AUSTRALIAN LIBERTY ALLIANCE: The Dark Horse

Here's a breath of fresh air: a politically incorrect political party.  Given the events occurring in various parts of the the world including ours, it may just encapsulate an idea whose time has come.  Naturally it's receiving the full blast of vitriolic vile that supplants reasoned argument for the intellectually challenged whose brains are still glowing from a full wash and spin cycle, but this of course should be worn as a badge of honour.  The Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA), as are similar but more aggressive, street-wise organisations eschewing parliamentary politics, is an essential counter balance to the growing strength, confidence and hostility of Islam in Australia. (A desire to avoid a gag reflex as well as a feeling of being violated prevents the use of the term, 'Australian Islam' as there is nothing Australian about Islam and never will be. Islam is diametrically opposed to everything for which Australia stands. )

 Apologists for Islam, leftists and fellow travelling masters of the dark art of duplicity are indefatigable in pointing out the existence of warm, cuddly 'moderate Islam'. Let it be emphatically stated, no such creature exists.  It is as mythical as a mermaid.  In reality, 'moderate Islam' is either one of two things: it is either made up of the lackadaisical type who doesn't take Islam that seriously and probably hasn't read the Koran and so is not a real Muslim but an apostate and therefore fair game for ISIS decapitation squads, or it is the second much more dangerous variety.  This is the type who cleaves to the advice given in the Koran to use all manner of deception in dealing with the infidel when to do otherwise would be disadvantageous.  It's a numbers game.  When the numbers are still relatively low it makes good sense to keep a low profile and endeavour to appear as meek and as inoffensive as possible, but as the numbers increase with a proportionate increase in power and in inverse proportion to to the craven appeasement of the host population, true colours begin to be flown.  Instead of reacting to the latest atrocity perpetuated by 'extremist' Muslims with the usual deafening silence - a collective no comment  - mummers of approval begin to be heard.

With Donald Trump poised to become the next US president simply be emulating the boy who could plainly see the emperor was stark, bollocky naked, the ALA may similarly rattle our own antipodean cage by recognising the reality of the blistering hatred Muslims harbour for infidels and the insanity of importing more and more of a fifth column. We watch like rabbits caught in headlights the unhurried, methodical construction of a time-bomb in our midst.

The ALA is a well organised, well funded party poised to run candidates for the senate from every state and territory in the next federal election.  This is a sensible strategy given that it is much easier to win a senate seat than a seat in the house.  Small party candidates have been known to be successful with two percent on the primary vote and even less.

If Kirralie Smith, who will be standing as a senate candidate for NSW, is a fair representation of the general calibre of ALA candidates - and there is nothing to suggest she isn't - the party will not be lacking in fire-power.  She is young, attractive, personable, well educated and an accomplished public speaker.

The party was only launched in October last year in Perth.  On hand to do the honours was Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP and outspoken critic of Islam in Europe (and so naturally has his life preserved by 24 hour police guard).  As the situation in Europe spirals into catastrophe courtesy of an exponentially ramped up Muslim invasion and brings the very continued existence of Europe into question, Wilders is one of the heavy-hitters, along with Marine Le Pen, of nationalist figures to whom more and more people will be turning for salvation.  Wilder's infatuation  with Israel though may not be to the liking of all who oppose Islamisation.

The ALA's platform, although nationalist-lite for understandable reasons of political pragmatism, contains much that would appeal to the great mass of Australian people who are effectively disenfranchised by Lib/Lab bipartisan agreement on the really important issues being of no concern to the people most affected by them.  Multiculturalism is of course the prime example.  Not once have the Australian people been given to opportunity to voice an opinion on a policy that has changed the country beyond recognition to someone just waking from a thirty year coma.  Where the hell am I?  Instead, it has been a top-down revolution forced on the body politic like spinach on a four year old.  The ALA would like to see Multiculturalism scrapped.  And not before time with even the likes of David Cameron and Angela Merkel admitting Multiculturalism is a complete and utter failure (this however did not prevent Frau Merkel from importing over one million Muslims in the last year).

Although seeing Multiculturalism as something dead for some time and for all our sakes would someone please remove it, the ALA has no problem with a multi-ethnic Australia.  This is a realistic acceptance of a  fait accompli.  It also sees the country as a propositional nation or through a prism of what's been called civic nationalism.  Carefully avoided is the once common definition of a nation in terms of race and blood.  Indeed, race, is avoided as much as it would be by those who see it as a 'social constuct' - at least until someone of a certain race is being seen to be discriminated against. Although this would be a bitter pill to swallow for more hard core nationalists, it is again really just political pragmatism.  You don't want to scare the horses.

There is a hole though in the platform wide enough to drive those horses through and that is the complete head-in-the-sand avoidance of Asianisation, as though there is only one way to lose a country - the Islamic way.  Asianisation is an obvious far greater threat and given that the present trend is not in some way derailed we are well on track to be, as Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore once predicted, the poor, white trash of Asia.

Notwithstanding the opinion expressed previously on this blog that voting is the 'democratic' equivalent of pissing in the wind, a vote for this party is probably better than just getting your name marked off.  They stand a very good chance of getting at least one senator elected and this one senator, although obviously not able to actually touch the levers of power, could become a lightening rod as Pauline Hanson once did and as well become a voice for the great silent majority.  The groundswell of support that lifted Hanson did not mysteriously disappear or die off; it is still out there, still quietly smouldering and just needing to be energised by a real chance of something, anything deflecting their course from the brink of the abyss.

WHY VOTE? IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM.

If you were offered the choice of a) walking bare-foot across red hot coals or b) standing for ten minutes in a bucket of ice cold water, you would probably say no thanks, neither of those choices appeal to me.  But if you were then told, sorry but that's not an option, it must be either a or b, you would no doubt be incensed.

Similarly, if you were in a polling station on election day and were offered the choice of Party A or Party B when both parties were equally dedicated to globalisation, replacing the founding race with multicultural goulash, and maintaining an immigration programme which on a per capita basis is one of the highest in the world and aimed at an ever expanding population has even existing social infrastructure groaning and creaking under the strain, not to mention the looming catastrophe resulting in the overpopulation of the world's most delicate continental eco-system you would more than likely say again, no thanks, not interested.  But again you would be told that's not an option, or in this scenario, you don't have to be interested (or even be intelligent enough to understand the issues) you just have to vote.  That's Australian 'democracy'.

But of course the issues outlined above would never be mentioned.  The rationale for this seems to be that because our rulers don't give a flying fornicaton about your opinions on these matters - they are far too important to have you meddling in them - what's the point of mentioning them?

But to keep you biting so to speak, they will give you a choice on inconsequential matters, the type of minutia that dominates televised 'political news'.  If Nero really was in Rome fiddling while it burnt (which he wasn't but it's made for a timeless analogy) the nonsense that is supposed to set A and B apart would be a faithful equivalent.  So much sound and fury will be made of these little issues millions of punters in the body politic will be convinced that casting a vote is really exercising their democratic right to participate in the political process.  'By God, our forefathers fought for the right to vote and I intend to use it.'  Flying well below the radar of consciousness is the fact that in the old Soviet Union, people had the right to vote,  regular elections were held and people could vote for whomever they chose - as long as he was a communist.  Here people have the right to vote for whomever they like as long as he's a globalist who, no matter how much he bleats about the 'national interest', is fundamentally a traitor to Australia.  He, and increasingly she, are never more delirously happy than when strutting the world stage, such as at the recent Paris conference on climate change, a globalist event if ever there was one, the global warming hoax being tailor made for a 'global solution'.

The most prized gift to the ruling elite from elections is 'legitimacy' - see, they really do love us!  Yes we love them just like the infidel bride loves the the new Muslim husband she has just been sold to.  The vote and the sale are equally bereft of that quaint old commodity: freedom of choice.

But you say, there is a choice; Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, although admittedly identical in appearance, are located at different callibrations on the left/right continuum.  Ha, ha, ha.  I'm sorry.  But the old left/right concept really doesn't cut it any more.  Well, to be fair, it may have meant something in the days of yore before the nation state had been slated for the garbage can of history by our political and managerial elite, and yes the original Labor Party just like its British counterpart 'grew out of the bowels of the trade union movement' as so eloquently stated by Ernest Bevin, but to the new improved ALP, the white Australian working class might as well have been hurled into the garbage can of history as well. Why else does it so heartily approve of its being replaced?  No, right and left has been replaced by who can dispose of Australia the fastest.  

But you say, there is a choice besides brand A and brand B.  What about the minor parties and independants?  What about them?  Besides their being window dressing?.  None of them have a hope in hell of claiming any real degree of power; at best, they might have nuisance power.  In a proportional electoral system such as is common in Europe minor parties can influence the direction of the country.  But we have a preferential system.  This in effect means that no matter who you vote for outside of A and B, your vote will more than likely eventually land with either one.

At the height of the anti-war movement in the sixties a popular sentiment expressed was 'what if they had a war and nobody came.'  Well, moving with the times, what if they held an election and nobody voted.  One can dream.

NEW NOTES ON NATIONALISM

PATRIOTISM FOR DUMMIES

  Nationalism must be stamped out.  It must be destroyed root and branch wherever it appears.  It is the smallpox of political philosophies and so must be eradicated.  Failing that, it must be somehow contained.  Ideally, if all the nationalism befouling the world and poisoning the very air we breath could be somehow compressed and put into a box, something like Pandora's, we may just survive.  But it must be strong, constructed from at least six inch thick tungsten steel and wrapped in chains of uranium.  Never mind Pandora's box, because if the evils contained in the box marked 'NATIONALISM' escape, there will be real trouble.  So would say those dedicated to constructing the globalism of the New World Order.  To paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies - older readers may remember Mandy as
 one of the fun loving girls who almost brought down a British government - they would say that wouldn't they? 

After all, being up to the elbows in the dirty work of dismantling nation states and and winding down national sovereignty, the last thing you'd want would be to be hit in the face by a scalding hot gush of escaping nationalism.  The power of what that can do has been witnessed many times through history.  The next thing you'd know would be the explosive anger of millions wanting their countries back.  And worse!  They still have a copious amounts of fire-power.  Not enough urgency or creativity was shown in the staging of all those mass shootings to convince gun owners to disarm.

But to get the full flavour of nationalism in all its supposed 'evil' guises, one really need go no further than George Orwell's essay, Notes on Nationalism.  It should be noted from the outset that few would have more respect for the great prophet than I, but Orwell like the rest of us was a product of his time.  His essay was written in May of the last year of the greatest cataclysm to ever befall mankind, and for which nationalism was held to be the chief culprit.  When thinking of nationalism in this time it would have been all but impossible to avoid conjuring up images of dictatorial, goose-stepping, would be world conquering fascism.  Now I admit that parallels, indeed similarities  between nationalism and fascism exist, but we'll get to that later.

So what exactly did Orwell say?  For starters, here's how he defined nationalism: 'By "nationalism I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad'.  It's pretty much down hill from there.  For instance: 'Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.  Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but is also - since he he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself - unshakably certain of being in the right'.  I'll grant the serving something bigger than the individual ('no man being an island') but why should this entail monomania?  Nationalism, according to Orwell is a mental disease one must be constantly on guard against being 'infected by'.

The world has changed so much since Orwell wrote this essay, which in the entire thirteen  pages he could find not one kind word to say about its subject, it is hopelessly obsolete.  In fairness to him, again in his time, the nation state was universally accepted  to be, if not perfect, the closest to perfection that a system could be for protecting and promoting the interests of the like-minded individuals (Orwell's insects if you like) contained therein.  Orwell of course was an intellectual and the job of intellectuals is to attack the status quo.  And some two hundred nation states getting along as peacefully as possible with the embryonic UN  being adjudicator and mediator (as soon as Japan could be atom bombed into eventual co-operation) was the crystalising status quo and one that would continue into the future ad infinitum. In fact, it was the only arrangement that could act as a bulwark to the very horrors he himself  warned about in 1984.

Reinforcing the global confidence of the assured security of the nation state was the Atlantic Charter, that fed into UN Declaration on Human Rights, one of whose eight basic principles was that 'all people have a right to self determination'.  If this right was to mean anything at all the nation state was the only framework in which self determination could be exercised.  If the god of 'democracy' was going to be worshipped, the nation state was the natural cathedral in which this could be done.

With the assumption of the sanctity and everlasting future of the nation state as his premise, Orwell was perhaps right to warn of anything that could lead to belligerence and thus upset international harmony as horrendously as he had seen it so dreadfully wounded, and given that recent history, who could blame him for having a tunnel vision view of the type of nationalism that had seemed to be the catalyst?

But one has to wonder if he really believed the world of 1984 would in many ways actually come to pass, as it has, with the world well on its way to global tyranny with the US NSA hoovering up every crumb of an individual's details, vast global blocs forming, and hate sessions targeting the villain de jour, be it Saddam Hussain, Colonel Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad or Vladamir Putin conducted by the western world's media. 


The world has changed so much, Orwell's version of nationalism is not only obsolete but turned on its head.  For example, here is his distinction between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad): 'Patriotism is by its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.  Nationalism, on the other hand is inseparable from the desire for power.  The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige...'  Although inserting the proviso that nationalism and patriotism are not so easily teased apart and are largely overlapping, I would posit the reverse is true: nationalism is defensive while patriotism, generally the warm fuzzy feeling that fills empty heads, is what needs to be stirred up whenever a government wants to go to war.  Without patriotism and concomitant on-side public opinion, waging war can be extremely difficult.  The result of the Vietnam war for, example, led many to aver the war was lost not on the battlefield but back on the streets, the campuses and newspapers of America.

 Nationalism is what tribalism became when it grew up.  Exile from the tribe was a fate worse than death in which it usually ended.  Without his tribe the individual was nothing.  As a member of a nation it is easier for individualism to be exercised and indeed the sanctity of the individual is a pillar of western civilisation.  But the evolutionary instinct for tribalism remains.  Being part of something greater is a part of being human.  An individual's identity is inextricably interwoven with that something greater.  Unlike flag waving patriotism - my country right or wrong - true nationalism, bereft if threat, lies peacefully like a hibernating bear.  But when it is aroused by danger its power is titanic.  It is self-preservation, the strongest human instinct, multiplied by millions.  As Napoleon observed, men will always fight harder to defend their land than men trying to take it away from them.

History is littered with armies destroyed in the path of fully aroused nationalism.  It was nationalism and not the erroneously blamed communism that kept a third world people fighting and never doubting ultimate victory while all the while being smashed by the B52s of the worlds most powerful nation.

Nationalism's similarity to fascism, which contains no inherent ideology, is that it is a reaction to dire peril, be it oppression by an external power, national and cultural collapse or military attack.  It is true, to give Orwell his due, that nationalism and fascism have at times been harnessed together, the obvious examples being German national socialism and Mussolini's fascism.  The latter being the creation of a political buffoon, failing in the first necessity of winning hearts and minds and collapsing like a house of cards at the first gust of adversity, it is probably more instructive to concentrate on the former.

The treaty of Versailles, most fair minded historians will admit, contained within it the seeds of Hitler's fascism and World War Two.  It led to Germany being seemingly crushed beyond any hope of ever rising from living death.  Could it ever have been resurrected by democracy, especially the decadent Weimar variety?  It had as much chance as democracy being able to deliver the US from its economic collapse without recourse to war.  But with fascism fueled by nationalism, Germany achieved the seeming impossible in a few short years and without the need for war.  By 1938 it was it was the original economic miracle while FDR's New Deal was on life-support.  This was what nationalism in lock-step with fascism was capable of. 

So what are the lessons to be learnt from this?  An extraordinary seismic tension is developing world wide as the tectonic plates of globalism and nationalism drive against each other. The march of seemingly unstoppable globalism is almost evenly matched by outbreaks of nationalism.  This it must be hoped is depressingly frustrating to the globalists, particularly the big setbacks of nationalism becoming rampant once released by historical events such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the splitting of Czechoslovakia as well as the constant agitation of separatists in Belgium, Spain and the UK.

Globalists must also be alarmed at the growing awareness of their Machiavellian treachery.  The great conduit of this is the internet, the development of which is every bit as revolutionary as the upheaval caused by Gutenberg.  Hence, the imminent censorship of the net with the curtailment of 'hate speech' of course being the thin edge of the wedge.  Globalists may also be regretting that in their smugness and hubris they have been in recent years so open about their planned New World Order.  Clinton, George W and Bambi Blair, for instance, spoke about the NWO as though it were as mundane and everyday as just another fiscal policy.    

However, make no mistake, as the we enter further into the endgame, totalitarian clamps will be increasingly screwed down.  Even the most pathological megalomaniac could not make it in one great leap to world-wide tyranny, and make no mistake, world government (for which the NWO is simply the scaffolding) cannot be anything other than tyranny. It can only be arrived at in increments but as growing awareness and nationalism rise in opposition, a quickening pace must be assumed.  We're now in a race, the stakes of which have never been greater in all human history.  If nationalism does not win, it truly will be the end of history.
  

 

AIN'T MULTICULTURALISM GRAND

Unless they have been completely off the grid, most people by now would have heard of the orgy of sexual assault that exploded in Cologne on New Years Eve in the vicinity of the Hauptbahnhof, the city's main railway station and its cathedral. The perpetrators were men of 'Middle Eastern appearance'. North African men were also well represented.  Gee, didn't see that coming.  This filth operated within a mass of accomplices, all told, totalling some 1,000 men.

Cologne was the eye of the storm but similar occurrences were reported in a number of other German cities and and in at least half a dozen other major European cities.  The number of those assaulted in Cologne seems to be increasing with every news report but was around 200 at last count. Two teenage girls were reported raped.  Conflicting reports has those happening in either Cologne or in southern Germany.  To layer disgrace on disgrace, Cologne city officials tried their utmost to suppress news of the mass sexual crime for the same reason the sexual abuse of 1,400 girls and young women by Pakistanis in Rotherham, UK: for fear of blackening the multicultural rainbow and, even worse, appearing to be racist.   But of course this was like trying to prevent water leaking from a sieve.  Social media was lighting up like a forest of Christmas trees and confirmation was provided by a Cologne cop responding to a higher duty and leaking a report that was supposed to remain confidential.

Even then a desperate rear guard action was organised.  Cologne's mayor, Henrette Reker, in a breath taking round about way of blaming the victim helpfully advised German women to take responsibility for their own safety by remaining at 'arm's length' from likely sexual predators and implicitly to dress modestly.  So far, no protest from ultra sensitive feminists the likes of whom were recently in a lather over a West Indian cricketer 'propositioning' a female interviewer on live TV.  Reker's advice was a backwards somersault with twist and high degree of difficulty from the established protocol in regard to would be white rapists - all men being potential rapists according to feminist holy writ - which is that a woman can behave and dress in any way she wants and if this ends badly she is totally absolved of responsibility, 100% of which is dumped on the perpetrator.  Isn't that what the Slut Walkers were proclaiming so loudly and graphically?  Incidentally, would it be safe to assume that future Slut Walks will be toned down somewhat, especially in the vicinity of Islamised areas, at least until thing settle down.

Feminists are eerily silent regarding the entire disgusting outrage.  This has to be further proof that in the pantheon of leftist gods, multiculturalism trumps feminism - even amongst feminists.  This though should be no surprise to those paying attention and who would have noticed that not so much as a peep is heard from feminists whenever such subjects as the chattel status of Muslim women and female genital mutilation are raised.

Tactics used by the culture enrichers in Cologne indicated these attacks were not simply the spontaneous, testosterone fueled loss of control of men crazed by the sight of females not wrapped in black curtains.  On the contrary, tried and trusted methods were used, the same seen before in cities overrun by hate and lust filled believers in the 'religion of peace'; and in Tahrir Square where western female journalists were surrounded and screened off from from being seen by friends or police and any possible chance of rescue.  If the victim eventually escaped after only a humiliating feel-up she could count herself lucky.

This is how one young victim described her ordeal to TV viewers: 'They were full of anger and we had to make sure that none of us were pulled away by them.  They were groping us and we were trying to get away as quickly as possible.' And another victim's account: 'I had fingers on every orifice.'

But perhaps there has been some cultural misunderstanding here.  Maybe this was just a quirky way of people, admittedly not of unusually impressive intelligence, saying, 'thanks so much for welcoming me to your wonderful country.  How can I ever repay you?'

 Baron Bodissay , who described the the mass assault as a 'groping jihad', doesn't think so.  In fact he perceives much more here than what might escape a cursory examination.  To him, it is jihad in a literal sense and not a figurative one.  In this take, the humiliation of a nation's women is being used as rape has been used as a weapon of war throughout history.  God knows, Germany was taught more about this than it ever wanted know by the bestial Soviet army hordes exhorted to 'break the racial pride of German women' by the blood thirsty Jew, Ilya Ehrenberg

If a nation can't protect its women, it knows it is well and truly beaten.  Germany has been reduced to such a sorry state by Frau Merkel and her ilk who refuse to accept reality and continue to slavishly adhere to the suicidal ideology of liberalism, it may well be beaten.  Only time will tell.  

There just may however be a sunny side. With the Camp of the Saints style catastrophe now befalling Europe even the most brain-dead sock-puppets mouthing the mantras taught to them by the juggenauting left via their mouthpieces in the media, educational institutions, and entertainment industry must be stirring a little uneasily.

What happens next in Germany will be decisive.  After fifty years of being cowed by PC like every other white nation and fed an unending diet of blood guilt extending all the way back to the Crusades, will the Germans be able to rally themselves like any non-white ethic group would be after having hundreds of their women violated in this fashion - and rest assured, blood would still be running in the gutters as righteous revenge was inevitably exacted by people who hadn't been castrated the way whites have - or will they roll over and go back to sleep?  Islam is watching and waiting.

AUSTRALIA: THE NEXT SOUTH AFRICA?

FROM THIS



TO THIS

 

With the death of Apartheid in 1994, starry-eyed idealists looked forward to a utopia where Black and White mixed harmoniously in a perfumed atmosphere of freedom, egalitarianism and pure democracy.  Realists not handicapped with rose-coloured spectacles could see what exactly would happen, and has happened.  Of course realists being amongst the most despised groups on Planet Utopia were reviled as bigots, racists, red-necks and would they please remain in the reservation on the lunatic fringe.

Personifying the victim of Left/Liberal treatment of any white person who dares to object to the destruction of his race was Eugene Terre 'Blanche (pictured), leader of the Africaner Resistance Movement or AWB whose arguments were effectively answered by his being hacked to death as he slept Black African style.  Two supposedly disgruntled workers on his farm were found to be the culprits - or so the tale goes.  In both life and death he will always be known as a 'white supremamacist'. This of course is an extremely elastic term and can be used in any eventuality where the white man refuses to lay down and die.

 And laying down and dying is what the white man is now best known for doing in Black controlled South Africa.  According to the Times of London, 4,000 Boer farmers have been murdered, usually in the cruellest ways imaginable since 1994 (or what perhaps should be better known as Year Zero)  White farmers are being murdered at a rate quadruple the rate of other groups.  South Africa in fact has become the murder capital of the world, with a rate of almost 50 murders per day.  This is the kind of incidence 'one would expect in a war zone' according to Dian Kohler Bernard, MP of South Africa's second larges political party, the Democratic Alliance.

As in the US where 'black lives matter', blacks are being killed on an industrial scale by other blacks, but the statistic that leaps out is the black on white murder rate of 95%.  The final solution of South African whites is egged on by no-one less than the president himself, Jacob Zuma who in 2013 led a crowd in the popular hit number describing what awaits whites: 'We are going to shoot them with machine guns, they are going to run… The cabinet will shoot them, with the machine gun… Shoot the Boer, we are going to hit them, they are going to run...'

South Africa is now number one in the world in respect of the crime of rape with Sweden being a hot contender for the title.  It is estimated an incredible half million per year rapes are perpetrated, and admittedly rough estimate given that it's calculated only 9% of rapes are reported.  Given the imbalance of the races in the population, black women are preponderantly the victims but white women are especially prized.  Here it's likely that in addition to sexual gratification and an outlet for violence, rape is being used as it is in war, as a weapon, a way of humiliating the entire group or race to which the victim belongs.

In most parts of the world, rape is simply rape but in South Africa it contains several classifications such as 'corrective rape'.  This is a treatment given to lesbians to 'cure' them of their wicked condition, a kind of tough love.  Another sickeningly common form of rape is that of female children due to the widespread belief that sexual intercourse with a virgin is a sure-fire cure for AIDS.

All this of course is of no concern to the bleeding hearts and do-gooders who campaigned feverishly for the end of Apartheid.  Evidently, to them anything is better than Apartheid, absolutely anything at all.  Just as the banner on the deck of the aircraft carrier behind dopey W proclaimed, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, time to move on.

And so as South Africa follows Rhodesia receding back into the jungle, what does all this have to do with Australia?  More then what most would probably think.  A rationale for driving whites from Africa is that they they are not bone fide Africans.    A white African?  That's becoming as much of an oxymoron as the term 'black Englishman'.  (This is of course shockingly non PC so we need to go back to before PC was invented by the Bolsheviks  when  the term, Englishman was 100% synonymous with 'whiteman')  Similarly,  the term 'European Chinaman' would be a contradiction in terms to 1.3 Chinese.  When the call, 'Africa for the Africans!' goes up we know full well who's in and who's out.

Now here's the kicker: given the Australian elite insisting for many years now, with Paul Keating being one of the loudest spruikers, that Australia is part of Asia and as a type of self-fulfilling prophecy Australia is being rapidly Asianised, how long will it be before hearing the call, 'Asia for Asians' including the part of Asia that was stolen by the white devils (or what the late Lee Kwan Yew predicted we would become: 'the poor white trash of Asia.') A name change will eventually be needed for that part of Asia, something much more Asiany.  That of course would need to be complemented by a new flag and and a new republican constitutional arrangement.  Anything reminding the future white minority of where it had come from and who had pioneered the country would have to go.

But at least it would be unlikely that we would be hunted down and slaughtered by rampaging Negroes.  We would though have a problem with Muslims.  Why would that be?  Simply because we'd have Muslims and anywhere there are Muslims there is a problem.  We will in fact have a lot of Muslims, even if their immigration was stopped, which it won't be, simply because their rate of birth is many times that of ours, and its not beyond the bounds of possibility that at sometime in the future we will be outnumbered by them.  This may seem to contradict the Asianisation scenario however it should be remembered there are millions of Muslims in the country just to our north whose government is in a life and death struggle with Islamism, in this sense, the overthrow of a secular regime and its replacement with a theocracy.  With the resurgence of Muslim fundamentalism sweeping the world, it's anybody's guess just how long a secular government will continue to exist in Indonesia.

Muslim fundamentalists see themselves as the true Muslims, ISIS for example.  As such they view the Koran as the literal word of god.  In that handy manual of how to set the world on the right track, explicit instruction is given to show the infidel no mercy.  If he refuses conversion, it is rightful to kill him.  Similarly, female infidels, being outside the bounds of gods protection, are fair game for rape.  This may go some way to explain the epidemic of rape currently spreading through Europe.

As the lowest of the low in the new Asian order - yes guilty as charged; it was we who stole the land from the original inhabitants, committed genocide, slaughtered the Chinese on the golfields and were generally such arrogant pigs - will anybody really care what happens to the remnants of the white race who no longer really belong in Greater Asia. Couple this with the Muslim perception that the whiteman is his natural enemy - the people who left Islam in the dust and the dark courtesy of a scientific revolution that religion prevented in Muslim lands - and the Crusades talked about as though they stopped happening only a few years ago, their hatred of us is visceral  Who better to spew their bile on?.

If this country does not change course, if the psychopaths and fools who are at the wheel cannot be removed in some way, the famous Chinese curse will be upon us: we will be living in interesting times - very interesting. 


 

IV'E SEEN THE FUTURE - AND IT IS CHINESE

Hurstville. It's a suburb of Sydney, Australia, or at least it use to be. Now it cannot be described as anything other than a Chinese colony. The 2015 Australian Bureau of Statistics population census showed the total of Hurstville's inhabitants speaking either Mandarin  or Cantonese as a first language to be a whopping 47.1% (as opposed to 21.8% speaking English) making the Chinese to be the far and away the dominant ethnic group of the municipality. It is populated by heart-soul-and-mind Chinese enjoying the lush benefits of a stupidly suicidal nation intent on writing itself out of history. The heart, soul and mind remain in Red Flag China, but the body has relocated to a land of the free-booting capitalism so loved by any Chinese worth his salt. Communism, a passing aberration, never really suited and could only be enthroned at the barrel of a gun.

Here the Chinese entrepreneurial spirit can make out like a bandit while at the same time swinging above a multi-billion dollar social safety net. Capitalistic socialism! Why couldn't Mao have come up with something like this? Take a stroll about Hurstville. A brief cruise through will give you a good sense of the Oriental flavour of the place but you need to spend a little time here to appreciate the enormity of what has happened here. It's the numbers. It's a similar experience to seeing a few cockroaches around, then following them to uncover their nest. One can be shocked at the sheer size of the infestation. It will begin to feel surreal. Are you really still in Australia? Or are you experiencing some sort of flash-back to your travels in Asia. You are strongly reminded of your experiences of being immersed in a radically different culture by your instinctive, almost unconscious, searching for someone - anyone - like you, and for that split second, upon finding him, when your eyes lock in racial recognition. Blood-temperature increases just a little along with the rising thought that you have become a stranger in a strange land within your own land. The resentment tastes like burnt ash.

 Our treasonous ruling elite have recently been doing handstands and whooping for joy at the 'free trade' agreement recently signed with China. Some of the fine print has leaked out, such as the allowance for the Chinese to bring along their own labour needed for the construction of whatever projects may be in the offing. Just this one fact alone nicely encapsulates where the benefits would be going: to the Chinese and the aforemention ruling elite - little or nothing to the Australian people but further sorrow at a lost land. This trade deal is only the latest in a one sided association where Australian 'leaders' with the vision of blind men continue to be wildly outclassed by business acumen unfettered by scruples wielded by men who think in centuries rather than the time left to the next election. These deals are no doubt littered with clauses and loop-holes so foul and odious the whole story could never be revealed to the Australian people. The evidence before our eyes though gives us some inkling of the betrayal that has been perpetrated. Go to Hurstville. Go to Kensington. Go to Chatswood. Stroll along George Street from Town Hall to Haymarket. Chinese, Chinese and more Chinese. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe that some secret deal has not been done whereby in exchange for some piddling financial/material reward, our rulers have agreed to receive a substantial chunk of China's excess population. And in terms of excess population, there is plenty more where that came from.

With whites predicted to become a minority in their own country (this is actually being celebrated by left/liberal useful idiots), who will comprise the new management?  This is more a rhetorical question than a real one.  The Chinese are already positioning themselves to be the new brain and nervous system of the country. Simply take a look at who has taken over our selective schools, and at our universities where large Chinese proportions of the student body have imposed their own form of Apartheid.  The scandal of selling off student places that should have gone to our own people and in the process is cheapening an Australian university degrees to the point where they will be worthless is compounded by the fact that foreign students on completing a degree are then given a free pass to residency and eventually citizenship.

It should be borne in mind that, as might be expected in the magical multicultural take on immigration where aliens are encouraged to be remain aliens while pretending to be Australians, overseas Chinese remain Chinese with the important peculiarity of a huge majority of them not remaining simply Chinese but loyal Chinese - loyal to China that is - and even prepared to be agents of CCP foreign policy.  This has been amply demonstrated by frenzied protests by so-called Australian Chinese incensed at Australian Government decisions in regard to China.

The recent insane ninety nine year leasing of Darwin Harbour to a shop-front for the CCP is one indication of long term geopolitical/military strategic planning..  It may take a war with the US but by hook or by crook the People's Republic of China is determined to regain its ancient position as the Middle Kingdom and take possession of what it rightly sees as its share of the world, this time much more directly than a mere suzerainty.

So with the smart Chinese then officially running the show in Australia as it would be the whole slab of the globe that was considered to be the Chinese 'sphere of influence' it would be unlikely the descendents of the creators of civilisation on the great,south land, eventually merely a rump of the original European society, could expect too many favours..  After all, after flagellating ourselves for decades for the evil incarnate that we were, stealing a continent, perpetuating genocide, being so insufferably arrogant as to, for much of our national life, have a 'white Australia' policy, could we really expect any mercy?  All our new lords and masters would be doing would be agreeing with our opinion of ourselves and giving us all we richly deserved.

 Does this seem far fetched?  Then read Amy Chua's World on Fire, especially what she has to say about the ethnic hatred that has dogged the Chinese in every country in which they have appropriated the economy.
 In the countries of South East Asia where the Chinese have gotten hold of the economic levers, regular explosions of ethnic hatred have occurred.  For example, it is estimated that in 1965 up to half a million Chinese were slaughtered in Indonesia. In Malaysia in 1969 ethnic Chinese were burnt alive in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, giving rise to the New Economic Policy which would discriminate in favour of the bumiputra, or 'sons of the soil' (the real Malaysians) and effectively hobbling the Chinese economically (the original reason we ended up with so many ethnic Chinese Malaysians studying at out universities, barred as they were from Malaysian campuses).

It's worth bearing in mind that all these outrages in reaction to the perception in these countries that they were being furtively white-anted and taken over by aliens who would never truly belong happened at a time when the mass murdering Mao Tse-tung had his hands full consolidating power in the homeland and was not in a position to do anything about it.

But how times have changed.  And how Mao would be spinning in hell if he could see the booming market economy his tailored Marxist/Leninist fantasy has transmogrified into and the superpower it has spawned.  It is unlikely that modern China with its present economic and military might would tolerate anything like the anti-Chinese disturbances of the sixties without intervention.  It is even more unlikely it would tolerate any anti-Chinese sentiment in the lands effectively their colonies.  How are things in Tibet these days?

Yet we continue to sleep-walk into the into the dragon's lair.  She'll be right.  We'll continue to watch the footy and the cricket's much more exciting these days. And what a national outrage it was when that sexist cricketer had the temerity to pay a female interviewer a compliment.  We'll guzzle beer and spend up big on four wheel drive leviathans that never get dirty and watch Home and Away and continue to offer thanks to our Hedonism/Consumerism god that the rest of the world with all its nasty problems is so far away from our sun-drenched, tanned blonded beaches.

One day the dreamers will awaken but it will be too late.  We'll effectively have given away our country.  It will be gone without a shot being fired - a phenomenon unprecedented and unthinkable until very recently.  People not that long ago would have fought to the death rather than have their land taken from them.  Of course by then with the  population well in excess of the already excessive 50 million that our pathological business leaders think ought to be a nice, round number, our people would be just another minority group and it would be the height of foolishness to assume that we would be idolised and pampered in the way we have our minorities.  It would be more realistic to assume that we would be treated, particularly if we dared to resist, in much the same way as the Falun Gong are treated in China.  Need an organ transplant?  We've got a Falun Gong around here somewhere.

How would our Aborigines fare?  It's likely they would have something to really whinge about.  The Chinese don't really like black people.  The many Africans now studying at Chinese universities as part of the price paid for Chinese neo-colonialism of Africa are known not so affectionately as 'black devils'.

Perhaps, if the remnants of our people have found a way of saving their history from the obliteration preferred for obvious reasons by their new rulers a raggedy clothed blue-eyed child might be asking his emaciated father how it had happened.

"Well, the signs were there,' his father admits.  They were buying up all the best farmland.  Why, they bought the entire Tasmanian dairy industry.  And big city real estate. That was going off like it was on special at a Boxing Day sale.  Yeah, Boxing Day, that's what it was called when we still had Christmas.  I guess we just weren't paying attention."

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

"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.