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.

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SCAM EXPOSED

The cat's out of the bag. It's huge - more like a mountain-lion, and it's shrieking like a sunburnt vampire. It is exceedingly curious though that, apart from a few brave exceptions, notably Piers Akerman of the Sydney Daily Telegraph and Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Sun Herald, the controlled media gives the strong impression of hardly having noticed. It took the fine, upstanding, oh so politically correct Sydney Morning Herald almost a week after Ackerman’s piece appeared to offer a mild, so-what kind of approach to possibly the greatest scandal since Watergate (hence ‘Climategate’)

So one really needs to go the internet, our one true source of free information, to find that, due to some shrewd computer hacking, the 'science' of anthropogenic global warning, , can now be safely stored right alongside the science of tea-leaf reading where so many have always strongly suspected it belonged.

A massive 61 MB of file was lifted from the data base of Britain’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and placed on the net for the world to see. The CRU provides data to the British Meteorological Office which in turn is one of the three main engine-rooms churning out material that forms the basis of the assessment that global warming is a threat to life as we know it. It is this assessment relied upon by the UN's climate change science body. The UN must be licking its collective lips at the prospect of a catastrophe so great that only that great humanitarian body is up to the task of addressing, and no doubt sees itself as riding cavalry-like to the rescue. Unfortunately for these global hustlers, the cavalry is now looking uncannily like Custer’s last stand.

The leading villain in all this is one Doctor Phil Jones who has been stood down while what is being presented as a misunderstanding can be sorted out. Important to note is that accusations of fraudulently doctored information and statistics have not been denied, but weakly defended as being ‘taken out of context’.

The smoking gun is the emails that flowed between Jones and his fellow hoax spinners in an air of increasing desperation as they try to fit conflicting evidence to their theory like a frustrated moron thumping square pegs into round holes. Here is a brief sample:


From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future." (Quotes courtesy of Telegraph.Co.UK 23/11/09)


The picture we like to have of scientists is one of dedicated truth-seekers of high integrity. It was this unalloyed devotion to truth plus the scientific method based on theory supported by repeatable experiment – empiricism – that lifted us from the darkness of superstition and ignorance. What could possible motivate scientists to so sully this image and bring it into world-wide disrepute? The latest issue of On Target (11/12/09) disseminated by the Australian League of Rights provides a very mercenary answer:

‘Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his centre, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a six-fold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly:
The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.’ (Originally from Wall Street Journal 30/11/09)

OK, that explains the corruption of scientists, but what explains the motivation of those who not only have no qualms about it, but are happy to see this corruption? Moreover, why do these shadow-dwellers go to such lengths to suppress evidence that does not support their apocalyptic vision? One may also ask why the 31,000 scientists including over 9,000 PhDs who emphatically disagree with anthropogenic warming have been effectively exiled? (http://www.petitionproject.org/) A one-word answer will suffice: POWER.


We are now witnessing the end-game, the sprint to the finish line, the dash for the cash. World government can no longer be conveniently relegated to conspiracy theory. It is happening; it is here. The finishing touches will be put on it at Copenhagen. Supposedly man induced global warming will be the rationale (what possible use are puny nation-states when the entire planet is threatened with destruction?) If in any doubt as to what will transpire at Copenhagen, one only need view the video presentations (on the net) of Lord Christopher Monckton, a global warming authority and one of the few who have taken the trouble to read the fine print of the agreement to be signed at Copenhagen. Apparently though there is no real need to delve into the murkier sections of the document as no effort is made to hid the word GOVERNMENT – singular, not plural as in national governments. The signing of this agreement will be nothing less than the surrendering of national sovereignty. Once locked in, which is the operative term as it will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to escape. All manner of EU type meddling will begin occurring in national affairs with the added bonus of it being on a global scale.

Take as much comfort as you can from the Senate’s rejection of the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme (leading of course to the rejection of Malcolm Turnbull as Opposition leader). It will be cool comfort at best. Our world-stage-prancing, self-agrandising Prime Minister will still be winging his way to Copenhagen, albeit bereft of the personal victory which he intended to wear as a halo, but fired with his usual self-worshipping self-righteousness nonetheless. He will sign whatever agreement is placed before him. In fact it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to picture him elbowing his fellow masters of the universe out of the way so he can be the first to sign. Once again, refer to the videos of Lord Christopher Monckton in order to realise what this signature will mean. Bearing in mind that a form of international ‘government’ will be engendered by this pact, if it decrees that signatories to the agreement are obliged to introduce a form of ETS, probably only different in name to the one that was just rejected locally, then that is what will be done. Beware politicians who say ‘never ever’. Remember the GST. That was something that in all probability was also foisted on us from outside, from above, for example from the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organisation. And who can forget the crushing of Tasmania’s state rights by a brutal abuse of the constitution which saw the foreign affairs section twisted grotesquely out of shape by construing it to apply to a treaty signed with the UN? When world government eventually appears fully formed, it will only be a surprise to those who have not been monitoring its stealthy but beaver-like construction for many years.

For those who care (unfortunately most don’t, because, hey, if you can’t trust the government, who can you trust?) there are at least two salutary warnings to be heeded in this whole sick, sorry affair. The first is that there is nothing so low that that the one worlders and their global warming shock troops will not stoop to gain their objectives. The second is that the controlled mass media can now be seen to be completely irrelevant. If a story as big as this cannot be seen as news, one can only conclude that what is presented to us as news is simply that which fits the ideology of those who control the media, who in turn are controlled by a certain section of humanity whose blood pressure would not rise one single point if the rest of humanity burned in hell.

It is about this point in a horror story such as this that the audience is advised to ‘be afraid; be very afraid’. The problem here though is that for horror on this kind of scale, fear is an entirely useless emotion. For those who value freedom in Australia, anger may prove to be far more useful.

POST SCRIPT: In regard to the general perception that Copenhagen was a colossal debacle and that absolutely nothing was achieved, please see the following.


Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax
Obama set to bypass Congress and approve massive transfer of wealth to world government
by Paul Joseph Watson

The final Copenhagen draft agreement which was hammered out in the early hours of Friday morning includes provisions for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank, as President Obama prepares to bypass Congress by approving a massive transfer of wealth from America into globalist hands.

As Lord Monckton, Alex Jones and others warned, the notion that the globalists would achieve nothing at Copenhagen has likely been a ruse all along. The elite look set to ram through the lion’s share of their agenda, which would include a massive global government tax...
...
Monckton told the Alex Jones Show last week that the initial secretive draft version of the Copenhagen agreement represented a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandated the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.

Monckton said that the new world government outlined in the treaty would be handed powers to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries.”

AUSTRALIANS LEARNING TO BE AMERICANS: Why? It's not as though there'd be a Green Card in it.

The infamous Australian cultural cringe has never faded. On the contrary, it is now more virulent than ever in spite of our flag waving proclamations of rugged independence and uniqueness. The irony is that, in our slavish desire to emulate Americans, it is our uniqueness that is being jettisoned with the energy of men trying to save a ship by lightening the load. Our language, our dress, our customs take on an ever increasing American flavour. Our teenagers wear baseball caps backwards and favour the exposed underpants look. Look at me - I'm wearing Calvin Klein! This though is an admittedly marginal improvement on the exposed posterior cleavage. Both these 'fashion statements' have their origins in newly released American Negro prisoners having acquired a taste for the look caused by being deprived of belts.

Our sportsmen clasp their hands to their hearts during the playing of the national anthem apparently not realising that this is merely an American custom not required anywhere else. Our children trick-or-treat at Halloween. (As was recently asked in a letter to the editor, how long will it be before we are celebrating Thanksgiving?)

But is in our changing speech that our collective, deep-seated feeling of inferiority is most noticeably on show. It is perhaps understandable that the unrelenting American cultural imperialism channeled through the media of television and film exerts a powerful influence. This influence would be nowhere near as potent though if it met even the modicum of resistance that should be inherent in any measure of true national pride. In other countries where the influence has been just as strong, France for example, a resistance, when found to be wanting has been deliberately manufactured. Here in contrast, there is no resistance because there is no desire to be protected from being alienated from our own distinctive character. This could only be if it is felt to be inferior. Who would want to continue being second class when the opportunity is available to trade up to something of much higher quality which apparently all things American are.

Here is a summary of the changes from Australian to American that have occurred in our speech over the last several decades:

Centuries ago, the English, Dutch and German languages, underwent was to become known as the Great Vowel Shift. This happened swiftly but the cause is largely mystery. Similarly, Australian English about twenty years ago underwent what might be termed the Great Stress Shift. This also happened swiftly but its cause is no mystery at all; it conformed with the American way of placing stress on certain words. Consider the word that used to be pronounced as ReSEARCH. It is now pronounced REsearch. This happened virtually overnight along with rePEAT becoming REpeat, implying that you peat it once and then peat it again. Asinine? No, just the American way. Similarly, we now have CIGarette where we once had cigaRETTE and WEEKend when we once enjoyed a weekEND.

“ ‘ow ya goin?’” (owyagoinmateallright? in 'Strine) was once as Australian as the cork-dangling hats which you now only see tourists wearing around The Rocks in Sydney. This is rapidly being replaced with “how ya doin?’” For extra US flavour it is sometimes heard with the addition of “buddy”. “How ya doin’ buddy?” When asked if he’d perhaps like a cup of tea or a beer, an Australian, if indeed he would welcome a beverage, would normally respond with “yes please”, or some such variation, but now, in order to get with the programme (now often spelt in, you guessed it, the Americanised ‘program’) he will respond with “sure” as in perhaps meaning “of course I want a beer. Don’t buggerize around by asking me – just get it.” It is gratifying to note that “sure” is still pronounced jarringly as “shore” and not in the more phonetic American way – but give it time.


“Bloke”. It began life amongst the English working class but was transported seamlessly into Australian English, albeit enjoying far greater popularity at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, where it happily resided for a couple of centuries. But not any more. It has been hip-bumped by “guy”, of course another Americanism. “Guy” was once as masculine as “bloke” but somewhere along its lexical meandering it was enlarged to include (become inclusive of) women (as well as even children, as in “you guys”); that is, in certain circumstances. If for example a woman was addressing a group of female friends it would be allowable to say, “OK guys …”. On the other hand, the same woman addressing her husband and alluding to the group of girl-friends formerly referred to, she would not be able to say, “I’m going out with the guys”. This would be an egregious transgression as this term in this context is still firmly corralled within the male domain. Similarly when “guy” is matched with “this” or “that” as in “this guy” or “that guy”, it would be clearly understood that the guy in question would be a man.

These nuances have been clearly understood and abided by in the ousting of “bloke” by “guy”. After all, if there is anything we Australians are authorities on it is American television which after all is the oracle beaming twenty four hour a day instruction on all things American. “Guy”, also it has apparently been found provides a greater service than simply adding to an American disguise. It is classless, and as such can be used by anybody. Whereas, let’s face it, “bloke” is decidedly down-market, even (dare we say it) working class, when the working class is supposed to have been bourgeoisified out of existence. It is almost as down in the gutter as “sheila” which could never be used in polite company. Try to imagine an Australian cricket captain, or captain of the Wallabies (maybe not the Kangaroos who persistently find the socio-economic elevator out of order) saying something like, “the blokes performed brilliantly today”. No, the effect would be akin to several million people sucking several million lemons. Or for an even greater degree of difficulty, try to imagine a young mother saying to a group of mixed sex children, “hurry up you blokes”. You obviously see what's being got at here.

Some of the even sillier Americanisms lapped up here in Australia: In the US it makes traditional good sense to nominate any given summer as the year in which it falls: for example, in the summer of '42 … Obviously, as the Northern summer occurs mid year, there is precision in this. It however does not appear to deter a growing number of Australians from following this practice even though the Australian summer straddles two years. Ergo, this can only result in confusion rather than precision. Curiously, it would work with winters but one never hears phrases such as “in the winter of ….”

Neither does it appear to deter a great many Australians who had the immense good fortune to be the inheritors of the richest, most precise language ever devised from aping a people who neither seem to know or care about the exquisite intricacies of a language they see as their own to do with as they will. Less educated Americans even call the language they speak “American”.

But no matter the extent of the violation, if it’s American it must be inherently superior to Australian. It must be cool. Case in point: for centuries, speakers of English availed themselves of perfectly good phrases denoting ‘desire for a certain action or object’. These included ‘wanting’, ‘intending to …’, ‘desiring to …’, ‘trying to’, ‘thinking about …’ etc. All beautifully precise. But these have all been scrapped in favour of the all purpose ‘looking to …’. Looking to? What pray tell, would that mean to the uninitiated, such as an Australian English teacher of a bygone era. If the phrase had managed to find its way into a high school essay of that time the said essay would have been unceremoniously returned along with the advice to learn some elementary English. Now however it figures prominently in the speech of ABC TV newsreaders.

It seems that to many Americans,(and not a few Australians) grammar is a somewhat intimidating esoteric mystery. Recent evidence of this is the doubling of the verb to be as in, for example, ‘being that he is here now …’. This is the type of imported lingual toxic waste that we hear spewing increasingly from our television sets. One would assume that it jars on Australian ears. Perhaps it does … initially. But this still doesn’t prevent a certain type of Australian from seeing a wave that he would like to be riding. It’s American. It must be cool.

Can it possibly get any more asinine? You bet. Try this on for size: momentarily. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition: 'a. Lasting only a moment; short-lived, transitory …' A significant number of the speakers of American English though have now given to this word the meaning of in a moment. For example, I will be with you momentarily. One who’s less attuned to the whims of these destroyers of language could be forgiven for mistaking this to mean, 'I will be with you for a very short time and then, PUFF; I’ll be gone like a magician’s rabbit'. Even the better educated Americans recognize this for the product of stupidity that it is. But that doesn’t prevent dedicated Australian followers of verbal fashion taking a liking to this stupidity.

One is reminded here of the sentiment expressed at the Mad Hatter’s tea party that words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. This no doubt is marvelously convenient to the lingually slothful. It does however tend to defeat the purpose of language which after all is to allow human beings to communicate. It can of course be validly argued that language is never static, carved in granite as it were. Rather, it is more like a living, breathing organism and like anything else that lives is constantly changing. This though implies a gentle, natural evolution, something entirely different from the brutal American assault on English so avidly watched and emulated by Australians. Rather than reflecting a love of the language, the destruction wrought on it by Americans seems almost to be fueled by hatred.

Take the phenomenon of the neologism. This is one of the main instruments of change to a growing language – the building blocks as it were. Shakespeare alone invented hundreds of them, thereby immensely enriching English. It should be noted however, that the new words invented by Shakespeare and others were to give expression to meanings for which none existed. American neologisms, by contrast, simply re-invent the wheel. For just about every new word somehow shanghaied into the language by Americans, a perfectly good word already existed. A few examples: construct (construction), gifted (given), self-destruct (self-destroy). Similarly, Americans seem to have little patience with nouns that cannot be immediately converted into one word verb equivalents, so we then have, for example, birth becoming the atrocious birthing, and surveillance becoming surveil. (Not even an American spell-checker likes this last one.) Changing tenses can also be tricky for Americans. This is the reason to plead, in the past tense, becomes pled.

This would be all well and good if we still had, as we once did, a division between American and Australian English as solid as the Berlin wall. This more than likely was what protected us when Americans decided to ‘modernise’ spelling. It would be interesting to see the result if this had have been postponed to the age of rampant American cultural imperialism. One suspects that if so, our spelling would have fallen into line like recruits at an army barracks. There seems to be no rational explanation for our immediately adopting every American lingual absurdity that happens along as if it was inscribed on tablets delivered from a mountain top.

The only explanation would appear to be a deep-seated, collective inferiority complex. We fear our own originality and are unable to see it having authenticity. It is a mark of our pitifulness that in an age when we are so overwhelmed by America, the only verbal trend to have actually originated here is the rising inflexion that leaves a question-mark dangling at the end of most sentences. It had its genesis among our women folk, spread Ebola-like and infected a proportion of our more easily led males. It can be so teeth-grindingly irritating that one wonders if we would gladly accept every American wound inflicted on the language if only they would take this monstrosity off our hands in return.

All of the above is a classical illustration of the herd-instinct. With this inability to think as individuals and be individuals, we are sheep – lambs being led to the slaughter. Our masters salivate and rub their hands together with glee at the thought of just how ridiculously easy it is to corral us and herd us in the direction of our destiny as it has been decreed by them.

THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

This is a poem by Rudyard Kipling. The poem itself is largely forgotten but its spirit is kept alive by its title 'The White Man's Burden' which became a term cemented into the English language. It once denoted a quiet pride in resignedly shouldering an historical responsibility. It lives on though more as a source of embarrassment.

The poem was written in support and encouragement of the American Congressional vote to decide whether the Philippines would be annexed in 1899. A prescient Kipling sensed that British imperialism was in the process of being eclipsed by an American version, that a baton was being passed from one branch of the Anglo Saxon family to another. Whether the poem figured in the decision is an historical unknown but what is known is that the Philippine Islands were annexed after a period of not quite knowing what to do with them. This was the result of the US victory in the Spanish American war, specifically after Admiral Dewey’s shredding of an antiquated Spanish squadron in the battle of Manila Bay.


Probably more persuasive than the poem in the decision to betray the Philippino people who thought the Americans had come to liberate them, was the real prize that glittered further to the West: China, the decaying carcass of which was being dismembered in a European colonial feeding frenzy. The Philippines was merely a huge stepping stone. Almost inadvertently, it was the agent by which the Republic would transform into Empire. The anti-colonialists had become colonialists but would be loathe to admit that this had transpired.

These Christian empire-builders gorging themselves on the prostrate bodies of far less developed nations needed moral justification for what they were doing. What better justification could there be than sharing their Christianity with the unfortunate heathen, thereby give him a hand up into a higher, purer God- fearing order? With God in the passenger’s seat, civilization was sure to follow. The brown, yellow and black brothers would eventually learn the white man’s ways and the entire planet would become, albeit in varying degrees, a reflection of Western civilization.

This ultimate result was of course a long way off, perhaps countless generations. In the meantime, it was the white man’s responsibility to shoulder this immense burden and to carry, drag and hump it toward this distant light. If on the way a little profit should find its way into the pockets of the adventurers and entrepreneurs engaged in this mighty struggle, that was only fair. Capitalism, as Lenin noted, had attained its highest form: imperialism.

A century later, and the zeitgeist flows in the opposite direction. But the white man’s burden is still with us. Whereas, however, its earlier incarnation had been assumed voluntarily and been profit-driven, the later version hangs like a millstone around the neck of the white man and with the slow ebb of his strength drags him ever closer to his death. The colonisers have been colonised – with a vengeance. Whereas though, when the boot was on the other foot, a certain symbiosis prevailed. Backwards nations were lifted out of dark stagnation. The Chinese for example, believing that their middle kingdom – the centre of the world - had attained perfection and that any change would be a retrograde step, had allowed their civilisation to ossify. For hubris such as this they paid a savage price. The payment though was to prove to be a galvanization that would cause a giant to eventually stir from its slumber and cause the Earth to tremble.

A great variation of improvements was endowed on the far flung colonies of the European and American powers, political systems that would allow for efficient self-government especially. It was after all a long way from the village to the nation. The art of managing finance was another valuable skill taught to the nations taking their place in the modern world. Modern social infrastructure was an eventuality that formed a bridge between the old and the new worlds. It has been said, for instance, and with some justification, that the British-built railways of India are what holds that country together.

In other areas of the world though, lessons couldn’t be taught. When the white man departed Africa, the civilization he left behind was reclaimed by blood-lust and creeping jungle.

As has been noted, Christianity played its part in the early carve-up of the world. Without the moralistic dressing, colonization would be simply another dreary chapter in the story of man, the leitmotif of which was conquest of the weak by the strong. Christianity, with its lethal combination of warm-heartedness and soft-headedness, also seems to have played a part in the revenge of the colonized, or reverse colonization, if you will. The reasoning seemed to be, especially amongst the British (particularly those who had never left Britain) who were determined to ignore racial reality and view their Empire – now Commonwealth - as one big pink happy family, was that family members should be made to feel just as welcome in their home as they had imagined themselves to be in the homes of the distant relatives. It is unlikely this sentiment would have existed given a lack of the universal altruism inherent in Christianity.

And home to mother they came by the millions. From Africa, the Caribbean, India and Pakistan they poured. Curiously, it was simultaneously being made more difficult for inhabitants of the white outposts of the Commonwealth to ‘return’ to the centre. Once healthy racial instincts were being methodically and powerfully dulled while at the same time natural altruism was being perverted. Enoch Powell, a man of incandescent intellectual brilliance, tried to warn his countrymen of the dangers of abandoning the proud, unquestioning self-belief that had made Britain master of the greatest empire in the annals of recorded history. He was of course excoriated as a bigoted anachronism, if not merely a dangerous fool.

As if catching the disease, the US in 1965 reversed various legislation that had protected and nurtured its founders’ intention of the country remaining forever, not just the home of the brave and the land of the free, but a white man’s country. Promises and guarantees to the contrary notwithstanding, the US too began to rapidly darken.

Like clicking dominoes, other countries fell: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the nations of Western Europe – huge swathes of the white West. The New World countries of the West which had not been in a position to directly participate in the colonial game, being colonies themselves, were not to be exempt from the colonial chickens coming home to roost – they too were made the share the guilt of the colonial masters, the original sin of the white man. What was to be branded by Mao Tse Tung as the Third World transplanted itself just as easily into these newer outposts of the First World. The original justification of the migrations from East to West – the repayment of old, outstanding debt – seemed to be lost sight of in regard to those who had run up no part of that dept. They were indebted simply by virtue of being part of the ‘master race’ whose erstwhile servants were now decamping from their squalid quarters and taking up residence in the manor-house.

It was not called as such anymore, at least in polite, well trained society, but the white man’s burden now loomed larger than ever and now with one major, deadly difference: there was no cutting and running now as fortunes changed. The dragon had followed us home and was happily ensconced in our living room.

As luck would have it for those who joined the mass migrations to what had been white homelands, the beginning of the trek had coincided with the rise of the welfare state. This is a crucial factor, for without the succour that white taxpayers were now providing it is more than likely that many of the less courageous seekers of an easier life would have thought twice before chancing their arm. If it had been a merely a matter of sink or swim the prospect of sinking may have caused the old home to look like not such a bad place after all.

The planet is dotted with ‘failed states’. It is from these failures that the majority of economic refugees flee. It seems that the question of why these states failed is seldom asked. If it ever is, it is usually accounted for by simple bad luck, or, to drive the dagger of guilt in a little deeper and then give it a twist, the problem is attributed to the evils of rapacious imperialism. It is never suggested (except by ‘right wing fanatics’ who don’t count) that the problem of the failed state may have something to do with the people who inhabit it. This is curious given that, if people arrive in the West from one of these ramshackle principalities in enough strength to stake out their own territory, their piece of turf rapidly starts looking like a microcosm of a failed state. This occurs even with all the benefits attendant on living in a rich country. How ong will it take the microcosms to expand before becoming a macrocosm? It is doubtful that this has ever been calculated.

To add insult to injury, if indeed mere insult or injury can be added to catastrophe, while millions flee to the West taking their failure with them, there is a corresponding tsunami of money roaring in the opposite direction in the form of ‘foreign aid’. A significant boost to this is being planned by the New World Order elite in the form of a carbon tax which, although unlikely to prevent the planet from melting, will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the ‘developed’ (guilty) world to the ‘developing’ (innocent) world.

One almost envies the happiness of the fool because an inordinate amount of optimism is required to believe that the new white man’s burden can be prevented from dragging us down into the cold, dark depths. Oh for the days of the old white man’s burden; it now seems a mere bagatelle.

AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET

Having just returned to Australia after some hard traveling through a large chunk of South East Asia, I was more convinced than ever of the unbridgeable gulf separating radically different races and cultures. In the final analysis, a common ground of understanding does not exist.

For instance the endemic practice of accosting foreigners in a country like Vietnam, be it by taxi drivers, ‘cyclo’ drivers, motor cycle taxi drivers (by far the most impervious to the word ‘no’) hawkers, vendors, shoe shine boys and sundry touts can, after intense reflection, only be understood either in terms of their seeing the foreigner as so completely alien (almost as in other planet alien) that they do not share the same human feelings, or that they do indeed recognize a commonality but simply do not care. That is, the foreigner, and here what is really meant is ‘Westerner’, being so much ‘the other’ is not worthy of the same consideration as would be shown a member of the native people.

Presupposed here is a system of manners, mores and general civility that lubricates the workings of every society and, moreover, without which a society would not be able to peacefully survive. So assuming that Vietnam is not an aberrant society lacking this social lubricant and that the behaviour shown to foreigners would be seen as offensive and be morally disapproved of if exhibited amongst one’s own, either one of the aforementioned dynamics must be operative.

Before one, nearing despair, reaches for the coin to be flipped, it may be more profitable to enlist the aid of ‘Ockam’s razor’, the philosophical imperative that the simplest answer is more than likely the right one. It could be safely assumed that the razor would cut away the foreigner-as-visitor-from-outer-space theory, leaving the more mundane but less palatable concept of the foreigner as sucker to be exploited for all he or she is worth.

Here though we are getting perilously close to what anthropologists would recognize as a ‘tribal’ moral system, that is, a dual system dictating moral behavior depending on whether it is related to the members of one’s own tribe or to members of an ‘out group’. The two systems are more often than not polar opposites with robbery, cheating and even rape, murder and torture of ‘the other’ being not only sanctioned but praiseworthy.

This, needless to say, is becoming a dark picture but, it must be said, has only been arrived at after a long, hard, exasperating effort to understand the complete ease with which the foreigner can be viewed as an insensate being with none other than the economic value of say a pig trussed for market – of no other value than can be extracted for the benefit of another.

The implications of this train of thought for the crowding together of diametrically opposed races and cultures in the experiment of Australian multiculturalism are truly deadly. For, conversely, just as the behaviour of the Vietnamese towards foreigners in their midst – the cheating, the rudeness, the harassment, the stalking, the inability to take ‘no’ for an answer is seen as morally justified, it would be seen as just as morally justified, if not legally, in Australia to react to this behaviour with physical retaliation.

This currently is an abstraction, a projection because groups such as the Vietnamese are still relatively small minorities in Australia with a long way to go before any kind of critical mass can be achieved. This status engenders caution and hobbles the urge to fly true colours.

For argument’ sake however, let’s assume that critical mass is being achieved, or because a state of denial will forever preclude this acceptance for some, let’s simply play the ad absurdum game. The number of Vietnamese has achieved parity with that of ‘Australians’. (More than likely the first ‘minority’ to achieve parity with the majority, because of subtle but irresistible pressure placed on compliant Australian political leaders to accept ‘excess’ population, will be the Chinese, but let’s just for the moment stay with the Vietnamese.) A law of nature states that two distinctly different groups sharing the same territory will be in conflict. Parity suggests an equal contest. If this equality did exist a type of mutual deterrence may preclude a degeneration into deepening, more chaotic violence. Equality however will not prevail. As has already been noted, a tradition of dual morality with long historical roots will be practised by one group while the other will be hamstrung by a universalism animated by 2,000 years of Christianity, with humanism and the new religion of anti-racism now receiving the baton of social control (some would say mind control) – of white people – the ‘Australians’.

As realisation dawns that Australians are losing the battle that was never even conceived of as a battle, and bleeding from a thousand small wounds inflicted by guile and stealth, protection against which they have been deprived, an escalation into outright, non-pretend violence will be inevitable.

But even before critical mass has been achieved it may well be the little things – the small darts that sting and scratch in that no man’s land of non-understanding that marshal the tribes into opposing armies.

In Vietnam when, as a foreigner, you are harassed and stalked by cyclo-drivers and hawkers, you take it (more or less). In Vietnam, when someone is trying to force his way onto a train while you’re trying to alight laden with luggage, you take it. Or when someone is simply standing in the doorway of a train while you’re trying to board laden with luggage, you take it. When someone blithely invades your personal space, you take it. When someone routinely pushes in front of you in a queue, you take it. When there seems to be a law that prevents traffic from stopping for pedestrians at so called crossings – the contempt of the horseman for the dismounted never so egregious – you take it. When you see cruelty to animals, you take it.

In Australia, you don’t. Therein lay the seeds of impending disaster.

URGENTLY NEEDED: A REVOLUTIONARY SPIRIT

Anybody familiar with the books of Upton Sinclair, John Dos Passos, Jack London and John Steinbeck will be aware of the deadly struggle between capital and labour that marked the early twentieth century history of the United States. Historically different to Australia where labour shortages after the cessation of transportation had put the working man in a much stronger position, this was a no-holds-barred fight to the death.

Battling a combination of politicians and barons of industry steeped in graft and corruption and with the formation of unions effectively outlawed, the champions of a cruelly downtrodden working class had no choice but to adopt socialist principles imported from the great European upheavals and wage a kind of industrial guerrilla warfare. Socialism of course being such an elastic term as to be almost a Rorschach test reflecting the content of the viewer's own mind, the Socialism of the era requires at least a brief definition. This could best be done by drawing a stark contrast between the socialism that shades into Communism, having as its goal a future utopia, and the doctrine that sustained American workers fighting for their very lives in the here and now; if not for their lives, then at least for the dignity that mere subsistence did not afford. For the proletarian, the choice was simple: be either a Socialist or a whipped curr. Both were wage-slaves in the true and most horrible sense of the term, but a Socialist could at least die on his feet.

American Socialism of this period had much in common with the social democratic ideology that formed the basis of the early Australian Labor Party when it had as its raison d'etre the defence and improvement of working conditions. Some elements of American socialism however were decidedly left of the ALP and in fact had more than a passing resemblance to Anarchism. This was best exemplified by the IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World, otherwise, for some obscure reason, known as the Wobblies. Also appearing in Australia, the Wobblies were not shy about using any means to an end, including sabotage and murder, two adherents being hanged in Bathurst NSW for the latter offence. Understandably, organised labour in Australia strove to distance themselves from the Wobblies.

With working conditions now so radically different to what they were in both Australia and the US, largely due to fierce fighting for social justice, it is exceedingly difficult to comprehend what life once meant to working men and women. If one has not already come into contact with the the literary works cited earlier, there would be no better way to remedy this gap in education than to make contact. To be able to fully absorb the pictures drawn calls almost for a suspension of disbelief such as one needs when watching a far-fetched film. Also almost defying belief are the truly heroic efforts of those who fought against the status quo. The courage needed here was almost Christ-like, and in a similar vein, these industrial warriors displayed the spirit of religious zealots.

In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck describes the death of a union organiser, gunned down by hired goons with complete impunity. This would be easy to dismiss as fiction or literary licence, but is should be remembered that he was there in the midst of these struggles. If confirmation of this type of occurrence is needed, it should be borne in mind that the great General MacArthur once unleashed tanks against a protesting army of unemployed men. For every fallen man, another would rise in his place. Every time the banner was dropped it would be picked up again. People donated their last pennies to the cause. So called rabble-rousers would shout till they were hoarse; men and women battling the effects of fatigue and starvation and sometimes risking death by freezing would distribute clandestinely printed sheets of news and inspiration not available in the newspapers of the enemy. The invaluable printing presses were constantly moved between safe-houses one step ahead of sledgehammer wielding police.

What can be learned from all this? It is this: nothing less than this type of courage and determination is needed in the great struggle to save the nation from the greedy maw of the globalists, race-mixers and useful idiots. Time is not on our side; it is fast running out and it is well and truly over for the kind of social club that Australian nationalism has been for so many years. The time is over for the pathetic whinging that has substituted for action. Preaching to the converted is another indulgent luxury that can no longer be afforded. It is the unconverted that need to be reached without so much as another moment wasted. TIME IS RUNNING OUT. This is a message that needs to be emblazoned in the minds of every person who is aware of the unprecedented crime that is being perpetuated against the Australian people. Awareness without action equals cowardice.

It should be conceded however that there is at least one glaring difference between our struggle and that of the earlier struggle against Capitalism before it had learned to smile with a human face. And that is that what we struggle against something more abstract, something we only see in embryonic form but know only too well the type of monster it will inexorably grow into if we do not stop it. This monster of course is an Asian Australia. The people we need to reach cannot see this. An unrelenting barrage of highly sophisticated propaganda prevents them seeing this. They see only the colourful illusion of a multicultural, multiracial picnic. No matter how disconcerting they may privately feel about this, they have been taught to feel guilty about these uneasy feelings. These feelings are 'racist'. To have such thoughts is sinning.

Early twentieth century Socialists did not have this problem; the monster was with them here and now for all to see: it was starvation, dirt, danger, brutality, exploitation and life-threatening fatigue. Activists did not have to convince others that these existed; they were self-evident.

Even taking into account this advantage we don't have, if we had only a fraction of the dedication and bravery of these almost superhuman battlers we would prevail. There is something we would be able to share with them though and that is the gratification of knowing we have it in our power to change history.

CLOSING RANKS: A RAY OF HOPE

When travelling in third world countries, one cannot but be aware of another white face in the train carriage or bus; you know that the owner of that white face is just as aware of you even though not so much as a word or nod or any other sign of recognition has passed between you. It is almost telepathic communication, passing through the ether of the racial collective unconscious, and it is oddly comforting - no matter how much one likes to think of oneself as an intrepid traveller willing, nay eager, to face whatever strangeness that may be laying in wait, and no matter how less travelled the road.

Living in an Australian metropolis threatening to burst into a megalopolis, this is an experience that can now be had without ever leaving the country. This should be qualified by adding that a generation gap figures in the experience. That is, if that other white traveller is young,(and worse still, 'educated')has never really known it to be any different, there is a distinct possibility that you will be enduring the experience on your own. However, if the fellow white passenger is old enough to remember when an experience of being surrounded by aliens on local transport would have been unthinkable, there's a good chance the telepathy will be flowing and carrying a kind of unspoken mutual commiseration with it. Then again, perhaps that older passenger is of a liberal bent and has swallowed every morsel of political correctness ever dished out. If so, it's more than likely that he or she is struggling quietly but mightily with the politically incorrect instinct that is lurking like a strange fish in the depths of the unconscious. A concentrated act of will is needed to prevent it leaving its primordial darkness and rising into the light. In this case you will be pointedly ignored, but rest assured, it will be as difficult as ignoring a shiny, new two dollar coin on a footpath.

Similar experiences in a rapidly darkening city are bountiful. You may, for instance, get into a taxi and experience a minor miracle: the driver is an Australian, albeit and old-timer and not far off being turned out to pasture (the symbolism here is hopefully not missed). You immediately begin to relax. You know that you will not have to do the navigating that might have been needed even if your destination is a major city landmark. You know too that you will not have to request the meter to be turned on. You can even take part in a conversation without needing an interpreter. It's an even bet that your driver is just as pleased and relieved to be carrying an Australian passenger.

You are walking through the Babel-like city and amongst the incoherent yabbering, you hear an Australian accent. You almost turn to see who it is; against the background of cacaphony , it could almost be the voice of a friend.

You visit a country town and are immediately overwhelmed by the sheer abundance of Australians. Why, it's like stepping into a time machine and ramming it into reverse. This is exactly how you remember Australia as being. On a recent trip to a northern NSW town the traveller was confronted with the positively surreal site of rosy-cheeked Australian girls waiting on tables in a Chinese restaurant.

But back to the city. It is here that Australians are sampling the first bitter taste of becoming a minority in their own country. The possibility is no longer an abstract idea, but a growing reality. Entire suburbs are lost and overrun, CBDs resemble more those of third world cities; workplaces, hospitals, government departments and institutions have been willfully converted into multicultural showcases. It is here that Australians are feeling more and more threatened and alienated. This though paradoxically is where hope springs. By becoming a minority, the minority mentality begins to take hold. The majority, by becoming twisted into a minority in the cities is beginning to let go of its insouciance and atomised way of being. Apathy looks to become less and less the Australian way. Racial gravity begins to pull Australians together just as it did in London's Earl's Court during the sixties. Australian-Australians are beginning to circle the wagons just like all the other minority groups, and are on their way to becoming just as survival orientated. (And those that are not should be.)

WHO ARE THE AUSTRALIANS?

There was a time when asking this question would have seemed as pointless and unnecessary as asking which way is up? The answer was just as obvious: an Australian was either an Aborigine or a descendent of the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic soldiers, settlers and convicts who brought civilization to such an unpromising land. Later, the second group was expanded to include members of other closely related racial groups who were absorbed into the host population like salt in water.

Although some die-hards, even today, would remain fastened to this definition, it has become far too simplistic to be any longer tenable. One has to be realistic enough to accept at least part of the fait accompli employed as the primary weapon by those that have marked this nation for destruction.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the official contemporary definition of an Australian is so watered down as to be meaningless as well as insulting to real Australians. The image conjured up in official circles is one of a type of universal human. (Presumably, if interplanetary visitors were to arrive they would be eligible as well.) Anybody who resides on the Australian land mass, or anybody whose boat will stay afloat long enough to reach that land mass pretty well qualify (although some boats do sink their occupants are helped the rest of the way by the Australia navy). If any doubt at all does exist, a glossy document can be obtained from the Australian Government guaranteeing citizenship. This process has been a boon to a kaleidoscopic variation of inhabitants of Planet Earth from bone-nosed natives of darkest Africa, to hatred-curdled Muslims to dart-pipe-blowing pigmies transported from banks of the Amazon River. Sadly, no Inuit as yet have been spotted on the shores of sunny Australia. This must be cruelly unsettling to the architects of the brave, new multicultural world who would no doubt be more than willing to organize government grants for the construction of refrigerated igloos.

Fortunately, this official version of who is an Australian really doesn’t fly where folk wisdom is more instrumental in constructing reality. Real Australians, that is, ordinary Australians, as opposed to those overcome with Utopian visions stronger and more dangerous than the most vivid opium dream, know better. They know that anyone who sets foot for the first time in the country as an adult can never be an Australian. It need not be absolutely necessary to be born here, but the sooner one arrives after being born, the better.

Having touched on who isn’t an Australian, it may be more practicable to proceed in this vein and thus approach our question from the opposite direction. Who else is obviously not an Australian?

The prerequisite of being born here is one that has changed over the years. Paradoxically, it is the tyrannically imposed institution of Multiculturalism that has been the catalyst. The over-riding message of Multiculturalism to new arrivals is virtually a command to grip ones heritage and culture as firmly as accompanying luggage and, conversely, to resist being absorbed into a new culture as though it were death itself. Dual citizenship is another factor that militates against non-natives ever being capable of becoming Australians. Anyone with feet planted in two different lands, and therefore incapable of giving a complete commitment to an adopted country can never be Australians. Similarly, hyphenated ‘Australians’, be they Chinese-Australians, Samoan-Australians or Nigerian-Australians, by definition, can never be the real thing. A man with a split personality can never be normal or whole.

Before Multiculturalism, it was possible for a man or woman who had come of age in a foreign land to become an Australian – and they did. Our immigration programme first veered away from its traditional British source with the conclusion of World War Two when tens of thousands of homeless refugees were displaced by the destruction wrought on Europe. A great proportion was from Eastern and Central Europe. Accepting them into Australia was a form of symbiosis, as the rallying cry after Australians had been terrified by the threat of Japanese invasion was populate or perish! The thinking here was sluggishly unable to keep up with the advent of weapons of almost unimaginable destructive power. It was these and the concomitant technology and not weight of numbers which would determine the course of future wars. Be that as it may, the programme, carefully managed with ‘New Australians’ skillfully presented to the Australian people by selecting the most attractive and able bodied for inclusion in newsreel films, was a success.

It should be born in mind though, that the immigrants of this era, a significant proportion still arriving from the British Isles, had little choice but to succeed. There was little opportunity for turning back. Bridges were burnt, mixing with the rest of the ashes of Europe and the homes that most had left behind. Awaiting them here, instead of a Welfare State to cater for their every need, as it was for later generations of immigrants, was a place to either sink or swim, and swim most of them did. This required a willingness to work hard – the Snowy Mountain Scheme is testament to their efforts – an appreciation of the value of the opportunities afforded them and an unequivocal commitment to their new country. Given the extra benefit of their being closely related racially to the host population, it must be granted that these people became genuine Australians.

On the other hand, after the emphasis of our immigration programme had abandoned the surety of assimilation, to flirt briefly with integration to blunder into full blown multiculturalism, it must also be accepted that some people, even if born here, can never be Australians. The most obvious example is that of Lebanese Muslims who, by their self-identification as well as their identification of the majority population as the enemy, are most definitely not Australian. Their term for the enemy is ‘Aussies’. The word is spat out with almost as much venom as an epithet reserved for their rape victims: ‘Aussie slut’. Having not even seen Lebanon, which many of them haven’t, it still figures as their spiritual home. Australia is merely an unfortunate accident in their lives.

It is extremely doubtful that Muslims of any stripe, given their complete antipathy to Australian culture and their hatred of the infidel, can ever be Australians. It is as unlikely as an Australian being accepted into the warm embrace of the social body of Saudi Arabia or Iran. Muslims simply do not like Australians. A conversation with any Australian not too infected with political correctness will reveal that the feeling is reciprocal. This is hardly surprising given that Australia is currently waging an escalating war with one Muslim nation even as it winds down a war with another. In a saner time, having a large percentage of people in your population sharing much with people with whom you were at war with would be rightfully seen as simply asking for a time-bomb-ticking fifth column.

Aside from the so-called ‘clash of civilizations’, Muslims in general have so little in common with the people in whose image Australia was created they will never be anything other than an alienated minority group and so could never be accepted as true Australians.

With the flood-gates opening wider and wider, the problem of unbridgeable chasms between the host population minority cultures plague a multitude of others claiming Australia as their home. Because of the perennial east-is-east and west-is-west reality, all Asian races face an exercise in futility in being Australian while the Anglo Saxon hegemony continues to exist. Still, in huge swathes of Australia, Asian-Australian is a contradiction in terms (that is, when Big Brother isn’t watching) Just as in many parts of Britain still, Black Englishman is an oxymoron. The ghetto-clinging Asian in Australia, as perhaps distinct from the individuals who manage to wean themselves off the ethnic group teat, will only ever be Australians when Australia is no longer Australia, but a country overrun and merely retaining its old name.

As already noted, the Chinese have been here for over one hundred years in varying numbers but up until the last thirty years have rarely ventured out of Chinatown. The China towns have now of course exploded and proliferated but still they remain Chinese ghettoes with their inhabitants remaining every bit as self-segregated as the Asian students on the brink of forming majorities on Australian campuses.

The Australian Government, becoming increasingly emboldened by the appearance of the crushing of all resistance proceeds to push the envelope. In recent years, immigrants from darkest Africa have begun to appear on Australian streets. It is unlikely the depths of the impossibility of assimilation could be plumbed much lower. Africans have lived in the United States for hundreds of years and still they remain a separated part of America, still the problems caused by their presence are no closer to a solution, and more than likely will never be solved. In fairness to Afro-Americans (as they are currently called) their original residence in the US was not voluntary, and indeed was not wanted by any other than rapacious capitalist, of which there is no shortage of in modern times. By contrast, the only need for Africans in Australia is in the desire of inhabitants of self-created hell-holes to be living somewhere nicer, as well as in the dreams of a multiracial paradise sapping the sanity of white Utopians.

It is self-evident that any racial group trying to sink roots in a foreign country but at the same time remaining too fearful to leave the security of the ethnic group to which they belong – as is so vehemently encouraged by Multiculturalism – can never really be a part of the overarching population.

The early post-war immigrants thought and acted as individuals; not as collectivist members of transplanted chunks of their former homelands. They were too busy to do otherwise. The Snowy Mountain Scheme, for example, was a true melting pot – not the salad bowls Australian cities have become. Their labour was a stake in the land they had adopted. In stark contrast, the financial handouts of taxpayers’ money by generous politicians is honey to the contemporary immigrant fly. It has been said, quite rightly, that Britain could never have become the racial catastrophe it is today if not for the elaborately constructed Welfare State that stood as a lamp to the swarming ex-colonials. If it had been a matter of sink or swim, as it was to our early post-war immigrants, most would have stayed at home.

To compare Australian immigration, as well as the ‘Refugee’ programme of today with the life-line extended to dazed and stunned survivors of post-Apocalyptic Europe is laughable. There is no comparison. With only ashes and rubble behind them and a new country and life before them, there was no choice. The people who represented the first veering away from the reliance on British stock for the source of new blood to pump through the heart of Australia, were not offered the luxury of wrestling with whether or not they wanted to become real Australians. They just did so.

It may not be drawing too long a bow to say that being a true Australian is a state of mind. You know when you have it. You know when others have it – or don’t have it, or could never have it.

The acid test of who is a true Australian perhaps is this: try to imagine a time (inevitable if current trends continue) when the tectonic stresses of Multiculturalism eventually result in the Balkanisation of Australia. Who will be with us; and who will be slinking off in other directions?