UN-Globalist Collectivism and Political Disclosure

Globalist Feminist Wisdom Exposed!​

​

​

Monday, 21 January 2019
German Defense Chief: Unleash NATO on Opponents of “World Order”

Written by Alex Newman





In a rambling column celebrating the controversial North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said that the alliance's military force was needed for use against opponents of the “rules-based international order.” The bizarre screed comes as more and more people across the Western world and beyond turn against the globalist “world order” that von der Leyen says must be preserved, even by military force if need be. Among the most prominent critics has been the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who globalists claim is seeking to blow it all up.
The opinion piece, "The World Still Needs NATO" published in the far-left New York Times, offers a great deal of insight into the role globalists hope NATO will play in the emerging “world order” they are seeking to foist on humanity. For instance, NATO is not just a military alliance, but “a political alliance as well,” von der Leyen admitted. But amid historic skepticism about the alliance expressed openly by President Trump and the millions of American voters who elected him, the pro-NATO propaganda smacks of desperation. In short, it seems NATO's future is uncertain at best. And globalists, apparently recognizing the threat to their dangerous agenda, have launched a full-blown public relations campaign to shore up support for the scheme.

A “stronger NATO will serve the security interests of all members,” claimed whoever wrote the piece for von der Leyen, probably PR professionals. “Most of all, it will send a clear signal to those opposing the rules-based international order: We trans-Atlantic allies are ready and willing to defend our soil, our people and our freedom.” Did you catch that? A strong NATO is needed to protect against those who oppose the “rules-based international order.” Indeed, she argued that NATO was not just about bases and troops, but about defending the “world order,” a term often used by globalists to refer to the institutions of global governance foisted on humanity — primarily using deception — since the end of World War II.

But the German official's message, while veiled, was still easy to discern. Consider, for instance, the examples offered by von der Leyen earlier on in her column about who opposes this “world order.” Among them: The government of Russia's Vladimir Putin, the mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictatorship, the “Islamic State” terror group that even globalists admit was armed and trained by NATO governments, and unspecified “authoritarian regimes developing nuclear weapons.” While the “challenges” are each different, “they have one thread in common: They emanate from actors who oppose the international order,” claimed von der Leyen, adding that these alleged foes seek “to undermine or even change the rules” of the “world order.”

In other words, if you oppose the globalist vision of a “rules-based international order” controlled by the globalist elite — complete with the destruction of self-government, individual liberty, and Western Christian civilization — you are the enemy. And you are probably a Russian-backed Islamist terrorist authoritarian of some sort, because who else would oppose the glorious world order of technocracy, open borders, and Big Government? The remedy for such threats to the world order, the German official said, is the unleashing of military force — particularly the globalist-controlled NATO's military force, which according to its own charter has always been under the United Nations.

Ironically, though, the reality is that the same globalists who control NATO literally created the very threats that von der Leyen and other globalists now claim justify the existence of NATO.

Consider, for example, the regime in Communist China. As this magazine and other sources have documented extensively, the murderous Chinese dictatorship has been aided and abetted at every step of the way by globalists in the Council on Foreign Relations and its allied Deep State organizations around the world. Indeed, from the beginning, subversive globalists such as George Marshall, a CFR member who served as secretary of state and secretary of defense, deliberately ensured that the mass-murdering Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung would defeat nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. He actually bragged about it!
Then, subversive globalists had to ensure that Communist China would prosper despite the backwards nature of communism, which is unproductive even under the best of circumstances. And they barely bothered to conceal their efforts or their affinity for the barbaric dictatorship. The late globalist mastermind David Rockefeller, a self-proclaimed member of a secret internationalist “cabal” “conspiring” against America to build a “one-world order,” celebrated the regime in a 1973 column in the New York Times. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history,” he wrote after a trip to China, omitting the fact that Mao murdered some 80 million people.

More recently, globalists have continued promoting the brutal regime as leader of the “rules-based international order.” Billionaire globalist George Soros, for example, said Beijing should “own” it. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns ... the current order,” he told the Financial Times. The next year, Soros claimed China had a “better functioning government than the United States.” And with the full support of globalist Western governments, Beijing has been quietly taking over the architecture of the “New World Order,” just as Soros and others demanded.

Even former NATO chiefs have joined the China-as-NWO-leader bandwagon. “The West has failed to accord China — not to mention the other major emerging economies — the degree of influence in today’s global governance structures that it merits,” complained globalist socialist Javier Solana, former secretary-general of NATO and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. “The West must still do more not only to welcome China to the table of global governance, but also to accept and cooperate with the institutions that the Chinese are now creating... China’s move into multilateral processes is good news for the world.”
Then consider the Islamic State, or ISIS, another creation of the same globalists behind NATO. On the campaign trail, President Trump famously called Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the “co-founders” of ISIS. Obama was dubbed the “Most Valuable Player” for ISIS. To be fair, the dynamic globalist duo had plenty of help co-founding ISIS from other leading NATO governments, including those ruling the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey. But Trump was nevertheless correct, as official documents and even former Vice President Joe Biden have revealed.

A 2012 intelligence report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) confirmed that the Obama administration and other NATO governments knew all along that al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists were the “major forces driving the insurgency” — and that NATO governments, including Obama, were supporting the insurgency anyway. “There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist [fundamentalist Islam] principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” the document states. That salafist principality is today better known as ISIS.

Vice President Biden spilled the beans on that publicly in a speech at Harvard, too. “There was no moderate middle,” he said. And so, U.S. allies, including NATO members, “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad; except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world,” Biden said. “All of a sudden everybody’s awakened because this outfit called ISIL, which was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which when they were essentially thrown out of Iraq, found open space in territory in eastern Syria, worked with Al Nusra who we declared a terrorist group early on, and we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.”
Before helping to bring about the rise of ISIS by supporting al Qaeda in Syria, NATO governments were busy in Libya openly partnering with al Qaeda there, too. The situation became so outlandish that senior U.S. intelligence and military officials were accusing Obama of “switching sides” in the terror war — a potentially treasonous act. Meanwhile, lawmakers noted correctly that Obama had made NATO into al-Qaeda's air force in the Middle East. Before that, even Hillary Clinton has admitted that the U.S. government helped create al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

So obviously, with the same globalists behind NATO openly building up the threats they claim NATO is needed to defend against, those threats are not what NATO is really needed for. And if the German government was actually interested in defending its soil or its people, as von der Leyen claimed, it would not have opened its borders wide to millions of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa — many of them violent Islamists determined to massacre “infidels.” And as for “freedom,” German authorities regularly jail people for what they say, terrorize homeschooling families merely for homeschooling, and despise genuine freedom.
So what is NATO really for? Interestingly, von der Leyen was probably telling the truth when she said that NATO was needed to defend the “world order” globalists are creating from those who oppose it. Indeed, the German defense boss said NATO was an “irreplaceable building block” for the “international order” globalists dream of imposing on humanity. The emerging European Union military being built by EU globalists will “add to NATO's strength,” von der Leyen said. The question is who are those enemies of the world order? The column did not mention Trump or his supporters, but they may well be the most significant threat to the “world order” agenda at present, as top globalists have said publicly.

Many globalists before von der Leyen have made the true purpose of NATO clear as well. In the late 1940s, then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson, one of NATO’s chief American promoters, revealed that NATO was created to be “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.” Indeed, the UN is mentioned a half-dozen times in the treaty underpinning NATO. In the 1995 NATO Handbook issued by the outfit, the alliance itself boasts that it was “created within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” In short, NATO is the military arm of the New World Order.

It is and always has been, as well, a scheme to put America's armed forces at the disposal of the UN and its member regimes — including those ruling Russia and China, both of which sit on the Security Council — while bypassing Congress. Under America's Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. But under NATO and the UN, Russia and China can vote to send U.S. forces into war under the UN charter, as occurred in 2011 in Libya when Obama, responding to an illegitimate UN resolution, used U.S. forces as part of a NATO operation for “regime change.” Look at Libya today.

The pro-NATO PR campaign by globalists such as von der Leyen comes shortly after reports that Trump asked senior U.S. officials about pulling out of NATO. While Trump has publicly claimed that the U.S. government supports NATO, the reality is that American voters elected him in part because he was threatening to blow it up throughout his entire electoral campaign. Among other terms, he called it “obsolete.” It is much worse than obsolete. Meanwhile, across the Western world, so-called populist movements are increasingly demanding an end to globalist outfits such as NATO, the EU, and more. Globalists are getting worried.
It seems that von der Leyen's plea in the Times is a desperate attempt by the globalist Deep State to preserve at least a semblance of public support for an increasingly unpopular tentacle of the “world order” machine. After all, as she made clear, globalists need it to advance their agenda — an agenda of globalism and tyranny that has now come out of the closet. For those who value liberty and self-government, the threat that NATO would be used against opponents of the “world order” offers even more ammunition in the campaign to expose and disband this globalist military organ. American troops did not sign up to defend the “world order,” but their own nation and its Constitution. It is time for the U.S. government to get out.

Photo: vetkit/iStock/Getty Images Plus​

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

 

The power behind global politics: capitalist, marxist, socialist, communist, fascist, ...
Economic control of the executive branch
-Is the TPP good for Australia?-





View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7QlOTi86Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkDiBOO4H0


Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.​

 

Coming to Australia Soon!
(Here already?)
A Green Revolution aka Deevolution

​

Friday, 08 February 2019
Alex in Wonderland: AOC’s Green New Deal Would Make Economy Reel

Written by Selwyn Duke

She’s not as ambitious as Stalin or Mao with their five-year plans — she needs 10 years. But that’s all it will take, claims Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), to completely overhaul the American economy, achieving net-zero CO₂ emissions, a total fossil-fuel phase-out, and the combustion engine’s and air travel’s elimination. A long way from stealing tips at the bar, it’s her version of Year Zero.

​

But zero is precisely what our economy would be if the greenhorn congresswoman got her way with her “Green New Deal.” Unveiled Thursday morning, it’s a top-down, Big Brother scheme that promises the world and to save the world and, fancifully, to turn a profit in the process.
Calling it perhaps “the most far-reaching proposal to ever be considered in Congress,” Fox News writes that Ocasio-Cortez’ plan would also “upgrade or replace every building in America to ensure energy efficiency and give economic security even to those ‘unwilling’ to work.” (By the way, if this comes to pass, count me “unwilling.”)
“‘Today is the day that we truly embark on a comprehensive agenda of economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,’ she said alongside Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and other lawmakers outside the Capitol. ‘That’s what this agenda is all about,’” Fox also reports.

The resolution is non-binding, a mere vision at this point of Democrat “thought leaders’” intentions for our future. These thinkers don’t, however, include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who assuredly finds Ocasio-Cortez an irritating threat to her power — as she dismissively characterized the upstart’s scheme as the “green dream or whatever they call it.”
Yet 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls were much more receptive, with figures such as senators Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren, (D-Mass.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J) all happily co-sponsoring the resolution. As they tweeted:

​

​

​

Of course, these politicians know a certain principle well: It costs nothing to promise and posture.
That is, unless it ultimately makes you look radical and stupid. Fox News’ Dana Perino, appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight’s Thursday edition (video below), theorized that this just might, in fact, happen with these Democrats.

​

Carlson called the proposal “reckless and dumb.” Yet it’s hard to really get a sense of how truly radical and risible but yet dangerous the resolution is without reading it yourself. Aside from what has already been mentioned, however, here are some highlights (lowlights?). The plan promises
• the development of high-speed rail “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) noted that this “would be pretty hard for Hawaii” (nah, not once we complete Obama’s intercontinental railroad);
• a “job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security”;
• “access to nature” (whatever that means);
• to build electric “charging stations everywhere”; and
• to eliminate all nuclear power plants.
The resolution ignores science and sanity and can read like Bart Simpson meets the Bolsheviks. Just consider the following passage from the Green New Deal FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez' office to PBS:
“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.”
The resolution is rife with divisive lies. It cites as a problem the male-female wage gap, when it has been definitively shown that it’s a function of the sexes’ different career and lifestyle choices, not discrimination, and that trying to eliminate it hurts married women and their children. It bemoans how white families have 20 times more wealth than black families, ignoring that Asians earn more than whites. Why?
Because whites are the “intersectional” leftists’ scapegoat and the common enemy used to help bind the disparate left-wing groups together. There’s no percentage in attacking Asians (yet).
Ocasio-Cortez’ one saving grace in her Green New Deal is that, like a doctrinaire Marxist, she’s often blunt about her intentions. “Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases,” the FAQ acknowledges. And the FAQ’s “Overview” section boasts: “This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.”
Yet clear goals don’t necessarily denote clear thinking. Comically tragic here is that this whole scheme is based upon the unscientific global-warming thesis, whose adherents’ computer-model predictions have failed time and again. Yet the alarmists still insist that, this time, they surely must be right.
This just reflects environmentalist doomsayers’ history, though. How bad have their predictions been? Hint: We’re all supposed to be either dead of starvation by now or living among 22.6 million other miserable American survivors.
The kicker is that even if man’s CO2 emissions were creating a warmer planet, so what? The Left often touts “science,” but here’s what science also has told us:
• Plants and animals do better in warmer times with higher CO₂ levels.
• The world will end because of too little CO₂ — in approximately 1,000,000,000 A.D.
• We’re poised to enter a new ice age.
• Reducing the global temperature three-tenths of one degree by the century’s end — meaning, postponing so-called “global warming” less than four years — would cost $100 trillion.
And believe these assertions or not, perhaps countless trillions are what the Green Raw Deal would cost. Ocasio-Cortez blows this off like a valley girl with daddy’s credit card. She says this is our WWII; it’s more like our Waterloo.
The freest nations (e.g., us) have the cleanest environments, and, in fact, China emits more CO₂ than the United States and the European Union combined. We can morally preen and posture, but do you think China and, for that matter, India will follow us over the green cliff?
It has been fashionable to make jokes about Ocasio-Cortez, but don’t laugh. For what makes her set so dangerous is that they’re ignorant of most everything — except how to gain power.

​

Photo: AP Images​

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

 

A 4-Year Timewarp from January 27th, 2016 to January 28th, 2020, coinciding with US election cycle

​

 

Liberal Nationalist or Labor-Green Globalist or just the one 'Shadow Political Corporate Control'?
What choice for the Australian Vox Populi?!

​

youtube.com

The Day Aussie Freedom Died - David Icke Banned from the 'Land of Freedom' The David Icke Videocast



Blake Gee
Worst part is they lied and defamed him with the unfounded accusation he is a holocaust denier, and blocked him on these grounds. Very sad to see, even sadder to see how few give a shit




Tony Bermanseder
Indeed. There are a few things I do not agree with David on, like his pro PLO politics and some of his 'science' regarding the Moon and the 'Reptilian agenda'. But on most points he is too close to the comfort zone of the controlleurs. Unfortunately, this includes the Morrisson government; especially on climate change and the vaccination blackmail. So the future looks unsavoury for us, no matter who 'wins' the election . Australians have not realised as yet, that Canberra is not in control of Australia's future.



Blake Gee
Couldn't agree more. 'I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it'

 

The Fall of Britain - planned!
Produced in 2011 and so before Brexit!

How the 'test' - EU-takeover of one continent is planned to go global under the UN with Canada and Australia testcases 2 and 3. Beware of 'international' - trade agreements like the TPP and try to keep it bilateral for real 'free trade'.
(Perhaps the Trump withdrawal from the TPP as first executive order can 'make more sense' now for ScoMo and the Australian political, traitors, whose naivety and gullibility towards 'international PC' is no excuse for treachery and failure of due care for their administrated constituency - the Australian people.)

​

 

​

The Ides of March are March 15.
We in modern times probably wouldn’t know about them – or know we’re supposed to beware of them – if it weren’t for William Shakespeare.

Images via Encyclopedia Britannica and via History.com and veraukoion.
​

If you’ve heard of the Ides of March, you might know you’re supposed to beware of them. Why? In ancient Rome, the Ides of March were equivalent to our March 15. In the Roman calendar, this date corresponded to several religious observances. The Romans considered the Ides of March as a deadline for settling debts. But – for our modern world – if you’ve heard of the Ides of March, it’s probably thanks to William Shakespeare. In his play Julius Caesar, a soothsayer attracts Caesar’s attention and tells him:

Beware the ides of March.​

Caesar demands:

What man is that? Set him before me, let me see his face.​

When the soothsayer repeats his warning, Caesar dismisses him, saying:

He is a dreamer; let us leave him. Pass.​

Two acts later, Caesar is assassinated on the steps of the Senate.
In the play – and in reality – Julius Caesar was indeed assassinated on the ides of March – March 15 – in the year 44 B.C.

The soothsayer tells Caesar to beware the Ides of March … but Caesar doesn’t listen. Image via History.com.


In the ancient Roman calendar, each month had an Ides. In March, May, July, and October, the Ides fell on the 15th day. In every other month, the Ides fell on the 13th day.
The word Ides derives from a Latin word, meaning to divide. The Ides were originally meant to mark the full moons, but because calendar months and lunar months were different lengths, they quickly got out of step.
The Romans also had a name for the first day of every month. It was known as the Kalends. It’s from this word that our word calendar is derived.
In fact, our modern calendar is very much like the one that Julius Caesar enacted the year before his death. It had 365 days and 12 months each year. It even took into account the fact that Earth’s orbit around the sun isn’t a whole number of days, by adding a leap day every few years.

Bottom line: The Ides of March corresponded to March 15 in ancient Rome. We remember them thanks to William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar.
https://earthsky.org/human-world/be...pc94sew2QDetUtJeHHNSHSP3tXCD9P7ErJaxFdRxNb8Bo

​

John Murphy
Gun control is now on the agenda in NZ.
That’ll disarm law abiding citizens, but not the crims, or mozells.

Greg Owers John Murphy
very true

• Tony Bermanseder
  The future will show that there exists a century old globalist agenda (International CIA and various associations of an prior aristocracy&financiers=corporate family lineages) seeking to disarm the national populations and to cause civil war between ideologically incompatible groups in that population. Just as in the JFK and similar assassinations, certain individuals can be openly or clandestinely 'used' to react to particular emotional stimuli and to then 'further' the globalist agenda (technocracy = collectivism using Hegelian dialectic or international socialism as fascism=communism). The NZ terror attack so hides a far deeper agenda, using individual emotional responses; than most can discern. Why NZ? Because 'stirring the preparation for civil war' in the relatively more peaceful places, will result in counter and copy movements in the many locations, which are more inclined to engage in the ideological war of words graduating into violence.

• Louise Stenvers Tony Bermanseder
  I fear, that your contribution to this discussion will not engender the responses it deserves. Sadly, many people suffer tunnel vision.

Pam Liddell
There is no such thing as a moderate MUSLIM,that’s fact,but like anything this is totally disgusting terrorism

Tony Bermanseder
There are many people claiming to be muslim to many degrees; but there is only ONE islam, by its own self definition of being the only and final truth - and so unreformable.
Dont 'blame ' muslims, but do in fact blame islam as being a political totalitarian political ideology, as well as a authoritarian SUPREMACIST religion.

https://www.brighteon.com/6014452141001


brighteon.com

ALEX JONES Friday 3/15/19: New Zealand Massacre,…

https://www.brighteon.com/6014432569001​

Tony Bermanseder
Right Wing - Left Wing or Strawman Plant? Why is his manifesto: 'The Great Replacement' - Towards a new society; suppressed in the mainstream media?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioQhglbY_tE
​

 

Scomo, western slave to the UN and Political Correctness​

Sid Stevens

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=402703750310078

Josh Williams
"I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman" ~Anning's statement

"... I want to absolutely and completely denounce the statements made Senator Anning, in ALL of the comments he has made." ~Scomo

Roger Carrigan
What was it that Anning said that Morrison objected to?

Josh Williams Roger Carrigan
well... according to his statement... all of it. Inclusive on condemning the attackers actions. ‍♂️‍♂️‍♂️

Roger Carrigan Josh Williams
— I think it’s important for the Australian electorate to know exactly what Anning said that Morrison has objected to?
Morrison and now Nationals making very strong statements of condemnation — they must explain so the voting public are informed!

Peter Maxwell
So scomo is denouncing annings condemnation of the attack. Wow does this scomo even comprehend what he is saying

Roger Carrigan Peter Maxwell
— do any of them know what they are doing or saying?
To my mind the condemnation of what Anning said is akin to putting a bandaid on a cancer.
The cancer of governments following the UN agenda and not governing for the great majority of the people has created this cancer of hate and division never known before in our country.
The UN agenda that both Labor and Liberal political party’s have adopted since the time of the Whitlam government belongs to the ideology of the far left Fabians and Marxists and not the great majority of traditional centre left centre right Australian Public.
At some point Australia has to elect a democratic government with enough guts to govern for the majority of Australian people — not the wishes of the minority —and the healing process will begin.
To not do so makes an even uglier future for Australia totally predictable!

Tony Bermanseder
Roger Carrigan Scomo believes that political correctness and pro-islam and pro-climate change positions can win some votes. Like many western elitist politicians he has become a slave to the globalist agenda.
The greatest fallacy of the western political elites is to consider islam as synomynous with muslims and the individual muslim religion. It is not, muslims are people, islam is a totalitarian, destructive and intensely hateful political theocratic ideology, hating all other ideologies not islamic. Islam is the cancer of the last millennium and a half, it has enslaved its own people, muslims, first and intends to control the world as supremacist ideology and worldview in the next 50 years and this is well known by traiterous western so called 'administrators' on basically all cultural levels.

​

 

ScoMo and Anning
​

Respect Australia Rally - National

* AN OPEN LETTER TO - PRIME MINISTER SCOTT MORRISON BY - #SenatorFraserAnning .. SHARE ..SHARE.. SHARE *
“THE #BEST - I HAVE EVER, EVER READ” ‼️‼️


Prime Minister Morrison,
You are threatening to censure me in the Australian Parliament for statements I made following the mass murder of New Zealand Muslims on Friday the 15th of March. Labor leader Bill Shorten agrees with your intentions.
You accuse me of blaming the victims in my initial response to the atrocity. This, despite the fact that my statement unequivocally condemned this heinous act of murderous violence.

One of the victims of this rampage was a toddler. All were innocent. The perpetrator is a monster and no sane person would think otherwise.
There are no mitigating factors which could in any way excuse this evil act. The person responsible needs to feel the full force of the law.
After putting the immediate blame where it belongs, I looked for contributing causes. I said: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand”.
I was referring, obviously, to terrorists and the backlash they potentially incite. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that any of the victims were fanatics. They were hapless victims.

My brief comment was not an academic treatise seeking to identify all the causes. Instead I zeroed in on the New Zealand government’s indiscriminate immigration policies, which are very much in line with your own.
The censure motion is an attempt to deflect attention from your reckless policies, which are causing run-away diversity – a well-documented risk factor for communal conflict. Shame on you.

Your exploitation of the killing has helped open the door to the far left. Now, innocent conservatives and even the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation are being accused of guilt for mass murder on the flimsy basis that the killer’s manifesto opposed Islamic immigration to Europe.
This guilt by association has the same level of honesty as your own accusation against me. As Douglas Murray states, “Beliefs held by millions [are] not rendered invalid by [the] actions of a maniac.”

What distinguished the killer from others concerned about Islamic immigration is that he abandoned politics and took up terrorism. To blame conservatives for Christchurch, as is now happening, is as irrational as blaming democratic socialists for Communist mass murder.
It is completely appropriate to consider contributing causes. This mass murder is clearly a form of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-cultural violence.
It is a matter of fact that in recent times, these kinds of deadly attacks have proliferated in Western countries. Initially, these attacks were mostly committed by Muslims but more recently, have been committed against them.
It is a matter of causation, not moral blame, that until recently we were largely immune to this problem because until the 1970s Western populations were, for the most part, ethnically, culturally and religiously homogenous.

I believe that these changes were initiated by governments, not requested by the people, who generally wished to retain their way of life, as did others around the world.
The Japanese people have no wish to bring in millions of Vietnamese and grant them citizenship. The Chinese don’t want to be swamped with Indians.
No people wish for this. We didn’t vote for it and we weren’t asked. Yet every Prime Minister since Whitlam has embraced the policy of indiscriminate immigration. The only choice has been in how quickly we would become a minority.

“We the people,” were given no democratic option to oppose this madness. Every major party supported it.
For example, you recently critisised Bill Shorten’s refugee policy. You said it was reckless as it would double the number of refugees at a cost of six billion dollars every year.
You implied that your own policy was somehow responsible because you would import only half that number at a cost of three billion dollars per year.
Are Australians supposed to thank you for driving us over the fiscal cliff at half the speed?
As Prime Minister, you must accept the greatest share of the blame. Sadly, you are not alone. Every other mainstream political party subscribes to the ridiculous trope that diversity is a strength. It is not, and the people know it.

You have pursued these policies against the will of the people. Along with the deep state, you have viciously attacked anyone who opposed this madness.
People have been destroyed by accusations of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, white supremacy and an ever-growing number of slurs.
In order to lock-in permanent mass immigration, you multicultural elitists have annihilated the bedrock principle of Free Speech from our society.
This is the foundational principle on which our system of democracy is built.

This deliberate subversion of democratic rights has been ruthlessly efficient in silencing legitimate criticism.
The dogma of multiculturalism has been imposed under cover of threats and intimidation. Had people not been bullied into silence by political correctness and the threat of Government sanction, they would have figured out the truth much earlier.
The fact is, that multiculturalism is simply minority tribalism turbocharged by the Left.

This is part of a wider trend for Western governments to import the “Clash of Civilisations” into once peaceful societies. If this continues the result will be the dissolution of the nation state.
Your policy of multiculturalism encourages all minorities to remain culturally separate. It encourages them to remain loyal to their tribal, religious, ethnic or cultural identities instead of to the Australian nation.

Unless of course it is white Australians who express loyalty to their group, in which case it is referred to the so-called Human Rights Commission under the hated Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Thus, you espouse tribalism from one side of your mouth while decrying it from the other.
The problem is, that minority groups vote for their own interests.
Politicians know this from experience. You are constantly pandering to them. The level of largesse which you offer, is in direct proportion to the numbers of each group in marginal electorates or donations to party coffers.

The key demand of these minority groups is always the same. More migrants from their own “tribe” to bolster the power of their own voting bloc.
Mr. Morrison, you enable this minority supremacism, as did your predecessors. You promote it. And you profit from it. This tribalism is not shared by the majority, who do not yet understand the need to vote for their own ethnic interests.
They are told to think of themselves as individuals, not as parts of a cohesive nation. Unless the majority realise the benefits of voting for their ethnic group interests – democracy will be finished. In its place we will have intractable sectarianism and Australia will be just another failed state.
The horror in New Zealand is so newsworthy because it is not yet a failed state. In the three weeks before the shooting in Christchurch, 120 Christians in Nigeria were shot or hacked to death by Muslims.

This tragedy was not reported in a single Australian news outlet that I am aware of. In January, much closer to home in the Philippines, a cathedral was bombed by Muslims and twenty innocents were killed.
Why did you and your Government not issue statements denouncing the killers? Perhaps because murderous attacks are so common in these countries.
Since September 2001, there have been more than 34,000 terrorist attacks conducted in the name of Islam. This is a staggering number. Most have been committed in countries with large Islamic populations.
As you and your predecessors have increased the Muslim population in our country, we have suffered a growing series of attacks on our soil.
Fortunately, our security forces have thwarted most of them. The Islamic community is expanding rapidly, however. Soon we will not have the resources to control the situation.

The likelihood of a backlash from other groups increases with every attack. As our society splits along racial, religious and ethnic lines, the possibility of escalating conflict increases.
Australia is not the world’s most successful multicultural society. We were once united and peaceful with a secure national identity.
Our children had bright futures. Now cohesion and trust are falling. The data shows it. There is no net benefit to traditional Australians from your multicultural dogma.

Your policies will lead to white Australians – the heart of our nation – becoming a minority within a few decades. Your own figures confirm this.
You, Mr. Morrison, are part of the problem. How dare you judge me. How dare you hold your head up in the light.
You and your cabinet have no real analysis of the national question. Instead you offer vacuous slogans fed to you by equally vacuous senior public servants – “diversity”, “vibrancy”, “inclusion”, “religion of peace”.


You have no vision for Australia situated in our region. No analysis of how to manage diversity and identity in a sustainable, peaceful way. All we get is politics; saying anything to stay in power.
This lack of principle and positive direction indicates that you and your Labor clones are puppets of powerful vested interests. These interests give a damn only for profits, not diversity, identity or belonging.

The present election campaign in New South Wales offers a horrible example of multicultural politics at work. In September of last year, the Labor leader, Michael Daley, gave a speech to a predominantly Anglo audience in the Blue Mountains.
He warned that young Australians were being pushed out of jobs and the Sydney housing market by highly educated Asian (mainly Chinese) immigrants. His predecessor, Luke Foley, was also concerned with ethnic pressures in Sydney.
He spoke about “white flight” in which “Anglo-Saxons” were being pushed out of the Western Suburbs by mass immigration.
These gentlemen know, or at least feel, that their nation is being replaced, that mass migration is causing serious problems. They know however, that they will be pilloried if they speak up. Yet still, they want the immigrant vote!
The Liberals are well aware of the situation. Their friends waited for the final week of the NSW election campaign before releasing a video of Mr Daley’s speech, hoping it would lose him the Chinese vote.

That is tawdry, low politics, with the mainstream media fully engaged. The same racial tactics were used to mobilise Chinese votes against John Howard in the 2007 federal election.
Those votes cost Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, his seat. That is the reality of multicultural politics as practised since the 1970s by the likes of Al Grassby, Malcolm Fraser, and Bob Hawke. It was practised long before that by the Communists who saw the revolutionary potential of ethnic diversity.
But the racial politics of the 2019 NSW election then sank even lower, becoming grotesque and outright dangerous.
NSW Labor changed tactics to place election ads in Chinese language newspapers.

On Wednesday 20th March Michael Daley began grovelling to recover Chinese votes. He publicly apologised to Asian voters. He promised to speak with Chinese community leaders and the Chinese consul-general when Premier. A Chinese government official!
This is the reality of multiculturalism and diverse immigration – political leaders in thrall to minority tribalism and even to foreign governments.
This is the diversity you praise and nourish, Mr Morrison. In reality you have no problem with tribalism, except for Anglo Australians.
There is more. We need a public discussion of fifth columns. For years the intelligence community has warned you and your colleagues of the security risks posed by Beijing’s soft power.

They fear that universities and political parties have been penetrated and suborned to some extent by Chinese agents of influence.
But the risk does not come solely from China. It also comes from Australian citizens living in Australia who think of themselves as Chinese.
Your government, Mr Morrison, continues to allow mass Chinese immigration at a time when China is flexing its muscles It has annexed the South China Sea, is swamping Tibet and the Turkic western provinces with loyal Han Chinese migrants, and is seeking to push Australia’s indispensable ally, the United States, out of our region.
At such a time your government has not applied any brake to Chinese immigration. You haven’t even raised the subject for discussion. Are you delusional or do you hate Australia? It must be one or the other, or both.
I say this because I respect the Chinese people. In my maiden speech I took up Sir Henry Parkes’s vision of the “crimson thread of kinship” that unites the core Anglo-Celtic Australian nation.

Well, there are hundreds of crimson threads around the world – ethnic and cultural bonds – that tie nations together.
They are positive ties, but they have been imported into Australia over the last several decades by a political elite that turned its back on our nation.
This is another harsh reality of the multiculturalism that you, Mr Morrison, praise and try to win votes from.
This is the tragedy of your beloved diversity, that it weaponises positive human bonds. It turns good people against one another.
Your immigration policies have turned Australia into a squabbling Tower of Babel. Those policies really should be criminalised. They should be made unconstitutional.

The Australian nation is dying in the big cities. Congested, progressively foreign, replaced, colonised, self-segregated, hurt by falling trust and loss of belonging. Why are you doing this to us? Where is your soul? Where is your decency?
Stop thinking about your parliamentary pension and media reputation and start thinking about your people, our people. Isn’t it obvious that the nation is in crisis? Why can you not stand tall and actually lead our people?

Our children and grandchildren will curse you if you are remembered at all. You have no right to transform their society without the people’s permission.
You have no right to inflict this legacy on them, to become a minority in their own country.
Let me be doubly clear that I condemn you and Mr. Shorten in the strongest terms imaginable – as traitors to truth and traitors to social cohesion.
You have even turned your back on your Christian faith and values. Multiculturalism means “fewer Christians.” Is that really your intention?
Without mass immigration and multiculturalism, neither the Islamic attacks in Australia or this appalling reaction to them would have occurred.
Without your reckless policies, the Australian people would still be living in a peaceful, stable and secure nation state as the Japanese do today.
The New Zealand government is using this hideous attack to further its cynical agenda. Instead of offering their people a vote on ruinous immigration policies, they are further strangling free speech and suppressing opposition.

Censorship of the media was hardly mentioned after terror attacks on Australian soil. Now however, after an attack by an opponent of multiculturalism, The State is demanding censorship of the internet.
Any website which does not embrace your extreme multicultural agenda is coming under scrutiny.
This foreshadows darkness and tyranny which were once unimaginable to Australians. You and your cohorts are driving us there at full speed.
Australia is on the path to a police state, fomented and legitimised by multiculturalist ideology.
Again, Mr Morrison, your government leads the charge, by allowing people to be persecuted under ill-defined accusations of hate speech, when most just hate oppression.

I implore all politicians to step back and think again about what you are doing to this nation.
Do not oppress us in a knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy born of fanaticism.
Any response must be measured and sane. It must not be at the price of this nation’s cohesion and unity.
Free Speech is always the first target of ham-fisted tyranny. The Christchurch killer’s intent was to topple our traditions by his evil scheme. Do not become pawns in his game.
Australia once trusted its citizens to discuss the most extreme ideas peacefully. We have a long history of rejecting radical ideas.
It is clear that our elites cannot be trusted with controlling our borders. I don’t just mean the few thousand illegals coming in boats but the millions coming legally by jet.

We as a nation need to take a breather. We need time to assimilate those already here. We need a plebiscite on immigration!
We the people, not you the elites, have a right to decide who comes here.

Fraser Anning

http://pickeringpost.com/…/an-open-letter-to-prime-min…/8834