White Australia

GLOBALISATION: or how we are all treated like global village idiots

2010-03-03T04:00:00.000-08:00

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." James Paul Warburg, Banker and member of the Council on Foreign Relations (Feb. 17, 1950, to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations)

Why is Australia being destroyed as a nation in its true sense and being replaced with what Professor Andrew Fraser in an article entitled, Rethinking the White Australia Policy, called "the transnational corporate welfare state [that] has taken on a life of its own, asserting its power and right to recreate the nation and its people in whatever form it chooses"?

To make sense of this conundrum, one must, as a departed but unlamented Prime Minister constantly urged, look at the "big picture". One must look at so called "Globalisation". Although of course the mind-benders have largely succeeded in presenting this as process leading to the best of all possible worlds, if your are taking the time to be reading this you are already fully aware of the inherent danger in believing any more than a minute part of what you are urged to believe by those with an agenda not as well hidden as they would like to believe through their mouthpiece of the mainstream media. It is a small step from this wariness to seeing Globalisation naked, no frills and in all its grotesque evil, which is as the ramp leading to world government.

The popular conception of Globalisation (if it's thought of at all) is that, at some time or other, governments of the world got together with a view to revolutionising world trade so that, as we are constantly told, the smooth streamlining would lead to an economic Shangri-La encompassing the world. Of course governments of the world were content to let sleeping dogs lie and weren't about to disabuse the governed of this stupendous illusion. To do otherwise may have sent other popular illusions toppling like dominoes; illusions such as the smoke and mirrors production that presents national governments as actually being in control of the nations in which they are ensconced.

As we shall see, in the true state of play, national governments have been reduced to little more than pawns on the global chess board, bearing out the sentiment behind the words of one Mayer Rothschild: "I don't care who makes the laws, as long as I control the money." "The money", Mayer knew, would be followed by politicians like birds on a trail of bread crumbs. Or to put it less picturesquely, when a man is clutched firmly by the testicles, the rest of him is sure to follow.

Humans, being humans, the urge to dominate has been around since, well ... since humans became humans. With every incremental step that has led to the marvelous peak of technological achievement we stand on today, the scope for domination has increased. When it was that people began thinking in terms of world domination is unclear, but it's a safe bet that it began around the time that people first began conceiving of a world. It didn't matter that it was flat; the trick was to simply stay away from the edge. Let the boobs in boats worry about that. They'd either drop off or come back. If they came back with news of easy pickings further afield, then it was probably time to gear up for a new round of rape, murder and pillage.

After humans became a little better organised, these opportunities for entrepreneurial activities were much more efficiently exploited. Those trying their hand here include a number of the truly great: Alexander the Great for one. There were also Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar and who could forget Napoleon with his plans for a prototypical European Union? Although never lacking in energy and enthusiasm, the efforts of these early multinationalists were amateurish in comparison with modern day explosions of "the will to power".

Carroll Quigley, a university professor, remembered with fondness and reverence by a former student named Bill Clinton, was a New World Order insider who implicitly believed the virtues, rightness and historical inevitability of the new order was something to shouted from the rooftops. Opting for something a little less physically taxing, he did the next best thing; he produced his monumental work, Tragedy and Hope, lifting the lid on the whole can of writhing worms. Exhibiting breathtaking naivety, he was apparently surprised and not a little disappointed when instead of his magnus opus being appreciated by those he had attempted to colour with glory, his efforts were met with unmistakable disfavour and his book became difficult to obtain.

Eschewing the persistent but difficult to substantiate rumours of dark conspiracies featuring the usual suspects: the Knight Templars, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Jews, Quigley traces genuine efforts at construction of a world government back to the history bending machinations of the inimitable Cecil Rhodes. As a young man, Rhodes was something of a dewy eyed idealist dreaming dreams that would eventually be set to music with John Lennon's Imagine. Whereas most young men's idealism becomes ground between the mills of experience and disillusionment, with Rhodes it stuck, and till the end of his life he believed that evils such as war could be eliminated with the advent of a benevolent world dictatorship. The problem of keeping a dictatorship benevolent - guarding the guardians - didn't seem to trouble him. He had apparently never come across Lord Acton's famous dictum regarding the corrupting influence of power.

It is not difficult to picture Rhodes noting the huge patches of pink on a world map of his time and recognising the already extant superstructure of a truly global empire. If it could be linked to the stirring giant of US power (and belatedly realising the forlorn hope of George the Third of reclaiming the American colony)the result would obviously be a power to be reckoned with.

The thing that kept Rhodes just outside of rampant ratbaggery and gave him the sniff of a chance of realising his dream was money - serious money. He was born richer than most men die then added to his wealth the fabulous gold and diamond riches of South Africa. Initially there was a problem here in that the Boers, Dutch descended farmers, owned the land containing the valuables. In a sobering illustration of what can be achieved when the rich are able to co-opt a national government to their cause, the Boers were moved on under British guns.

As if Rhodes wasn't adequately tided over at this stage, he also had the backing of Rothschild money. Lord Rothschild was also designated as one of the successors of Rhodes secret Society of the Elect which had links with the Round Table founded by Lord Milner. The Round Table was one of the earliest "think tanks" - a precursor of the much more powerful models to follow - with influential lobby groups in the major Empire centres as well as the US. Its membership comprised ruling class cream and its mission was to nudge the foreign policies of the nations within its reach in the direction this private, unelected club thought it should be going. Rhodes dream of course failed, notwithstanding his reaching out from the grave with his scholarships to kindle the flame in others. His objectives and strategies were no doubt duly noted by his intellectual descendants for a time and a world more conducive to the idea of a world government.

That time wasn't long in coming. The eruption of the most cataclysmic war in the annals of a blood-stained human history shattered the optimistic belief in inexorable progress and transformed the world. It was presented as "the war to end all wars". Suitably traumatised and terrified, the people of the world were ready to welcome a mechanism to fulfill this promise - even if it meant surrendering a portion of national sovereignty. And so the League of Nations came into being. The more cynical saw this as an an embryo world government and some went as far as to see the League of Nations as being one of the main reasons the war was fought. (Henry Ford claimed that during his mission to try to prevent the most powerful nations of the world tearing each others throats out that he came into contact with people - in a position to know - who informed him that his efforts would be futile because the war had been long in the planning.) The American senate apparently contained its share of cynics because it refused to ratify the treaty that would have seen the US joining the League of Nations. Because of this absence of such a powerhouse of a nation, the League was doomed to failure.

In 1921, perhaps sensing that the League was an evolutionary dead-end,some extremely powerful people, originally coming together at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, launched onto an unsuspecting world the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The strategy of the CFR harkened back to that of the Round Table (indeed, Walter Lippmann, one of the founders of the CFR was a Round Table member)in giving governments an unsolicited helping hand with foreign policy. Ostensibly, the government that would receive the most help was the US government but with sister organisations - the Royal Institute of International Affairs based in London, and the Institute of Pacific Relations to inform Far Eastern affairs as well as organisations based in Paris and Hamburg, the CFR was global in reach.

In the US, the CFR acted as a conduit between high finance (notably the Rockefeller family) , big oil (notably the Rockefeller family), corporate elites and the Federal government. In 1922 it began producing its journal, Foreign Affairs. A graphic illustration of its influence on US foreign policy was included in a CFR expose (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cfr-members.htm) "It has been said by political commentators on the left and the right that 'if you want to know what US foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year'."

Since 1966, every director of the CIA has been a CFR member. It is well known that President Kennedy was determined to reign in the CIA and perhaps not divorced from this determination (and the shortness of his life) was his awareness of a gigantic conspiracy growing like a tumour on the American state (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces.) It is believed by many that the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. It is also believed by many that his death signalled nothing less than a coup d'etat in the US. If so, whoever was responsible, it is logical to assume, is still at the wheel. A lawless intelligence agency would no doubt be a valuable asset. Starving the CIA of funds proved to be an exercise in futility as the agency simply became self-funding by way of drug dealing and arms peddling. But it would be wrong to assume that the CIA became a consummate rogue organisation, a law unto itself. This is shown by the CFR accepting its director as member, which simply wouldn't pay unless a degree of control or at least influence could be exerted. So, if long ago quitting as an employee of the US government, it would be fair to say that the CIAs new employer is the CRF. But why would an organisation claiming to be as benign and helpful as the CRF does need a department of dirty tricks?

Barely had the last ember of the 1914 - 18 inferno lost its glow when the world burst into an even greater conflagration. Depending on your perspective, this was either World War 2 or part 2 of the first. After the fighting this time died in mushroom clouds, it was glaringly apparent that man had scaled a technological height from which it was possible to destroy himself completely. Another global explosion of fire and barbarism could possibly result in "the death of death" and render the planet uninhabitable. It was time for another surge towards world government. What else could possibly save man from himself?

The incarnation this time was the United Nations. This time with the Americans on board, it was thought to have a real chance of success. The headquarters this time was even located on US soil - donated by none other than the Rockefeller family - never far away when power was being mightily consolidated. Complementing the UN and created around the same time were the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, instruments thought capable of eventually being conducive to a one-world economy. The was even talk of a World Army but the nearest this came to fruition was individual nations contributing troops ad hoc to the blue helmeted UN forces, but this arrangement proved to be a dismal failure. Not to worry though: NATO would later fill this role. Now fighting in Afghanistan, it seems to have drifted a long way from the North Atlantic and the role it was originally created to fill.

The creators of the New World Order rapidly coalescing in our time deserve admiration, if only grudging, for the tirelessness and patience they have displayed in realising their dream. Their creature is hydra-headed with more tentacles than a badly mutated octopus. It is multidimensional. When one avenue appears blocked, it merely slithers off in another
direction.

When the UN, with its charter appearing strikingly similar to its Soviet counterpart being less of a surprise when it was learnt it had been written by under-cover communists, began to be not as forthcoming in delivering the glorious brotherhood of man as originally envisaged, its champions were philosophical. After all, there were plenty of other irons in the fire.

On May 29 - 31, 1954, the first meeting of the Bilderbergers was held in Oosterbeek, Holland at the Bilderberg Hotel, hence the group's name. Every year since, in a different country each time, the Bilderbergers have held their annual meeting. It is always shrouded in the darkest secrecy. Similar types attend these meetings as do CFR meetings - high flyers in finance, education, the media, corporate big-wigs and politicians - the difference being that there is no set membership. The wealthy and powerful from Europe and the US are invited according to what they can contribute at the time. The American delegation to the first meeting was led by .... David Rockefeller.

Although because of the lengths that are gone to to ensure the strictest security, not a great deal is known about the Bilderbergers. However, they are known to be powerful. How powerful? According to George McGhee, a former US ambassador to West Germany, "the Treaty of Rome which brought the Common Market into being [which stealthily metamorphosed into the European Union] was nurtured at Bilderberger Meetings".

Perhaps these movers and shakers were beginning to feel a little ashamed about their world moulding meetings looking a little like white-men's clubs, or more likely there was still too much of the world their tentacles had not enveloped. It was soon time to branch out.

The CFR failed as a grab for global power but as a shake-down exercise and dress-rehearsal for the real thing it was invaluable. The real thing was the Trilateral Commission. It was launched in 1973 by David Rockefeller in partnership with Zbigniew Brezinski, a geostrategist who would go on to become US National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 - 81. Here is an insight into the diabolically brilliant mind of Brezinski as given by the man himself in Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era: "... the nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organised life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."

The Trilateral Commission, as the name would suggest, encompasses the three main engines of economic power: the US, Western Europe and Japan. After targeting the power points comprising primarily Corporate, Academic and Political (in an ancillary position is the media which doesn't rate alongside the big three as it is dominated by all three) in these key chunks of the planet, the talent scouting was on in earnest. To quote from the August Review (a web journal)Vol5, Issue 12: "In general, the goals for globalisation are created by Corporate. Academic then provides studies and white papers that justify Corporate's goals. Political sells Academics arguments to the public [via the media] and if necessary, changes laws to accommodate and facilitate Corporate in getting what it wants."

The cherry picking of the best and brightest, not to mention greediest and most power crazed, advanced at a prodigious pace. Attracting the most desired personnel apparently presented no problem. In fact those tapped for inclusion seem to have positively flocked to its banner: ".. of the 54 original US members of the Trilateral Commission, Jimmy Carter was fronted to win the presidential election of 1976. Once inaugurated, Carter brought no less than 18 fellow members of the Commission into top- level cabinet and government agencies". (ibid)

No US executive since the Carter administration has been free of Commission domination. Bearing in mind that Commission members - American as well as foreign - march to the sound of a different drummer than the one supposedly maintaining the beat of the US national interest, this obviously does not augur well for US sovereignty or democracy. And given that the US leads the 'free world', one can only wonder at the type of freedom that is enjoyed by those who follow the pied piper of globalisation.

And yet we are allowed no respite from being told how we'll all be better off. This has to be a private joke. Irrepressible images arise of boardrooms full of men doubled over with laughter: "if the idiots believe that, they'll believe anything".

Neither, do we - the serfs - not need to be told one more time about the wonders of the "global village". Indeed, in financial terms, the world has shrunk to the size of a large casino, with trillions of dollars sloshing about the planet every day. Our sparkling technology isn't of course limited to the hyper efficient transfer of money; it has also taken communication to limits undreamed of just a few generations ago. "Communication" can also be read as mind control. Propaganda didn't die with Joseph Goebells - it had hardly been born! In the intervening sixty odd years it has been honed into a devastatingly effective weapon. And of course, should a little less subtlety be called for, war fighting technology has also improved exponentially if perhaps there are some misguided souls who do not fully appreciate the benefits of globalisation.

What drives those who see their reason for existence as the corralling and domination of as many of their fellow humans as possible? Or put another way, what do you get for the man who has everything? Answer: more! And that more is brought more clearly into focus if distilled into two main elements, those being, MONEY and POWER. But we have to try and get our heads around the fact we are not dealing with ordinary men here. We are dealing here with men whose appetites are gargantuan, their lusting after the twin treasures of money and power so obsessive, so all consuming, so pathological, it is beyond the comprehension of those not similarly afflicted.

There is of course the outside chance that the interpretation of world events given thus far is a regrettable mistake. History after all may just be a series of wild coincidences. For instance, it may just be one of those wild coincidence that the disease of multiculturalism broke out all over the Western world at almost exactly the same time that The Trilateral Commission was born - although it must be conceded that misguided zealots and ideologues had long struggled, albeit without much success to bring it about. Why would multiculturalism figure in the schemes of the Trilateralists? Simply because the nation- state and that central tenet of Western liberal democracy - individualism - would be the two main stumbling blocks to a world under new, globalist management. These open conspirators knew full well that both would be destroyed by multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Now in private hands, the world with its open borders and free flow of goods, capital and labour is in a "race to the bottom". The only logical conclusion is that when all wages have bottomed out around the level of what is paid to Indonesian coolies, and the great preponderance of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few and, with stampeding technology thrown into the mix, the 20/80 world has been entered - 20 percent of the world's population productive, 80 percent nothing but useless mouths to feed with no doubt dark muttering about the need for "depopulation" (new improved swine flu anyone - or even better, the vaccine?).

Is there so much as a sliver of silver lining in the storm-cloud of globalisation? Yes, and it is more than a sliver. In proportion to the globalisation of oppression, there rises the globalisation of resistance. All over the world, ordinary people are awakening and stirring. Via the wonders of technology our would be masters must be kicking themselves for allowing us to share, people are reaching out to each other across cities, tundra, deserts and oceans. They are educating, informing and inspiring each other. Although there is and always will be a terrible preponderance of firepower on the side of the enemy, the weight of numbers is on our side. While seduced and mesmerised by the deadly cooing of these masterminds of propaganda and mind control these numbers admittedly do not count for a lot. However, as the endgame of the New World Order approaches its climax, it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible to keep what is happening under the shroud of deceit that has served these Machiavellians so well for so long.

It would be no exaggeration to describe what is coming as the final battle between good and evil. As has been demonstrated for so long and so often the streak of evil in man is truly terrifying. Conversely, the copious amount of good in man has allowed him to survive in the face of all that evil has thrown at him. The human spirit has shown itself time and time again to be indomitable. Couple this fearsome spirit with minds that have been freed from the web of hypnosis that have been spun about them for so long and the New World Order may have a terrible fight on its hands. Even now it would be trying to calculate just how many would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

MISCEGENATION - that's the name of the game, and each generation, they're less of the same (apologies to those who remember Bobby Darin)

2010-02-15T22:32:00.000-08:00

It's difficult to ignore an interesting phenomenon arising in Australian cities where ghettos spill over onto areas still predominately white (yes, a few survive). It's the burgeoning number of mixed race couples with the results of their coupling in tow or being perambulated. I for one can seldom resist the urge to take a quick peek to see just how the result panned out - which genes ended up where and in what proportions. It's a type of morbid fascination with nature a little out of kilter.

Why have so many people decided to over-ride the instincts developed over eons of time and marry or cohabit cross-racially? While sociologists tie themselves into knots over this question, the answer is probably far too simple for them. The motivation is the same as that causing men to wear the calf-length pants that were once the sole province of circus clowns: fashion. But of course changing back into jeans is far easier than reclaiming your genes. While one fashion is just silly the other is of the most deadly consequences.

In the same way that clothing fashions don't simply spontaneously materialise, neither do social fashions. While the clothing trend-setters are invariably clothing producers, who might be the orchestrators who were able to transform a phenomenon that could once often result in quick and brutal death into something "cool"? The trend setters in the racial fashion houses are those engineers running the great machines of society - the media, the schools and universities, governments and bureaucracies - whose power has been harnessed by ideologues relentlessly pursuing a world-view based on a scientifically as well as self-evidently false premise - that race is either merely skin deep or a "social construct" - to its logical conclusion.

This artificially created Zeitgeist however merely accelerates a process that would have taken place anyway due to the necessary conditions already being created courtesy of a thirty year old official policy of race-mixing. Needless to say, there was little miscegenation in Australia when it was basically racially homogeneous. Given the nature of the male human sex urge, race tends to be a far less important consideration than sexual attractiveness which, much in tune with the law of supply and demand, waxes and wanes according to availability.

So with the raw material of race mixing provided through a 'non-discriminatory' immigration policy rigged in favour of coloureds and unashamedly against those who would blend in unobtrusively, "nature" more or less takes over. The more natural tendencies to mate within one's own race have been largely over-ridden by the aforementioned system of propagandising - some would call it brainwashing - to seal the bargain.

Like a lonely but tough srub reaching upwards in barren soil, the primal instinct of loyalty to the tribe still struggles to survive but adversity hasn't finished with it. It is received wisdom that women marry up and men marry down, more so now that the so called 'bourgeoisification' of sociey has, if not actually propelling members of the working class upwards, at least infects them with the middle class aspirations and obsession with status constantly being role-modelled on television. This peculiar phenomenon does not mean that the working class is disappearing; just that the subculture that sustained it is. But where does that leave the male inhabiting the ground floor of society, if not the basement. His female equivalent is reaching upwards and there is no-one below

Enter the submissive, sweetly feminine (as opposed to a feminist trained competitor and male impersonator) third-worlder who respects a man simply for being a man and is perfectly contented to leave the decision making to him. This man has instantly become a prince. His looks or his age don't seem to matter. And he may not even have a job! To the newly arrived, unemployment benefits seem like manna from heaven. And if he has a half-way decent job, he's a king! How different this is to the scalding experiences he may have had with the 'liberated' white woman. As the racially aware constitute only a small minority, the majority still in thrall to the mind-benders, our man has the icing on his cake provided by virtue of the schoolboy-star awarded for being a certified 'non-racist'. A sad irony here though is that the submissive, obedient third-worlder, once out of her natural habitat, doesn't always stay that way on learning the ways of the modern Australian woman

And the female race-deserter? How would her profile look? Prolonged observation shows that she is not particularly attractive. She has either given up on attracting a member of her own race or is so embittered she is on the rebound not only from a man but from that entire half of the race. It is well known that women are vulnerable to the 'stranger syndrome', that is simply that the unfamiliar is more tempting than the familiar. This may have served an evolutionary purpose in that, for 98% of the history of the human race, the stranger came from the village in the next valley and would have been a fresh addition to a localised and possibly somewhat stagnating gene-pool. Obviously, when the mystique of the stranger extends not to the next village but to countries many hours jet flight away, the gene-pool is not simply being refreshed - it is being destroyed.

No doubt also featuring in the psyche of the woman who turn her back on her own race is the want and need of the female of the species, from little girl to the old woman, to be 'good', whatever is deemed to be 'good' at any given time. And given that racism is bad, and anti racism, no better exemplified than by race-mixing, is 'good', here is society's seal of approval laid on with a trowel, society here meaning either those equally deluded, or those with the destruction of a nation in their sights

What of the offspring of parents of different races. There is unfortunately here a paucity of studies done. However, that does not prevent one from attempting to arrive at a conclusion via the method of inductive reasoning, where strong probability must suffice when iron-clad proof remains elusive. When two worlds developed over millenia of time collide in the psych of a single individual it would be reasonable to assume that a certain degree of confusion is the result. Straddling two worlds, where does one belong? Why is one so different to either parent and a possible step brother or sister? Why is one so different, period? When a person of mixed race who is born in Australia is constantly asked the question: 'where are you from?', how is the frustration and anger contained?

Interestingly, when one contemplates the perennial problem of White/Aboriginal relations in Australia, one cannot help but be struck by the fact the 'problem' is mainly one between Whites and people who for probably most of the period of white settlement have been called half-breeds, most of whom are more white than black. It is within them and not full-bloods that an inextinguishable hatred burns. Should that not tell us something about the mental world of those from two worlds? But who really cares about the fate of those resulting from the coupling of racial strangers? If there is any damage done it is small price to pay for the creation of Utopia.

Which, my friends, bring us to the nub of the matter. Race-mixing throughout the Western, once predominantly White world is not something that has come about by chance or accident. It is all a part of bold, grand dream dreamt by romantics, idealists and one-worlders so frightened of and contemptuous of human reality that they are barely of this world. Their world is more a fairy tale land of chocolate cake and rainbows where all conflict has been abolished and perfect harmony prevails. Extremely difficult, I know, for the uninitiated to believe, what we are seeing now is the fruit of an agenda pushed fanatically and tirelessly for decades.

To these simple-minded sentimentalists, most of the world's problems have been caused by the white race. A cursory glance at world history is all that's needed to confirm this assertion. Look at all the great sins and then at who was responsible: slavery, colonialism, imperialism, the most devastating wars, attempted or actual genocide, invention of the most diabolical weapons (along with the invention of everything else) and of course, let us not forget the Holocaust. Underpinning all these atrocities is racism, which naturally was also invented by the white race.

So it goes like this: racism is the greatest evil known to man. The white race is the father of racism. Ergo, in order for evil to be eliminated and good to reign supreme, the white race must be destroyed. All this, let it be remembered, when multicultural gospel has it that there is really no such thing as race - it's just a figment of our imagination. No more graphic example could be given of what George Orwell called "doublethink".

But here now is the sweetest/bitterest irony of all. Assuming that the one-worlders achieve their goal of the destruction of the white race and the creation of the chimerical coffee coloured man, it will all have been in vain.

If the history of mankind is anything to go by, societies will always be stratified. To borrow the laconic words of CJ Dennis, 'it's 'ow a man is built'. If the experiences of countries subjected to extreme racial mixing such as India and Brazil are anything to go by, stratification will always be largely informed by shades of colour, the light rising to the surface, the dark sinking to the bottom (how many coal-coloured Tamils make it to Bollywood?), the evenly coffee coloured man therefore remaining an eternal mirage.

The great, fundamental flaw in the scheme of those who would dispose of the white race is that human nature is not simply plasticine in the hands of men who would be gods. It is immutable. This was the stumbling block to Karl Marx and his followers that led half the world stumbling into the catastrophic mistake of Communism. Like the bums waiting for Godot, Marxists waited interminably for the appearance of "New Socialist Man". He of course never arrived. Communism collapsed instead.

That the same catastrophic mistake is being made by the one-worlders is not altogether surprising given that, stripped of the rags of the economic nonsense so beloved by old time Marxists, one finds a uniform cut from the same cloth, its wearer worshipping at the same alter of egalitarianism. Substitute race for class and the picture is complete.

That these people cannot live with the reality of inherent human inequality says more about them than their ideology. It says that their pathology is so severe, so beyond hope, that they must eventually be cut from the body of the human race like the cancer they are in order for there to be any hope at all of a recovery.

FREE MARTIN BRYANT

2010-01-27T16:43:00.001-08:00

"There would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania." Mr Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier at a special State Premiers' meeting, Hobart, Tasmania, December, 1987

Port Arthur in Tasmania has been for many years a popular tourist attraction. Carved out of bushland, with the ocean lapping its foreshores, it is a picture of tranquility. With its manicured lawns, the natural beauty of the place belies its demonic past. The ruins of the penitentiary, the aching heart of the old penal colony are the only reminders of the cruelty that once flourished here - that and a few old pictures of convicts providing the locomotive power on the Port Arthur to Eagleneck railway. Although considered 'humane' by the standards of the day, by ours it could not be seen as anything other than a smoothly administered Hell on Earth.

On the sunny Sunday afternoon of April 28, 1996, as if the settlement straddled an unstable fissure, Hell erupted once again at Port Arthur. It was a normal day at Port Arthur's Broad Arrow Cafe. It was crowded and filled with bubbling conversation and a relaxed atmosphere. That was until, at approximately 1.30, a man who had been having his lunch at a table, rose and took the remainder of his meal outside to finish it. A short time later, he returned, drew a Colt AR15 Commando assault rifle and a spare clip from a blue sports bag and began firing. It is impossible to comprehend, let alone portray the effect of the collision of such sudden horror with such peaceful everydayness. One can only provide the details as conveyed by survivors and deduced by forensic investigation.

The first twelve victims were killed with single shots to the head in fifteen seconds. This kill rate as it is prosaically termed by the military was nothing short of amazing. The fact that each was felled at an average range of twelve feet by a gunman firing from the hip and all the time swivelling as a precaution against counter attack was equally amazing.

The weapon of choice, the Colt, was the perfect tool for the job. Firing a small, 5.56 (.22)calibre round at extremely high velocity, it packs enough kinetic energy to blow apart human heads like over-ripe melons. This is exactly what it did in the Broad Arrow Cafe.

After moving into the souvenir shop of the cafe seeking further victims, the murderer's total indoor tally was twenty killed (nineteen head-shot) and twelve wounded - 32 killed or injured with 29 rounds. Several people had been hit with bullet shards and bone fragments from other victims.

The gunman had stopped at round number 29 for good reason. He was using 30 round clips. With one round still in the chamber, he was able to change clips without, again, leaving himself vulnerable to counter-attack.

An eerie silence pervaded the scene of the carnage. The moaning and crying of the wounded was audible but this was nothing in comparison to the concussion-inducing roar of the muzzle blast bouncing of the walls of the contained space.

The gunman waited some minutes before leaving his blood-soaked sanctuary for the uncertainty of the outdoors. The official version has it that he left the cafe immediately after firing the last shot but this has been disputed - like so much else in the official version.

Wendy Scurr, a trained nurse who worked at Port Arthur as a tour guide was one of the first into the cafe after disregarding a bullet whining past her head a short time earlier. She was accompanied by two people she had trained in first aid. In her nursing career Wendy had been confronted by truly horrific scenes, but none like this. She would suffer classical post traumatic shock for many years afterwards. Blood fills her memories - the strong smell of warm blood, blood squelching underfoot, blood-spattered walls and blood dripping from the ceiling. She remembers a human brain resting in a plate of potato chips. She remembers an Asian couple sitting at a table - the woman with a piece of cutlery in her hand, the man with a finger through the handle of coffee cup - looking up from their meal as though surprised. Both had neat bullet holes in their foreheads.

Once out in the car park the man, as casually as a golfer selecting a more suitable iron, switched to a Belgian FN SLR .308 This is a heavier weapon - a driver instead of a five iron, but unlike the marginal readjustment needed switching between clubs, the behaviour between the two weapons because of weight and kick was considerable. It was of no consideration though to this particular marksman who did not appear to miss a beat. More killed and wounded dropped where he found them. Echos of the rifle shots rolled across the open space.

He then got into a Yellow Volvo and drove toward the toll booth at the entrance to the Port Arthur Historic Site. The Volvo belonged to a local man named Martin Bryant. Bryant, 28 at the time, is intellectually disabled. With with an IQ of 66 and the mental age of an eleven year old, he is literally a moron.

It was then that by the unkindest twist of fate that he spotted 36 year old Nanette Mikac running with her two daughters away from the Broad Arrow Cafe to presumed safety. He stopped the car, got out and aimed the rifle at the woman who was holding her youngest daughter, three year old Madelain, in her arms. Ignoring her pleas for mercy, he killed them both with a single bullet. Six year old Alanah - the girl with stars in her sky blue eyes, the girl with a sign hanging on her bedroom door proclaiming 'Future Miss Australia - ran for her life. It would last only several seconds though as he fired again and cut her down.

The shooting, up to this point, had lasted just 17 minutes. Just four minutes before it had started, the only two police in the area had been lured to the remote location of Saltwater River on a bogus tip-off concerning a stash of heroin which turned out to be soap powder. The informant had chosen to remain anonymous and had taken the trouble to call the local police rather than 000, the emergency number that records all calls. It would take at least 30 minutes to return to Port Arthur from Saltwater River. The police being so far away also meant there'd be no-one to raise the draw bridge connecting Port Arthur to the rest of the peninsular it was separated from, thus effectively sealing the area. This is just one of the many factors that have caused many to doubt that the right man received retribution for this horrific crime - the worst in the nation's history. Could Martin Bryant, the man who was charged with its commission and has sat for almost fourteen years in Risdon Prison with no hope of release, be the wrong man? Could a man with an IQ of 66 be capable of such meticulous planning?

The man in the Yellow Volvo sped towards the toll-booth at the entrance to the Port Arthur Histrorical site where he stopped and killed four more people. He got back into the car and continued in his quest of extinguishing human life wherever he found it. Perhaps for a distraction, or to break the monotony, he also killed two cars that day. Adopting a free-standing position like a hunter stalking fast moving big game, he brought them, at range, to a halt with single shots to the engine blocks.

Abandoning the Volvo with a Daewoo combat shotgun in the boot, the killer commandeered a BMW and took one of its occupants hostage. He originally intended to take the female companion hostage but the man, Glen Pears, had offered to take her place. He then blasted the hysterical woman.

The action then moves to the Seascape Cottage guesthouse where the final scenes will be played out. The guesthouse belongs to David Martin and his wife, acquaintances of Martin Bryant. It's rumoured that bad blood exists between Bryant and the Martins. The official version of events has it that the Martins were Bryant's first two victims earlier in the day but this isn't possible. At 10.40 AM, when Andrew Simmons and his wife Lynn were standing outside their house directly opposite the Seascape, they heard several shots coming from the guesthouse. It was around this time that Gary King, an employee at the Shell service station at Forcett, 58 kilometres away, remembers serving coffee to Martin Bryant.

The gunman takes his hostage into the Seascape and barricades himself in. Some time later the BMW is reported burning nearby. The Beamer was evidently torched by a policeman to prevent it being used as a getaway vehicle. This seems extreme though. What was wrong with the tried and trusted method of bullets in tyres? Could it have been rather to obliterate the fact that not one Martin Bryant fingerprint would be found on it?

Back at Port Arthur pandemonium rages like bushfire. Wendy Scurr had set up a triage system with her volunteer helpers. Curiously, but as a graphic illustration of what she has to live with, she blames herself to this day for abandoning a man as beyond help who against the odds continued to live and apparently still does. She describes a surreal scene of people kneeling in pools of blood, desperately trying to staunch the flow of it while at the same time another volunteer picked his way through the bedlam delivering cups of tea. Wendy and her helpers were working under extreme stress, not knowing where the shooter was, and expecting him to return at any moment. At around this time nerves must have almost snapped like rubber bands at the sound of three more rifle-shots. Later examination of the time-line revealed that at this exact time the swathe of death had already come to halt at the Seascape Cottage. So who fired the three shots at Port Arthur? It remains part of the fog of mystery.

Feeling naturally under imminent threat of execution, Wendy and her people had desperately being trying to contact police even as they fought to save lives. No police arrived. Then the sound of a helicopter landing raised hopes and turned the tide of draining courage. The chopper though dropped off only two police officers then quickly returned to Hobart. Wendy says these police were unarmed but as all Australian police sport side arms, she apparently means they were lacking the type of weaponry needed to take on someone armed with assault rifles. The officers did the best they could to help. No police arrived in force until six hours after the slaughter began although ambulances were beginning to arrive. The tardiness of the police presence is inexplicable except for two alternatives: either those in charge were consumed by an inordinate concern for the safety of their brothers in arms, or they were responding to pressure to stay away from the crime scene until the perpetrator/s had gained safety. Neither reflects well on Tasmania Police.

When Walter Mikac arrived and saw the bodies of his wife and two little girls, his reaction was predictable: he was instantly transformed into someone else, someone howling, crying, deranged, beyond reach.

The police surrounded the Seascape Cottage just before nightfall and settled in for a siege that would last until the return of daylight. As there was no way in or out, and Martin Bryant would stagger on fire from the blazing building in the morning, it was obvious that he was inside the guesthouse at this point. It is though incomprehensible why Bryant, who had apparently been smart enough to decoy police away from Port Arthur, wasn't smart enough to flee the area altogether given the incredible length of time it had taken for appropriately equipped police to arrive. But who else was inside beside Bryant and his supposed hostage? There had to be at least one other person because at the very same time that Bryant was calmly talking to police by phone, rifle shots were ringing out from the same location - at least 20 in total as recorded in the negotiator's tapes. As Bryant would have been flat out chewing gum and tying his shoes up at the same time, who was doing the shooting? At least 250 shots were fired from the Seascape that night. No-one was hit.

As foreshadowed, the Seascape went up in flames at around 8.15 in the morning. Who set fire to it. Bryant? Even to someone with an IQ as low as his, it would not have made a great deal of sense to set fire to the building inside which you happen to be residing. The police? If so, this would appear to be just a little bit rash given there was a hostage inside. Martin emerged with the clothes on his back on fire. This is unusual for someone escaping from a burning building. Usually the flames are more evenly distributed. Was Bryant lying face down on a floor, perhaps drugged, when the fire started, only to be awoken by the pain of his back burning? If this was, in contradiction of the lone nut theory, in fact a conspiracy, it would obviously have been much more convenient for Bryant to have died in the fire.

The bulk of the information related here is taken from two main sources: Deadly Deception at Port Arthur, by the late Joe Vialls, a freelance investigative journalist, and Deceit and Terrorism, by Andrew MacGregor, a former Victoria policeman. Although disagreeing on several fundamental points, both books raise profoundly disturbing questions and come to the same conclusions: Port Arthur was the result of a complex conspiracy and that the name, Martin Bryant should rate alongside Lee Harvey Oswald's as a synonym for the American word, patsy. Contrary to the open and shut case conducted by the media, not one shred of DNA, ballistic or fingerprint evidence links Bryant to the crime.

After examining the cases presented by both writers, particularly Vialls, it is impossible to believe that Bryant was the shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe. It could be said that the real perpetrators outsmarted themselves and made a grievous mistake in employing a killer with such lethal efficiency. Indeed, as Vialls emphasises, the skills demonstrated in the cafe would be possessed by only a handful of Special Forces types world-wide. The shooter, it will be remembered, was firing from the hip and spinning while correcting from the recoil with every shot. Bryant is left-handed. He had had no military training. His firearms experience had been limited to knocking a few cans off a fence with a single shot Webley Osprey, firing from the shoulder, as most do to have any chance of hitting anything.

It will also be remembered that nearly all the victims in the Broad Arrow were shot in the head. This would also be the result of special military training, taking into consideration the possibility of adversaries wearing bullet-proof vests. Coincidentally, the dimensions of the cafe were very similar to the spaces in which such outfits as the US Navy Seals and Delta Force practise diffusing hostage situations.

Bryant never had a trial. Even if he had, the possibility of a fair one would have been beyond him as his photo had been flashed world-wide and was appearing on TV screens virtually before the gun-smoke had cleared. This was an outrageous example of witness identification being corrupted. It is for this very reason that police usually go to extreme lengths to prevent such an occurrence. Although the photo was obtained through dubious means, no-one was ever charged or even reprimanded.

Initially, Bryant steadfastly pleaded not guilty. For a mass murderer, virtually caught red-handed to be pleading not guilty seemed remarkable at the time, but then again, in the anger and confusion most were accepting the accounting at face value. In spite of being kept in solitary confinement for long periods, Bryant continued to plead not guilty for five months. His original barrister then mysteriously resigned to be replaced by John Avery, who, to paraphrase Andrew MacGregor, immediately began working for the Prosecution by badgering Bryant to change his plea to guilty. Bryant still held out. According to Tasmanian reporter, Mike Bingham, it was only after Bryant was visited by his mother and told that unless he pleaded guilty to spare her the pain of a trial, both she and Bryant's sister, Lindy, would commit suicide, that he caved in.

Adding to Bryant's egregious denial of justice was no less than the Prime Minister who urged that no Coronial Inquiry be held, ostensibly to spare those involved the pain it may cause. As a barrister he would have been in no doubt that this was highly prejudicial to the case of someone charged with any crime. This was nothing short of an act of contempt as it is defined. Radio commentators have been gaoled for less. Howard of course wasn't. Australian law dictates that a crime involving the deaths of foreigners, as this one did, necessitates a Coronial Inquiry.

Both Vialls and MacGregor add many strange pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, perhaps the strangest being the procurement by the Tasmanian government shortly before the massacre of a mortuary truck capable of carrying 22 bodies - the only one of its kind in Australia. Why would one be needed in tiny Tasmania, probably the least violent, most uneventful state in the Federation? It was sold several years after the massacre, apparently having served its purpose. Here is the advertisement that appeared on the internet in September 1999:

Vehicle for Sale.
Genuine Enquiries only.
Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with refrigerated body, holds 22, this vehicle was primarily used as the disaster vehicle in the Port Arthur Massacre. This vehicle is currently for sale and all reasonable offers will be considered. The vehicle has value as not only a refrigerated unit for body removal, it is the only one of its kind in the entire country. The "memorabilia" value of it for anyone making a movie/series or writing a book on Port Arthur is limitless. Not only would the purchaser be getting the disaster vehicle, but the whole Port Arthur Story would be given as well.
This vehicle is currently for sale and all REASONABLE OFFERS will be considered.
Email cwright@trump.net.au

In May 1996, Tim Fisher, the then Deputy Prime Minister said something singularly strange. Addressing a meeting of professional shooters in Alice Springs, he said, "If we don't get it right this time, the next time there is a massacre, and there will be, they'll take all our guns of us." As it transpired, we did get it "right". 400,000 rifles were handed in and destroyed - not stored in case our almost non-existent defence forces needed help in defending the country, but pulped. It required merely the deaths of 35 people and the wounding of another 22.

But who were "they"? This seems to imply a force or power external to Australia. Is this how our government was cowed into obfuscation and cover-up? Was it blackmailed? Would the terms have been along the lines of "either disarm your population or expect mass killings until you do"?

Understandably, most people would reel away from this possibility in absolute horror and disbelief. But they should at least part the fingers across their eyes to look at least briefly with an unflinching gaze. If they were to do this would realise that the Port Arthur atrocity had all the hallmarks of a classic psy-ops in the parlance of those familiar with such exercises: psychological operation designed to attain political goals through terror. They are commonplace but the big ones stand out. The allowance of the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Roosevelt gang in order to gain entry to World War Two is one. What was the sacrifice of 2,400 American citizens in the grand scheme of things? 911 was another - an obvious inside job, or "false flag" operation as its known in the trade. This effectively justified and facilitated an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation. Port Arthur may one day be seen as our 911.

The white-hot, burning question remains: who was responsible? We'll probably never know. It's worth though considering certain realities. Disarmament is considered by the UN to be almost a holy crusade. They do not however mean the disarmament of nations - not yet anyway. First things first, and the first thing here is disarmament within nations. As the Stormtroop division for world government, this illustrious organisation is painfully aware that even though you can fool most of the people most of the time, there will always be a hard core of those who will not toe the line. Worse, they may inspire others to emulate them. As the heat from the blow-torch comes nearer, these intransigents who refuse to bow down will become more and more dangerous. Therefore, it is axiomatic that a prerequisite for world government will be universal disarmament of the citizenry.

But why Australia? As Graham L Strachan points out in his book, Globalisation: Demise of the Australian Nation, Australia is probably the most globalised nation on Earth, having effectively surrendered its economic sovereignty. He goes as far as to say that the country has become a kind of guinea pig - a test case. So far, we are passing that test with flying colours. Our 'government' will always do as its told.

It can't happen here no longer applies to Australia. We are no longer the cosy country safely insulated from the nastiness taking place in the rest of the world. If it can happen anywhere, it can happen here. Welcome to globalisation. Welcome to being seamlessly woven into the world-wide web of evil.

In memory of Joe Vialls
and the 35 killed at Port Arthur

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies1.htm
http://www.nogw.com/download/_07_port_arthur_coverup.pdf
http://www.2012.com.au/DAT.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread515668/pg1

WHERE ARE THE GIRLS?

2010-01-25T18:30:00.000-08:00

This is the time-honoured enquiry made by young men arriving at a party where the presence of the opposite sex isn't immediately apparent. The same enquiry may also be made in relation to the glaringly apparent absence of the fairer sex in what the media like to term 'the extreme right wing of Australian politics'. What is meant by this is nationalism.

If the right to left political continuum could be colour-coded - blue for boys and pink for girls - the right end would be a deep blue, the centre would be lilac, and on the left would be a fair amount of pink speckling. If validation of this theory were needed one would only need to attend, say, a meeting of International Socialists, and then visit a meeting of anti-immigration enthusiasts and compare the results. At the Nuremberg-like, mother of all get-togethers of over-enthusiastic anti-immigration enthusiasts at a certain beach-side locality several years ago, only a sprinkling of pink petals bobbed in a swirling sea of testosterone. Why is it so? as an eccentric, televised scientist used to ask as the experiment gave the repeatable result yet again.

A quick search of the internet reveals a depressing lack of research into this phenomenon. This perhaps could be ground-breaking investigation. A premise this exploration will assume, much to the chagrin of feminists who constitute many of pink sprinkles on the left (so it doesn't matter) is that there are fundamental differences between the sexes apart from the obvious physical ones. The physical differences being so pronounced, it should not surprise that men and women also inhabit different mental worlds. Biology is destiny (this is fingernails scraping on a blackboard to Feminists).

Why would it be that the Left is attractive to females? For starters, that is where Feminism is situated on the political spectrum. It should be borne in mind that we are discussing here the New Left - not the musty old Left that died with history's failure to conform to the prediction of capitalism's collapse, not to mention the collapse of its home in the Soviet Union. What we are indeed concerned with here is the New Left. Along with Feminism as its star recruit, the New Left is concerned with every shade and hue of 'social justice', with perhaps the sole exception of the injustices still suffered by white, working class men. They evidently ended up in the dust and rubble with the Old Left. High ranking union officials like to pretend that that isn't the case, but to paraphrase the once lovely Mandy Rice Davies, they would, wouldn't they - given their pampered, jet-setting life styles.

Within the Left there is a curious twist. Notwithstanding its thorny, knotty nature, it was resolved with silk-like smoothness. How it was done must remain one of nature's impenetrable secrets. The conundrum was the towering contradiction posed by Feminism's strident defence of 'women's rights' confronted by the Left's general championing of multiculturalism which, by definition, had to include the brutal trampling of women's rights that is the hallmark of our growing Islamic sub-culture. Without discussion, without riotous, blood-spilling committee meetings, this issue seemed to be resolved the way a flock of birds suddenly, without communication, decides to change direction. This pocket of resistance was quietly surrendered to the enemy. Multiculturalism trumped Feminism. Like the pedophile uncle, this matter is never discussed.

With its perennial and 'selfless' concern for society's victims, it is perhaps only natural for the Left to be a lure to women who after all are the carers and nurturers of the race. This should not be a controversial statement but in a world sadly turned upside down, it is. How though could they not be carers and nurturers by nature given the role they play in the incubation and care of the race's new arrivals. Unfortunately this natural bent has been exploited many times over for commercial and political gain. The historically low wages and poor conditions of nurses is an obvious example. Using women to inspire men go to war is another. If woman, who is a gentle pacifist by nature, is urging men to go to war, that war must be an entirely just and unavoidable enterprise.

There are of course exceptions to the rule. Our self-styled antipodean Joan of Arc, Pauline Hanson, personified that exception. It could possibly be argued though that it was precisely because of her rarity as a woman on the wrong side of the political tracks that she became such star - a created star at that - created by the media which once they had discovered that the creation was a monster, did their level best to kill it.

While Pauline's trajectory was arcing across the firmament, a parallel career was virtually flat-lining below it. This was the challenge extended to the political establishment by Graham Campbell, a rogue Labor Party politician and former minister who continued to hold the federal seat of Kalgoorlie as an Independent. Campbell was immensely experienced and was loaded with the concomitant political savvy. He was saying most of the same things as Hanson, only much more intelligently, but because of his being ignored by the media and 'starved of oxygen', be died a slow, political death.

Scientific fact: whereas men think predominantly with the brain's left hemisphere - the home of cold hard logic - a woman's thinking is shared evenly between the left and the right hemisphere which is where we are thinking when we are said to be thinking with the heart. To present a hypothesis, which admittedly would be extremely difficult to test, we need a lifeboat packed with passengers who've just escaped a sinking ship. In the water surrounding the boat other survivors are struggling, screaming for help and trying to get into the boat. If those already in the boat were all female, the struggling unfortunates would be helped into the boat. If those in the boat were all male, it would be quickly realised that if any more were allowed to board the boat it would sink and no-one would have any chance of survival. Accordingly, steps would be taken to prevent that eventuality even if it meant smashing heads with oars. The left side of the brain would be whirring with rationalisations about the greater good. The monster of a moral dilemma is neatly resolved. The ladies' boat is headed for the bottom.

In modern times though, it must be admitted, women have toughened up, but largely in the wrong direction through having been led up the garden path by Feminism. Most women, at least to some degree, have been affected by what has been called 'an ideology of pure selfishness'. While initially addressing long standing injustices, it veered off, once the injustices had been for all intents and purposes remedied, into where all causes based on victim-hood end up: in a perpetual war against a largely non-existent enemy. The non-existent enemy in this case was of course men - all men. The energy this struggle sapped from women left little to be used in the fight against real enemies. The all pervading 'awareness' of 'patriarchy' and men in general as the oppressors left little room on the mental screen for projecting the image of a tyrannical, global elite hell-bent on usurping the natural rights of men and women everywhere, and busting nations in an insane pursuit of transforming the world into one, great serfdom.

To be sure, that this could be happening, at first sight, seems so breathtakingly incredible that it is not difficult to see why it is dismissed by so many as paranoid delusion. That this perception could be easily swept aside by means of even the most rudimentary research - needing of course motivation in the first place - goes without saying. But perhaps a more important aid in lifting the curtain on what is coming is a capacity for abstract thinking - the ability to see what isn't. Judging by the huge male preponderance in the fields of philosophy and invention, it may not be too outrageous to claim that men may be just a little more gifted than women in this department. (Before the high-heeled shoes begin being thrown, the much fabled women's intuition is duly noted.)

To be able to see what isn't, one needs to be able to extrapolate from what is, as well as current trends (especially when those trends show no sign of ever stopping or changing course) to see what will be. Agreeing in advance to the obvious poor value of anecdotal evidence, strong motivation urges the inclusion of just one small sliver. When a young, intelligent woman was told that Australia's current immigration policies would eventually lead to Australians becoming a minority in their own country, she was scornful. 'Do you really think that could ever possibly happen? she wanted to know. Because Australia since its settlement has been an essentially white country, she was assuming, notwithstanding rolling breakers of third world immigration, that it would always be so. To someone extrapolating from current trends it was obvious that it wouldn't.

The same woman apologises profusely whenever expressing anything that could even remotely be construed as a 'racist' sentiment. Whenever this happens, one cannot escape the feeling that this reaction is identical to that of a religious person on letting slip a heresy. This leads to another possible reason why women are essentially uninterested in nationalism.

To anyone with experience of raising or teaching girls it would be readily apparent that they are different to boys - in terms of their being better behaved - girls good, boys bad. When girls turn into women they retain their predilection for being good and being perceived as good. It's not for nothing that they have been termed 'God's police'. When, for example, Western society was still strongly influenced by moral values, the demarcation line between 'good' girls and 'bad' girls was as clearly defined as the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsular. Many's the man who married the girl of his dreams simply because it was the only way to fulfill that dream in the carnal sense.

Times sure have changed but maybe not in women's still wanting to be good in whatever way society deems 'good'. With media, the education system, the churches, governments and bureaucracies lecturing us to the point of hypnotism on the evils of nationalism, and even worse, being concerned about your race, is it any wonder women may be tempted to avoid this yawning den of iniquity? To some women, being seen leaving one of these nests of nationalist malcontents would probably be worse than being seen leaving a house of ill repute.

On the other hand, there is evidently a sizable proportion of the male population who don't mind being seen as 'bad boys', in fact even reveling in it. This is perhaps where most of society's rebels have come from. This might be where we should be looking for nationalists - provided they have the additional attributes of a capacity for independent thinking and a store of moral courage.

So now at least we might have some idea of why the girls are missing from the party. However, as Mr Marx (not Groucho) so succinctly put it: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however, is to change it." How do we get the girls to the party?

Angelic, gentle, pure and sweet is how man has seen woman since even when she was covered in primeval mud. But she also has another side, hidden most of the time but nevertheless only quietly dozing. It is terrible and frightening. But how to awaken it?
What does she care about more than anything else in the world - even the one who thinks he is number one? It is of course her children. It is for these she will fight like a tigress, and if necessary, gladly die.

It must somehow be communicated to the women of this country that the future is extremely uncertain at best, and as perilous as a battlefield at worse. A dark future, perhaps difficult to see now, is nevertheless heading toward us with gathering speed. As individuals more concerned with shopping, celebrity antics and soap operas than with the survival of our race we are lost. Atomised, the way those who think they own us want us, as we are invaded by those who think and act as collectively as bees in a hive, we have no chance. Our children have no chance. As they come to adulthood in a country that should have been theirs but find instead the ruins of a collapsed tower of Babel where they are the objects of scorn of a hundred different tribes they will scream their rage and pain into the wind: 'Why were we betrayed so? Why such a miserable inheritance?'

By a strange twist of synchronicity, as this essay was nearing completion, the perfect ending was stumbled upon. Provided by F. Roger Devlin in "The ‘Reafricanization’ of the West", American Renaissance, June 2008, it cannot be improved upon.

'Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children.'
(http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/06/index.html)

OPEN LETTER TO THE HONOURABLE TONY ABBOT, Leader of the Opposition. SUBJECT: How to win the next Federal election

2010-01-18T21:46:00.001-08:00

Dear Mr Abbot,

Presumptuousness, even audacity, may be words that spring to mind at the idea of someone in an exalted position such as yours receiving advice from out of the nebulous swirl constituting the general public. I however hasten to point out that, in what we are constantly reminded of as being the great Australian representative democracy, it should not be outside the bounds of decency for one who is represented to be communicating his views to one who represents.

At the risk of rekindling the perception of presumptuousness, if one has in fact arisen, I would like to suggest that from my vantage-point jostling in the crowd, I may be able to discern facts and factors possibly missed by your vantage-point which tends, by its very nature, to see over the heads of that same crowd. This necessary view by a leader tends to cause an unavoidable detachment from those being led. Conversely, it is just as unavoidable for one who is barely a blood-vessel in the body politic to be aware of certain collective moods and attitudes.

The value of my opinion, I like to think, is increased by an objectivity bred over years of disenchantment with the political system, nay, rather a bitter cynicism that culminated many years ago in refusing to take my, albeit infinitesimal, part in the political process by refusing to vote. Why, I reasoned, participate in what I recognised as nothing more than a sham and a farce designed to create the illusion of legitimacy for whichever indistinguishable gang whose turn it was to rule? When the choice we are given, particularly on the issues that really matter, are either cigarette-paper-thin or non existent it is fairly obvious to anyone not drugged with propaganda that we are ruled by a plutocracy acting as a duopoly pretending to be a democracy.

Now with the preliminaries out of the way, I would like to extend to you an invitation to at least alleviate my disillusionment and and convince me to go one step further than having my name marked off at the polling booth when your political baptism by fire takes place.

You can do this by taking a real stand on four key issues. They are climate change, illegal immigration, the double-bunger of legal immigration and multiculturalism, and, believe it or not, Japanese whaling. There is a fifth issue on which you have already declared your position and that is 'work choices'. This declaration needs to be made much more emphatically and unequivocally.

Climate Change
Since Kevin Rudd came slinking back from Copenhagen like a cur with its tail between its legs, you have in many peoples' eyes gained a critically important initiative. The task here is to husband this windfall you have gained in being vindicated by the world's wise refusal to follow Mister Rudd and Mister ... sorry, Mzzz Wong, into cloud cuckoo land. You've already made an excellent start on this by waving away interviewers' inquiries about your 'beliefs' on this subject and maintaining that you are only interested in facts. Hear, hear! Let the other side continue to be the belief mongers - which, because of a Northern winter cloaking Europe and North America in more ice and snow than has been seen since the last Ice Age, has suddenly become an exercise in pushing a very viscous, dark and pungent substance up an exceedingly steep hill.

You really don't need me to tell you what surgical delicacy is needed here in letting the facts speak for themselves to a public drenched in emotion-tearing propaganda but I'll take the liberty in reminding you anyway. Perhaps the best and easiest way to start would be to gently begin to rock the tomb-stone of suppression that has been placed on the huge body of science that, once set free, would argue vociferously against man-made global warming. Of course you should continue as you are in not actually coming straight out and admitting you see anthropogenic global warming as the greatest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. Simply allow the facts, with perhaps a little gentle nudging toward the light of day, to do the persuading.

You have already driven awareness of the great, big tax that would underpin an Emissions Trading Scheme like a stake into the heart of a vampire. Keep driving it; do not let this monster come back to life. Do not for one moment let the electorate forget that this cascade of money would be funding an exercise in utter futility given the piddling amount that we are adding to the fraction of one per cent of atmospheric CO2 compared to the belching smoke-stacks to our North.

But make no mistake, the Australian public wants real environmental protection. Let's call it environmental nationalism ... on second thought, it's probably better not to include the word nationalism in anything as it's become almost an expletive. Be that as it may, Australians would much prefer environmentalism, like charity, to begin at home. It's imperative that we begin to wean ourselves off the idea that it's up to us to save the entire planet. Here is an opportunity to show that your credentials are actually a brighter shade of green than the Labor Party's, and even those of the watermelon Greens (pink on the inside).

For at least a century a startling idea has bewitched the minds of men who can visualise titanic achievements: instead of continuing to allow the the millions of tons of fresh water that flow annually down the Eastern slopes of Queensland's section of the Great Dividing Range out into the sea, diverting it back through the mountains into the great inland river complex ready and waiting to accept and distribute it. The great, central deserts could be transformed into gardens of Eden. Of course there would be the nay sayers giving a myriad of reasons why this couldn't be done, but bear in mind their forerunners were giving very similar reasons why the Snowy Mountains Scheme couldn't be done. The possibility at least deserves a feasibility study. This of course would require a lead given by a man of true vision.

Illegal Immigration
If there were any Australians not embarrassed by the spectacle of an Australian ship tied up for weeks at an Indonesian port until its load of illegals deigned to disembark, then they are beyond embarrassment. This would have had to have been the absolute nadir of softness in 'combatting' this scourge. Any measure whatsoever would have to look like 'getting tough'. And getting tough is exactly what the Australian people want - real toughness and by this is meant that although the measures employed by Mr Howard went some way to halt the invasion of 'boat people', much more is required. The next time a politician gets hairy chested and states that 'we will decide who comes to Australia' he wants to be sure that he is not indulging in a charade sniggered at by more people than he dare to imagine.

The irony of the Indonesian debacle was that after the Sri Lankans hoping to cash in on the benefits of living in the West had finally been induced to leave the Oceanic Viking by promises we can only vaguely guess at, the Indonesians were unashamedly talking about towing future arrivals all the way back to Sri Lanka. Now that's tough.. Why is it that we wouldn't even dare contemplate something that Indonesia wouldn't bat an eyelid about? Could it be because of our paralyzing fear of the giant bogey man squatting in New York, created as the spearhead of world government: the United Nations? You can already hear the squeals and moans emanating from this nest of tinpot dictators if ever we reneged on any of the myriad of agreements and conventions we've signed in a perversion of our own constitution. So what? Spare a thought for the hundreds of UN resolutions ignored by Israel alone - evidently with complete impunity. Once again - why should we be the bunnies? What has the UN ever done for us - apart from siphon off our sovereignty? If the UN so strongly objected to our endeavouring to reclaim some of our sovereignty, then perhaps it might be in our best interest to hand in our resignation. But given that this would be received as such a startling, almost unthinkable notion, it may be best to keep this one from the electorate.

Take a look however at the rising groundswell in Europe where it is sinking in that if things are allowed to continue as they are for for a mere two generations longer there will not be a Europe. Standing on its dead carcass will be Islamic republics. Take a look especially at Italy's new found resolve in dealing with illegal immigrants. No doubt these rediscovered testicles have put a lot of liberal noses out of joint but the sky hasn't fallen in. Italy is exercising its sovereignty and surprise, surprise, isn't being invaded by a European Union army intent on inflicting punitive action for its outrageous behaviour. The United Nations has probably made the requisite splutters but all in all the New World Order has been made to look very much like a paper tiger. Oops, did I just say New World Order? Sorry. We all know that doesn't exist.

Immigration and Multiculturalism
Illegal immigration is the hot-button issue but of course those of us in the know are fully aware that this is just a grain of rice in a cooking bowl compared to the legal immigration invasion washing over us. One really doesn't need to know that we are currently experiencing a record high immigration level - recently estimated at half a million per year when all categories of visas allowing permanent and semi-permanent residency are included. One only has to look at the faces in our cities changing before our very eyes. Remember when we were told that Asian immigration would be kept at such an infinitesimal level that it would never have any effect on the racial make-up of the country? That was a good one!

Just about every poll ever conducted shows that an overwhelming majority of Australians want immigration reduced, if not discontinued altogether. When exactly was it that the meaning of 'democracy' was turned on its head to be interpreted as complete disregard of the will of the majority? Could this be considered an example of Orwellian 'doublethink'? If so, would it not be more honest to jettison the notion of democracy and replace it with something like 'The Republic of We Know What's Best For You'? Paradoxically, the ideal of democracy has become a shabby dirty thing even in the eyes of the elite who are constantly reminding us that it was something our forebears fought for. Any politician today who has the temerity to carry out the will of the people is contemptuously dismissed as a 'populist'. A populist would no doubt be defined as a cynical charlatan; ergo true democrat equals populist equals cynical charlatan.

It would probably be best not to irritate the hopelessly indoctrinated by coming straight out and saying that if elected you will be slashing immigration. It would be far better to couch it in terms of saying that should the economy unexpectedly seriously deteriorate, consideration would have to be given to reviewing the immigration level. This is perfectly reasonable given that during the depression of the thirties immigration was virtually eliminated.

The beauty of this tactic is that a trigger is set in place ready to be pulled at the appropriate time, and you and I both know that the appropriate time is rapidly approaching. Contrary to what the happy talking heads are chirping about in their mindless optimism, an economic storm is brewing which will make the Global Financial Crisis look like a sun-shower.
Here is what Craig Roberts has to say, quoted in an article entitled 'The Economic Pearl Harbor' published in Uncensored, December 2009 - March 2010: 'The worst part of the decline is yet to come. Bank failures and home foreclosures are yet to peak. The commercial real estate bust is yet to hit. The dollar crisis is building. When it hits, interest rates will rise dramatically as the US struggles to finance its massive budget and trade deficits while the rest of the world tries to escape a depreciating dollar.' (Italics mine) Having been an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Roberts should know what he's talking about.

By the same token, it may be a little difficult in straitened economic times to justify the seven billion dollars per year spent on supporting the groaning structure of multiculturalism.
This is the figure given after painstaking analysis by in The Cost of Multiculturalism by Steven Rimmer, a senior economist in the Commonwealth public service. The figure, he hastens to add, includes only those costs appearing on the surface and not those that have been craftily hidden by sleight of hand.

A glance at today's newspaper reveals two multicultural 'success' stories on adjacent pages. One reports on riots at the Australian Open tennis tournament. Riots at a tennis match! This could not have even been envisaged in the time of Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall when Australia in multicultural retrospect is seen as so unendurably boring. The other story concerns the surfeit of sexual attacks by taxi drivers on unsuspecting or intoxicated and trusting passengers, giving rise to the possibility that it may be safer for women to hitch hike home rather than risk coming into proximity with this filth. Strange. This would have been absolutely unheard of when Australian men were driving taxis. This is the 'enrichment' that just keeps on giving. It has to be worth every cent of seven billion.

Japanese Whaling
Like illegal immigrants this is another rolled-gold, hot-button issue. Because we live in an increasingly feminised society, the deaths of whales looms as a far greater threat than the dispossession of the Australian people. But that's OK because you can use this issue to great advantage. Whereas the Rudd government says it will do 'whatever it takes' to end Japanese whaling in our vicinity but does nothing - strong words becoming no more than a pathetic whimper - you should be spelling out exactly the kind of actions you will be taking to solve this problem. Because Japanese whalers are operating in the territorial waters lapping the Antarctic ice sheets staked out by Australia, we have every right to do really do whatever it takes. This could include putting the Oceanic Viking to far better use than rescuing refugees who begin sinking their own boats as soon as it is sighted. Underneath the ship's name is emblazoned the word 'Hobart', signifying that this is in fact its home port. How very conveniently located for action in the Antarctic. The action could involve close shadowing or blocking progress. If this fails to achieve the desired result, surely we have at least one spare warship which really doesn't have much better to do that could be dispatched to the area to foil the Japanese illegality. The very presence of an Australian warship should be more than enough to put out the 'no trespassing' sign. If pain persists, instead of seeing a doctor, what about a shot across the bow. This would be sure to get their attention.

Admittedly this would probably generate Japanese displeasure but this would be negated completely by cheering world opinion. We would be heroes - the one little boy who refused to see the Emperor's clothes of 'scientific research'. On the domestic front, a solid promise along these lines would be a tonic to a people who have become extremely tired of feeling like another little boy - the one who has his lunch money stolen every day. This would be win, win, win (except of course in Tokyo). The female vote would be gushing in cascades because of your vow to save the whales and you would also nail the male vote by your promised display of machismo.

Work Choices
Don't even think about it. Declaring a truce in class warfare would pay undreamt of dividends. Bob Hawke, I'm sure even you would agree, was an immensely successful politician. Building bridges between labour and capital was a principal key to his success. At least in this regard, it may pay to take a leaf out of his book.

If you could follow at least some of this advice I may seriously consider taking up voting again. If you don't won't or can't, that will be OK as well because I will be rewarded with the gratification of knowing I was right all along - that Australian politicians are simply puppets dancing on the end of strings pulled by giants in the shadows and that voting is really just political masturbating.

WE'VE ASKED FOR THIS

2010-01-07T20:09:00.000-08:00

At the official level, reactions to this offensive Indian newspaper cartoon that equates Victorian police with the Ku Klux Klan have been varied. Our red-headed acting Prime Minister is positively flaming with outrage according to ABC news of 8/1/10: "Any suggestion of that kind is deeply deeply offensive to the police officers involved and I would absolutely condemn the making of a comment like that," Ms Gillard said. The Victorian police were equally unimpressed. Mr Cameron, the Victorian Police Commissioner said, "This is just terrible ... Victoria Police is a very tolerant organisation and Victoria is a very tolerant state. To suggest that Victoria Police is racist is just plain wrong and it's offensive to the good police we have here in Victoria." Hear, hear Ms Gillard and Mr Cameron. It is about time our officials broke the reflex habit of simply hanging their heads even lower in shame than customary whenever Australia was accused of being a racist country. The Victorian Opposition leader, Ted Baillieu, however seemed to be slipping back into the default mode of appeasement with his contribution: " ... the cartoon is unhelpful, but [I] can understand the anger in the Indian community".

The death of the Indian student in Melbourne that has reignited the issue of Indian nationals being ill treated in Australia is of course tragic. But then again so were the deaths of the Australians in the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, for which incidentally, we didn't blame all of India for something that was beyond their control, which conversely is what is happening now. Bad things happen.

The world class knee jerk reaction taking place in India is to automatically put the blame for the students death, as well as the assaults that occurred last year, onto us notoriously racism-maddened white devils. This is understandable given that people overseas, when thinking of Australians, invariably think of real Australians.

It is yet though to be established who killed the student, the killer's race or the motive. If the earlier crimes committed against Indians in Australia are any indication, there is a better than fifty per cent chance that the killer wasn't a white Australian. Last year's trouble was caused by Indians allegedly encroaching on the 'territory' of Lebanese Muslims who in turn dealt swift retribution.

Historically, there does not appear to be any love lost between Hindus and Muslims. Of those with any knowledge of the 'Partition' of 1947, who could forget those border-crossing trains arriving at Pakistani and Indian stations with packed carriages gushing blood?

But such was the blind faith - that could only be described as religious - of the engineers of Australian multiculturalism who believed they could perform the miracle of bringing to Australia people who would sooner tear each others throats out as soon as look at each other, yet embracing each other like party-goers on Ecstasy as soon as they landed. Perhaps it had something to do with what they were really putting in those aerosol cans being used to spray the passengers of the jets as they dropped down through the Australian clouds.

More than twenty five years ago Professor Geoffrey Blainey predicted such developments as those now involving the Australian Indian community having serious diplomatic ramifications.
He actually went further. To paraphrase, he foresaw an event such as a powerful nation sending forces into Australia in response to perceived brutality being committed against its nationals or racial kin in Australia. This is not such a far-fetched scenario; it has historical precedents, one of the most notable being Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia in response to the alleged ill treatment of Sudetenland's ethnic Germans. Whether the ill treatment is a pretext or not matters little to the country that has been invaded.

Of course in India there is very little understanding of racism. It's very rare - about as rare as a Chicken Tandoori. 'The [Indian] ... doth protest too much, me thinks.' Taking the high moral ground, it might be hoped, raises him above the rankest hypocrisy. India, for centuries, has been riven by religious, class, caste and racial conflict. Its class system is colour-coded with the lighter skinned rising to the top while those at the other end of the spectrum such as the coal-black Tamils sink to the bottom.

We were given the briefest of insights into this mentality when an Australian non-white cricketer was constantly called a monkey by Indian cricket crowds and even by at least one Indian cricketer. (This may have been what drove him to drink.)

India's 160 million 'harijans', as they were called by Ghandi - better known to us as 'untouchables' are so despised they barely make it into the category of human being. In the caste system they do not even make it on to the first rung of the ladder. When they die, they are not worth the cost of a cremation and even if the wherewithal could be raised it would be frowned upon because cremating someone lacking a soul would be considered a form of sacrilege. At the ancient, holy city of Varanasi on the Ganges where the constantly performed cremations earn the departed a release from the wheel of birth, death and rebirth, the bodies of untouchables are simply flung into the river for the vultures that are quick to spot a free feed.

This attack on us by India is a most egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is however a type of poetic justice after years of sack-cloth wearing and self-flagellation over our terrible, racist past and the constant implied begging for forgiveness from our coloured, northern brothers. Can we really begrudge a few free kicks such as might be aimed at a man who flings himself to the ground as soon as the fight begins?

A damaged church, seen in the village of Raikia, India, after it was allegedly stormed by Hindu fundamentalists, on August 31, 2008. Indian authorities insisted they had halted deadly clashes between Hindus and Christians in the east of the country that have exposed it to stinging criticism. At least 10 people have died and thousands have fled their homes as a result of the violence in the coastal state of Orissa, with the Catholic church accusing police of failing to protect defenceless priests and nuns.

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

2009-12-30T19:13:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MULTICULTURAL MYTHS ... and cold, hard reality

2009-12-27T06:47:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEWARE THE REPUBLIC

2009-12-24T16:40:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASIANISATION: still just a figment of our imagination?

2009-12-11T17:43:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Asianise or atrophy' (Professor Stephen Fitzgerald)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN MUG

2009-11-30T23:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-27T19:08:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-27T14:18:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-18T15:31:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-08T14:44:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-07T00:23:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-06T16:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T16:56:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-11-03T03:09:00.000-08:00

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?