with IG Farben's preoccupation with fluoride, theory transformed into reality with the Grand Rapids Study which saw the establishment of 'experimental' fluoridation plants in selected areas of the US, one of which was the City of Grand Rapids. The experiment was to last ten years but was cut short after five when the fluoridated areas were showing no significant improvement in dental decay as measured against a non-fluoridated city (the control in the experiment). Further comparison was dispensed with when the control city was hastily fluoridated as well.



The power of myth, shonky science and delusion had driven an intellectual band-wagon roughshod over genuine empiricism and cold, hard reasoning. Fluoridation took the world by storm, that is, that part of the world where American influence is most acute, where indeed America is seen as a shining slice of heaven from whence all things great and good flow: a modern cargo cult. In fact, belying the seeming popularity of fluoridation is the paltry 4% of the world that has actually embraced this 'godsend'.

(4) The 96% not fluoridated includes most of Europe. Denmark, for example, banned fluoridation when, after extensive consultation, its National Agency for Environmental Protection concluded that not enough was known about the long term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain segments of its population: people with impaired kidney function, for instance.

Fluoridation was rejected in Sweden which similarly baulked at leaping into the unknown. After evidence had been presented that fluoridation caused neuromuscular and gastrointestinal harm to some individuals, it was banned in Holland. Chile, a country perhaps lacking the scientific sophistication of the West, was an early entrant in the rush to fluoridation. It was however abolished there when, in 1976, a professor Albert Schatz produced evidence of higher
infant mortality rates in the fluoridated areas.

(5) Even in Australia, Land of the Gullible, it has long been known that fluoride consumption can cause a condition called dental fluorosis: an unsightly mottling of the teeth, but predictably this is dismissed as an insignificant cosmetic problem. This factor is not taken so lightly in Poland however where researchers, using a new computerised x-ray procedure, have shown that bone structure disturbances have also been found in boys suffering supposedly innocuous fluorosis. In New Zealand, fluoridation was adopted with gusto. One of its most ardent advocates was John Colquhoun, a dentist, practising for many years and eventually becoming Principal Dental Officer before being elected to a local government in Auckland.

(6) Pouring scorn on opponents of fluoridation, it was John Colquhoun who persuaded the Mayor and a majority of fellow councillors to accept fluouridation of most of Auckland's water supply. Several years later Colquhoun consolidated his pro-fluoridation position by publishing a paper in the New Zealand Dental Journal in which he trumpeted the success of fluoridation by claiming that the incidence of tooth decay, particularly in low income areas, had declined dramatically since the advent of fluoridation. This claim was accepted by professional colleagues and found its way into the official history of the New Zealand Dental Association. So convincing was his advocacy of fluoridation that heavy weight bureaucrats based in the capital city of Wellington approached Colquhoun with the proposition of making fluoridation the subject of a world study tour beginning in 1980. This with a view to Colquhoun becoming the public servants' expert, well-armed enough to lead a campaign designed to break down resistance in the areas that had not yet been fluoridated.

However, before this tour had begun, the worm of doubt had already begun to gnaw, fed by evidence becoming available that the incidence of childhood tooth decay was also declining in areas of New Zealand not fluoridated. Optimism was adjusted accordingly. It was accepted that the wildly wishful 50 to 60 per cent improvement in dental health was not eventuating. Even so, a "significant difference" was anticipated (or by now, more accurately, hoped for).

Undaunted, Colquhoun proceeded with his world tour and on his return to New Zealand, accepted an appointment as chairman of a national Fluoridation Promotion Committee. Public 'education' would be his job description. What Colquhoun didn't know however was that, during his absence from New Zealand, the body of evidence was growing against the benefits of fluoridation. It was becoming clear that the lessening of tooth decay was as great in non-fluoridated areas of Greater Auckland if not better. When Colquhoun demanded the statistics pertaining to the rest of New Zealand they were sent with a warning against publication. Hardly surprising: they showed that in most health districts the dental health of 12 to 13 year old children living in non fluoridated areas was superior to that of their counterparts in fluoridated areas. These results were eventually published.

In a paper entitled: Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation, (1997 University of Chicago Press) Colquhoun explained his earlier inability to believe the writing on the wall: " I now realise that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence." This new evidence continued to roll in from other parts of the world. Large scale surveys took place in the US. In a study of 26,000 school children in Tucson, Arizona, the result was chilling: "When we plotted the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child's neighbourhood drinking water, a positive correlation was revealed. In other words, the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth", wrote Professor Steelink, the
instigator of the study.

Colquhoun, being a ethical man, was able to admit that he had been wrong. In his conversion he was to display the same dynamic energy opposing fluoridation as he had in being a proponent. His further studies, based on sound scientific principles, showed that there was a strong correlation between fluoridation and the increased incidence of hip fractures. He also became convinced of a link between fluoridation and a form of bone cancer. His has not been a lone voice in these startling and frightening revelations. Here, at the risk of fuelling increased fear, is but the briefest sampling of many such revelations. In corroboration of Colquhoun's claim regarding fluoride and bone cancer, JK Mauer, et al in "Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 82 also found that fluoride promotes bone cancer.

Bearing in mind that collagen is the glue that literally holds the body together, it may be highly disturbing to be told that AK Susheela and Mohan Jha in "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition," IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Volume 9, found that fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.

Here in Australia, although a tiny but dedicated resistance movement is afoot, it's still pretty much a case of "she'll be right mate." A mentality hypnotised by the belief that, if it's from America it must be good, still prevails. Evidently, we feel the same about China. Witness the fact that we are buying fluoride from China to add to Melbourne's water supply at the rate of $500 per tonne.

(7) Think about that: we are paying the Chinese (who do not fluoridate their own water supplies) for the pleasure of disposing of their toxic waste by drinking it! Is that the distant sound of laughter all the way to the bank? And we are a country obsessed about what the rest of the world thinks of us! But don't despair; avoiding fluoride is difficult but not impossible. Read the fine print on tooth paste packets. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the membranes of the mouth (children, not being as orally adept as adults, ingest it directly). And this is on top of what our masters consider to be our recommended daily requirement. Also bear in mind that any type of processed food containing water, be it fruit juice or canned peas, also contains fluoride. Boiling doesn't remove fluoride; it fortifies it. But don't despair; distilled water is fluoride free. A water filter will successfully remove fluoride from drinking water – a reverse osmosis style is said to be the best.



REFERENCES


1) Cited in article entitled "Fluorides and Population Behavior Modification in Literature and Government", extracted from the World Wide Web. Fluoride: The Freedom Flight by Dr Hans Moolenburgh, 1987 is no longer in print.
2) "Fluorides and Population Behavior Modification in Literature and Government", originally posted on WWW 28/7/96. Sender: Steve Windgate.
3) "Fluoride: Industry's Toxic Coup", Earth Island Journal V13 No2 by Joel Griffiths, medical writer and investigative reporter with New York Times Magazine.
4) Press Release issued 21/10/96 by Glen Walker, chairperson of Anti-Fluoride Association of Australia
5) "Fluoride - The Modern Day DDT" extracted from www.intekom.com/tm_info/fluor2.htm
6) Joel Griffiths, op. cit.
7) Glen Walker, op. cit.
8) Glen Walker of Anti-Fluoride Association of Australia.