JOHN HOWARD : AN ASIAN PUPPET

by James Reed
For years I have screamed in conservative ears that John Howard was a greater Asianiser than Keating. Asian immigration under Howard reached record highs - on the books 70% and rising - but for various back door reasons (e.g. New Zealand immigration) it was higher. Yet the "Howard illusion" was that he was still holding to his 1988 opposition to the pace of Asian immigration. Neither Professor Blainey, as I read him, nor the 1980s Howard opposed the ultimate Asian takeover of Australia, primarily by the Chinese.

Peter Wilkinson in "The Howard Legacy" (2007) has written the book that I wish I had. He shows that the Howard government's policy of selecting skilled Asian, predominately Chinese immigrants, has effectively selected Asians of higher cognitive ability and is changing the demographic nature of our elites, the professional and management classes.

Chinese are in the majority in most of the important scientific and medical fields in the Australian education system and are an overall majority at the University of New South Wales. However, it is not just the best and brightest that get degrees. Many international students (= Asians) often are given degrees and passes when they should fail because failing these students affects financial viability.

Conceded a pass, international students then get residency and jobs that Australian-Australian students could have got. Australian-Australians who passed stringent exams at that! The universities have become corrupted because government-funding policies have directed them this way.

Readers who do not fear a Chinese takeover of Australia from within should ponder these words by Michael Backman in "Asian Eclipse: Exposing the Dark Side of Business in Asia" (2001): "The overseas Chinese are the most successful minority group the world has ever seen. Much of what happens in Asia occurs because this group makes it happen… [they] have been far more successful in their domination of many of Asia's economies than the Jews ever were in Europe." For that reason alone you need to read Peter Wilkinson's excellent book urgently!
Copies are available from all Heritage Book Services and Veritas Publishing Company. Price: $25.00 posted.

Editor's comment: How many Australian-Australians watched with interest and alarm the highly organised 'invasion' of Canberra by the pro-Chinese Chinese, to ensure no disturbances of the Olympic torch run? Not too many concerns about the human rights of the Tibetan people here.
And what about the Chinese ship waiting to deliver arms to Mugabe? Again human rights of others are not a priority for the Chinese. It is only the stupid, gullible westerner who allows his own traitorous elites to sell his people and his country out to foreigners.

ZIMBABWEANS BEQUEATH US THEIR SORROWS

A letter to the West from the beleaguered folk in Zimbabwe follows.
Are you reading this Mr. Fraser? Are you down on your knees in prayer for these people and asking their forgiveness?

"I reckon that these are the last days of TKM and ZPF. The darkest hour is always before dawn. We are all terrified at what they are going to destroy next…I mean they are actually ploughing down brick and mortar houses and one white family with twin boys of 10 had no chance of salvaging anything when100 riot police came in with AK47's and bulldozers and demolished their beautiful house - 5 bedrooms and pine ceilings - because it was "too close to the airport", so we are feeling extremely insecure right now.
You know - I am aware that this does not help you sleep at night, but if you do not know - how can you help? Even if you put us in your own mental ring of light and send your guardian angels to be with us - that is a help, but I feel so cut off from you all knowing I cannot tell you what's going on here simply because you will feel uncomfortable. There is no way we can leave here so that is not an option.
I ask that you all pray for us in the way that you know how, and let me know that you are thinking of us and sending out positive vibes... that's all. You can't just be in denial and pretend/believe it's not going on.
To be frank with you, it's genocide in the making and if you do not believe me, read the Genocide Report by Amnesty International which says we are - IN level 7 - (level 8 is after it's happened and everyone is in denial).
If you don't want me to tell you these things-how bad it is-then it means you have not dealt with your own fear, but it does not help me to think you are turning your back on our situation. We need you, please, to get the news OUT that we are all in a fearfully dangerous situation here. Too many people turn their backs and say - oh well, that's what happens in Africa.
This Government has GONE MAD and you need to help us publicize our plight--- or how can we be rescued? It's a reality! The petrol queues are a reality, the pall of smoke all around our city is a reality, the thousands of homeless people sleeping outside in 0 Celsius with no food, water, shelter and bedding are a reality.
Today a family approached me, brother of the gardener's wife with two small children. Their home was trashed and they will have to sleep outside. We already support 8 adult people and a child on this property, and electricity is going up next month by 250%, as is water. How can I take on another family of 4 -- and yet how can I turn them away to sleep out in the open?
I am not asking you for money or a ticket out of here - I am asking you to FACE the fact that we are in deep and terrible danger and want you please to pass on our news. So PLEASE don't just press the delete button! Help best in the way that you know how.
Do face the reality of what is going on here and help us SEND OUT THE WORD. The more people who know about it, the more chance we have of the United Nations coming to our aid. Please don't ignore or deny what's happening. Some would like to be protected from the truth BUT then, if we were eliminated, how would you feel? "If only we knew how bad it really was we could have helped in some way." [I know we chose to stay here and that some feel we deserve what's coming to us.]
For now, - we ourselves have food, shelter, a little fuel and a bit of money for the next meal - but what is going to happen next? Will they start on our houses? All property is going to belong to the State now. I want to send out my Title Deeds to one of you because if they get a hold of those, I can't fight for my rights.
Censorship! --We no longer have SW radio [which told us everything that was happening] because the Government jammed it out of existence - we don't have any reporters, and no one is allowed to photograph. If we had reporters here, they would have an absolute field day. Even the pro-Government Herald has written that people are shocked, stunned, bewildered and blown mindless by the wanton destruction of many folks' homes, which are supposed to be 'illegal' but for which a huge percentage actually do have licenses.
Please! - do have some compassion and HELP by sending out the articles and personal reports so that something can/may be done."

I am one. I cannot do everything, ---but I can do something.. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do. - Edward Everett Hale

Readers: Please phone or email your local politician calling for him to make protest on your behalf to the government of Zimbabwe, plus urge world leaders to put pressure on Mugabe to resign. British politicians have called for an arms embargo to Zimbabwe.

MALCOLM'S MATE MUGABE

by James Reed
Writer Hal G.P. Colebatch wrote a challenge to former PM Malcolm Fraser: "You Got Him In, So Help Kick Him Out" (The Australian 16/4/08 p.14). "Him" is Robert Mugabe, personal friend of Mal Fraser. Fraser was a key player in Zimbabwe's 'independence' and Fraser convinced British MP Margaret Thatcher to accept it. My god, the names change, but the players remain the same!
Colebatch notes that Mugabe, before turning on the Whites committed a "quasi-genocidal" war against the Ndebele people, with the result of 20,000 people murdered. Mugabe "came to power tainted with atrocity."

Colebatch says that until the recent elections Fraser never publicly criticised the Mugabe regime. However he has continued to moralise and preach to Australians on various politically correct topics. So that seems to me to be a logical problem of consistency of the sharpest kind for Malcolm.

Fraser responded to Colebatch (The Australian 17/4/08 p.14). He claims that he did not criticise the Mugabe regime because it may have put certain people at risk when disturbances occurred in Zimbabwe. And, "initially Mugabe started reasonably well."
The reply waffles on, but nowhere does Fraser recognise that he was wrong and that he should have acted but did not. Nothing here about how Fraser, in pursuit of a multiracial globalist ideal, saw Mugabe much as liberals today, with glazed eyes, see Obama.

The story is instructive. The elites never admit error because what happens, if it suits the agenda it is never error, and never wrong.

THE PRICE OF INSECURITY

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The alleged bombing of the World Trade Centre by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001 led to the "war on terror." Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, allegedly because of the part they played in the fostering of world terror and the possession of weapons of mass destruction. However it was soon apparent that there were no concealed weapons of mass destruction. This was apparent to many earlier in the search, including an Australian SAS officer who said recently that John Howard misled the Australian people over Iraq. ("Wrong War, Wrong Time" The Australian 25-26/11/06 p.22)

The West responded to the "war on terror" on the home front by the introduction of anti-terrorist legislation. In the past five years the Australian parliament has manufactured 37 pieces of anti-terrorist legislation. So much that it is difficult to keep track of it all. Now there is an excellent critical guide to the Australian legislation changes by two University of New South Wales academics, Andrew Lynch and George Williams: "What Price Security? Taking Stock of Australia's Anti-Terror Laws" (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney 2006).

This book is relatively cheap and very clearly written so that it can be easily understood by the general public. The authors take a very balanced view of the "war on terror". They accept that there is a terrorist threat, but quote Prime Minister Robert Menzies who said when introducing national security legislation in 1939: "the greatest tragedy that could overcome a country would be for it to fight a successful war in defence of liberty and to lose its own liberty in the process." (p.12)

This however seems precisely what has occurred:
Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth) defines a "terrorist act" to be an action done with the intention of "advancing a political, religious or ideological cause" and "coercing, or influencing by intimidation" an Australian or foreign government or "intimidating the public."
Previously the original Bill did not have the second clause and legal groups strongly criticised it for being absurdly wide and thus capturing ordinary forms of protest. Lynch and Williams point out that the security legislation Review Committee wants the part of the definition protecting ordinary protests dropped, and the government may adopt this in the future.

In my opinion the definition of "terrorist act" is already absurdly broad and could be used by governments to essentially 'nail' anyone, or any organisation, critical of the status quo. Some elements of our multicultural society are so sensitive that any criticism is an "intimidation". Division 101 offences by individuals include "ancillary offences" such as possessing a thing or collecting or making a document "connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act." Maximum penalties for these offences range between ten and twenty five years imprisonment.

The authors note that these offences significantly extend the traditional scope of criminal liability to very early stages of an act. This is the "precautionary principle" in action, to stop people even before they have a definite plan. The authors note that the laws are so wide that it "is conceivable that people who are simply foolish or careless might find themselves being prosecuted." (p.10) A person who merely downloads a document on bomb or gun making could be caught as a "terrorist."

ASIO was given new power not "out of place in General Pinochet's Chile" (p.33). The laws allow people to be held and questioned by ASIO for up to 48 hours and it is an offence to reveal "operational information" about detention. ASIO, among other things can intercept the telecommunications of innocent people if this will "assist the organisation in carrying out its function of obtaining intelligence relating to security." Even USA law does not allow the secret detention of non-suspect citizens. (pp.39-40)

In other papers I have dealt with the threat that the terrorism laws pose to freedom of speech. Lynch and Williams present an excellent discussion of this. Writer Frank Moorhouse ("The Trouble With Paradise" Griffith Review 14) has also written cogent material on the "War on Free Speech." (The Weekend Australian 4-5/11/06, p.22)
It is not hard to see that freedoms that took centuries to fight for are being quickly eroded away.

HERE COME MORE CHINESE

by James Reed
China's one-child policy has kept China's population growth rate under some control; perhaps restraining it by 400 million. But China's leaders are considering axing this policy (The Guardian Weekly 7 March 2008). This is to address the alleged problem of an aging population and the need to have masses of poor workers.

In the 1960s under Mao the Tyrant, China's fertility rate was 5.8 babies per woman of child-bearing age. No doubt now, as China sets its sights on world conquest, more footsloggers will be needed. There will be a need for "living space."

Our elites will gladly swap our lives for a few handfuls of silver, or … china.

WHAT A SUMMIT SET UP

Andrew Bolt summarised the make up of Rudd's 20/20 Summit in an article in the Herald Sun.
Titled: 'Rudd's mates steer the ship', he wrote: "Every sign is that the summiteers were pulled together to give Rudd exactly the mandate voters never got around to giving him - a mandate for what Labor wanted to really do, but was too afraid to ask.
§ First step in this con was to select a crowd that would agree to any scheme involving Big Government, global warming alarmism and the rest.
§ And so of the 1000 delegates, an astonishing 118 came from a single Left-wing activist group, GetUp, whose former spokesman is now Rudd's press secretary.
§ Dozens of serving and former Labor politicians were also dragged in, from Bob Carr and Barry Jones to John "No Water" Thwaites and even Joan Kirner.
§ Naturally, heads of the biggest green groups were drafted, such as WWF's Greg Bourne and the Australian Conservation Foundation's Ian Lowe, as were a whole glacier of professional global warming alarmists, from Tanya Ha to Tim Flannery.
§ They were joined by a dozen past or present ABC staff, including David Marr, Geraldine Doogue and Jeff McMullin.
§ and a generation of "stolen generations" propagandists such as Robert Manne, Lowitja O'Donoghue and Pat Dodson.

It worked.
§ Climate Change: Of 100 summiteers asked to discuss climate change, for instance, not one was an identifiable sceptic.
§ Of the 100 brought in to discuss the arts, none protested against the summit's demand for an explosion in government grants in exchange for an absurd promise to "double cultural output by 2020". This lot even called for artists to be put into factories around the nation to teach the yokels "sense-making".
§Most significantly, of the 100 brought in to discuss the republic, only one - Liberal senator and token conservative George Brandis - was against. Just one out of 100 against the republic? What are the odds, when even the summit's briefing papers admitted public backing for a republic has for years been under 50 per cent? To get a 99 per cent result at the summit when the public support is half that takes rigging of the kind Robert Mugabe is arranging in Zimbabwe. Yet hear Rudd crow that this was in some way the genuine voice of the people: "I think what the summit was saying loud and clear was that there is a big groundswell of support for a republic in Australia."
§ No, Prime Minister. That was no "groundswell" you heard from the stage on Sunday. That was just the sound of your friends, courtiers and carpet-baggers - all chosen by your team - clapping wildly.
§ And they were clapping hard not just for your republic of the elites, but for the power you're giving them right now over the millions of voters who never got a say in your farce of a summit.

JESSE OWENS AND THE NONSENSE ABOUT THE 1936 OLYMPICS

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE … - KEV'S VISION AND AN EMPTY FLASK?

by James Reed
Max Hastings writing recently in Britain's Daily Mail gives us the answer we all know - nothing! Rudd is like Blair, Hastings says, pretty much an empty vessel: big on being "nice" and talking a "good game" but lame on the big issues.
Already the Australian Left hates him; according to Guy Rundle in The Age, Rudd is "silencing dissent and stifling democracy."

Go to it boys and girls… "get him," as I used to say to my dog Budd, when I was a kid. Aahh, Budd, what memories!
Now there would have been a PM, fleas and all, that would have made the Left happy! No silencing of dissent and democracy from him as he spread puppies across the land! If we can have the "drover's dog" for G-G, then why not a real canine for PM?

THE PRINCE VISITS INJURED COLLEAGUE

Prince Harry was reunited with one of the injured servicemen who shared his return flight from his tour of duty in Afghanistan. Marine Ben McBean, 21, lost an arm and a leg when a mine exploded during a patrol in the country. He was flown back to the UK for medical treatment at the same time as the Prince was forced to return home.

Prince Harry and Prince William visited Headley Court Rehabilitation Centre in Surrey where Marine McBean is now being treated. They met injured servicemen and women and gave their support to a planned ceremony in the city of London to support the troops. The younger prince also met Marine Mark Ormrod, with whom he trained before deploying to Afghanistan.

The 24-year-old, who lost an arm and both his legs when he stepped on a mine during a routine foot patrol, says that the prince recognised him from their time in training together. He said: "They're quite down to earth which you wouldn't really expect. They asked me all about my family and my injury."

The princes are royal patrons of the City Salute Appeal, launched in March this year to celebrate and support the UK's armed forces and their families. The appeal will culminate in an open-air event on the steps of St Paul's on 7 May 2008.
Organisers hope that the public will gather in the heart of the city of London at sunset for a 45-minute ceremony to help raise money to support Headley Court.
Source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080421/tuk-prince-visits-injured-colleague-6323e80.html

THE MAYOR'S REMARKS

Naracoorte's Mayor Ken Grundy had the following to say on the Summit outcome, 22/4/08:
While we await the details from the Prime Minister's 20 / 20 Conference in Canberra last weekend, the headlines are calling for a new look at federalism and for Australia to become a republic and also some other matters considered predictable from the hand-picked list of delegates.

The call to prevent duplication between the States and Federal government has arisen since Canberra has gradually absorbed more from the States. Will the answer return power to the States in a move to decentralize or will Canberra seize control? Any review of federalism will involve local government as well as the States. Will the outcome of this review be controlled by restricted terms of reference or will the terms be wide?

Thinking of the review, I am reminded of the agendas within local government looking into the sustainability of this tier of government. Of course we are sustainable! We are sustainable provided the powers above us have the will to ensure that we are. Those powers, in this case the States, must allocate sufficient finance to supplement our rate income to enable us to achieve the wishes of our constituents as well as the numerous compliant regulations imposed upon us. It really is as simple as that!

However, I do acknowledge the difficulty in achieving the result. In the end, the question is: Does that will exist and if not, how may we be influential? The underlying factor driving the problems we face is a lack of finance. It pressures local government to amalgamate and it forces the States to yield power to the Federal government.

These moves of centralization build bigger bureaucracies which consume any predicted savings and also transfer decision making away from the people. The financial problem can be solved. Until it is solved, we will continue on the road of more 20 / 20 conferences and more centralization.

LETTER TO THE PRESS