MEANWHILE, ANOTHER AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST SPEAKS OUT

A Newcastle University professor says his research shows it is a myth carbon emissions are causing higher temperatures, blamed for the Murray-Darling catchment drying up. Newcastle University Associate Professor Stewart Franks is the author of a paper due to be published in the American journal Geophysical Research Letters.

He says his research has found elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling catchment are caused by a combination of natural factors associated with drought and not carbon emissions … Professor Franks says claims about increased evaporation rates and climate change impacts on the Murray-Darling Basin are entirely false.

STOP PRESS: We have just received from the Minnesota Free Market Institute a one- and-a-half hour DVD of Lord Monkton’s speech on 14th October, 2009, “Apocalypse - No!” filmed at the Climate Change Symposium. Vital viewing! Special price $10 posted.

Another DVD 'must view': "Fall of the Republic”
American folk have produced over two hours of viewing. They warn the viewers the one-worlders will dump the American dollar when they think the timing is right – with resulting hyperinflation, thus wiping out the American (and Australian) middle class.
The issues facing Americans are the same as those facing Australians… global governance, climate change scam, climate cops, political, corporate and financial corruption, a rising ‘police state’ - and much more.
Special price for over two hours of viewing: $12.00 posted from Heritage Books, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley 5159.

HOW THEY PLAN TO DESTROY THE AUSTRALIA WE LOVED

by James Reed
The plan for the new world order was simple in the past. During war-time conditions Dr. Evatt in 1942 attempted to implement the Commonwealth Powers Bill which aimed to give unlimited power to the Federal government by altering the Constitution.
The first attempt by Evatt was publicly howled down, so he tried again. The new bill was criticised on the same grounds of power-grabbing by Fadden, Menzies and Hughes. The attempt was made to get the States to grant the federal government the power, which also failed.
Today the elites have moved to wider horizons and seek to eliminate the nation state itself, using the alleged environmental crisis (global warming) and economic globalisation as their chief weapons.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

by James Reed
The League has already commented on the UN’s Copenhagen conspiracy re: the draft climate change treaty, which attempts to set up a world government. But this is not just our opinion: Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian (28/10/09, p.16) “Beware the UN’s Copenhagen Plot” writes: “The first draft of the climate treaty is aimed at creating a world government that would tax rich countries and give to poor ones.”

The aim of the “UN Framework Convention on Climate Change” (15 September 2009) is to set up a transnational government with powers to control the economic, financial and environmental affairs of nations. Developed countries must pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. This will probably be a global levy of 2 per cent on international financial transactions to raise for developing countries $UDS 140 billion a year. As of 16 November 2009, it has been reported that the 200-page draft agreement has been scrapped to be replaced by a new provisional 15-page document. This however is not due to any change in globalist philosophy , but over a concern that there won’t be agreement on emissions reduction. In other words, the elites moved a little too fast, too quickly. Yet there is always a Plan B.

The push for a new Asian world order is well under way. At a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation group in Singapore, 15 November 2009, leaders have decided to create an Asia-Pacific free trade zone. This will be in the context of a “new growth paradigm” that helps developing countries. Rudd, who pushed the idea of an Asia-Pacific community based on the EU model, was delighted. Black president Obama declared himself the “first Pacific president” in a speech in Tokyo on 14 November 2009.
A man with a big ego, he pushed his new world order vision basing it on his personal story i.e., (allegedly) born in Hawaii, lived as a boy in Indonesia, etc. Yes, an attachment to foreign nations, but how much commitment to America has he? As he says in his ego-rave The Audacity of Hope : “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

The Asian new world order is one to be ruled by China and India.
Already China has told Obama that they want to be equal with the United States as China claims a strategic leadership role in the Asia-Pacific. With frightening China-US trade imbalances, the pressure is now being applied to the United States.

The future new world order is a frightening one for us as it spells our racial annihilation and the end of the West. Beyond that, the Asian tigers will not be at peace with each other. China and India, 37 years ago, fought a border war and the entire frontier from Kashmir to Burma remains in dispute. The Chinese media frequently express the need to punish India and regain lost lands by force. Chinese elites openly proclaim that China needs to teach India a lesson for daring to challenge its emerging status as No 1.

In their article “War with China is Unthinkable,” Paul Dibb and Geoffrey Barker (The Australian 24-25/10/09 p.3) comment on the significance of the rise of China as a military power, and one which by 2030 will be the strongest military power in Asia. US forces and military bases will be open to Chinese attack. They say:
“This will herald a serious change in Australia’s strategic circumstances. Unlike the US, China will be neither a democracy nor our ally. Moreover, China will be Australia’s largest trading partner and Australia will be the economic hostage. What we will face in the decades ahead is an unapologetically authoritarian country that does nor share our values and which will have the military power to support ambitions.” Australia, in short, will be treated as a resource base that must be ever-open to Chinese demands.

Having said that, Dibb and Barker then back away from this dizzy abyss and say that China has its own weaknesses such as a huge population and environment al; destruction – all of which though could lead to overseas adventures. Then they correctly note that China has nuclear capacity and Australia does not. End of story.
But, as I see it, this is the price Australia paid by following Arthur Calwell’s post-war immigration programme. “Populate or perish” meant bringing in Mediterraneans and Southern Europeans and non-Anglos, inevitably leading to acceptance in the 1960s of the end of the White Australia policy, and then multiculturalism and now Asianisation. A smaller, racially and culturally homogenous country, armed with nuclear weapons, would not have to become the slave of China.

Jeremy and Nancy Lee’s latest DVD –available from both Heritage Book Services:
We urge you to plan to present copies to your friends and families – why not as Christmas presents? It is their futures that are at stake.
• “Retell the Story”: a 1999 presentation on world events, up to that time, by Jeremy to a group of young people in Brisbane, Queensland and -
• “A + B: Mending a Mortgaged World”: Jeremy asks… how can the world possibly get out of financial debt by issuing more financial debt ?

Further reading:
• “The Climate Caper” by Professor Garth W. Paltridge.
Is Prof. Paltridge on track when he asks is the manipulation of the global warming issue the ultimate example of political correctness? Judge for yourself. $25.00 plus postage.
• “Heaven+Earth: The Missing Science" by Ian Plimer.
Professor Plimer turns the ‘climate change’ advocates into laughing stocks and does so with elegance, thoroughness and indisputable logic. In a non-scientific view, he has effectively put an end to the debate. We now have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up, particularly the media. Price $40 plus postage from both Heritage Book Services.

IMMIGRATION AS A POLITICAL WEAPON

by Brian Simpson
File this in the political proof department: according to Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, the massive increases in UK immigration over the past decade was part of a plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” and a “deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain.”
There was a “driving political purpose” behind the immigration policy to change the racial profile of the nation and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. The idea was to “make the UK truly multicultural.” But Neather defended the policy saying that “mass immigration has ‘enriched’ Britain and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.”

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the UK Migrationwatch think tank said in commentary: “Now at last the truth is out and it’s dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock-up but a conspiracy. They were right.” The same immigration conspiracy is occurring right now in Australia, right before our eyes, and the New Class elites laugh as our culture, race and nation slowly die. We need our own version of the BNP.

POPULATION CONSUMES GROWTH PERFORMANCE

“At last. Australia is out of recession. "What?" I hear you ask, "I thought Australia had escaped the recession." Not so. Those eagerly awaited National Account or GDP figures which came out this week do not tell the fully story. And, incidentally, this is the 50th anniversary of the publication of those figures. Australia has been in recession since about mid-2008, but the economists will not tell you that.

You see, the GOP figures add up national income and determine whether the economy has expanded or contracted. But they do not account for population growth. In the past year population growth has been greater than the growth in the economy. So income per head has gone down, not up as the Government and economists would mislead you into believing.
Now you know why you have been feeling the pinch. I hasten to add that this is not the Australian Bureau of Statistics' fault, It just produces the figures. Unfortunately, it cannot do everything at once. The national account figure is seen to be more important than the income-per-head figure so is done first.

Growing at astonishing poverty-causing rates
But you can do back-of-the-envelope figures. The population is growing at an astonishing 1.9 per cent - at poverty-causing Third World rates. But between mid last year and now, the economy as a whole was growing at less than that rate. So we were going backwards.
It is now growing at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent, just ahead of population. And even then, GDP on its own is not a good measure of human well-being. Yet every quarter the government, the economists, business and financial journalists gather round like supplicants waiting for the statue of the Virgin Mary to shed tears of blood and announce, "We are saved. We are saved. The economy has grown."

But population growth always takes some, and sometimes takes all, of the growth. Moreover, there are obvious costs to higher population which far outweigh any benefits. Higher costs of water (witness this week's Cotter Dam cost); land (witness the unaffordability of housing); longer commuting times; infrastructure costs or infrastructure degradation if the money is not spent; and extra competition for space in cities and wild places. Despite the costs to the many and the unpopularity of high immigration, governments of both complexion continue it.

Immigration is at record highs. It has more than doubled in the past 10 years to more than 200.000 a year (if you count New Zealanders), plus another 650,000 or so on work, holiday and student visas - many of whom will want to stay permanently. Why is this policy continuing without much debate, and to the obvious detriment of the existing population?
Beware bipartisanship. The major parties are heavily funded and influenced by interest groups who profit from high immigration to the detriment of the general population.
When, for example, has the Housing Industry Association ever once mentioned high population growth as one of the obvious causes of poor housing affordability? Never. Rather it argues for policies that will profit its members. Similarly for any number of industries.
The only way to stop this bipartisan folly is to restrict the big bucks from the big end of town going into political parties' coffers.
Political parties don't do any focus groups on population policy, like they do in so many other areas. They ignore the voters' views of perhaps the nation's most important policy. The only time it has been mentioned by a major party was when the Howard Government wanted to exploit a few refugees all the while allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants in.
It is not racist to seek a sane population policy for Australia. Let's cut employment immigration deeply and double our refugee intake of about 13,500 and have none with white faces - except, perhaps, those escaping racism in Zimbabwe.

Australia will bitterly regret this immigration surge
We should have a population policy that aims at improving well-being not impairing it. You can call this a folly. Historian Barbara Tuchman in her splendid book “The March of Folly,” laid down the characteristics of political folly (as distinct from misfortune): pursuing a destructive policy, which is known to be destructive at the time, against which many had cautioned, and for which there was a reasonable alternative. History is replete with them. Australia will bitterly regret this immigration surge. It is adding to or causing nearly every policy woe we have: water shortage; agricultural land being consumed by urban sprawl; congestion; high house prices; climate change; destruction of habitat including the great barrier reef; strains in public education and health; higher food costs and so on and on.

For 50 years now we have foolishly looked to the National Account figures as a measure of our well-being. It is not the ABS's fault. It does measurements for well-being, but they are practically ignored by government, economists and political journalists. We need a measure that takes into consideration things like commuting time; costs of water and energy; access to health and education; housing costs and so on. What is the point of extra income if it takes longer to commute to earn it; causes higher food, water and energy costs and living costs generally?

We are adding one person to Australia's population every 1 minute 24 seconds. Ten years ago the estimate was we would hit 23 million by 2021. We are almost there 12 years early. Immigration is causing 60 per cent of the increase. But if you add all those people, total GOP is more likely to increase avoiding a technical recession. And the Treasurer and all the foolish financial commentators cheer. Pity, though, that most of the individuals comprising the ever-growing aggregate will be worse off while a few at the top can escape the degradation.”

Source: L. Crispin Hull - First published in The Canberra Times. 05 September 2009.

SOUTH OF THE BOR..DER, DOWN AU 'AU..SSIE WAAAY

- from a Reader:
Let me see if I understand all this... If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labour. If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely. If you cross the Afghan border illegally you get shot. If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again! If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded as a spy and your fate will be sealed. If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

If you cross the AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY
You get a job, a driver’s licence, social security card, welfare, food stamps, credit cards, subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house, free education, free health care, a lobbyist in Canberra and in many instances you can vote and get more money than our pensioners who built this country!

POPULATING AND PERISHING

by Brian Simpson
Why Australia needs to end the immigration farce – NOW! Although James Reed is right in “Are Boatpeople really a Muslim Terrorist Threat?” to argue that the likely influx of terrorists is good reason for opposing this invasion of seemingly affluent, educated and organised asylum seekers, we both agree that immigration itself is the real “terrorist” threat to Australia. Boat people are a drop in the immigration ocean compared to legal migrants, well over 300,000 a year.
Like Howard, Rudd uses public confusion between refugees/illegal aliens and migrants, to hide his agenda for creating a majority Asian Australia. Rudd is open about wanting a “big Australia” of at least 35 million people.

For many years Australia has had one of the world’s largest per capita immigration intakes with the majority of migrants being non-European. This is a deliberate policy designed to change the ethnic nature of Australia. It is no accident that Australia has gone from a pre-World War II figure of 97% Anglo Celt, to having the highest number of foreign-born in any Western nation: one in four. There has been a massive surge in the Australian Muslim population during the Howard era and Australia is well on the way to replicating the same problems as Europe.
Thus, Australia has already tried five men who were allegedly planning an attack on Holsworthy army base. One of these men saw the Black Saturday bushfires as “Allah’s revenge” on Australia (The Australian, 27/10/09, p.1).

The creation of “big Australia” is already undermining the social and ecological fabric of Australia. As Kevin Andrews, federal Member for Menzies, said in a presentation to the Australian Environment Conference, 10 October 2009, “Our roads are congested, our public transport overcrowded, our water supply inadequate and our amenity under threat.” There is an unprecedented shortage of housing. Stephen Rimmer, one of the few economic critics of immigration, in a piece in the Canberra Times (3 November 2009), “Labor’s Policies are Rooted in Political Expediency and are not in the Public Interest” has said:

“If Australia’s population doubles, income per person from exports of natural resources will halve… Agricultural exports will decline dramatically since most food exports will be diverted to growing domestic consumption… There is no credible plan to fix the current infrastructure crisis in public transport, water supply and so on, or to build enough new infrastructure to provide to a much larger population. Yet the supporters of high immigration typically ignore these costs… Australians are entitled to be concerned that their governments are operating beyond their electoral mandate and contrary to the interests of current and future generations of Australians.”

However, Bernard Salt, in “One Big Happy Family” (The Australian, 31/10/09) says that those saying that Australian cannot support more than 72 million may be saying that Australia should not have added the 10 million people it has since the post War immigration expansion period. And he asks which groups should Australia not have added. I don’t want to discriminate: Australia would have been better off as an Anglo Saxon country with a small population protected by nuclear bombs, than it is today.

Salt also says that, “In a world with a fast-rising population it is in this nation’s strategic interests to continue to project a culture of generosity with regard to migration.” Why? – because, I suppose, if we don’t surrender, they will invade us anyway! It is a pity that Australian patriots did not see this all coming and have fought harder in 1947 to oppose the planned destruction of Anglo Australia.
For one thing, the country would have reached a population that even the Greens regard as ecologically sustainable. And the deaths of our people in two wars would not have been a waste.

THE SILENCE OF THE (DIVERSITY) LAMBS

by James Reed
Shock! Horror! Even though in a mere five years time about half of Australian students will be immigrants (!), the national school curriculum still fails to “acknowledge the cultural diversity of Australian students”, (The Australian, 27/10/09). That is, according to Sydney sociologist Professor Andrew Jakubowicz. He has said: “Children from diverse backgrounds will be entering educational environments in which their familial and cultural backgrounds will not be recognised as contributing anything to a shared knowledge of the world.”

Where does one start in deconstructing this nonsense: should time spent on mathematics and computing be slashed to be replaced by 1980’s and 1990’s style political correctness celebrations of cultural diversity? Come on – they don’t do that in Singapore and China, they get down to learning things useful for business and keeping the wheels of capitalism turning!

Sorry Professor Kakubowicz, the world has moved on. Just smell the industrial pollution. And speaking of diversity, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies has asked for the immediate withdrawal of a high school text, which it says has anti-Semitic slurs. Incredibly, the book contains passages blaming Jews for “the existence of much of the conflict in the world”, (www.smh.com.au). The statement has been seen as having the potential to incite racial hatred. Okay, fair enough.

Now how about Anglo Saxon people using the Race Discrimination Act to defend themselves from vilification by the writers of left wing politically correct history and sociology texts?

OUCH ! RESPONDING TO CRITICISM

by James Reed
During the last few weeks a small number of folk have been critical of the tone and subject of some of the articles appearing in On Target. James Reed is responding on behalf of us all:

Utterly, gutterly (?) tacky, tasteless comments from the political trenches: Of course we cherish criticisms and are sensitive to the needs of our conservative readership, but, as an example, the article on Teddy Kennedy was seen by some readers as more suitable for a tabloid press.

Please dear, gentle readers, reconsider. Here was a truly evil man who got away with a crime involving the death of a young woman. He spent his life pursuing left wing causes harmful to the West. He worked to transform America into a Third World country. Surely such a man deserves condemnation from our side in strong terms. US conservative sites were much more damning than us.

As I see it, we are fighting the invading forces from the trenches, outnumbered. We are not at an English country estate politely sipping tea. All that we hold dear is threatened with annihilation.
Unless we rise to the challenge, all will be lost. As far as critical discourse goes, I cannot see why we should put some standard of false modesty over grim political reality. Our journalism needs to be hard-hitting shots from the trenches – or we are irrelevant and we die out.

DAVID IRVING 'S WEBSITE ATTACKED

We regret to say that our websites were destroyed by "enemy action" five nights ago at 6pm. The FBI are investigating. No credit card data of our online customers have been compromised.
We do apologise if the parallel theft of our e-mail account has resulted in your receiving unwanted e-mail attention; we encourage you to report any harassment or menaces contained in such messages to the police authorities, as these are federal crimes.
Again, our sincere apologies. (now on a speaking tour in the eastern USA)

- - David Irving, Focal Point Publications...