despatch@mail.cth.com.au
http://www.cth.com.au/corp/despatch/
P.O.B. 238, Landsborough. Q. 4550. Aust.
Ph. 07 54941672 Fax. 07 54948617
 



 

THE SILENT DESTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIA
IS PAULINE HANSON A RACIST?
by John Burge © Copyright
P.O.B. 324, Mitcham Vic. 3132. tel. 0398744470
First published in 1998
Permission has been granted to place this material on this website,
please seek permission to use this material from the address above.
There is no email contact at this stage.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A2000    Australia 2000.  What Will We Tell Our Children - Dispossessing the world's richest nation.

ANR    The Australian National Review.

TAOA   The Asianisation of Australia.  An Expose of the Asian Future Being Forced on Australia.

ERADA   Economic Rationalism - A Disaster for Australia.

TGB    The Great Betrayal.

HS    The Herald Sun.

NDCC   None Dare Call it Conspiracy.

TWA    The Weekend Australian.
 

CONTENTS:

* Introduction

* Will Australia become an Asian country?

* Immigration intakes.

* What population can Australia sustain?

* Australian taxpayers' money given to foreign countries as "foreign aid".

* The real reasons for attempting to Asianise Australia.

* What life is like in Asia.

* The Lima Declaration - goodbye Australian industries.

* Economic rationalism and foreign corporations not paying taxation.

* The link between - the ALP - Fabianism - Socialism - Communism - the republic push  - the Coalition and World Government.

* Australia is defenceless against military invasion from Asia.

* Can we rely on the USA to defend us?

* Would the United Nations Military defend us or are they a potential enemy?

* Multi-Culturalism weakens our defence against foreign military attack.

* Do we ill-treat our Aborigines?

* Is Pauline Hanson a racist?  What is racism?

* Australian culture and identity.

* The Hawthorn Town Hall

* Conclusion.

* What can one person do?

INTRODUCTION

In 1995 Australia was the richest country on earth (World Bank survey, reported in the Australian, 18/9/95).

If we were the only country on earth, we could easily survive.  With our resources and minerals, we could be self sufficient.  There is no reason whatsoever why we could not all have a high standard of living and health.

Instead, industries have closed down, farmers have been driven off the land and our foreign debt ($224.5 Billion) continues to sky-rocket.  We have massive unemployment, poverty and appalling social problems?

We are obviously not the only country on earth, so we have to look for the reasons for our present disaster.

Are our politicians so incompetent that the richest country on earth is close to destruction?  Has our present desperate situation been deliberately caused?

Australian politicians are elected to represent (i.e., to re-present) the wishes of the people in their respective constituencies and to act in the best interests of Australia generally.  However, certain politicians ignore the people they represent and instead follow orders from their Party hierarchy, and powerful international forces.

The battle for Australia is between those who want Australia to be an economically strong, independent, sovereign country where the politicians carry our the will of the people, and, on the other hand, those who want Australia to be totally subordinated to a centralised world power, with Australian politicians either non-existent, or puppets.

It is about the very survival of Australia, which faces her greatest crisis since World War Two.  The tragedy is that many Australians are unaware of this crisis.

This publication discusses some of these issues.
 
 

WILL AUSTRALIA BECOME AN ASIAN COUNTRY?

In her maiden speech in Parliament on 10/9/96, Pauline Hanson, MHR said that we were in danger of being swamped by Asians.  And after two years of 'so called' debate, this statement is still the subject of bitter dispute.

The question which must specifically be asked is, "Are there plans to turn Australia into an Asian country?"  Let us consider some of the evidence.

Unless otherwise stated, emphasis added to words and phrases in this publication is the author's.

The next few pages contain quotations from a number of sources.
The first few quotes are from the book (compiled by several authors), Living With Dragons - Australia confronts its Asian destiny, 1995, published by Allen and Unwin:

"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, p. 3).

"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..." (Professor Stephen Fitzgerald, p. 164).

"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, p. 171.

"...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, p. 168).

Note:  the Macquarie Dictionary defines 'confederacy' as a group of peoples, parties, or states. (i.e. countries).

The Age, 16/3/98, reported this statement by Phillip Ruthven, Chairman of IBIS Business Information:

"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".

Mr Ruthven is saying, in effect, that we will be governed by an Asian group of countries known as APEC, with no control over our population level, economy or law.

The publication, The Asianisation of Australia - An Expose of the Asian Future Being Forced on Australia (hereinafter referred to as TAOA), by Chris Anderson, 1996, published by The Institute of Australian Culture, PO Box 64, Watsonia, Vic. 3087, contains this statements:

"These regional associations (APEC)...are of the most profound importance.  Far more importance than...our national Constitution.  Our Constitution in 30 or 40 years time will be the APEC Constitution not the national one" (Professor Julian Disney, p. 23).

"Lee Kuan Yew (former Prime Minister of Singapore) sees a steady and inevitable Asianisation of Australia, with our European population ending up as the white trash of Asia.  (The Bulletin 11/12/90, p.87 and TAOA p. 23).  (Could this be construed as a racist statement?).

At this point it is instructive to look at what is happening in another world regional bloc, the European Economic Community (EEU):

Roy Faiers, writing in the Australian National Review (ANR), PO Box 8, Torrens, ACT, 2607, reported:

"Over the past 25 years Britain has drifted like a sheep walking into a frightening situation where a political elite on the Continent, aided and abetted by their dupes in this country (Britain), now call the tune on every aspect of our (Britain's) lives - what produce we buy in shops, what our children learn in school, what crops our farmers grow, when our fishermen can go to sea, how we must weigh our sweets, and our sausages, what measurements we must use for everything from knitting needles to curtains and carpets.  It has now got so bad that only the most drastic remedy can rescue us from the total loss of our British way of life.

"At last the British people are waking up to the creeping menace of this whole European Union nightmare and are desperately asking: 'What can we do about it?'.  They are beginning to realise that it is now very close to achieving its ultimate goal of merging all the continent's diverse nations into one huge superstate - with one President, one Government, one central bank, one currency, one law, one army, one national anthem, one flag, one regimented way of life, and a dozen different languages.

"We did not know that European courts would quickly take precedence over our ancient English legal institutions, and even be able to pass judgements that supersede our own Acts of Parliament, thus making the palace of Westminster a mere talking shop for despairing patriots, charlatans and fools.

"...a single European superstate".

Australia is a member of APEC.  Some of the countries who are members of APEC are: China, Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, Taipei and Singapore.

APEC, on the surface, is only a trading co-operative.  However, consider the following report from the book, Australia 2000 - What will we tell our children - Dispossessing the world's richest nation (hereinafter referred to as A2000), by Jeremy Lee, Pickford Productions, MS 897, Ravensbourne, Qld. 4352:

"In May, 1993, the then Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, was openly touting a European Community (see report by Roy Faiers above) type of agreement for the Pacific but warned that the region must integrate economically before it commits itself to such an ambitious plan".

"All that remains beyond economic integration is political integration".
Integrate politically.  We are talking here about being governed by Asia, through APEC, or a similar body.

Graham Strachan, author of the book, Economic Rationalism - A Disaster for Australia (hereinafter referred to as ERADA) 1997, Kalgoorlie Press, writes (p. 2):

"Australia's commitments to this New World Order under the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) and other trade agreements includes:

* Handing over the country's (Australia's) economic sovereignty to APEC.

* Removing all controls over imports and eliminating all other barriers to "free" trade.

* Giving preferential treatment to imports from other countries, even to the point of sacrificing home industries.

* Reducing wages and conditions of Australian workers to the levels of the country's Asian trading partners (the so-called "level playing field").

Columnist, Terry McCrann, writing in the Herald Sun (HS), 27/11/96, stated:

* 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).

* For APEC is locking us into Asia in a far more profound and quicker way than immigration ever could or should.

* That reality is almost certainly barely understood in the general community.  Even less appreciated is the way commitments in and to APEC will increasingly limit domestic policy flexibility.

Limit domestic policy flexibility.  In other words, we will be governed by APEC.

Respected columnist, the late B.A.Santamaria, writing in The Weekend Australian (TWA), 8-9/2/97 under the report headed, "Pawns in the trade game", stated:

* The trade agreements of which Australia is so fervent a protagonist - GATT and its successor, the World Trade Organisation, and APEC - are the key to understanding.

* Behind them lies the growing determination of the United States multinationals to dominate world markets...Cabinets (including Australia's Cabinet) have no stomach for a fight to preserve the independence of their respective nations.

United States multinational corporations are determined to dominate world markets.  Included in world markets is APEC, of which Australia is a member.

At the Fourth Annual D.H. Drummond Memorial Address at the Drummond College, University of New England, Armidale, NSW on 2/9/94, Graeme Campbell, former MHR, in his address entitled. "The Struggle for True Australian Independence", stated (p. 6):

* Leading supporters of a republic have gone so far as to openly advocate not only economic, but political integration with Asia.  This would end in the dissolution of our country.

We cannot integrate, be governed by, APEC, while we are a Constitutional Monarchy and predominantly a Christian based country.  Here we see one of the reasons for the determined push to make Australia a Republic.

This is also one of the reasons for high immigration which fuels the Government promoted and taxpayer funded policy of multiculturalism: i.e. the erosion of our Christianity by the immigration of non-Christian immigrants.

Once we integrate we will be totally governed by them.  Countries such as China, Indonesia, Thailand etc. with appalling human rights practices (discussed later in this publication).  (Integrate: become part of the whole - Macquarie Dictionary).

We have already seen China recently interfering in Australia's internal politics when China's Foreign Ministry accusing Pauline Hanson's One Nation's policies of being anti-Asia and racist.  (Channel SBS, 6.30 pm News, 17/6/98).  China, accusing us of racism!

Some further reports about Australia's Asian destiny:

"Australians have to come to terms with the inevitability of their Asian destiny".  (Editor of the Bangkok Post, reported in The Age, 2/11/96).

"Asianise or atrophy" says Professor Stephen Fitzgerald, in the Weekend Australian, 10-11/5/97.

Atrophy: waste away (Macquarie Dictionary).

We must become Asian or we will waste away!

"The Asianisation of Australia is inevitable".  Professor Fitzgerald again, in The Australian, 18/5/97.

"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, in The Australian, 27/11/96.

"Australia is destined to become...a prototype Eurasian nation".  Phil Scanlan, businessman, in The Australian, 23/10/96.

Prime Minister John Howard admits that Australia has been trying to integrate politically with Asia (Channel 9, "Sunday", 22/7/97.

The ANR, May 1996, reported:

the National Library of Australia was cancelling orders for books and newspapers about Western civilization and was halfway into a strategic plan to reduce its collection to a library for East Asia and the Pacific only.

ABC television reported on the 7.30pm news on 7/7/97:

the University of the Northern Territory is cancelling English Literature and substituting Indonesia's and China's Literature to assist their focus on the Asian region.

TAOA (p. 13), reported comments by former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke:

  In 1984 he said:  "We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation".  In 1988 he said:  "It should be clear that in our own self-interest, if we are looking to the future of this country, it is an absurdity to allow, engage in or permit any suggestion of anti-Asian discrimination or racism in this country".

Columnist, Michael Duffy, writing in TWA, on 10-11/1/98, said:

"In 1993, Bob Hawke admitted that there has been an implicit pact between the major parties (involving the ACTU) to implement broad policies on immigration that they know are not generally endorsed by the electorate".

Here we have both major parties and the ACTU agreeing to pursue immigration programs against the wishes of the Australian people.

ABC TV, on 8/9/97, reported that:

there are plans to build a dam in the Kimberley area of northern Australia and Asia will be pleased that we are using our resources well.  (What business is it of Asia?).

In The Social Contract, (hereinafter referred to as (TSC) Winter 1997-98, published by The Social Contract Press, 316 East Mitchell Street, Petoskey, Michigan, USA, 49770, USA, Evonne Moore reviews "The Grand Plan - Asianisation of Australia:  Race, Place and Power" by Denis McCormack, 30 pages, available at cost from The Social Contract Press 1-800-352-4843.  Some excerpts from the review follow:

"This paper argues that Australia's elite developed a long-term plan and strategy to integrate Australia into Asia.  This integration was to be pursued at political, economic and cultural-demographic levels.  McCormack presents an impressive array of evidence to substantiate his case. The Asianisation strategy was adopted by Australia's elite initially without the knowledge or support of the Australian people and, more recently, against the polled opinion of most Australians.  The material McCormack assembled documents the growing separation of Australia's managerial elite from the aspirations and values of most Australians over the past 30 years.

"In recent years, Asian immigration into Australia has expanded to make up 40-60% of yearly intakes.

"In a 1995 speech to the Australian Chinese Forum, the Labour Prime Minister Paul Keating proclaimed his government's Asian vision for Australia.  Asia was where Australia's security and prosperity lay, he said; it was where a growing number of Australian's people came from and it was where Australia wanted to be.  The Asianisation-of-Australia strategy had never before been so clearly enunciated by a political leader.  The revolution had indeed begun and it was now writ large on the wall for the Australian public to see.

"The cultural-demographic integration was to be achieved by promoting the new state religion of multiculturalism,   facilitating Asian immigration into Australia, using Australia's high quality (but cash-strapped) educational system to attract fee-paying Asian students, teaching Asian studies and languages in Australian schools and universities, and fostering cultural exchanges between Australia and East Asian countries.

"At the political level - at the urging of foreign affairs bureaucrats, big companies and newspaper editors - Australian politicians kow-towed and cultivated friendly relationships with East Asian leaders.

"Concentrating virtually all foreign policy efforts on East Asia, they chose to shut their mouths about human rights abuses and environmental vandalism in nearby Asian countries.

"They initiated joint defence training and military exercises with Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia and nurtured the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum to promote free trade in the region.

"During the 1980s, armies of government-subsidised Asiacrat think-tanks, including economic, cultural and academic groups, sprang up.  All of these groups promoted Australia's integration into Asia.

"However, the entry of independent Member of Parliament, Pauline Hanson onto Australia's political scene rocked the establishment.  In her maiden speech in Parliament in 1996, she stated that Australians were in danger of being swamped by Asians.  The elite was horrified.  Every newspaper in the country attacked her as a racist.  While large numbers of Australians flocked to hear her speak, leftist thugs were bused in to disrupt her meetings.

"In recent years, several Labour Party politicians have gone onto the public record as saying that they do not care if most Australians end up looking Asian as the years pass.  Talk about a cultural death wish!

"The arrogance of these politicians and their contempt for their own people and culture is staggering.

"Australian journalists have fallen over themselves to get the opinions of dictatorial Asian leaders on Australia's so called "race-debate.

McCormack's paper has been tabled in Australia's Federal Parliament by Graeme Campbell, former MHR.  A copy of the paper...has been presented to all Federal politicians , including the Prime Minister's Office...and to many senior journalists and political commentators.  His (McCormack's) arguments on the Asianisation of Australia have not been challenged by any political or academic commentator.

"Singaporean Minister, George Yeo said the Asianisation of Australia enjoys a broad consensus in Australian Society, especially among members of the political and economic establishment.

"Yeo appears unaware that critics of a massively unpopular immigration program have long been suppressed and denounced as dissident racist scum by Australia's elite.  McCormack's paper is part of the rising tide of democratic revolt against this suppression".

If we are to become an Asian country, obviously we need a large number of Asian people in this country.  There is also the perception that admitting students from Asian countries will help to enhance our integration with Asia.

Hence the discrimination in favour of Asian immigrants and on the acceptance into our universities of large numbers of foreign students from Asia.

This is despite the report in TWA, 31/8/96-1/9/96, which suggests that, although foreign students paying fees, they may be still costing the Australian taxpayers money because of the massive costs associated with language difficulties and the social infrastructure needed to support foreign students.  The report also indicated that foreign students prevent many thousands of Australians gaining places in our universities.

Stephen J.Rimmer, writing in The Cost of Multiculturalism (TCOM) (p. 33), Flinders Press, 1991, said:

"There are a limited number of genuine students from the Asian region wanting to study in Australia.  Many that do come to Australia arrive only to become illegal immigrants or claiming to be refugees.  Many students from Asia pay for all or part of their fees by working illegally in Australia, rather than bringing money into the country.  Some try to establish sham marriages with Australians, effectively guaranteeing Australian citizenship.  Others join the criminal underworld, become prostitutes, or forge bogus papers designed to prove they will have political problems if they return home...It is possible that this industry is actually costing more money to police and regulate than the capital inflow gained from student fees.  Clearly, a detailed study should be undertaken into the costs and benefits of the program.

"The policy links between immigration, trade, education and Asia were clearly outlined by Dr Stephen Fitzgerald, Australia's first Ambassador to the Peoples Republic of China and in 1991 the Chairman of the 'Asian Studies Council'.  Speaking to journalists in Hong Kong he is reported to have emphasised Australia's efforts to integrate itself with the region and highlighted credentials such as Australia's large scale Asian immigration program and the compulsory teaching of Asian languages and history, making Australia 'Asia literate'.  By 1990 Federal and State Governments allocated over $8.3 million on Asian Studies and language programs and agreed to force all primary and secondary schools to teach Asian languages and history.

"...from the mid 1970s Federal Governments appeared to restore a discriminatory immigration policy favouring migrants from Asia vis-a-vis other regions.  These changes resulted in a rapid and sustained increase in the proportion of migrants coming from Asia to the point that Asian migrants in 1990 outnumbered the combined total of migrants from the rest of the world.  The Federal Government appear to have employed a variety of mechanisms to favour Asian migrants, primarily those from East and Northeast Asia (p. 18).

"The Federal Government has implemented covert arrangements for Asian 'guest' workers to come to Australia to work in development projects such as the Darwin economic development zone (p. 19).

"...in the late 1980s the key report highlighting the Federal Government position on Asianisation was released.  Entitled 'Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy', this report effectively advocated preference for immigration from Northeast Asia.  It also advocated compulsory teaching of Asian languages, history and culture in schools.  In 1990 the Federal Government accepted these recommendation and allocated $700,000 in 1990-91 for their implementation, with $1.5 million in 1991-92 (p. 26)".

"The implementation of the policy of Asianisation is assisted by the policy of multiculturalism.  Like multiculturalism the policy of Asianisation has no economic rationale or basis.  It has not resulted in any measurable economic benefits to Australia (p. 37).

"Rather, evidence suggests that it has probably seriously harmed Australia's economy, by focusing public attention away from the need to be internationally competitive and seek out markets worldwide and not just in Asia.  While this might distract the public attention away from the lack of effective economic reform, it also resulted in the continued relative economic decline of Australia, Asianisation has also involved wasted investment of public monies on numerous schemes with no clear economic rationale.  In addition, the Federal Government economic advisory body the Industry Commission (1990) has clearly rejected claims that Australia should try to mimic Asia.  The Commission found the such an approach would not result in economic benefits for Australia (p. 37).

"Asianisation is essentially a 'cargo cult' policy based on the belief that if Australia tries to be Asian and allow into the country large numbers of Asian migrants, the nations of Asia will share some of their prosperity with Australia.  Its economic cost can be measured by lost trade opportunities, wasted public expenditure and a decline in Australia's standing in the region" (p. 37).

Today (1998), as we look at the present Asian economic chaos, we can be thankful we have not completely integrated with Asia.

Are there plans to turn Australia into an Asian country?  It is submitted that there is overwhelming proof that there is, and has been for many years, such a plan.  It is beyond belief that a few hundred people from the mainstream political parties, the media, elites, self-interest groups, could set out to transform Australia into an Asian country unbeknown to the bulk of the Australian people.

See also the chapter below, The Real Reasons for Attempting to Asianisation Australia.

Will Australia become an Asian country?  Time will tell.  But it is up to the Australian people to assert themselves.
 
 

IMMIGRATION INTAKES

De-Ann Kelly, National Party MHR, writing in the ANR, September 1997, on the subject of immigration, said in reference to Asian immigration:  "We now know we were simply lied to by Labour about the composition of our immigration intake".

The ANR, June 1997, reported that the Immigration Minister, Mr Ruddock, stated that the intake for 1995-96 was a net figure of 70,300.  Demographer, (Professor) Charles Price stated that for that period the net intake was 130,000.

Dr Rodney Spencer, Writing in TSC, Winter 1997-98 p. 105, states that his research shows that for 1996, the intake was 159,470.

Another example of a claim that the Government provides misleading statistics (this time in relation to unemployment) was reported on Channel 9, on 14/7/98 that the real unemployment figure in Australia was that one in five persons were unemployed and that the Government had been "fudging" the figures.  This means that the real figure is 20% unemployment.

The late B.A.Santamaria, writing in TWA, 15-16/11/97, stated that official figures define a person as employed if he works for as little as one hour a week.

Consider what has happened in the recording of immigration figures in Britain.

TSC, Winter 1997-98 (p. 89) reports, "How Reliable are the Immigration Figures in Britain"?  Peter Tomkins stated that for 10 years he was head of the UK immigration service and had long known that the Home Office statistics bore no relation at all to the true facts on immigration.  The actual rate of immigration was more than twice the official rate.

If it happened in Britain, could it not happen in Australia?  The above reports cause grave concern about the accuracy of the Australian Government's immigration figures.  If we cannot be confident about the Government's total immigration and unemployment figures, how can we be confident about the total Asian immigration figures?

On the TV program "Insight", on Channel SBS, on 23/7/98, Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister stated that he would like to see a population of 40-50 million people in Australia.

In 1987, the Daily Mirror revealed that the Federal Government had a secret plan to massively boost the migrant intake over the following 20 years - possibly right up to 1,000,000 per annum (with an estimated 750,000 of these coming from Asia and the Pacific (TAOA p. 21).

Page 20 of TAOA carries further reports of calls by big business and employer groups for annual immigration intakes, varying from: 150,000; 175,000; 180,000; 250,000; 500,000.

Professor Hughes, of the ANU stated that "the future success of Australia's economy will depend greatly on large scale immigration from Asia and the Pacific... a greater intake of immigrants could improve the use of capital, reduce the cost of introducing new technology, and increase economies of scale". (TAOA p. 20).

If we had these immigration intakes inflicted on us, it is not hard to imagine where most of the migrants would have come from - Asia!

If any further proof is required that the major political parties, certain elites, and media persons plan to turn Australia into an Asian country, refer to the paper, TAOA.

This paper, (TAOA) which runs to 62 pages, provides further proof of the intention to Asianise Australia, including the fact that Australian Governments have discriminated in favour of Asian migrants.  This is discrimination against non Asian migrants.  The paper also contains the results of numerous Polls which overwhelmingly prove public hostility to immigration and Asian immigration.
 
 

WHAT POPULATION CAN AUSTRALIA SUSTAIN?

Our present population is almost 19 million.  Also, the number of illegal immigrants in Australia is anybody's guess.  Apart from visitors who come here legitimately and "over-stay", The HS, 28/4/97, reported:

* An entire squadron could enter from the north and we wouldn't know.  Illegal immigrants, and drug couriers already do that and in the dry season they can land just about anywhere.

* There's a gaping hole that needs closing.

The Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP) Newsletter, September, 1997, states:

* We are already too numerous for our country to support indefinitely.

* Only 6% of the Australian continent is arable.  One third of Victoria's irrigated land is salinised.

* Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world.

In this sense we are only a small country.

Dr David Smith, author of the book, Continent in Crisis, 1997, Penguin, states:

* We have demanded more of this fragile continent than it should ever have been expected to deliver: put simply, there are more people in Australia today than the country can support, and the full economic and social impact of that situation has yet to be appreciated.

* We have no choice now but to move in the direction of self-sustaining use of our natural resources; in this Australia could become a model for the rest of the world.  To do otherwise is to court certain disaster.
 

Graeme Campbell former MHR, founder of the Australia First Party, stated on 26/1/96 that Barry Jones (MHR) has said that Australians must decide whether they want more growth, more migrants, or retain their standard of living - they simply can't have both.

Prominent scientist and author of the acclaimed book, The Future Easters, Dr Timothy Flannery, stated that Australia is already overpopulated and eating its own future through sheer ignorance.  He thinks Australia's high immigration intakes are crazy.  The Future Eaters is a warning.  (See Among The Barbarians - The Dividing of Australia, (hereinafter referred to as The Barbarians) by Paul Sheehan, 1998, pp 262, 267, Random House.  The Future Eaters was also a three part documentary on Channel 2 television, concluding on 29/8/98).

Landcare Australia is part of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  A Landcare Australia brochure published in 1995 stated that if we do nothing about land degradation we face:

* significantly higher food prices;
* falling living standards nationally.

Dr Mary White, scientist, in her address to the AESP on 3/3/95, stated:

* Whole civilizations (in the Mediterranean region and the Aztecs for instance) disappeared when their soils became saline.

* A great deal of Australia's soil had blown or washed away.

* We are running out of the means to grow food.  Soil is a finite resource.

* It is possible that in 50 years, the Murray Basin, Australia's main breadbasket, will be a salt desert.

What population can Australia support?  There is abundant expert evidence that Australia is already over-populated for this dry, fragile continent.   To mindlessly continue with high immigration is a recipe for disaster.  Immigration must be cut back to a net intake of around 30,000 (which replaces emigrants).

Self-interest people and sections of the media will complain loudly and argue against this, but do we put their interests first or Australia's interests first?

Some scientists may argue that we can support a much larger population.  However, if they are wrong, we cannot go back in time and undo the damage. We will be locked into this disaster forever.  Therefore the onus in on them to prove their case conclusively.
 
 

AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS' MONEY GIVEN TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS FOREIGN AID

With Australia's foreign debt out of control, Australian taxpayers give billions of dollars to the rest of the world.

Graham Strachan, writing in ERADA, states (p. 5):

"In 1993, with a foreign debt of $145 Billion, the Keating Labour Government spent:

* $42 million to build a bridge across the Mekong River in Laos.

"About the same time it gave:

* $114 million to Indonesia for military aid.
* $100 million on an embassy in Beijing, China.
* $65 million to the African National Congress in South Africa.
* $12 million for African drought assistance.
* $370 million to New Guinea.

"At the end of 1996 our foreign debt was $190 Billion.

"The way the global debt-finance system works is a country in debt is no longer in charge of its economic affairs.  The private international bankers to whom it owes money demand the right to "advise" economic policy, and that appears to have been the case in Australia since at least 1983.  Since economic management represents such a large part of a government's responsibilities, the relinquishment of it, marks the beginning of the end of political sovereignty as well".

To put it bluntly, the end of political sovereignty means that Australia will be told what to do, be governed, by international forces.
In the two years since 1996, our foreign debt has risen from $190 Billion to the present figure of $224.5 Billion, while we give billions of dollars to the rest of the world!

The ANR, June, 1997, reported that Australian taxpayers gave overseas aid of:

* $62 million to China.
* $130 million to Indonesia.
* $37 million to Thailand.
* $336 million to Papua New Guinea, despite evidence of growing graft and incompetence at political level.

AusAid advised on 20/11/97 that over the previous 5 years,
Australian taxpayers gave overseas aid of:

* $590.8 million to Indonesia.
* $102.2 million to India.
* $341 million to China.

China, Indonesia, Thailand and Papua New Guinea are notorious for corruption.

The HS, 24/11/96, reported that members of the Howard Government believed that Australia faced security threats from China and Indonesia; several Asian countries were spying on Australia and Australia was a glittering strategic prize.

The HS, 17/5/98: surveys showed that Australians regarded Indonesia as a long term potential threat.

$341 million in 5 years to China, that economic giant, spending vast amounts of money arming itself far beyond its defence needs, while many of their people live in poverty.

Indonesia also has huge defence forces.

India also has huge military forces and boosted defence spending recently by 14% (New York Times).

China, Indonesia, India had huge poverty problems (even before the recent economic disaster in Asia), yet their governments saw fit to devote vast sums of money to their military forces.  Australian taxpayers paid to indirectly boost their military forces.

Australia spends $1.4 Billion a year on foreign aid (The Barbarians, p. 276). (A billion is a million times a million).

Indonesia's foreign debt is $136 US Billion (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advice on 23/6/98) with a population of about 207 million.

South Korea's foreign debt is $155 US Billion (DFAT advice on 23/6/98) with a population of about 45 million.

Australia's foreign debt is now $224.5 Billion, with a population of about 19 million.

Since the recent Asian economic collapse, Australian taxpayers have pledged the following extra money to Asia:

* S.Korea, $1 Billion (U.S.), plus $500 million export credits (DFAT advice on 23/6/98).
* Thailand, $1.3 Billion (The Age, 24/3/98).
* Indonesia, $1 Billion (U.S.), plus $753 million export credits (DFAT advise on 2/7/98).

This is not part of normal foreign aid but extra money because of their economic problems.

Australia is only a small economy.  Our foreign debt is higher than many Asian countries' foreign debts and we have a much smaller population.  Yet we give them billions of dollars, courtesy of the Australian taxpayers.

If billions of dollars can be found for Asian countries because they get into financial difficulties, why could not this money have been found for Australians, for our hospitals, to have government initiative in establishing industries, reducing unemployment and poverty?

If we knew the total amount Australian taxpayers' had given over the past 20 years to the rest of the world, the World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations, one suspects we would be absolutely staggered!
 
 
 

THE REAL REASONS FOR ATTEMPTING TO ASIANISE AUSTRALIA

Prior to the recent Asian economic collapse, Asian countries experienced considerable economic growth.  (As we now know, this growth was unsustainable).  The Asian Tigers, they were called.  The (Asian) economic miracle lives on, reports The Australian, "Inside Asia" 21/7/97.  Whilst we traded with Asia, we were told this was not enough.  If we hoped to be swept up in this Asian miracle and share in this prosperity we had to integrate, enmesh, with Asia culturally and economically.  We had to Asianise.

The HS, 25/10/97, reported the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating as saying:

"I am utterly convinced that our prosperity, our national well-being, our ability to maintain and build a good society, depend upon our courage in moving boldly to integrate our economy with the economies of Asia".

But if you trade with Africa, do you Africanise?  If you trade with India, do you Indianise?  How absurd!  There has to be more to this than "meets-the-eye."

We have now seen many Asian countries collapse into chaos, resulting in hunger, poverty and appalling social conditions for the people.  In Indonesia, hundreds of people were burned alive during the turmoil.

80-100 million people in Indonesia have been plunged into poverty.  20 million do not get enough to eat (Channel 9, "Sunday",  2/8/98).

Had Australia allowed itself to completely integrate, to be subsumed, taken over, swallowed, by Asia, we too would have been embroiled in this disaster.

What is the real reason for exhorting Australia to move close to Asia?

If we increase our population by large numbers, big business stands to benefit because there will be more consumers for their goods and services, and also a downward pressure on wages caused by competition for jobs.  Many, or most, immigrants would come from Asia.  But that is only part of the story.

We saw above where the late B.A.Santamaria (TWA, 8-9/2/97) stated that the trade agreements to which Australia is so fervent a protagonist, GATT and its successor, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are the key to understanding.  Behind them lies the growing U.S. multinationals' (corporations) determination to dominate world markets and cabinets have no stomach for a fight to preserve the independence of the nation.

(Note: cabinets, includes the Australian Government. Protagonist: leading character in support of a cause - Macquarie Dictionary).

APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation) is a trade agreement of which Australia is a member.  Behind APEC is the WTO and behind the WTO are the growing multinational corporations determined to dominate world markets.

The world is in the grip of economic change, referred to as economic rationalism (described in some detail in the chapter, Economic Rationalism).  Economic rationalism is the tool of big business and finance as they try to gain control of the world economy.

The Australian Government is committed to economic rationalism to the gross detriment of the Australian people (see the chapter on Economic Rationalism).

Because of the damage to Australia and the Australian people, the Government has been under some pressure to abandon their commitment to economic rationalism.  There has been a perception that the Australian Government may be "faltering" in its commitment to this economic policy.

The Australian, 3/7/98, reported that the Governor of the Australian Reserve Bank, and a senior Australian businessman and the WTO were putting pressure on the Howard Government to maintain their commitment to trade liberalisation and not succumb to vested interests.  (Vested interests here being the people of Australia).

TWA, 13-14/6/98 reported that we are going through globalisation and there is a lot of economic change.  In an interview with the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, he admitted to the difficulty of being in government in a globalised economy where there is a loss of sovereignty.

Here is our Prime Minister admitting Australia has lost its sovereignty and virtually governed by international forces!

In The Financial Review, 7/6/96, Peter Harcher writes that in an increasingly capital-thirsty world, international financiers...have become potentates with the power to dictate policy  to states (governments) which have long considered themselves sovereign.

(Note: potentate: a ruler who possesses great power - Macquarie Dictionary).

The Financial Review, 11/11/91, reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has virtually produced a "how-to" book...explaining how to sell the "goods and services tax" (GST) to the people, placate noisy lobby groups, deflect the political blow-torch...and get the new system (GST) up and running.

The Age, 16/7/98, reported that electoral campaigns cost millions of dollars, necessarily raised by becoming indebted to the wealthy and powerful, they will later extract their political price.  And those so elected cannot side with the poor and powerless.

The poor and powerless.  This means many of the people of Australia who elect their politicians to represent their best interests.

The Coalition Government is beholden to big business, which donates many millions of dollars to their election campaign.

In the USA in recent years, many large corporations have merged, resulting in the creation of huge corporations.  These corporations, many of whom are multinational, have donated vast amounts of money to US politicians for their election campaigns.  Naturally, they don't give them this money for nothing, they expect the politicians to carry out their bidding.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Economic rationalism, or free trade is the policy being pushed by big business, principally American big business (see the Publisher's Comment in ERADA).

The late B.A.Santamaria, writing in The News Weekly, 31/5/97, stated that overseas forces (the IMF and the rest) have simply said to them (our Government - my addition) , "You are bankrupt, but we are prepared to carry you, at least for the time being, but only so long as you do what you're told.  You must preserve the value of the money we've lent you by eliminating inflation, balancing budgets, selling off public utilities, cutting wages and social services and maintaining a pool of unemployed to guarantee the policy.  It's up to you".

"The way the global debt-finance system works is a country in debt is no longer in charge of its economic affairs.  The private international bankers to whom it owes money demand the right to advise economic policy, and that appears to have been the case in Australia since at least 1983.  Since economic management represents such a large part of a government's responsibilities, the relinquishment of it marks the beginning of the end of political sovereignty as well (ERADA, p.5).

The IMF has close ties with American big business and banking.
In a new book, The Evil Empire - Globalisation's darker Side, the author, Paul Hellyer claims that globalisation has little to do with trade, it is really about control and power by international forces.

Meyer Rothschild, father of the international banking empire said: "Give me control of the nation's economy and I care not who writes the law" (Goodbye Oz Culture, by Nick Maine, PO Box 109, Chirnpark, Qld. 4215, p. 98).

Whenever a business firm borrows big money its creditor obtains a voice in management to protect his investment.  Like a business, no government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the creditor some measure of sovereignty as collateral (the runaway bestseller, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (NDCC), by Gary Allen, with Larry Abraham 1971, Concord Press, USA, p. 38).

You can control a government if you have it in your debt...the monopoly the international financiers most covet is control over a nation's money (NDCC p. 41).

Our foreign debt is now $224.5 Billion.

For 45 years, Australian Governments have allowed foreign multinational corporations to pay little or no tax.  Our Governments have persisted with economic rationalism for almost 25 years, despite it being a total disaster for Australia.

Why?

It is submitted that the reason is that our Government is governed by international big business and finance.

Australia, the richest country on earth, has been looted, pillaged and plundered for many years with the full support of our Governments of whatever party.

There are countless other examples to prove that the Australian Government is governed by international forces, but consider also the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).

Under the MAI all Australian laws which favour Australian corporations over multinational and transnational corporations would be illegal.  For example, the Australian Government would not be allowed to subsidise an Australian industry.  If the Australian Government favoured Australian corporations over foreign corporations, the foreign corporations could sue the Government, i.e. the Australian taxpayers.  Australia would be required to change our laws, our culture, to suit multinational corporations.  This would be the complete and final take-over of Australia.

Australian courts would be superseded and disputes between foreign corporations and the Australian Government would be heard and determined by an international authority.

But what was most chilling about the MAI was the Government's attempt to secretly (see HS 22/2/98) introduce it into Australia.  The opposition political parties either went along with this or were unaware of it.

Consider also the ALP's socialisation agenda.  Page 162 of A2000 states:  "A glance at the ALP's Platform and Rules (P. & R.) updated in 1982, showed just what Australia was in for.  It included:

* Commitment to the international socialist movement as represented by the Socialist International.
* Commitment to the New International Economic Order.
* Commitment to the introduction of a Bill of Rights, based on the United Nations model.
* Commitment to an Australian republic.
* Commitment to changing the Australian flag.
* Commitment to emasculating the Senate.
* Commitment to reducing any independent power of action by the Governor General.
* Commitment to regionalisation in Australia with the amalgamation of Local Authorities".

A2000 was first printed in August 1997.  To my knowledge nobody has challenged the above description of the ALP's 1982 P. & R.

Commitment to a UN Bill of Rights.  Here, we would have a world central body telling us what our rights would be.  Some of the member countries have appalling human rights records such as killing dissidents, torture and other atrocities.  They would tell us what was right and wrong?

Commitment to international socialism!  Politicians are elected on a commitment to Australia and the Australian people, one would have thought.

"Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services.  When analysed this means government control over everything, including you. All controls are people controls.  If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do - destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion" (NDCC, p.31).

"The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government..." (A2000, p. 125).

Becoming a republic, emasculating the Senate, reducing the power of the Governor General, amalgamating local Councils, would have the effect of centralising power in Australia.

Russian dissident and intellectual, Alexander Solzhenstsyn, said:

"The more centralised a nation becomes, the greater the corruption at the top".

Christianity and the British Monarchy, which is founded on Christianity, is a very real obstacle to the push for world centralised power and control.

Socialism, or centralisation of world power is easier to achieve if power is firstly centralised in each country, then centralised in world regional blocs such as the EEU, APEC, and to some extent NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement between the USA, Canada, Mexico and perhaps other countries).

After establishing several governing blocs in the world, the next step is to amalgamate them into a central power.

World central power is much harder, if not impossible to achieve, if power is diversified both in countries and worldwide.  Under our present Constitutional Monarchy in Australia, power is separated between The Senate, The House of Representatives, the Federal Constitution, the States, the States' Constitutions, the Attorneys General, the State Parliaments, and local Councils.

Independent countries with strong economies are a major obstacle to  centralised world control.  By a strange coincidence, Australia's foreign debt is out of control, and we have persisted with economic rationalism for many years and have allowed foreign corporations to pay little or no tax.  Hence the economic disaster we are now in.

"It is seldom, if ever, that those on whom the public gaze is focussed are the real wielders of power.  The most ruthless force moves silently, untroubled by the journalist's pen or the cameraman's scrutiny, which it owns.  The whip in its hand is finance.  It takes no sides, offers no allegiance, recognises neither right nor wrong save that which increases its stranglehold over nations, leaders and citizens alike.  Today it has the world by the throat.  There is no community or locality untroubled by the fingers of debt" (A2000, p. iv).

According to A2000 (p. 162) the ALP is committed to international socialism.

Socialists, communists, fascists, capitalists all want the same thing: world power and control.  If we eventually have centralised world control, (often referred to as The New World Order) the socialists and capitalists will squabble for eventual control, like family members fighting over the estate of a deceased business tycoon.

Both the ALP and the Liberal-National Coalition want economic rationalism or New International Economic Order (NIEO).  There is no difference between the Parties.  The Democrats and Greens are irrelevant.  The votes of the people are completely irrelevant and have been for years.

To have centralised world control, there has to be uniformity and conformity throughout the world.  We see this happening in many areas:

* In finance, trade and economics we have the NIEO, economic rationalism, giant multi and transnational corporations, privatisation, the WTO, the IMF, The World Bank.

We saw above the IMF virtually telling our politicians to bring in the GST.  Having one system of taxation world-wide, a GST, is obviously much more easier to administer than multifarious systems of taxation around the world.

*In the law making body, we have the UN and UN treaties.

* In the judiciary, we have The World Court.

* UN military forces, thus the emasculation of the Australian military forces and the disarmament of the Australian people following the recent Port Arthur tragedy.  Australian Governments have signed numerous UN treaties disarming Australia.

* Multiculturalism (fuelled by high immigration) erodes the dominant culture of a country.  The paradox of multiculturalism is that it will eventually erode the differences between the cultures of the world, resulting in more uniformity of culture.  If Australian culture is destroyed, is that racism against Australians?

* In religion, we see religions of the world coming closer to each other, and the attack on Christianity in particular and the promotion of the pagan concept of "humanism".  Religion acknowledges a God, a "superior being".  Those who seek world domination acknowledge no "superior being" no God, but claim that man (they) are supreme.

* In education, we have UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organisation) and the brain washing of our school students to become malleable One World People (See The Disaster Road, 1986 and Chaos in the Classroom, by Jean M. Wallis, Veritas Publishing; Assault on Childhood, by Alan Gourley, 1985, First and Last Christian Publishing; Brave New Schools, by Berit Kjos, 1995, Harvest House Publishers, USA).

* One political system (and the UN and the international business and finance behind it).
Uniformity and conformity facilitates centralised world control, while 'differences' make domination harder if not impossible.

Centralised world control will be the ultimate tyranny and oppression.

Lord Acton: "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

To many people, a World Government under the administration of the UN has a lot of appeal.  However this is discussed under the Conclusion of this publication.

To return specifically to the Asianisation of Australia, readers are reminded of the comments above by Professor Stephen Fitzgerald, Phillip Ruthven, Professor Julian Disney, Jeremy Lee, Graham Strachan, Terry McCrann, B.A.Santamaria and Graeme Campbell, outlined  earlier.

We saw above the reference to the EEU, which is becoming not just a trading bloc but a political bloc, a single government for Europe, and the threat to Britain's sovereignty.

APEC, of which Australia is a member, is an economic bloc.  But all that remains beyond economic integration is political integration.

Political integration means Australia will be governed by APEC.  After that we face the prospect of the various blocs around the world amalgamating into centralised world control, or New World Order."  (See the chapter “Bloc Building” in the book A2000).

Multiculturalism is another factor in the global scheme of things.  The Government (and Labor) are committed to multiculturalism.

"That most, if not all, multiculturalists are actually internationalists is beyond doubt.  As an example, the Government-sponsored document, Australia as a Multicultural Society, saw fit to propagate the belief that Australia's interests may have to be over-ridden by so-called international interests: 'we also wish to emphasise that questions of immigration policy (like many other questions) are embedded in a much wider concept of social cohesion than this: namely, the social good of humanity as a whole.  From this point of view, Australia may be a sectional group in a wider international system and the good of the wider system may over-ride the well-being of Australia considered in isolation".  (See The Menace of Multiculturalism, by Cameron McKenzie, p. 6, 1997, published by the Institute of Australian Culture, PO Box 64, Watsonia, Victoria, 3087; also  Australian Ethnic Affairs Council publication: Australia as a Multicultural Society, AGPS, Canberra, 1978, pp. 4, 14).

It seems that Australia must prostrate herself for the good of humankind and the betterment of the world.  Our global masters will decide what is good for the world and what is not.

To summarise, the world is being divided into several blocs, such as APEC, EEU, NAFTA.  Australia is a member of APEC (the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation).  At first these will be economic blocs, then political, i.e. governmental blocs.  The EEU is moving in the direction of becoming a political bloc.  When all blocs are politically governed, they will amalgamate into a New World Order, or global government.

Finally, columnist, Kenneth Davidson, writing in The Age, 29/6/98, reports:

It's come to this: only Hanson defends the nation-state.

He states:

"One Nation is the creature of the suffocating bipartisanship of the two major political parties, who agree on the need to globalise the Australian economy on the terms laid down by international capital markets".

Australia's best interests are not even a consideration for the international capital markets.

He is wrong on one point, though.  It is not only Hanson who defends the nation-state, Graeme Campbell's Australia First Party also defends Australia.

But what we have seen is a media black-out on Australia First.  The media have deliberately denied Australia First any publicity in order to negate them as a political force in Australia, while giving full publicity to the mainstream Parties whose policies are destroying Australia.

Most of the mainstream media in Australia is foreign owned.

Australia First has the policies to repair the damage done to Australia.

It is submitted that the reason, or part of the reason, for the media black-out on Australia First is because Australia, and our media, are controlled by international forces and that their agenda includes the Asianisation of Australia.

Australia First's policies include the abandonment of the Asianisation of Australia nonsense, the restoration of our industries, our sovereignty and defence.  They offers a complete change of direction to repair Australia.  Graeme Campbell had almost 20 years parliamentary experience, is an author and frequent public speaker.

If such a political party can be refused a voice in the media, what does it say about our so-called democracy?

Internationalists believe generally in multiculturalism, but specifically in integration with Asia (Australia Betrayed - How Australian democracy has been undermined and our naive trust betrayed.  Authors: Graeme Campbell (former) member for Kalgoorlie and Mark Uhlmann, p. 128; Foundation Press; 1995).
 

WHAT LIFE IS LIKE IN ASIA

What will be our lot if we become an Asian country, governed by an Asian confederacy?  Let us consider what life is like in Asia.

Life in Burma is too horrifying to dwell on, so we will move onto some other Asian countries.

In Thailand...it is widely believed the army slaughtered more than 200 students and workers.  Students were burned alive and lynched from trees.  "Officially", 46 people died (TWA 2-3/5/98).

Many Asian persons living in Australia are nothing but first class citizens, but the following reports describing life in Asia, are on public record.

The most appalling cruelty to animals exists.  Without going into too much sickening detail, the report in the HS, 18/1/98, gives an indication.  In Hanoi, dogs are snatched off the streets and stuffed into a wire cage balanced on the back of a motorbike.  Live animals are thrown into boiling water.  Dogs are served as stew in some of the city's choicest restaurants.  The cruelty and suffering these dogs go through is horrendous.  Eating dog is so common among southern Chinese that former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, once joked that then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping kept himself young by eating three puppies a day.  Nothing makes the flesh so tender as to kill the dog while in terror, so that adrenalin flows through the meat.  Dr Hugh Wirth, of the RSPCA said that in Korea he saw a dog strung up by its neck with piano wire and left to struggle for 15 minutes before it died.  Other stomach-turning reports can be found in the HS, 9/3/97; The Australian 2/1/97 and 10/11/97.

The ruling classes of East Asia (Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan possibly excepted) do not understand the nature of private property.  What is theirs is, of course, inalienably theirs.  But public property and the property of less powerful individuals is in their view also inherently theirs whenever they care to take it. Unless the secure (and virtually sacred) integrity of private property is recognised and protected by even handed enforcement of equitable laws, it is in the long run impossible for such an economy to function (The Australian 10/11/97).

It is only nine years since at least 523 Chinese died in Tiananmen Square (Ibid).

China is a country where dissent can mean death, literally (The Australian 1997).

The HS, 22/12/96, reported on an Australian's ll year ordeal in Indonesian jails.  He was frequently stripped naked, shackled and beaten senseless in a series of Asian hellholes where the rats were so hungry they dined on human body waste.  There was little food, rampant corruption, unthinkable violence and it seems, indifference from Australian Government's staff to Indonesia's rough justice.

TWA, 25-26/10/97, reported that Dr Basham, head of the University of Sydney's anthropology department warned that some Asian cultures did not consider bigamy, tax evasion, immigration violations and money-laundering as crimes.  He also said some Asian cultures did not consider heroin importation and dealing, loan-sharking, extortion, and prostitution as serious crimes, as they were in western societies.

In Indonesia, human waste is dumped into the water supply and recycled back into the people.  At least 60% of the population is infested with parasitic worms.  Java is one of the most densely populated rural societies.  Millions jam into shanty-towns infested with insects and rodents, lacking adequate water, sewer, electricity, schools and health facilities (National Geographic, January, 1989).

More then a third of Asia's 2.5 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.  Asia is now one of the most polluted regions in the world.  Thirteen of the world's 15 most polluted cities are in Asia.  Its rivers carry 3-4 times the world level of faecal pollutants and half the population has no access to sanitation services.  Environmental degradation will worsen in most of Asia during the next 30 years.  Most of Asia will become dirtier, noisier, more congested, more eroded, less forested and less biologically diverse (The Australian, 19/5/97).

And these reports were written before the recent Asian economic crisis!

In China, dirty (industrial) plants pour acid rain not only onto China but onto neighbouring Japan and Korea.  In China...go for days in a country where the land had been scalped, the water poisoned, the air made toxic and dark...the smell was so powerful that we immediately backed away (The Barbarians, p.51).

The Suharto regime has one of the worst human rights records of the group.  Perhaps more then a million so-called communists, Achenese, Timorese and Irianese have been killed there in military inspired action between 1965 and 1991 (The Age, 6/2/98).

(In Indonesia)...a bloodbath that left 500,000 people dead in the mid 1960s HS 22/5/97).

“...according to Amnesty International, more then 140 peaceful critics are in prison (in Indonesia), some tortured and held incommunicado, awaiting trial.  But Indonesia has a poor history of such events, whether you consider the Jakarta docks in 1984 (some 600 "disappearances"), Sumatra 1989-93 (about 2,000), the far greater numbers in East Timor, or the murder of between 5,000 and 10,000 criminals in Jakarta in 1983-85 as a way of dealing with the rising crime rate.  The last atrocity, approved by 65% of the population in an opinion poll, indicates an attitude to human rights”   (TWA, 2-3/5/98).

In Indonesia, under their anti-subversion laws, the Government can jail people for demonstrating against the Government (Channel SBS, 5/4/98, 6.30pm news).

"...joined the list of Indonesian political activists to go suddenly missing...taken to a detention centre where political troublemakers were routinely tortured"  (TWA, 2-3/5/98).

It is widely reported and documented that corruption is endemic throughout Asia but the report in the HS, 14/12/98 is an example.  "Six Asian countries were in the shame file of the world's 10 most corrupt countries...bribery and corruption are...threatening the health of the international trading system.  Asian countries strongly rejected US attempts to get the WTO (World Trade Organisation) to fight corruption, saying it trampled Asian values".

Elections are frequently corrupt and violent.  Ten dead in Cambodian poll attack, (the Australian 27/7/98).  Thai poll ranks as dirtiest in history...endemic corruption...At least seven campaign workers have been shot dead in poll-related attacks and another five wounded (The Age 16/11/96).

Around 1.2 million people, or one in five Tibetans, died from torture, execution and starvation in the years following the Chinese occupation in 1950 and the Tibetan uprising following the Chinese occupation in 1950.  All but 13 of the 6,200 monasteries were destroyed and the fragile eco-system of a country the size of western Europe was ruined (TWA 2-3/5/98.)

We saw above where the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party of being racist and anti-Asian!

These are the countries that the Australian taxpayers have given multi-billion dollars to as "foreign aid"!

In the book, The Asian Mind Game, the author, Chin-ning Chu makes it known that Asians regard every transaction as a battle of wits to win or lose, not as a relationship based on ethics from which both parties will be satisfied, without resentment.

Dr Richard Basham, "I have spoken to many Australian businessmen who are just stunned when their supposed Asian partners have robbed them blind.  In my business consultancy I tell companies they should forget about signing contracts at first, they are better off with a memorandum or agreement, because in much of Asia a contract will bind the Westerner while leaving the local partner free to behave as he likes" (The Barbarians, p. 190).

It is common knowledge that Asian countries are racist.  This is perhaps  summed up in The Barbarians, p. 182: "In contrast to Australia, no Asian society genuinely prohibits racial discrimination in immigration or before the law.  Indeed, racial discrimination is so deeply imbedded in the moral premises of Asian societies that it often goes unnoticed.  While someone of Asian ancestry who is born in Australia can expect citizenship, the same cannot be said for someone of Caucasian ancestry born in Malaysia or Japan".

What do Asians think of Australians?  The HS, 4/1/98, reported:

"Many Asians think Australians are typically rude and uncouth, lazy, ignorant, hypocritical and ungovernable.  Because some Australians are descended from convicts, they are congenital criminals, are reluctantly multicultural and have a prejudiced media.

"The stereotype white trash view of Australians is from the latest Asia-Australia Survey, 1997-98, a high level reference...

"...Asians see Australians as second or third rate Westerners, the second or third alternative if one is shopping for an education, for technology, for a business partner or for a place to migrate to.

"Japanese and Koreans class Australia as a semi-developed country.

"Japanese tourists find Australia dirty and boring and say one visit is enough.

"Hong Kong citizens believe Australians to be dishonest.

"In Japan, Korea, and Singapore, Australians are seen as sitting on a treasure chest of raw materials which they are too lazy to exploit to advantage and hence do not deserve".

Canberra writer, Tina Faulk migrated to Australia in 1959.  She writes, "A lot of educated middle class Asians come to Australia because they don't want to have the nepotism, corruption and constraints on free speech that go with life in some parts of Asia.  I don't think Anglo-Celts really understand what Asianisation means.  We shouldn't go blindly or uncritically in that direction".  (The Bulletin, 23-30/1/96).

If Australia becomes an Asian country, with a majority of Asian population, governed by a group of Asian countries, will Australia become like the Asian countries described above?  Will the non-Asian population of Australia be treated in a racist, discriminatory manner?  Readers can make up their own minds about these questions!

Will we be treated, as the former Prime Minister of Singapore call us, as the white trash of Asia?

The Whitehorse Post, Victoria, 14/1/98, reports that building improvements are being carried out at the Nunawading Hostel with the costs being partly funded by the Australian taxpayers and a Chinese community group.  The report states that priority for access to the Hostel will be given to people of ethnic Chinese origin, in accordance with the Commonwealth Strategy to ensure places in mainstream hostels for people of non-English speaking backgrounds.

I contacted the Equal Opportunity Commission and enquired whether this breached the racial discrimination laws (i.e. whether it discriminated against Australians).  They replied that these laws contain special measures where people of a particular race are disadvantaged because they speak no English or have been traumatised e.g. in China.

I asked the Commission whether Australian taxpayers, who are partly funding the Hostel, are being discriminated against because of their race.  Their reply was that Chinese in Australia are also taxpayers.

In conclusion, what must Asian countries think of Australia, which is prepared to grovel to Asia, to completely change our culture, racial make-up and surrender our sovereignty?  They would hold us in contempt (they do already), and treat us accordingly.

The preoccupation with Asia has also seen Australian Government officials and politicians visiting Asia conduct themselves, according to Australia's first Ambassador to China, Dr Stephen Fitzgerald, in a 'craven, even slavering' attitude, especially to China (Stephen J.Rimmer, in The Cost of Multiculturalism, p. 36, Flinders Press, 1991).

What relevance does this have to the military defence of Australia, if Asians hold us in contempt?
 
 

THE LIMA DECLARATION - GOODBYE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES

The Lima Declaration arose out of a conference in Lima, Peru, on the 12th-26th March, 1975.  It was organised by the United Nations and a large number of countries attended.

Great concern was expressed about the poor, third world countries and their poverty and foreign debt.  The conference agreed that the rich countries, like Australia, would reduce their industries and farms and transfer those industries to the third world countries.

This would be done by removing or reducing our tariffs.  We would then import, and pay for, what we used to produce ourselves.  Australia agreed to this Declaration and was one of the few countries to "honour"! its promise.

The people of Australia were not even consulted, let alone asked their permission to suffer the loss of their industries and farms, massive unemployment, suicide, drug addiction, bankruptcy, family break-down, poverty and misery.  One could go on.  The result is on record.

When the Lima Declaration was adopted in March 1975, the Labor Government was in power.  In November 1975 Labor was thrown out and the Liberal Government came to power.  The Liberal Government picked up The Lima Baton and ran with it.

We have simply taken jobs off Australians and given them to people in foreign countries.

Some job losses have been caused by automation, but the point is we import much of what we used to produce ourselves.

Australian manufacturing has lost nearly half a million jobs and we have a trade deficit on manufacturers approaching $50 Billion a year (ANR, May/June 1998, p. 40).  More than half our manufacturing capacity has been destroyed since 1974 (A2000).  Large sections of the manufacturing industry which relied on tariff protection have been wiped out, particularly during the 1990's recession (TSC).  The late B.A.Santamaria stated that in 1960...Australia had one of the largest manufacturing workforces in the world.  Today it struggles to maintain a manufacturing workforce equal to that of Turkey.  (TWA, 20-21/9/97).

200,000 farmers have been forced off the land (A2000).

The report by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence,  titled: The New International Economic Order - Implications for Australia (published by Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1980) contains this statement:

"Australians may be called upon to make some sacrifices".

The contempt for the Australian people is breathtaking.  We have been called upon to make some sacrifices alright: unemployment, poverty, suicide, bankruptcy, drug addiction and more.

The Lima Declaration was the forerunner to the economic rationalism, free trade, level playing field nonsense we suffer to this day.

The Lima Declaration is a 24 page document which included reference to The New International Economic Order (NIEO) approximately 21 times.  The important Clauses to note are Clauses 27, 28, 35, 41, 43, 52, and 59.

A copy of The Lima Declaration can be obtained, cost free, by telephoning the United Nations Association on (03) 9482 3655.

The full title is the “United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Lima, Peru, 12-26 March 1975, Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Co-Operation, adopted by the Second General Conference of UNIDO at its final plenary meeting.”

A good discussion of The Lima Declaration can be found in the book A2000.  Use the index at the rear of the book.
 
 

ECONOMIC RATIONALISM AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS NOT PAYING TAXATION

Economic rationalism is the policy pursued by big business.  It is sometimes referred to as free-trade, level-playing-field, globalisation, internationalism, or New International Economic Order (NIEO).  The theory is that the goods produced by all the countries of the world will slosh around the world free of tariffs, quotas or any impediments at all.  Countries will not assist or subsidise their particular industries.  Every country is said to have a comparative advantage, i.e. each country is good at producing certain things.  Countries will export to their full potential, and we will all be rich.

After almost 25 years of this nonsense, Australia, and the world, are in a desperate situation.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Economic rationalism has the world by the throat.  There is no community untroubled by debt.  Global unemployment (or under-employment) is estimated (1994) at 30% (worse then the Great Depression).  Starvation threatens more than 800 million people in the world.  35,000 people, more than half of them children, die from starvation every day.  See A2000.

The total wealth of the world's 358 billionaires equals the combined incomes of the poorest 45% of the world's population (A2000).

In Australia, many industries and farms have closed down; almost one in three Australians live in poverty (The Age 14/3/98), we have 20% unemployment  (refer to the television station Channel 9 news on 14/7/98 where the Government admits to "fudging" the unemployment figures; 70% youth unemployment in certain areas (Ch. 10, 23/6/98 and HS 22/6/97); hospitals in filthy, third world conditions in Victoria (Ch. 7, 22/6/98); 10 year old children selling their bodies for sex (Ch. 2, 24/11/97); a suicide every 4 hours (A2000); a 300% increase in bankruptcies in the last 19 years (Australian National Review (ANR) May/June 1998, p. 40; family breakdown; the 2nd worst level of child poverty in the industrialised world (The Age, 17/11/96).  Our rural towns are de-populating and dying because our industries cannot compete with cheap imports and the Government removes essential services.  One could go on.

All this in Australia - the richest country on earth.

There are many reasons economic rationalism is a failure, but these reasons stand out:

* While Australia removes or reduces our tariffs, other countries refuse to do so.  This results in cheap imports being dumped in Australia, driving our industries and farms out of existence.

"Practically every country in the world...has some type of restriction, some type of barrier, some type of subsidisation for their own people that gives their own manufacturers and workers an unfair advantage" (The Great Betrayal - How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy (TGB), by Patrick J.Buchanan, p. 312, 1998, Little, Brown and Co., USA.

"Our Governments are the laughing stock of Asia as we aim to further cut our support for efficient industries while our northern trading partners take the reverse stance "(Business Review Weekly, 18/11/96).

As the managing director of Hoescht Australia stated, in announcing his decision to quit the local plastics industry in Australia:

"You are surrounded by countries with high tariff policies.  Why Are you doing this?" (TWA, 1-2/2/97).

Why indeed?

* In many countries, wages are a fraction of Australians' wages.        They can produce goods for much less.  We cannot compete with such cheap labour.  Hence, the invasion of Australia by foreign products.

On a level playing field the only way Australians can compete with cheap overseas labour is to drive our wages down to the same level.  Hence the workplace reforms we have seen recently.

The Age 14/12/97 and the HS 18/12/97 and 14/1/98, carried ominous reports concerning the possible attempt to employ Korean workers in a chicken factory, under work visas, unless Australian workers agree to their wages being cut by almost half.

Big business wants immigration because it drives down wages.  "A study by Harvard economists (USA)  found that immigration had a major impact on 20 million native born high school drop-outs who were competing with unskilled immigrants.  Between 1979 and 1995, the average hourly wage of American males who hadn't finished high school fell from $12.22 to $8.92 (in constant 1995 dollars), a drop of 30%" (The Barbarians, p. 121).

"The Australian public has not learned about the research of these Harvard economists...who concluded that immigrants, for their first 20-25 years in a new country, are a net fiscal drain on society" (Ibid).

TWA, 9-10/5/98 reported that governments  will face increasing pressure to erode both wages and welfare in line with global economic trends.

Note, not just wages, but welfare, such as medical treatment, hospitals, pensions.

Radio National's "Background Briefing", late last year, reported that there are now 250 million child workers/slaves in Asia.

It is common knowledge that China employs millions of prisoners as slave labour.

* Small business is at a distinct disadvantage against big business, which can exert downward pressure on prices, lobby governments, and has ready access to finance.

A simple example is the corner milk-bar, butcher shop or greengrocer competing against a huge supermarket, owned and operated by a multinational corporation.  The supermarket can lower its prices, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, offer shareholder discounts, provide air conditioned comfort, convenience of shopping and use psychology to persuade the consumer into buying.

"Unequal competition between big and small business in an unregulated marketplace led to the destruction of real competition and the consolidation of control by big business" (ERADA, p. 35).

"...economic rationalism furthers the interests of big business and finance" (Ibid, p. 45).  "The inherent contradiction in competition was that it would ultimately destroy competition" (Ibid, p.18).

* The environment and occupational health and safety.  Australia has a relatively clean environment and relatively good work-place safety laws.  However, many other countries have very poor standards.

Consider the Foreword from ERADA.  "(In India) the environment pollution is immense.  A child breathing the air in New Delhi is ingesting pollutants at the equivalent of 10 cigarettes a day.  Wages are very low and show no signs of increasing quickly or in real terms, there are no effective labour laws, no effective prohibition on child labour and industrial health and safety laws are not policed".

Thus, while we observe industrial safety and environment laws, we are forced to compete with countries which have virtually no such laws.  This puts us at a distinct disadvantage because it limits us and it adds to our costs of production.

Radio National's "Background Briefing", on 7/7/98, reported that economic rationalism means untold wealth for a very few and a large number of poor people.  Business executives get obscene salaries while workers get sacked.  If labour has no role, democracy has no future.  Workers get little, speculators get the profits.

On the same report, George Soros, a multi-billionaire who has made a vast fortune by speculating on the currency market, admitted:

"Market fundamentalism doesn't work"

(He was referring to economic rationalism).

Today, multinational corporations control 70% of world trade; much of that is intra-firm trade, i.e. between branches owned by the same parent firm (ERADA, p. 110).

Page 167 of the book, A2000, states:

"Tariffs were reduced, export incentives eliminated and from a climate of encouragement by Government to manufacture locally we moved to disincentives.

"Our Federal politicians have failed us miserably in ensuring the loss of whole once-viable industries using the local steel...

"Almost as this book was going to print the latest proposals for Australia's ill-fated steel industry appeared:

"In talks with Newcastle leaders yesterday the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, discussed a proposal for a Chinese Government steel project to replace the BHP steel works, due to be closed in 1999...It is understood the proposed Chinese steel project would use direct-reduced iron processed in Western Australia for electric arc furnaces in Newcastle instead of exporting the iron for use in arc furnaces in China...

"Obviously, this is not confirmed yet.  But the fact it is even under consideration is outrageous.  Newcastle Steel commenced within weeks of the Gallipoli landing.  That it should even be contemplated that it should end this way is past understand.

"China is a recipient of IDA funds.  Australia is a donor.  China once again topped the list of World Bank borrowers, with $US2.8 Billion ($A3.8 Billion) in loans in 1997, well ahead of second-largest borrower, Russia, with $US1.7 Billion...

"China is also a recipient of finance from Australia's Foreign Aid.  Money directly granted to China is as follows: 1993-94: $86.8 million; 1994-95; $84 million; 1995-96: $62.2 million; 1996-97: $57.2 million (est.); 1997-98: $53.5 million (est.).  Total, 1993-94 to 1997-98: $343.7 million.  It is insane to consider the possibility of Australian aid funding a foreign takeover of its own steel industry.

"Perhaps common sense will prevail, and Australian credit diverted back to the resuscitation of our own industries.  But the story of what is happening must be spread far and wide in the shortest possible time".

TGB, p. 293 contains this quote from their former President, Abraham Lincoln:

"I don't know much about the tariff.  But I know this much.  When we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money.  When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money".

        - Abraham Lincoln.

Certain people who advocate economic rationalism say that we cannot put the 'shutters' up, isolate ourselves from the world and become 'fortress Australia'.  They grossly misrepresent this as being the only alternative.

We have never isolated ourselves from the world.  We have fought and died in Two World Wars and Other Wars around the world.  We have always engaged and traded with the rest of the world and will continue to do so if we abandon economic rationalism.

But in engaging with the world we must do so in Australia's interests, not the interests of international big business or the UN.

We must remind ourselves that we were the richest country on earth and be conscious of the fact that involving ourselves with the rest of the world beyond our national interests only pulls us down.

The population of the rest of the world continues to spiral, the environment continues to be degraded and resources reduced.  The more we unduly involve ourselves with the rest of the world the more we will be swept up in their calamities (e.g. the recent Asian economic chaos).

It is time for some common sense.  We must produce sufficient to satisfy our domestic needs.  Any excess can then be exported, provided we can do so without degrading our fragile, finite ecology and environment.

We must re-introduce tariffs and have Government intervention in re-establishing industries.

Certain people will say we must have an export-led-recovery.  This is pure nonsense.

90% of Australian corporations are foreign owned (ANR, May/June 1998; see also Oznews Newsletter, September 1998, p. 19, published by Austand, PO Box 173, Noosa Heads, Qld. 4567), so the profits from exports are being taken out of Australia.

Also, the drive to export degrades the environment and ecology.

Furthermore, foreign multinational corporation pay little of no tax in Australia.  Since 1953, multinational corporations have paid little or no tax (Jim Killaly, Assistant Commissioner of Taxation - reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, 28/10/96; also Oznews, Sept. 1998, p.18)).

Australian companies, having to pay the full rate of taxation, have been unable to compete (Oznews, p 19).  Hence only 10% of companies are Australian owned.  Probably less then 10% now.

From this 10% (or less), and from the wage and salary earners, the government has being trying to raise sufficient taxes to meet their needs.  It can't be done (Ibid).

(The Chairman of Austand - which stands for 'stand up for Australia - is John Cumming, who served as an Officer in the Australian military forces in World War Two).

For this (and other reasons) the Government has been selling off our public utilities.  Privatisation, they call it.

Billions of dollars have been flowing out of Australia into multinational corporations for years.  Australia, the richest country on earth, has been looted, pillaged and plundered for many years, with the full support of all major parties: Labor, Liberal, National.  The Australian Democrats and the Greens have either gone along with this or have been irrelevant.

Foreign multinational corporations will not employ Australian workers in Australia when they can have the same work done in certain overseas countries for a fraction of the cost.  This is another factor in Australia's unemployment.
 
 

THE LINK BETWEEN THE A.L.P.- FABIANISM - SOCIALISM - COMMUNISM - THE REPUBLIC PUSH-THE COALITION AND WORLD GOVERNMENT

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/98, is now openly calling for a World Government.
 

But first let us start with the Fabian Society.

The objective of Fabian Society is to achieve socialism by gradual means, rather than by sudden revolution.  The Fabian Society is an international organisation.

Rose L. Martin, writing in the book, the Fabian Freeway, p. 19, published by Western Islands, USA, 1966, said, in reference to Fabianism and their  objectives:

"The Fabian Society consists of Socialists...the Fabian Society looks to the spread of Socialist opinions, and the social and political changes consequent thereon...

"...nothing less than social revolution, to be achieved by devious means over a period of time rather than by direct action.  Violence as an ultimate measure was not renounced - it simply was not mentioned".

Fabianism is creeping socialism (NDCC, p.28).

In his speech to the Fabian Society Centenary Dinner on 18/5/84 (Principals In Practice - The First Two Years; R.J.Hawke; ISBN 0 909953228) , Labor politician and then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, stated:

"It is of course the classic concept of Fabianism - the inevitability of gradualness - and nothing is more widely misunderstood or more frequently misrepresented...Let me insist on what our opponents habitually ignore, and, indeed, what they seem intellectually incapable of understanding, namely the inevitable gradualness of our scheme of change.

"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless".

These excerpts are from the book, NDCC, pp 25-31:

"If you study Marx' Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said the proletarian revolution would establish the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.  To achieve the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished: (1) The elimination of all right to private property; (2) The dissolution of the family unit; and (3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the "opiate" of the people, religion.

"...Marx went on to say...the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state socialism would give way to communism...But first, all communists must work to establish socialism.

"The drive to establish socialism, not communism, is at the core of everything the communists...do.  Marx and all of his successors in the communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building socialism.  If you go to hear an official communist speaker, he never mentions communism.  He will speak only of the struggle to complete the socialisation...If you go to a communist bookshop you will find that all of their literature pushes this theme.  It does not call for the establishment of communism, but socialism.

"Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services.  When analysed this means government control over everything, including you.  All controls are "people" controls.  If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do - destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion".

Note that the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was not called the Communist Republics but the Socialist Republics.  Solzhenitsyn, in his address to the BBC on 26/3/76, said that socialism cost the Soviet Union 110,000,000 lives.  Note that he said socialism, not communism.

But there is no question that he was talking about communism.  The USSR was a communist union.

There is a wealth of evidence in the history books to prove that the objective of communism, and of the USSR, was total world domination (world government).  When the former USSR collapsed, the world's communists did not simply disappear, they still exist.  They further infiltrated many organisations and, if anything, are even more insidious and subtle.

There is a thread running through Fabianism, socialism, communism.  In essence, there is no difference between them.

So, let us now return to Bob Hawke's address to the Fabian Society on 18/4/84.  Hawke said:

"Almost from the beginning, its (The Fabian Society's) founders envisaged that the vehicle would be a Labor Party...The (Fabian) Society drew its strength from its vision of the future of Labor and the Labor Party...

"Australian Fabianism and Australian Fabians have made a specific and significant contribution to the Australian Labor movement and the Australian Labor Party.

"I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own Government to Fabianism".

Also in his speech, Hawke named several prominent Labor politicians as Fabians, and former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, as their own Fabius Maximus.

We have seen above that the objectives of communism include the removal of the right to own private property and the destruction of the family unit and of religion.

So too, does the Fabian Society call for the extinction of private property in land and the traditional liberties of Englishmen exchanged for a system of State socialism.  (See the Fabian Freeway, p. 19).
 

Again, Mr Hawke's speech to the Fabians gives us further insights:

"1947 was also a year when the challenge against bank nationalisation forced on us a realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution, and in particular by Section 92.  Consequently, this led to a rethinking of our approach.  Because, unless the platform was just to stagnate into irrelevance, the search had to be made for alternative means of achieving our objectives.

"In that search - and it was a search and a development of policy that went on for more then 20 years - Fabians were in the forefront...".

The realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution and the search for alternative means of achieving their objectives!

We have seen some of the objectives above, of Fabians, socialist and communists.

Readers are reminded of the ALP's Platform and Rules, 1982, described above in the chapter, The Real Reasons for Attempting to Asianise Australia.  These include commitments to: an Australian republic, international socialism, a New International Economic Order (NIEO) (economic rationalism), a UN Bill of Rights, changing the Australian flag, emasculating the Senate and reducing the power of the Governor General.

All commitments designed to centralise power in Australia to facilitate take over by a World Government.

But wait, there's more.  Again, in Mr Hawke's Fabian speech:

"We all have to face the fact that if our Government is to make really great and worthwhile reforms - reforms that will endure, reforms that will permanently change this nation - then it is not enough simply to obtain a temporary majority at an election, or even successive elections.  For our reforms to endure, the whole mood and mind and attitudes of the nation must be permanently changed.

"...That specific task must go hand in hand with the more general and deeper, longer range task - the task of establishing, in the mood and mind of this nation, permanent acceptance of the naturalness and inevitability of change and reform, as the authentic way of life.

Here we have a former Labour Prime Minister calling for the control and manipulation of the minds of the Australian people.  In the same speech he drew attention to the restrictions imposed by the Australian Constitution on Fabian objectives.  Labour’s agenda is to get rid of the Constitution and make Australia a republic.

The Constitutional Heritage Protection Society, P.O. Box Q381, Queen Victoria PO, Sydney NSW 2001 Newsletter 1997, and The Australian newspaper 28/8/97 contain this quote from Kim Beazley, present leader of the ALP.  Whilst this related to another matter, the comment is of the utmost interest:

“I believe these things are done incrementally.  You prepare a public mind, a public attitude; you create an acceptance of the unacceptable...”

The Fabian Society exists to this day.

Perhaps, upon considering the above evidence, the Australian people will view through different eyes the push to make Australia a republic, and the ALP's motives?

What of the present Government, the Liberal-National Coalition?  On many issues there is no difference between the ALP and the Coalition Government.  Former MHR, Graeme Campbell, calls them tweedeldumb and tweedeldumber.

On the television program, "Insight", on Chanel SBS, former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser admitted that there was no difference between Labour and the Coalition.  He actually called for a Labor-Liberal-National Coalition!

For many years Labor and the Coalition had a bi-partisan agreement to maintain high immigration (despite public hostility to it) and to keep it off the election agenda.  (What contempt for democracy).

Labor opposed the GST in the last election, but had it won office, it would only have been a matter of time before they introduced a GST, no matter what they might say now.

The PM, John Howard prevaricates as to his position on the republic, but many, if not most, Coalition politicians are pro-republicans.

The Coalition is controlled by international forces.  It favours the NIEO, it has been party to the destruction of Australian industries, to numerous UN treaties, and to emasculating our military forces and disarming the people.

The Age, 20/7/98, reported: "For almost two decades, during the age of globalisation, the two major parties in Australia have conducted a democratic experiment in elite bi-partisanship, largely excluding from the policies and considerations signs of deep popular resistance to sweeping economic reform and cultural change".  (Comment: A 'democratic' experiment?).

Both major parties collaborate to bring in World Government.

The following comments of A.K.Fuss, in the booklet, The Role of Finance in Government and Decentralised or Centralised Government, 1970, pp 12-18, (The Institute of Economic Democracy, PO Kingstown, via Armidale, NSW, 2350) highlight the threat to the rights we take for granted if we needlessly tamper with our Constitution:

"Constitutions are both the licence to govern, and the limit on excessive government.  It is often argued that constitutions become outdated.  This is a superficial and shallow view.  Constitutions are principles on paper and principles don't change like the design of a motor car.  They are a barrier to the power-seeker, and the spirit in which constitutions are born makes possible satisfactory associations between men.

"The Triads of Molmutius, who ruled Britain about 450 BC probably provide the first simple constitution in British history.  They were simplicity itself, and started from the base that each man was entitled to certain freedoms, which no vote or law could remove from him.  This unique concept - that freedom, a spiritual quality, started from the individual - has always distinguished the British form of government from any other.

"Habeas Corpus, the essence of English common law, states quite clearly that no man may be held guilty until his crime has been proved.  The great law authorities have always held that the Molmutius laws can be regarded as the foundation and bulwark of British liberties, distinguished for their clearness, brevity, justice and humanity.

"...It was the same principles which were to be found in the Magna Carta (in the year 1215), described so vividly by Sir Winston Churchill in his 'History of the English speaking Peoples', in these words, '...when in subsequent ages, the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success'.

"The famous English constitutional authority, Sir William Blackstone, pronounced upon Magna Carta as follows: 'It protected every individual of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty and his property, unless declared forfeited by the judgement of his peers or by the law of the land'.

"It is important to note that all totalitarian contenders for power have directed their attacks upon the Constitution and the Upper House.  Hitler, on his assumption of power in Germany in the thirties, abolished the Upper House in Germany.  It stood in the way of his bid for power.

"In considering the value of our written Federal Constitution in Australia, it is essential to grasp that it was a grant of special powers from the States to the Federal Government.  Those who framed the Constitution attempted to embody in it what their forefathers had learned about governments over centuries.  They realised the menace of centralised government particularly in a vast country like Australia.  The people of the States were only persuaded to vote for Federation on the understanding that State sovereignties would be protected.

"Undoubtedly the most urgent task of all is to rally the entire community to defend the existing Federal Constitution, which stands as a barrier to the policies of those who would subvert our heritage".

Becoming a republic and changing our flag will divorce us from our Christian heritage and English system of law which we inhered from England.  This includes the rights we take for granted.  Our rights to:

* ownership of private property
* freedom of speech
* freedom of assembly and association
* freedom of movement
* freedom from unjust arrest and search
* trial by our peers
* face our accuser in open court
* legal representation.

These are the rights we fought and died for in Two World Wars and Other Wars.

We take for granted the right to freedom of movement, e.g. to travel around Australia without being questioned by government authorities as to our reasons for doing so.

Freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement have recently been denied to people wishing to attend speeches of Pauline Hanson.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ms Hanson is beside the point, people have been denied their rights.  Some people only wanted to hear what she had to say, and were assaulted, sometimes seriously, abused as racists and intimidated by violent thugs.  Insufficient Police numbers were in attendance to prevent this happening.  In Ipswich, Queensland, on 4/8/98, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party was refused permission by the local Council to use the Council hall.  One Nation was forced to hold the meeting outside the Council in close proximity to protesters.

The Whitehorse Gazette, Victoria, reported on 5/8/98 that Whitehorse Council was considering whether to refuse to allow One Nation to use their hall to hold a meeting in the future.

At the risk of belabouring the point, it must be emphasised that divorcing us from Christianity, our system of law and the rights we take for granted, are some of the real reasons for the determined push by certain people to make us a republic.

Another reason is the fact that Australian Governments have for years signed many hundreds of treaties with the United Nations, unbeknown to the Australian people.  These treaties relinquish power of the Australian Government to a centralised UN.  We are surrendering our sovereignty as a nation.  But the actions of surrendering ourselves to UN treaties is of uncertain legality.

By becoming a republic, the Australian people will unknowingly put their stamp of approval on the relinquishment of their rights and remove any doubt about the legality of these UN treaties.  See the report by constitutional lawyer, Dr David Mitchell, BA, LLB, Ph.D, LLM in the National Focus, PO Box 182, Nanango, Qld. 4615, February 1998.

Some pro-republicans use the specious argument that becoming a republic will make Australia a sovereign country.  But becoming a republic will not increase our sovereignty one fraction.  And if we are so keen on increasing our sovereignty, why have we surrendered our financial system to international financiers?  Why have we surrendered ourselves to UN law by signing hundreds of treaties?  Why have we down-graded our military forces and disarmed the civilian population?

Becoming a republic will, in one fell swoop, repeal all the rights we take for granted.  Our rights will be what the politicians tell us they are.  Numerous recent media reports in Australia clearly indicate the complete contempt in which politicians are held by the Australian people.  Are we seriously considering giving more power to politicians?  What they give they can take away at their whim.
Worse, our rights will be what the UN and big business tell us they are.  The UN is a body known to be dominated by global business and finance (see ERADA.  See also, The Unseen Hand, by Ralph A.Epperson, 1985, Publius Press).

Becoming a republic will not increase our sovereignty one bit, it will be the catalyst for the complete loss of our sovereignty, rights and freedoms.

Under our present Constitutional Monarchy, The Crown is above party politics; it is above the nonsense and deceit we have to tolerate every election time.  The Governor General represents all Australians.  Politicians are elected to Parliament by those who vote for them.

We are a republic for all practical purposes, but with our rights and freedoms protected by the Constitutional Monarchy.  We have the best of both worlds.

Becoming a republic will clear the path for Australia to be swallowed by a World Government.

We are playing with fire.
 
 

AUSTRALIA IS DEFENCELESS AGAINST MILITARY INVASION FROM ASIA

The present economic turmoil in Asia does not rule-out a military attack on Australia.

Australia today is defenceless.  With a population of 19 million people, we occupy a continent almost as large as the USA, rich in minerals and resources.  We have a relatively pristine environment.  We are a glittering prize.

To our north in Asia are teeming billions of people, many living in indescribable poverty, pollution, filth, congestion.  They are also armed to the hilt.  Indonesia's military forces are several times greater than ours.  China's military is several times greater then Indonesia's.  (See HS 25/5/97).

The late B.A.Santamaria, who wrote regularly in TWA has said:

* The day will come when China will condemn us in the United Nations for occupying such a vast area of land with such a small population and will sharply demand that we hand it over to the starving millions.

* The Land of The Lotus Eaters will not be permitted to slumber forever.

Australian Governments, under their policy of economic rationalism have driven thousands of farmers off their land.  If this land is not used productively pressure will mount for this land to be made available to millions of people living in poverty in other countries.

Sir Phillip Baxter, former vice-chancellor of the University of NSW said in 1982 that conflict over food, energy and resources is inevitable (ANR July/August 1997).

China's population is about 1.2 billion and increases every year by about 16 million people (almost the total of Australia's population).

India's population is about 1.2 billion and increases every year by about 18 million people (about the total of Australia's population).

The nations of S.E. Asia were spending great sums of money on new, high-tech armaments in the world's most dynamic arms race (The Australian 10/11/97).  (Most of this spending occurred before the recent economic crisis).

"Think for a moment, not using our logic, but as our northern neighbours must think.  As populations rise, the cost of land in Asia is constantly rising.  Here is a country to the south that has huge amounts of land and is vastly under-populated" (Business Review Weekly, 18/11/96).

(They see the vastness of Australia and our small population but they do not fully understand the limits placed on our population by our dry, harsh, fragile environment and soils).

"In Japan, Korea and Singapore, Australians are seen as sitting on a treasure chest of raw materials which they are too lazy to exploit to advantage and hence do not deserve" (HS 4/1/98).

On previous occasions, Australian political 'leaders' have gone to Asian countries and grovelled to Asian leaders.  What must they think of Australians?  Does this induce them to think we do not deserve this country?

"There is a very strong view in Asia that we are wasting (land) resources which they simply do not have" (The Australian 3/1/95).

The HS, 24/11/96, reported that one of the world's leading defence experts warned that:

* Australia was a glittering strategic prize;
* several Asian countries were spying on us.

The report also said that a survey revealed that members of the Howard Government believed that:

* Australia faced security threats from China and Indonesia.

Readers are reminded of the billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money our Governments have given to these countries over many years, including the report (above) that Australian taxpayers gave Indonesia $114 million in 1993 for military aid.

Much of Asia is now embroiled in economic chaos, causing these countries internal problems.  The ramifications of this to Australia's 'defence' are unclear and unpredictable.  What is clear is that we live in a very unpredictable, unstable, dangerous and volatile world.

Who foresaw the economic collapse of Asia?  Who foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union?

What will be the situation in Asia in 12 months, or two years?  Will they look to military conquest to resolve, or alleviate, their problems?

General Douglas Macarthur said that the history of the failure of war can almost be summed up in two words: too late.

* Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy.
* Too late in realising the mortal danger.
* Too late in preparedness.
* Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance.
* Too late in standing with one's friends.

General Macarthur also said:

* Beware not the enemy from 'without' but the enemy from 'within'.
* Wars are caused by unprotected wealth.

General Sir Walter Walker, KCB, CBE, DSO: "The only safe prediction today is that the unexpected must be expected".

Professor Geoffrey Blainey:  "Major wars...were not really foreseen even 5 years before they arrived" (HS 26/1/98).

Machiavelli (Italian statesman, 1469-1527): "The Gauls invaded ancient Rome because...the population of Gaul had become too large and they did not have enough food" (The Discourses p. 295).

Toynbee (social reformer, 1852-83): "No great civilization ever collapsed as a result of external attack.  If external attack appears to be the immediate cause, it has been preceded by long decades...of corruption from within".

General Sir Walter Walker: "As long ago as the year 500BC, the Chinese practised subversive warfare.  They said:

* The greatest art is to break the enemy's opposition without a fight on the battlefield.  The direct art of war is only needed on the battlefield.
* A true victory, and a lasting one, can only be won by indirect and subversive methods, and so, corrupt all that is good in the enemy country.
* Destroy, with all manner of means, the enemy's armaments, his supplies and the orderly functioning of his armies.
* Spread dishonesty and quarrel among the citizens of the enemy country.  Push the young against their elders.
* Abase his traditions and his religious faith.
* Be generous with presents, so as to be able to buy intelligence and accomplices.
* Place your secret agents everywhere.

The above example of the ancient Chinese is used to show that ANY potential enemy may use these methods.
Consider the ominous relevance and similarity, of the above, to Australian society today: the destruction of our economy; disarming our military forces and the civilian population; unemployment (20)%; youth unemployment of 30% (Channel 10, 6/8/98) and in some areas 70%; drug addiction; poverty (one person in three in poverty); suicide; family break-down; the quarrel between the multi cultures, black against white, republican against Monarchist, young against elderly, poor against rich, womens' liberalists against men, homosexuals against heterosexuals, and the erosion of our traditions and Christianity.

Robert Rice, writing in the ANR, April 1998, (p.8) reports that money laundering and corruption flourish in Australia but the media rarely reports the truth of the situation.  Entertainment rather then investigative journalism appears to be the self-limiting role of our newspapers and newsrooms.  The guilty go free and unhindered because of powerful influences on what can and can't be reported.

He states:

"Australia is awash with drug money, corruption now reaches into the highest levels of society - government, the judiciary, legal profession, the police and local government administration - yet the media is strangely silent on the subject.

"Hearsay and rumour names prominent people involved in this web of illegal practice but the same persons are reported uncritically in the media...

"There is something terminally sick at the heart of Australian life when these creatures are held up as an example to the people, and the real sleazy and criminal underside of their lives is censored and withheld.

"This is not paranoia.  The fact is that corruption is now so widespread and self interest so paramount in the professions, which once used to discipline their own members, that it is very difficult for the truth to get out.

"Sydney perhaps personifies the problem.  There, criminality is now part of the establishment, and the only conspiracy is that which seeks to prevent the ordinary citizen from being aware of it".

Remember the warnings of Toynbee and General Sir Walter Walker above.

Our traditions, and history have been abased and rewritten.  Dr Robert Birrell, of Monash University, Victoria, states that nationalism is no longer intellectually fashionable, partly because of the extensive denigration of our history that has occurred (TWA, 31/1/98-1/2/98).  He further writes that links with Australia's recent decline in pride in our past with recent "revisionist" rewriting of our history of writers keen to promote multiculturalism and republican visions of Australia (The HS 4/11/95).

We can see here the incessant denigration of our treatment of Aborigines by our ancestors and the shame we should feel, even though we cannot be held responsible today for events, or alleged events, in history.  This serves to destroy pride in our nation and nationalism.

Senator Bronwyn Bishop, Defence Industry Minister stated: "The Australian Defence Force was virtually unable to defend the country because of poor military planning...The defence forces could not even defend themselves" (The Age 3/6/98).

The National Focus, November 1997, reported Brigadier E.P.Serong, DSO, OBE (retired):

"Australia's defence condition is, in a word, disastrous.  We have witnessed a massive decline in the numbers, equipment, money, operational experience and political status of our armed forces, particularly the combat element.

"Now we have two questionable effective battalions, which would be about enough for crowd control in Bourke Street (Melbourne).

"We could not sustain one battalion in ongoing overseas combat operations within Australia.

"Now, would you believe, we bring students from overseas countries to Canungra to teach them our methods.

"And now, further down the track, we propose gun laws.  Every one-man incident is beaten up into an exercise to disarm the entire population.  We disarm the population, so they can't defend themselves.

"The present and mid-term future position is stark and clear.  The armed forces cannot defend the nation.  The Police Force cannot defend the people." (The National Focus, November 1997).

The Sunday Age, 28/6/92, carried a report that suggested that in a drawn out war, and if necessary, The Australian Army would abandon all areas north of a line from Newcastle, NSW, to Port Augusta, SA.  All areas north of the imaginary line would be abandoned to the enemy.  The Army said it was only a proposal and would not be endorsed.  Defence Minister at the time, Senator Robert Ray, confirmed the existence of the plan but said it would not be released.

This is similar to the plan during World War Two to surrender vast areas of northern areas of Australia to the enemy.

The first and foremost duty of a Government is to protect its people against military invasion.  This is even written into The Australian Constitution.  Section 119 states that the Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion.

So, why have Australian Governments (whatever Party has been in power) for many years downgraded our military forces, leaving us defenceless against foreign miliary attack?

Following the recent tragedy in Port Arthur, Tasmania, what was the real reason for disarming the civilian Australian population?  Having seized these weapons, why did the Government destroy them instead of storing them securely?

You don't disarm the people, punish the people, by keeping responsible people from firearms, because of the actions of one madman; you keep the madmen from firearms.

A population armed with light weapons, properly trained, is a very significant deterrent to any would-be aggressor.  This was a factor in deterring Japan in World War Two.  No matter what heavy equipment or how high tech the enemy's arsenal, a determined, widely dispersed, lightly armed civilian population who chooses when and where to fight, to hit and run, is an extremely formidable foe.

Let us remind ourselves of the situation in China today.  We saw above the appalling over-population (increasing every year by almost the total of Australia's population), the pollution, poverty, filth.  As they continue their industrialisation, conditions will become even more intolerable.  China could be a time bomb ticking away.  China is a nuclear power and is arming itself way beyond its defence needs.

China is the most aggressive country in the world in the acquisition of military hardware (ANR Sept. 1997).  Will China seek a military conquest of other countries to solve its problems?

See also the comments below regarding China's relations with the USA.

India is in a similar position to China and is also a powerful military, with nuclear weapons.

Japan has re-armed and is a very technically advanced country.

Indonesia's military strength is many times that of Australia's.  Their military plays a role in the decision making processes of their government.

The HS 1/1/98 reported that the release of top secret documents after 30 years revealed that the Australian Government still fears Indonesia.  We saw above that members of the Howard Government regard them as a threat to our security.  Yet we give them huge amounts of money!

With Indonesia's current economic disaster, will millions of unarmed Indonesian boat-people set sail for Australia, on the assumption that we would not shoot unarmed people?  What would we do?  Would they be followed up by armed Indonesian military invasion.  What of the Indonesian troops training in Australia to this day?  (Recent written advice from the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Australia is still training Indonesian troops in Australia).

In 1975 Indonesia invaded and occupied East Timor and killed hundreds of thousands of East Timorese - we will probably never know the full number.  Indonesian troops committed atrocities, torture, rape on a large scale.

Despite fearing Indonesian aggression and its history of invading East Timor, our Labor and Liberal-National Governments have weakened our military forces and disarmed the civilian population.  The Democrat and Greens Parties have remained silent or been irrelevant.

On 19/7/98, Channel 9's "Sunday" program reported that Australia was the only country in the world to recognise Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor.  The report also stated that Australia has been implicated with Indonesia in exploiting oil in East Timorese territorial waters.  The "Sunday" program showed an Australian Minister drinking Champagne with an Indonesian minister in an aircraft after signing the deal.  The Australian Government and military trained Indonesian military in Australia and they practised their newly acquired skills against the East Timorese.

As mentioned, our Governments have given billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money to Indonesia, China and India.  Australia is only a small economy.

It takes many years to build up an adequate defence, even if we started now.  We must have a strong manufacturing industry (we don't), in place, so that it can be adjusted to manufacture military hardware.

Some people argue that to have an adequate defence capacity we must fill this country up with people, and this will prevent other countries attacking us.  To start with, Australia, the driest continent on earth, is limited by our harsh environment.  One hundred million people, or even 50 million, will turn Australia into a giant dust bowl.  We are one of the most, if not the most, highly urbanised countries on earth.  Imagine what our cities would be like with a population of 50 million?  Would the result be any different to if we had been militarily invaded?

Having a population of 100 million would be no guarantee that we would not be attacked.  With the populations of India, China and their annual increases, and populations of the rest of the world, 100 million is totally insignificant.

Becoming an Asian country with a large Asian population would be no guarantee that Asian countries would not attack us.  Asian countries have been at war with each other for many years.

With the mindless rush to privatise our public utilities, what are the repercussions of this for our 'defence'?  We have recently seen Sydney's water supply being contaminated on two occasions.  How easy would it be, for example, for our enemy to sabotage our water supplies or electricity supplies by corrupting private suppliers?  Do the mainstream political parties even care?

In conclusion, with our vast coastline and small population, we must have high-tech, scientific, sophisticated military equipment, and highly mobile military forces.  We must have the best intelligence, be skilled in the art of diplomacy, and carefully select potential allies.

But we Lotus Eaters don't have much time left, we better get cracking.
 
 

WOULD THE UNITED STATES DEFEND US?

Can we rely on the USA to defend us?  The late Sir Robert Menzies said that the ANZUS Treaty was a superstructure on a foundation of jelly.  ANZUS only committed us to 'consult' (HS 25/5/97).

The US Government is controlled or influenced by multi-billionaires and multinational corporations.  These people are behind the economic rationalism dogma sweeping the world.  Australia must break free from economic rationalism or we are doomed.
Here lies the dilemma for us.  There are other complications.

"We could not rely on the US to defend our national interests unless they coincided with those of the US.  Can the (Australian) Government point to one instance where the US has defended Australia's interests when the US interests were either opposed or not engaged.  It is silly to just allow our Forces to be used for US interests when we leave Australia undefended" (The Age 4/12/97).

There are accusations that President Clinton received illegal campaign contributions from China, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea (The Age 26/10/97).

"President Clinton has clinched a lucrative deal for nuclear and aircraft sales to China.  Over one third of Americans have hostile feelings to China and 72% want a strong nuclear stand against China" (HS 31/10/97).

The US is to sell billions of dollars of nuclear reactors to China (Ch. 10 news, 10.30pm, 30/10/97).

"The US approved the sale of sophisticated military technology to the Chinese military...welcomed the most notorious Chinese arms dealer into the White House.  The Chinese Communist Government has launched an all out offensive to infiltrate America's political, military and security apparatus, while penetrating the US economy in unprecedented and hitherto unnoticed ways.  US technology controls are too weak to prevent Chinese entities from purchasing military secrets.  The Chinese Government can now sit in Long Beach Harbour and eavesdrop on communications throughout the Los Angles area.  Chinese influence in American policy and finance continues to grow with Clinton's encouragement".  (ANR Sept. 1997).

"China is the most aggressive country in the world in the acquisition of military hardware" (ANR Sept. 1997). " China has about 3 million personnel in their Armed Forces.  China is modernising its huge military forces"  (HS 25/5/97).  Bear in mind also the comments above regarding China's population problems, industrialisation and pollution problems.

On 7/6/98 Channel 9's "Sixty Minutes" program reported that large numbers of people in the USA are deeply worried about the sovereignty of their country and the numerous treaties the US Government has signed with the UN.  Civilian militias have sprung up and are training in anticipation with violent conflict with their own government.

So, if the American people don't trust their own Government, why should we?
 
 

WOULD THE UN MILITARY FORCES DEFEND US OR ARE THEY A POTENTIAL ENEMY?

Would the United Nations Military Forces defend us?  The UN is a body known to be dominated by global business and finance (see ERADA, and The Unseen Hand, above).  So, again, our defence would be at the whim of international financial forces, which are aggressively pushing economic rationalism which is destroying Australia.
The ANR, Sept. 1996 reported that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for over 85% of the world's conventional arms trade and two thirds of the sales are to the poorest countries in the world.

The UN's record in defending countries is appalling.  Over many years, many millions of people have been butchered in Cambodia, Timor, Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam and Bosnia.

The Age 6/11/97 reports that UN soldiers have carried out killings and torture of Somalian civilians and these practices were common.  Somali people took up arms against the UN because they saw them as an occupying force.  There is deepening antagonism between many Africans and UN Agencies.  The UNHRC (UN Human Rights Commission) has been expelled from Eritrea and the Congo.

Our military armed forces are inadequate.  Our civilian population has been almost disarmed.  Australian Governments have signed numerous disarmament treaties with the UN. Both major political parties enthuastically embrace globalisation, economic rationalism and centralised world control.

There is much anecdotal evidence that many Australians fear UN military domination of Australia.  If Australia is occupied by UN military forces this means we would be under the control of foreign military forces, who are controlled ultimately by international big business.

We must politely decline the United Nations' offer to "defend" us.
 
 

MULTI-CULTURALISM WEAKENS OUR DEFENCE AGAINST FOREIGN MILITARY ATTACK

"That most, if not all, multiculturalists are actually internationalists is beyond doubt.  As an example, the Government-sponsored document, Australia as a Multicultural Society, saw fit to propagate the belief that Australia's interests may have to be over-ridden by so-called international interests: 'we also wish to emphasise that questions of immigration policy (like many other questions) are embedded in a much wider concept of social cohesion than this: namely, the social good of humanity as a whole.  From this point of view, Australia may be a sectional group in a wider international system and the good of the wider system may over-ride the well-being of Australia considered in isolation".  (See The Menace of Multiculturalism, by Cameron McKenzie, 1997, p.6, published by the Institute of Australian Culture, PO Box 64, Watsonia, Vic. 3087; Australian Ethnic Affairs Council publication, Australia as a multicultural Society, AGPS, Canberra, 1978, pp. 4, 14).

It seems that the defence of Australia against a military attack by a foreign country is not of paramount consideration.  We must prostrate ourselves for the good of humankind, the betterment of the world.  Our global masters will decide what is good for the world and what is not.

It is time we recognised the dangerous game we are playing when we promote multiculturalism.

'Divided and conquered' is an old military tactic.  Australia is certainly a divided country in many ways, as described above.  We are a weak, demoralised, defenceless society.  A glittering prize 'up-for-grabs'.

Instead of promoting the assimilation of migrants into the Australian culture, our Governments have for many years encouraged and promoted the policy of multiculturalism.  Under this policy, ethnic groups in Australia are encouraged to maintain their separate cultures.

Maintaining their culture instead of assimilating into Australian culture, ensures that they maintain:

* allegiance to their country of origin;
* hostilities to their traditional enemies;
* the division of Australia.

Australian taxpayers have funded this policy.  An example of this is the use of taxpayers' money to teach children of ethnic people about the folklore, dances and games of their parents' homelands (Sydney Morning Herald 25/5/96).

In Australia there are many obvious examples of specific ethnic groups congregating in certain suburbs.

A homogeneous nation, proud of its race, is a far deadlier and more powerful fighting machine than will be found in a multicultural country.  You are less likely to find draft dodgers and conscientious objectors in a racially homogeneous nation.  (See The Dispossessed Majority, by Wilmot Robertson, 1972, Howard Allen, USA).

For many centuries, different ethnic groups have butchered each other in wars around the world.  Yet for some reason we seem to think they can be transported to Australia, encouraged to maintain their ethnic separateness and rivalries without tension.

It is only the strength and stability of our Australian culture and traditions that have limited racial violence.  But the more we promote cultural separateness (which is fuelled by high immigration) the more the Australian culture is slowly suffocated.  As the Australian culture and traditions recede, the prospect of racial tension increases.

On Easter Monday, 1998, Pope Paul warned that ethnic rivalry was sewing the seeds of death (Channel 2 News, 7pm).

Hitler used propaganda to divide multicultural Czechoslovakia and apply pressure for a separate state for Germans living in that country (Red over Black, by Geoff McDonald, pp 95-97, 1982, Veritas).  As history records, after dividing the country, Hitler's tanks rolled in.

The HS, 16/8/95, reported:

"The lessons of war forgotten", says Professor Geoffrey Blainey.  "World War Two taught us that national unity and high morale were vital, especially in February and March 1942 when Japan seemed likely to invade Australia.
"One day, Australia will face another regional threat or crisis that might lead to fighting.

"In the world’s history, many nations, lacking unity, have collapsed in the face of a determined enemy.  Will national unity, vital in every past wartime crisis, be attainable if Canberra continues to subsidise ethnic groups to retain loyalties to their former homeland?

"The parallel idea that multiculturalism will ensure that Australia remains at peace with South-East Asia is close to nonsense but is still widely believed in Canberra.

"...the failure in the 1930s of Australia and especially...the Labor Party to sanction reasonable spending on the nation's defence.  If Australia had operated the best fighter aircraft, Singapore might not have fallen".

Several chilling words of Professor Blainey stand out: national unity; high morale; South-East Asia; defence spending.

Solzhenitsyn said: in his BBC Address on 26/3/76, "When courage is lost, all is lost".

Inherent in that is morale, will, and determination.  Are these qualities present in what remains of our Military Forces, our unemployed youth, our nation?

Brigadier R.T.Eason, MC, ED, said in 1976:

* Race is a dominant factor.  It is fashionable to deny this simple truth but no real strategist would do so.  Race will be the thing that decides ultimately, even beyond religious belief, what people do and what they will not do.

* Study racial behaviour throughout history and there is no room for doubt as to its potency.

* Can the Jew live with the Arab?  Can the Greek live with the Turk?  Can the French live with the Anglo-Saxon in Canada?  Can the Malays live with the Chinese?

But rather than ask whether the different races can live with each other, it might be more to the point to ask (in multicultural Australia) would they die for each other if Australia was at war?

Would they kill members of their own race?  For example, if Australia was at war with China, would a Chinese Australian drive a bayonet into the chest of a Chinese from the Peoples' Republic of China?  Its a reasonable question to ask, surely.

If we were at war with China, what of Chinese living in Australia?  Many Chinese would probably be loyal to Australia, but would there be any who were not?  What do we do about them?  Do we have to divert our scarce resources to monitor them?

We saw above the report in the HS, 24/11/96, regarding several Asian countries spying on Australia.  Whilst many migrants migrate to Australia for legitimate reasons, how can we be sure that some do not migrate to spy on Australia?  What better way to carry out espionage activities on Australia, the glittering prize.
Different religions is a very divisive factor.  Religion has been the cause of many wars throughout history.

"Christmas celebrations have been stripped of their Christian symbolism to ensure children from different religious and cultural backgrounds do not feel alienated.  Nativity plays and overly religious activities have been scrapped in many Melbourne kindergartens concerned about their culturally diverse proteges" (HS 20/12/96).  This alienates, and is extremely offensive and provocative for Christians.  Whilst not everybody in Australia is a Christian, we are a Christian country, it is one of our traditions.  Christianity is even written into our Constitution.

The HS, 29/1/97, reported that ethnic schools are springing up in Victoria which critics claim are socially divisive and create ethnic enclaves.  It queries what Islamic schools teach about the Holocaust and Israel; what Jewish schools teach about the Palestinians; what the schools teach about the Greek Macedonian dispute, about Australian history, equality of sexes and the separation of religion from the state.

In certain cultures, polygamy is practised, women are oppressed, arranged marriages occur, female genital mutilation occurs, crimes are punished by mutilation and the penalty for drinking alcohol is jail.  In India, certain religious sects practice the most appallingly bloodthirsty rites.

How does all this unite us and make us "a deadly, more powerful fighting machine"?

Language difficulties is another factor.  If Australia was at war, how do we communicate with each other when many of us do not speak the same language?  How do our warriors on the battlefield communicate with each other?

It is common knowledge and well reported that for many years the major political parties and the mainstream media had a pact to keep 'immigration' off the political agenda, despite clearly demonstrated public hostility to immigration.  The Democrats and the Greens either went along with this or were irrelevant.  This meant that 'immigration' was never allowed to become an issue at election times.

The Government sponsored policy of multiculturalism (dividing the country) was in place and multiculturalism is fuelled by immigration.  Multiculturalism weakens our defence against foreign military invasion.

The importance of this cannot be over-estimated.

Our democracy, the people of Australia and our defence against military attack were treated with contempt.

The costs of immigration and multiculturalism is another consideration.  A report titles, Giving Our Money Away, by Des Moore, in the ANR, Sept. 1996 states that grants for special interest groups were probably close to $200 million.

The Barbarians (see above) deals extensively with the costs of immigration and starkly reveals the costs of ethnic crime, welfare abuse and immigration abuse.  On p. 112, Paul Sheehan writes, "Suffice to say at this point that the problems have been covered up as part of Labor's prodigious bluff, a bluff that has cost Australian society uncountable billions of dollars and ruined lives".

And on p. 97, Sheehan quotes Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister of Australia in his maiden speech in Parliament, "...the enormous cost of bringing migrants to this country.  We must bear in mind this cost when we consider the cost of subsidising Australian families...These figures may sound high but they are not when we compare the cost of bringing migrants to this country.  After all, the best migrant is the infant Australian".

Columnist, Michael Duffy, writing in The Daily Telegraph, 4/7/98, reported, "It is widely asserted in newspapers across the land that mass immigration is undeniably an economic boon for Australia.  This is completely wrong.  There is a wealth of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite, from reputable academics around Australia".

The BRW, October 1989 reported that immigration adds approximately $9 Billion annually to our foreign debt.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has admitted that immigration increases unemployment.

How much does Australia borrow overseas to fund the costs associated with the increased demands on our infrastructure: our roads, rails, sewers, schools, power, water, hospitals, etc.?

The indirect costs associated with immigration and multiculturalism are usually overlooked.  Some of these indirect costs are:

*  lost productivity in the workplace (itself a huge cost);
*  lack of language skills alone costs Australian taxpayers $4.8 Billion every year (The Cost of Multiculturalism, by Stephen  J.Rimmer, 1991, Flinders Press);
*  extra training for Police to deal with ethnic crime;
*  language difficulties a school teacher experiences with students with poor English;
*  employment of interpreters;
*  lack of social cohesion;
*  riots at soccer and other sporting events between fighting ethnic groups;
*           diseases introduced into Australia by migrants, the costs of treatment and attempts to                 prevent them.

The Age, 20/8/98, reported, "It is believed (research shows) high levels of drug-related convictions amongst Vietnamese migrants and that other recent arrivals are more likely to be represented in certain prison statistics than Australian-born citizens".

"Government research confirming stereotypes between race and crime (prepared for immigration authorities) is being suppressed because of racial tensions and sensitivities surrounding One Nation" (Ibid).

The HS, 3/7/98 reported that Police, when publishing the descriptions of offenders wanted for crimes, were not allowed to give descriptions of certain racial groups.  The HS, 20/3/97, also reported, "Our politically correct crooks".  The report stated that Police will be forced to drop racial descriptions of crime suspects after pressure from ethnic groups.
If some criminals remain undetected and go on to commit further crimes, perhaps rape and murder of children and old women, what is the cost to the community in terms of suffering and money?  This is political correctness gone mad.

Channel SBS's "Insight", on 25/9/97, revealed that the 1914 Crimes Act was amended in 1994 so that courts would have to take into account the cultural background of people before proceeding to conviction and sentencing.

This is discrimination against Australian offenders, and breaches the principle that we should all be equal before the law.  If migrants wish to live in our country, they must live by our customs and laws, not require us to change our laws and customs to suit their customs.

Also, this breaches the principle of the separation of the judiciary from politics, one of the pillars of our democracy (or what's left of our democracy).

The indirect costs associated with the relentless pressure on our fragile, finite, often degraded soils, is another indirect cost invariably overlooked.

This is money we could have spent on our military forces, to ensure we remain a free country.  Money we could have spent on our manufacturing industries, to provide employment and to form the basis of military hardware manufacture.

With Australia's vast coastline and small population it is essential that we have high-tech, sophisticated military equipment and a highly mobile military force.  This requires money.

Multi-Culturalism is multi-madness and must be unceremoniously buried immediately.
 
 

DO WE ILL-TREAT OUR ABORIGINES?

The HS, 19/6/98 reported that some members of Melbourne's Wurundjeri tribe plan to charge residents of Melbourne's north eastern suburbs rent.  Nillumbik Councillors Lex de Man and Natalie Woodley have called on residents to oppose the plan after Council staff proposed charging a $5.00 levy on all ratepayers.

"Aborigines currently possess inalienable freehold title to just over 40% of the Northern Territory.  It is expected that this will eventually rise to around 50%" (written advice, dated 12/6/98,  from the Office of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs).

50% of Victoria is now under Native Title claim (ANR June 1997).

Aborigines will be able to claim native title on up to 79% of Australia (The Age 8/6/98).

Black activism has cost Australia many millions of dollars in lost mining and general business activity.

The ANR, February 1998 reported that the ACT Legislative Assembly recently voted to place the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in their Chamber.

Talk about dividing the nation on racial grounds!  And how do you put the flag of one race there without putting all the flags of all the races living in Australia today?  The Chamber would look like the United Nations.  Perhaps that's what they want?  We would be the laughing stock of the whole world (if we're not already).

Eminent barrister, Vernon Wilcox QC, writing in the HS, is highly critical of the High Court's Mabo decision, saying it has gone beyond its role of interpreting the law and is applying "social justice" as it saw fit.  He said, "The Australian people must assert themselves, otherwise courts and parliaments might do anything".

TWA 6-7/12/97 reported that Cape York Aborigines were involved with known terrorists.

The HS 1/12/97 reported:

War would be declared on white Australia if Federal Parliament passed the 10 point Wik plan, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has warned.  He said young Aborigines would abandon peaceful strategies in their land rights campaign if they lost the native title struggle...Mr Pearson said Aborigines would launch a desperate fight if the Government killed native title.  "If they tear the law up and they tell the law to get stuffed, the (High) Court to get stuffed, I tell you, there is no other answer than war, "Mr Pearson said.

I wrote to the Minister for Defence expressing my concerns about these reports and requested his advice.  His Ministry  replied, informing me that they had no knowledge of the reports, but stated that, anyway, ASIO handles these types of matters, and the activities of ASIO could not be revealed.

I wrote again, enclosing copies of the actual reports, and informed them that I was completely dis-satisfied with their reply.  They again replied, informing me they take their responsibilities seriously, but could not release any information.

Channel 10 5pm News on 16/12/97 reported that Noel Pearson may stand as an ALP Candidate for Parliament and Kim Beazley, ALP Leader said that he would make a very good ALP Candidate.

The HS, 14/1/98, reported that Aboriginal leader, Noel Pearson, has been awarded the prestigious "Beggars Medal" for his crusade on behalf of Aborigines.  The Medal is given to those who have helped promote democracy and fought against dictatorship.

On the 25/1/98 I telephoned Jim Forscutt, Mayor of Katherine, NT and informed him of the reports of Aborigines and involvement with known terrorists.  He informed me that Australia was in a very bad way, that he believed there could be civil war in Australia and white Australians were extremely dissatisfied with native title claims.

But there is considerable evidence to believe that many, if not most, Aborigines do not want native title claims made, but are manipulated by certain parties.  But first, what has white Australia done for Aborigines?

Graeme Campbell MHR, founder of new political Party, Australia First, has stated that respected Aboriginal leader from the Kimberley, Billy King, said recently any debt to Aboriginal people was paid in full in 1942.  From available documents it is clear that, had the Japanese conquered our nation, they would have gotten rid of (killed) all the Aborigines.  As Mr King said it was overwhelmingly white Australia that fought and died, fighting for everyone's freedom (Breakthrough, the Australia First Newsletter), March 1998).

Whilst some Aborigines fought in World War Two, it is obvious that without the sacrifices of white Australians, the Japanese would have killed every single Aborigine.  Aborigines are alive to day because of that.  Has the Aboriginal community publicly acknowledged that?

With the hindsight of the behaviour of the Japanese in World War Two, one can use one's imagination about what they would have done to Aboriginal women before killing them.

And the only "land-rights" they would have given Aborigines would have been about the size of their graves.

Since the Whitlam Government of the 1970s an estimated $25-$30 Billion has been spent on Aboriginal affairs (Aboriginal activist, on ABC radio, Toowoomba, Qld., on 18/11/96 -  reported in ANR Jan., 1997).  That is, in 21 years, Australian taxpayers have given $25-$30 Billion to Aboriginal affairs.  Today there are about 350,000 Aborigines, many of whom are only part Aboriginal 'blood'.

Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, one third of royalties from mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory would be paid to Aboriginal Land Councils (written advise, dated 12/6/98, from the Minister).  (This is for the Northern Territory alone).  Further written advise from the Minister, dated 12/12/97 stated that Aborigines in the NT have received $350 million from mining royalties.  (There are 46,277 indigenous Australians in the NT).

The Australian, 24/7/98 reported that $1.8 Billion a year would be paid to Aboriginal aid.

Written advice, dated 12/12/97, from the Minister stated:

* 15% of the Australian land mass is owned or controlled by indigenous Australians.

* Since 1980, $121 million has been spent purchasing 341 properties for indigenous Australians.

* Over the past 5 years, $210 million of Commonwealth taxpayers' money has been spent on native title claims alone.

* The Keating Government established the Indigenous Land Fund which will grow to $1.289 Billion by 2004.  Indigenous Australians will have $45 million per year forever to buy and manage land. There are 350,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.  (The actual figure now is 386,000.  That is 386,000 people to share $45 million every year forever for land alone).

Media Releases from the Minister dated 16/12/97 state that:

* $1.6 million will be spent on a National Library for Aboriginal oral history purposes.

* Close to $6 million for further development of indigenous family support and parenting programs.

* $9 million boost to culture and language maintenance programs.

* $11.25 million to establish a national network of family link-up services to assist individuals.

* $17 million to expand the network of regional centres for emotional and social well-being, giving counsellors professional support and assistance.

Note: the actual indigenous population is now 386,000 (ANR May\June 1998).

Channel 9, 6pm News, on 29/6/98 reported that loans of 1.5% interest are being made available to Aborigines.

The above may not necessarily represent all the benefits given to Aborigines, but gives some idea.

Despite all this, we have reports about Aborigines being involved with known terrorists and Noel Pearson threatening white Australians with war!

But it appears that many, if not most, Aborigines do not support native title.

The HS, 29/12/97, reported that Jim Forscutt, Mayor of Katherine, NT,  and former president of the Local Government Associating of the NT said that Elders of traditional Aboriginal communities in the NT have stated categorically that they want no more land, do not support Wik and wish only to live in peace with all other Australians.

The HS, 18/6/98 reported that it was a shame the Howard Government has not done enough to get more moderate Aboriginal voices heard over the warmongers' clamour.  There are plenty of Aborigines desperate for some calm reasonable leadership.  The real Aborigines of Australia have forgiven the white men of yesteryear for their cruelty towards Aboriginal tribal elders, said Rodney Rivers, a spokesman for 20 tribes in the Kimberley, after some stunt by (a black activist).  One third of married Aborigines have a non-Aboriginal partner according to census data.  They know in their hearts we can get along.  Activists are making a rod not only for their backs but for our backs too.

"The so-called "beautiful spiritualism" lauded by The Australian council of Churches has been terrible in its consequences.  The investigator should talk to the young full-blood Aboriginal men and women in the NT about what they think about being dragged back to the old ways" (Red Over Black - Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights, by Geoff McDonald, 1982, p. 80, Veritas).

Graeme Campbell's (Independent member for Kalgoorlie) Press Release, 27/8/97, reported that native title was causing a lot of stress amongst Aboriginal people.  His Press Release of 23/10/97, reported that from the north to the south of Australia a lot of Aboriginal people were telling him that they want the Native Title business scrapped.  A prominent Aboriginal leader in the Kimberley, Dicky Cox described the legislation as "white fellow humbug for the benefit of white lawyers".  (Graeme Campbell's electorate covers most of Western Australia and he has had long experience in dealing with Aborigines).

So, if there are grounds to believe many if not most Aborigines do not support native title, what have Australian Governments (and opposition parties) done over the years to ascertain the real position?  Nothing apparently.  What is really behind "black activism"?

(A black activist) has threatened to boycott the Sydney Olympic Games.  He has tried to set up an Aboriginal embassy in Libya and get Arab support for a black nation (Herald Sun 18/6/98).

Channel 9's 6.30pm News on 16/2/98 reported that American extremist, Louis Farrakhan, during a recent visit to Australia said, "If we (white Australians) say we not going to give you nothing, I'm in power, then the God will take the country from you.  You not as secure here as you think.  You too can lose what you took from them.  If you don't confront reconciliation then the savage human will destroy your beautiful cities in civil strife.  The indigenous peoples of the world will rise up".  (Sic).  The report also indicated that Farrakhan is behind Aborigines and Farrakhan has President Gaddafi of Libya, and Libya's wealth behind him.  Libya has the Islam nations' wealth behind them.

The book, Red Over Black - Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights, by Geoff McDonald, 1982, Veritas, gives some background information to black activism in Australia.  A one-time Communist who saw Communist methods at first hand, he became disillusioned and left the party.  Some excerpts from his book are enlightening:

* The Church of the Friendly People in Devonshire Street, Sydney in 1981 was the location for Australia's first National Liberation Conference.  It brought together local supporters of the IRA, the PLO and the anti-African Pan African Congress with representatives of the Aboriginal Land Rights Organisation...the Conference...passed resolutions calling on all Commonwealth Governments to assist Aboriginal Land Rights claims...( p. 12).

* All this should be clear enough for even the most complacent Australian.  Australia is facing the most insidious threat in its history (p. 12).

* Aboriginals are being manipulated by white and part-Aboriginal anti-capitalist revolutionary activists.  I know when the revolutionary manipulators are using supposedly Aboriginal causes to strike against the mixed economy free enterprise system (p. 13).

* The idea that violence between white Australians and Aborigines is being carefully fostered, is one which the great majority find hard to accept.  But the evidence for this is overwhelming (p. 82).
* (A black activist) of the North Queensland Land Council, said he supported the concept of violence (p. 83).

* The then Premier of Qld., Joh Bjelke-Petersen said Aboriginal control, of a resource as vital as uranium, could lead to an independent black State in the NT which Russia or China would be eager to help (p. 85).

* The Aboriginal issue is being used as the present to diminish the morale of the essentially European nation of Australia, even to work towards a division of Australia into Aboriginal State and European State which can only play into the hands of foreign powers inimical to our traditional way of life (p. 93).  (Note: inimical means hostile - Macquarie Dictionary).

No matter how much land or money we give, black activists will never be satisfied.

A separate State for Aborigines would sound the death-knell for Australia.  We would lose control of our country and our defence against military invasion.  Black activists, should they choose, could negotiate directly with our enemies for the complete take over of Australia.

It is submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is something sinister behind black activism, and not just Aborigines wanting more rights.

Why do the mainstream parties: Labor, Liberal, National, Democrats, Greens remain silent?  Why does the mainstream media remain silent, and certain sections of the media actively promote land rights?

On the issue of land claims themselves, about 70% of Aborigines live in urban areas (HS 29/11/97).  About 40% of the indigenous population is now made up of uninitiated, non-traditional people of mixed race living in cities, and their number is exploding (The Barbarians p. 15).

Because of intermarriage with whites, there are many people who have only a very small proportion of Aboriginal 'blood', living in towns and cities exactly as whites live, and completely divorced from their traditional way of living.

Where is their 'spirituality', their communion, with the land?

But the potential for land claims is cause for concern.  This brings us to another very interesting point.

The ANR, May/June 1998 carries a report by Father Brenden Walters MSC, a priest and lawyer:

"The Catholic Church continues to defend the position it has taken in relation to native title and the decision of the High Court in Wik.  The naive adoption of a political agenda does little to enhance the dignity and standing of the Church as a source of wisdom and a custodian of the truth.

"At present certain elements within the Church are preaching the gospel according to the Aborigines, having departed from the usual source of the truth (scripture and tradition) in favour of a political campaign which arguable is self-serving.  Thus, the question of who ought to be eligible to make a native title claim is apparently not up for discussion.  The question is an important one, particularly as it relates to persons of mixed Aboriginal descent".

"Native Title is part of the general law of the tribe and certain members of the tribe are designated tribal lawmen.  Native title gives the members of the tribe certain rights with respect to tribal land.  It does not give those rights to people outside the tribe and thus, it does not give those rights to people of mixed Aboriginal descent.

"Tribal people may consent to give a mixed-race Aboriginal person some rights or communal recognition but never the right to ownership of land.

"The tribal people may not give the person of mixed Aboriginal descent native title rights because it is against customary tribal law.

"There is no provision in customary (Aboriginal) law for making someone into an Aborigine by defining them to be one.

"By allowing mixed-race Aborigines as native title claimants, the Native Title Act adopts its own version of tribal customary law and, in so doing, strays from the test of the High Court in Mabo that native title must be ascertained in accordance with their laws and customs.  Mixed race Aborigines are not legitimate native title claimants and the Native Title Act should be amended to reflect that.  On the above analysis, any successful native title claim by mixed-race Aborigines is inherently unjust.

"The provision of social justice for mixed-race Aborigines will not be  satisfied by continuing to transfer to them interests in property to which they have no common law entitlement".

On the 29/6/98 I wrote to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet asking if the Government had any plans to enter a contract, compact, convention, treaty, declaration, arrangement or agreement of any kind with indigenous Australians.  At the time of writing I have not received a reply.

The Stolen Children.  Channel 9's "Sunday" report on 10/8/97 stated that because they (part Aborigine) children had white fathers, the children and the others were denied Aboriginal rights and laws.  The children were beaten by male adult Aborigines.

The mothers often killed the children by hitting them on the head with a rock or simply letting them perish (presumably by abandoning them to the wilderness).

One part Aboriginal, part white woman said, on the "Sunday" report that if she had been left in her Aboriginal family she would be sitting by the creek getting drunk and paid for by the Australian taxpayers.  Quite a few on the report said they were much better off today because they were "taken".
Hansard reports Graeme Campbell's speech to Parliament on 2/6/97, regarding Sir Ronald Wilson's report, Bringing Them Home.  Excerpts from his speech are:

"There were many cases...where people did not respond (i.e. come forward to give evidence to Sir Ronald Wilson - my comment) because they knew it was the fact of being made wards of the states that saved their lives.

"Besides being very selective, Sir Ronald Wilson's report is fatally flawed in other ways.  He says it is not an intellectual report; it is from the heart.  This means, of course, it is not bound by fact.

"I remember the words of Isabella Lynott, who is now 95 years old.  She, along with her sister, were the first children taken to Beagle Bay, a Catholic Mission, in 1909.  Isabella's father was white and when she died her mother implored the local police officer to take her children as they would otherwise surely die.  Isabella remembers Beagle Bay very warmly.  She said,

The nuns were very good to us.  They gave us clean clothes, taught us to read and write and to play musical instruments.  They taught us how to sew and to dance.

"She had only gratitude for her deliverance.

"Another hero of mine is Pearl Hamaguchi, a woman who, being an Aboriginal-Asian, endured a far harder life than white half-caste children.  Being half Asian, she was not considered worth saving, although she was institutionalised for a short time later.

"...Both she, her husband and her family are highly respected members of the community.  Her comment to me recently was that she had always thought that, we, the Gudea, were a bit silly but, with Mabo, native title, she now thinks we are far more stupid than even she had imagined.  Pearl Hamaguchi is an inspiration to me and a great role model for the whole of society.

"I have spoken to police officers who have told me that, where children were being looked after, they did not enforce their removal.  Many of the children were taken for their own protection.

"There were cases where Aboriginal custodial fathers would encourage their young, lighter coloured girls into prostitution.  I wonder what the ranks of the politically correct would have had the government of the day do under those circumstances.  In many other cases, half-caste children were simply not wanted by the tribe, regardless of how the mother felt.

"The real tragedy and shame is that, because of all this emotional nonsense, there are many Aboriginal children today who should be made wards of the state, and the authorities know that their failure to do so will inevitably lead to their death...They are entitled to the protection of the state but are denied it because of political correctness.

"What we need, 30 years on (from the 1967 referendum - my addition), is another referendum, so that the people of Australia can offer a direction that is not forthcoming from the Government...and even less so from the ALP".

In the interests of truth, justice and the national interest, why has not the Government, the opposition parties Labor, Democrats, Greens and the mainstream media done their utmost to publish the truth about the "stolen children" not just Australia-wide, but world-wide?

In the 1967 referendum on Aborigines, white Australians voted 97% on this issue.  They extended the hand of friendship to all Aborigines.

To answer the question, do we ill-treat our Aborigines, it is submitted that we have already done far more than was morally required of us to improve their physical and mental well-being.  Any debt, (if there was any debt at all) was paid in full during World War Two when our sacrifices prevented the Japanese take-over of Australia and the annihilation of the Aboriginal race.

It is absurd to claim that present day Australians should be held responsible for actual or alleged ill treatment of Aborigines early in Australia's history.  There is another factor that is rarely, if ever, mentioned.  Many early white settlers had the disconcerting experience of being speared to death by Aborigines.

The past is past.  There are many white and black Australians who have nothing but good will to each other.

White Australians are sometimes blamed for introducing Aborigines to alcoholism.  But consider this quote from The Barbarians (p. 253):

"I can only apologise", says Jade to Cyril (an Aborigine), "for what we have done to your people.  I think it's absolutely scandalous that they have been introduced to alcohol".

"Ah", Cyril replies, "reckon dey gotta make up dere own minds dere.  Same as de rest of us".  (Sic).

In conclusion, Aborigines do not have a monopoly on poverty and disadvantage.  One in three Australians lives in poverty and the appalling social conditions endemic throughout Australia have been referred to above.

To give special benefits to any group based on their race, discriminates  against other Australians.

What is needed is a more equitable social system and wealth distribution for all disadvantaged Australians, regardless of race, colour or creed.  All it needs is the will to implement it.

We must remind the world of what we have done for Aborigines.  White Australia has given them 15% of the total land area of Australia and 50% of the NT.  Since 1975 we have given them at least $30 Billion.  Today there only 386,000 Aborigines, many of them are only part Aboriginal 'blood'.

A referendum must be held on the issues of land rights, compensation and benefits to Aborigines.
IS PAULINE HANSON A RACIST?  WHAT IS RACISM?

The Macquarie Dictionary defines "racism" as the idea that one's own race is better then any other, or offensive or even violent behaviour to members of another race arising from such a belief.

In her maiden speech in Parliament, Pauline Hanson stated, "I must stress at this stage that I do not consider those people from ethnic backgrounds currently living in Australia anything but first-class citizens, provided of course that they give this country their full, undivided loyalty".

There doesn't seem to be anything "racist" about that statement.

She also said, "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.  Between 1984 and 1995, 40% of all migrants coming to this country were of Asian origin.  They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate".

Asians do have their own culture and religion.  In many cases they do not assimilate.  There are numerous obvious examples of Asian ghettos in Australia.

She also said, "Immigration must be halted in the short-term so that our dole queues are not added to by, in many cases, unskilled migrants not fluent in the English language".  What's "racist" about that?

Also, "A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united".  No truer words have ever been spoken.

It is submitted that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that powerful forces intend to turn Australia into an Asian country.  This will mean the death of everything Australian.

As Graeme Campbell said, "If we object to being Asian, does that mean we are racist"?  This shows how absurd the proposition is.

Transforming Australia into an Asian country is an act of gross racism against Australians.

Ms Hanson was also highly critical of the preferential treatment of Aborigines.  Again, this preferential treatment discriminates against white Australians, many of whom live in appalling social conditions.

Nobody gives free land to white Australians.  Most of them work all their lives just to own a block of land and brick veneer house in the suburbs - if they're lucky.

Criticising the benefits to Aborigines is not the same thing as saying whites are superior to blacks, nor is it advocating the use of violence against blacks.

And unless there is a complete change of direction in Aboriginal affairs, black activism alone will seal the death of Australia.  It goes without saying that this is racism against white Australians.

Who are the "real" racists?
Having read Ms Hanson's speech in full, I am at a total loss to find anything that could be labelled "racist".

On Channel 9's "Sunday" program on 12/7/98, Paul Sheehan, author of The Barbarians said:

"Pauline Hanson has said that Asians are hard working and should be treated like any other Australians.  You could argue that her speech was a speech against racial policies.

"This was never reported in the media.  All the comments she made that would have evened out her remarks have been ignored, systematically and cynically".

There are many examples of certain ethnic groups who live, congregate, in certain suburbs in Australia.  Nobody calls them racists because they prefer to live with their own kind.  But if Australians want to live amongst their own kind, they are called racists.

It is common knowledge and well reported that for many years Labor, Liberals, Nationals and the mainstream media collaborated to keep 'immigration' off the political agenda despite public hostility to immigration (as demonstrated by numerous polls).  This meant it was never allowed to become an election issue on which the people could vote.

The importance of this collaboration cannot be over-estimated.  This is a clear example of our politicians and media oppressing the people.

For years now we have seen our Governments, the media and certain elites aggressively promote multiculturalism, whether the people want it or not.

The logical end result of high immigration and multiculturalism will be the suffocation and death of Australian culture.  This will happen through the sheer weight of numbers of migrants.  There can be no other conclusion.

The deliberate destruction of a racial group is not just racism, but almost tantamount to genocide.
 
 

AUSTRALIAN CULTURE AND IDENTITY

Some people will say there is no such thing as an Australian culture.  When they do, they clearly identify themselves as "racists" because a racist is someone who thinks he or she is superior to another race.  Not only are they saying they are superior to Australians, they are denying even the existence of the Australian culture.

We're all migrants, they will say.  Well, we're not all migrants.  Many Australians have never even been outside Australian shores.  The early settlers were not migrants, they were colonists.

There is a vast difference between a migrant and a colonist.  A migrant comes to a new country which has all the infrastructure already in place to support him or her: roads, rails, schools, sewers, social services, electricity, gas, hospitals, communications, police, and so forth.
A colonist comes to a new country and carves civilisation out of the wilderness (sometimes facing great danger).  When he first arrives, there is nothing.  He has to plant crops for food, build shelter, clear forests, build roads, adjust to a new environment, conquer vast distances, establish systems of transport.  He endures incredible hardship, bitter disappointment, often tragedy, to build the country.  He must be tough, resourceful, intelligent, determined if he is to succeed.

Succeed he did, he succeeded in building the best country in the world: Australia.

The colonist builds the country so that the migrant can come to it and reap the fruits of the colonist's labor.

"You're only 200 years old", they will say, "that's nothing compared to some cultures which are centuries old".

We're not only 200 years old.  We did not just appear out of the earth, we inherited some of the best traditions of Britain: The English system of law; Christianity; the separation of power by virtue of the Monarchy; rights to freehold ownership of private property; freedom of speech, movement, association, assembly; trial by our peers; the right to legal representation and to face our accuser in open court.

These rights come to us over many centuries through the common law of England.  In centuries past, while many other "cultures" were cannibalising each other, we had rights.

In recent years, millions of people from the four corners of the earth have flocked to this safe harbour to escape wars, dictators, tyrants, oppression, poverty, misery and pollution.  They come here to bask in our way of life.  They are able to come to this sanctuary because of the sacrifices of our men and women in Two World Wars and Other Wars, our pioneers and explorers.

In wartime, our soldiers did not place much stock in saluting officers or always following orders.  In their rough and ready way, using initiative, courage and determination, they set about to win the battle and the war.

Nowhere were our traditions of 'mate-ship' and egalitarianism more obvious than in time of war.  They stuck together like glue, backed each other up, died and suffered for their 'mates'.

On Anzac Day we see old Diggers reminiscing about old battles.  Their love for each other is obvious.  They regard their mates as 'family'.

Australia has always been a politically stable country, in the sense that we have never had a revolution or widespread political violence.  This has been possible because of the strength of our institutions: the Constitutional Monarchy, Christianity, Parliaments, English system of law, the rights referred to above, respect for human life and dignity, sense of a 'fair-go'.

Australia is a highly sophisticated country, amongst the best in the world in communications, medicine, science, insurance, business management, computers and banking. Our English system of law (although not perfect) is one of the best systems in the world.

We pioneered the invention and development of agricultural machinery.  We built ships, aeroplanes, motor vehicles.

We were involved in pioneering flight.

Our poets, writers, musicians, artists, scientists have world recognition.

We were amongst the first in the world in many social reforms: the vote for women, the eight hour day, pensions, the basic wage, free public education, the secret ballot.

Our open spaces, sunshine, clean environment have been inducive to sport, in which we have also excelled.

We are open and direct, we speak our mind and are impatient with unnecessary pomp, ceremony and formality.  We are relaxed and easy going.   We admire the "Aussie battler", the person who never gives up under adversity.

There have been the colourful periods of our history: our explorers, pioneers, shearers, bushrangers, the gold rushes.  Our drovers moved large mobs of cattle across vast distances.  Cynics will say that this is "an Aussie myth" because we now mostly live in cities.  This is not myth, it is part of our history, and history is integral to culture.

We sometimes hear the expression, "that's un-Australian".  That simply means that it is behaviour unacceptable to Australians, or someone is taking unfair advantage of someone else, or it offends our sense of right and wrong, of a "fair-go".  It is only an expression, but it speaks volumes about our character and culture.

To deny our Australian culture and identity is to deny all this.  To deny our Australian culture is racism.

Today, there is limited teaching of Australian History in our schools and young people have a very poor knowledge of our history.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian dissident and intellectual, said in his BBC Address on 26/3/76:

"A people which no longer remembers has lost its history and its soul".

A knowledge of our history is an essential part of defining our identity and culture.  Without this knowledge we have lost our soul.  A country without a soul is not a nation at all.  It is in a highly vulnerable position to foreign takeover, whether by economic or military means.

The teaching of Australian History must be a compulsory subject in our schools.
 
 

THE HAWTHORN TOWN HALL

This disgraceful incident will be recorded in Australian history books as a day of shame.  It was the day we took a big step towards tyranny and oppression.
On the 19/7/98, Pauline Hanson was scheduled to attend the Hawthorn Town Hall, Melbourne, Australia, to speak to One Nation members and their guests.

People protesting against Pauline Hanson vastly outnumbered those wishing to hear her speak.  Protesters outnumbered the Police many times over.  Protesters surrounded the entrance to the Hall and for a long period of time prevented people from entering.

People trying to enter the hall were assaulted, pushed, jostled, roughed up, verbally and venomously abused.  Some were knocked to the ground.  The situation was potentially explosive and several persons could easily have been kicked to death.  Whilst not the fault of individual Police Officers, the Police, because of their inadequate numbers, would have been forced to stand there, watch, and do nothing.

Some person in higher authority gave the order for insufficient numbers of Police to be in attendance.

Little old ladies were terrified out of their wits.

Eventually the Police brought in their Mounted Branch and using their horses forced a path through the protesters, allowing some people to enter the hall.  However, many people were still unsuccessful in being able to enter the hall.

Because of the violence, Pauline Hanson was forced to abort her attendance at the Hall.  However the meeting proceeded in her absence.

Later, inside the hall, fragile, elderly people peered from behind the hall curtains at the ugly mob of thugs outside, knowing they had still to face them when they tried to leave.

"The Hawthorn Town Hall" could easily have resulted in a major tragedy.

The point is that Police numbers were grossly inadequate.  The Police later made the specious argument that their numbers were the same as their numbers at a MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) football match.  However, the vast majority of people at the MCG are peaceful and go there to watch football, not indulge in violence.  There was ample evidence of anticipated violence at the Hawthorn Town Hall and a history of violence at many other Pauline Hanson meetings.

During the meeting, the Police Inspector, second in charge of the Police contingent, addressed the meeting.  He said that the organisers of the protesters outside had informed him that if the meeting was aborted, they would allow the people to depart under Police escort.

Here was a senior member of the Victoria Police Force delivering a message from violent thugs to peaceful Australians that if they agreed to their demands, they would not be attacked.  Here was the Police being party to the denial of the basic rights of Australians to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association.

Can this really be Australia in 1998?

People are entitled to protest in Australia, but they are not entitled to assault, intimidate or abuse other people democratically exercising their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association.

Protesters who commit offences must be arrested and dealt with according to law.  There are important principles here.

Why did we fight in Two World Wars and Other Wars?
 
 

CONCLUSION

In a word, World Government.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/98 and the Australian Community Organisation's Newsletter, National Watchman, PO Box 136, Surry Hills NSW, 2010, October 1998, reported this article by columnist, Padriac P.McGuinnes.  The article was headed:

A world government may be the only answer.

McGuinnes stated that in light of the global financial crisis, policies like economic nationalism, protectionism, regulation, exchange controls are "simplistic remedies likely to make things worse...In the longer term, currency guru George Soros is probably right - a global economy needs a global central bank and a global framework of fiscal discipline.  In a word, world government...

The national governments  still have too much power to deviate from central monetary and fiscal policy guidelines".

They are out in the open now.  Here is a major daily Australian newspaper openly advocating a World Government.

Columnist, Kenneth Davidson stated (above) that its come to this, only Hanson defends the nation state, and that one Nation is the creature of suffocating bi-partisanship of the two major political parties, who agree on the need to globalise the Australian economy on the terms laid down by the international capital markets.

On the Ch. 10, 5pm News, on 26/8/98, leaders from international banking, church and unions condemned Pauline Hanson's policies.  The banking leader specifically called for higher immigration.  The reporter commented on the fact that the unions were in agreement with business in condemning Pauline Hanson.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation policies include economic programs in the interests of Australia, control of foreign ownership, a re-assessment of UN treaties, reduction of immigration, abandonment of multiculturalism, extinguishment of Native Title and introduction of CIR.

In essence, they offer a complete change of direction from globalisation to nationalism; to policies in the best interests of Australia and Australians, not in the best interest of internationalists.  They offer the restoration of Australia's sovereignty.

What is the real reason for the determined, desperate, attempts to discredit Pauline Hanson?  Is it just because she is a "dreadful racist" who must be stopped?  Or is it because she is a threat to those having an internationalist agenda.

It is submitted that the real reasons for the attacks on Pauline Hanson are because she represents a very real obstacle to those wishing to destroy Australia's sovereignty in the interests of globalisation and all it entails.

Australia was the richest country on earth.  There is no reason why we could not have been the most exciting country on earth.

Instead, we now face our greatest crisis since World War Two.

There is evidence that we are not in this desperate situation just because of incompetent politicians, but because of deliberate actions by powerful forces, both national and international.

To some people, the idea of being governed by a centralised world government, under the administration of the United Nations, has a lot of appeal.  They believe that if the nations of the world unite and co-operate peacefully, war and poverty will be eliminated.

However the evidence refutes this.  The United Nations has been in existence for over 50 years and has been an abject failure.  Wars have proliferated during this period, during which millions of people have been slaughtered.  Torture is still frequently practised in many countries.  Poverty, starvation and national debt are widespread.  The rich and the poor are polarised.

And behind the United Nations are the faceless big business, big finance and their agencies, the real powerbrokers.

Who would keep the world government honest?  Are we to blindly hope that they would always act honourably?  What controls, checks and balances would there be?  None!

Even acting from the best of motives, a centralised world government would not act in the best interests of Australia and Australian people, they would "do what is best for the world", in their minds.

As the populations of China, India and other countries spiral out of control, there will be pressure for Australia to accept many millions of people to relieve the pressure.

There could be mass shifting of populations around the world.  Individual countries may have to make sacrifices, "for the good of the world".  Australians of certain racial background may be forced to go and live in another country.

Our masters would control what food we produce, how much food we produce, what we are allowed to eat ourselves, and what we export.
Information available to us would be controlled even more than it is now.

The rights we take for granted would be removed at the stroke of a pen.  These rights include the right to private ownership of property, freedom of speech, association, assembly, movement.  Freedom from unjust arrest and search.  Trial by our peers.  The right to face our accuser in open court and have legal representation.

We would not be allowed to criticise our masters.  Every aspect of our lives would be controlled.  The Orwellian nightmare does not seem so far-fetched.

Lord Acton said: "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Lord Bryce said: "All governments, irrespective of label, tend to increase their own powers".

Thomas Hobbs (English philosopher) said: "Freedom is government divided into small fragments".

Woodrow Wilson said: "The history of liberty is the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it".

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian dissident and intellectual, said: "The more centralised a nation becomes, the greater the corruption at the top".

Solzhenitsyn speaks with the voice of authority, having lived and suffered under the former USSR with a centralised government.  In his BBC address on 26/3/76 he informed the West that from 1917 to 1959, Socialism cost the Soviet Union 110 million lives.

World government is the ultimate in centralised power and the surest path to the ultimate in tyranny and oppression.

It will soon be too late.  Australia, as we know it, will be gone forever.

Consider this quotation from the book, Goodbye Oz Culture, 1990, written and published by Nick Maine, PO Box 109, Chirnpark, Qld. 4215.  Nick Maine fought the Japanese in New Guinea during World War Two.

"Dedicated to my mates who have been betrayed.  One was blown to pieces by a land mine just a few yards in front of me.  I remember the agony of another as he held his entrails in his hands.  I remember digging holes and burying them.

"They died for nothing".

We saw in the chapter, The Real Reasons for Attempting to Asianise Australia: that most multiculturalists are internationalists; that Australia's interests may have to be over-ridden by so-called international interests...the social good of humanity as a whole...the good of the wider system may over-ride the well-being of Australia considered in isolation.
We also saw in the chapter on The Lima Declaration that "Australians may be called upon to make some sacrifices".
It is submitted that there are grounds to fear that the sacrifices Australians have made to the present time will fade into insignificance if we continue down the internationalist path.

In the interests of the good of humanity as a whole, will Australia become a third world, polluted, over-crowded, Asian country, living in poverty, Governed by the United Nations Administration?

Time will tell.  It is up to the Australian people.
 
 

WHAT CAN ONE PERSON DO?

"Know the truth and the truth will make you free" (John 8:31).

Discuss the issues raised in this publication with your family, friends, acquaintances.  Form a group of friends and neighbours and have informal discussions.  Find out the identity and address of similar groups and liaise with them.

Start up a Newsletter for your group.  Exchange it with Newsletters of other similar groups.

Read the books referred to in this publication.

Write, ring or visit your local Member of Parliament.  Raise the issues that concern you.  Continually remind him or her that he or she is there to represent (i.e. re-present) your wishes in Parliament, not the wishes of international financiers or the United Nations.  He or she is not there just to do what the Party tells him or her.

Go on talk-back radio.  Write letters to the media (at least it lets them know you do not swallow their propaganda), and local newspapers.

We must abandon economic rationalism, reintroduce tariffs and have Government intervention in re-establishing our industries.  The Government, whichever Party is in power, will refuse to do this, but pressure from the Australian people will force them to represent their wishes.

Each person in Australia can play a role in disseminating information and maintaining continuous pressure on the politicians and the media.

Identify the media outlets (mainstream and non-mainstream) and the Newsletters of the various groups of 'concerned citizens' who will publish material.

Press for Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR).  This is the only way we will ever have true democracy.  Politicians will use every argument possible against CIR, but all arguments against it are nonsense.  It can work and it does work.  It has worked in Switzerland for years.

On important issues like immigration, defence, economic rationalism,  taxing foreign companies, privatisation, native land claims, and so forth, CIR must be used.  As important issues can and do devastate the lives of people, they must be given a say.
We must point out to people we speak to that we are having a referendum on a republic that we did not ask for.  We are having it because the politicians, the media and multi-millionaires are forcing it on us.  We must also have a vote on issues which are devastating our lives.

A politician can have the issue taken out of his or her hands and be relieved of pressure by having a referendum.  Emphasise this.

Politicians are motivated not just by power, but also by fear: fear of not being re-elected.

If we do nothing we will deserve all that is coming to us.

Investigate the possibilities of the Internet.

Prior to elections, identify the politicians who are patriotic, have integrity and will serve you and Australia, not special interest lobbies.  We need politicians who vote on issues according to their merits, not politicians who just do what their Party tells them to do.

Make sure you understand how the preferential system of voting works.    Decide yourself, how to place your preferences, don’t just follow the recommendations of the party to whom you give your primary vote.
 
 

THE SILENT DESTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIA

 Will Australia become an Asian Country?
 
 
 

Main Page.
.Despatch  Magazine.
.New  Additions '98.
.Booklets Videos.
.Life & Death
.Mini_ Despatches.

 Bible College Course