Sunday, 24 June 2018

Environmentally conscious? Or just pretending?

I am feeling irked right now. In order to be 'environmentally conscious,'  our local supermarkets have banned the supremely useful plastic bag.  You know, the one we get our groceries in, then, almost always,  use again for something else, and finally, use to enclose some smelly rubbish for the bin.  They call it the 'single-use' plastic bag, but they are seldom 'single use.' Nearly all of the truly single use plastic bags are still there, from those flimsy plastic bags for fruits and vegetables, to the black plastic bags that come in rolls at beaches in the hope that dog owners will pick up after their dogs.

So much other plastic that we could do without.  I had a takeaway lunch.  It came in a cardboard box in a paper bag, but the plastic knife and fork I didn't want was in a sliver of plastic. Of course.

If I thought that banning this particular item of all the other plastic we use daily would do the slightest good for the environment, I would not be so annoyed.  Yes, if you are on the coast, it could get into the ocean and a turtle could make itself sick on it.  But I live hundreds of miles from the coast, and as far as I can see, all it will do is increase the unenclosed rubbish that flies breed in, and rats thrive on.

It is the hypocrisy that annoys me most!  It is like they just wave the banner and pretend they care about the environment while not actually doing anything effective.

There are many examples of virtue-signalling about the environment - except that, so often, the overall effect is negative, not positive.  It appears that effectiveness is not important to those who push various initiatives - just the appearance of caring.

A new Recycling system:

For a long time, we have had recycling bins for drink containers as well as other recyclables such as newspapers.  It was successful, recycling rate around 80%,  and it was convenient.

So now, our council has put in, at colossal expense, a much more elaborate system for recycling drink containers. There was publicity, all with a very positive slant, and they say it is 'successful' because people are using it - far more people than I had expected.  That is probably because all of our cans and bottles now cost more to cover the cost of the new initiative, and people can get a refund of 10c each, provided the can or bottle can still be scanned.  So it must not be crushed, and it must still have the label. Does it sound good?  How has it turned out?

The recycling of cans and bottles is now a combination of the new and old systems.  Overall results - around 80%.
But with the new system, people have to keep their cans and bottles intact, they must be conveyed to the recycling centre, (by car, and usually contained in plastic bags)  inserted into the machine, one by one, and the person then claims a refund of 10c each - which involves more time and trouble. 
But people are using it. I guess they don't like being defrauded 10c for every can or bottle they buy.

Others of us consider the small refund not worth the trouble, and still drop the cans and bottles into the recycling bin at home, the way we have for the past twenty years or so.

Overall effect of the new system?  It costs more to the council, it costs more for the individual, it takes more time, and is more of an effort for individuals, for council, and for the retailers where the credits are redeemed.  It has made no difference to the litter around.  The rate of recycling is unchanged.

But it looks good, and that appears to be all that matters.

And maybe a factor is that it is acting as a de facto sugar tax - soft drinks cost more (though so does Diet Coke)  and an alcohol tax - cans of beer cost more. Could that have been a factor in its adoption?  There is always someone pushing for taxes on consumer goods deemed unhealthy, the sort of  'health police' who feel that other people cannot be trusted to make the 'right' choices.

There is actually one unforeseen benefit - at a caravan park, I saw a ragged couple going through the recycling bin and removing all the intact cans and bottles in order that they could claim the refund. It may have been little money for a lot of dirty work, but they explained that they didn't like dealing with Social Security.  So there is one good effect to put against the bad. It has nothing to do with recycling and the environment, however.

Remember 'Earth Hour?'

It started in Sydney in 2007. We were all supposed to switch off all lights for one hour in a year, in order so save electricity and to advertise how virtuous we were in caring for the environment.  Enthusiasm spread, and many cities around the world adopted it.  I never thought it would make any difference except maybe to increase the likelihood of muggings in that hour, so never bothered with it.  It is now over ten years later, and I don't think that many bother with it any more, though it does continue to limp along.

But now, we have 'Vivid,' a festival where light is used lavishly in order to make wonderful effects. It runs not for an hour,  but for over three weeks!  It is beautiful, but what of the electricity consumed?  Even if they use modern lighting that uses less electricity than older types, the electricity consumed makes the amount saved by 'Earth Hour' look laughable.

It is another example of hypocrisy.  It doesn't seem to matter if something actually does good, as long as one can boast about it as if it did.

Trying too hard

Most of us try to do the right thing, but sometimes it is better to understand that recycled goods are not actually worth that much.

*  I am thinking of an old, old lady I knew, fragile skin at risk as she conscientiously scrubs out cat food tins, jagged edged, in order to put them, clean, into the recycling bin, as the council requires.  But a tear in that skin would not quickly heal. There would be extra visits from the district nurse, extra dressings, maybe antibiotics.  For a tin that is worth almost nothing, sometimes less than nothing.

*  On the local news was an item about a family who boasts that almost nothing goes into the rubbish bin. Everything is recycled, including tiny scraps of paper. They were applauded, and obviously thought they were being oh, so virtuous!

But the contents of those recycling bins are sorted by hand, by lines of workers wearing gloves, picking out plastic to put into one bin, glass into another, paper into another. None of it is worth very much, and to pick out every small piece of  'recyclable' is a waste of time and effort. Large pieces, sure.  Tiny bits of paper?  No. All that family was doing was making the job more difficult for the sorters.

*  Some time ago, I saw a feature about those wonderful people far out in the remote drylands of Western Australia, carefully preserving all their glass recyclables. Then it was shipped all the way back to civilisation where it was finally processed.

Sadly, the fuel required and the wear and tear on the trucks and the roads would be far more than the tiny amount that the glass could be sold for. Since then, the market for recycled glass has further collapsed.  No-one wants it.

*  Trucks of recycled goods are sent interstate, or sometimes just dumped. No-one wants it, and those who agree to accept it, charge for the disposal.  There are scandals when it turns out that it ends up either in illegal dumps, or sometimes simply stored - indefinitely. Think fire risk as well as everything else. What has anyone gained? 

Trade and Commerce

There are some things that appear to make no sense at all. Shipping Australian prawns off to Asia to be processed and then returned to Australia. Buying things as mundane as disposable nappies that
come from across the world.  And yet, somehow, it helps the economy.

Washed up
Does it?  It is far from common sense, and far from environmentally friendly when one considers the cost of handling and the cost of fuel used.

There is also the risk of accidents. A ship ironically named 'Efficiency' has lost over eighty containers overboard, now creating a hazard to shipping and a mess onshore. (left)

Imported cars, stacks of containers

But those in authority will not consider these environmental hazards. They prefer to focus on little things that might inconvenience people, but have no actual positive impact on the environment. It is all about the appearance of things. It is hypocrisy.

So what can individuals do that is actually useful? 

One could try thrift, but that is not a modern virtue. Those of us who are older are the ones who re-use rather than buying new. At the same time as the useless plastic bag ban, we happened to have a household rubbish collection day.  People put out their unwanted items, and council kindly collects it for us. And while a lot of it is truly rubbish,  there are also things that only need a coat of paint and maybe a bit of repair, and they are useful again.

One could almost furnish a house from what is left to be collected, and if no-one finds it first, it will be crushed and buried as rubbish. And that waste grieves me.  Surely, if the council was really interested in being 'green,' they would make an effort to allow these things to be re-used, not by the sort of  'recycling' that results in mounds or bales of plastic or glass or paper than no-one wants to buy, but real recycling - re-using.  Making and mending rather than discarding.

So what do we have, right now, in my neighbourhood, left around for those of us willing to recycle in the best way possible?

There are colourful children's toys, appearing new,  numerous chairs, some of them
repairable, two washing machines that appear new, a new-looking fan, presumably no longer wanted,  wardrobes and desks, and plenty of timber for the home handyman.  The items in the picture left are merely those within a few houses of us. There are treasures further afield.

Dirty, with a rusted tap.
Now a garden ornament

The garden bench only needed a bit of a repair and a re-paint

The inside coating was too rough for cooking,
fine as a planter once a few holes were added.   

It is actually the trendies who are so adamant that others should be inconvenienced who are the worst for unnecessary consumption. Throw out the old, buy new.  A coat of paint for that table?  Never.  Second-hand toys or clothes for your special child?  Don't be silly.  There's a piece of standard advice that goes "Check your wardrobe and if you have not worn it in the last year, throw it out."  They have to have the new, the fashionable, the latest upgrade with never a thought that this,  THIS!  is bad for the environment.  

Every new item has to be made, has to be shipped, has to be sold, has to be brought home. And all of this is expense, it causes pollution, and if you think carbon emissions are a sinister new thing, it causes that too.

The economy:

Buying things is good for the economy, we are told. It seems to me that there is something wrong with our way of life if waste is good. Maybe we should even measure how well we are doing by individual happiness instead of production, as I am told a certain country does.

But we have to have 'Growth.'  The GDP must rise every year, and in that cause, our government ensures that we have a rapidly growing population. Australia has one of the fast growing populations in the world, though by immigration rather than by a high birth rate.

But continual growth is NOT good. We are like a person already obese, who continues to eat in order to grow bigger and bigger and bigger until they are useless to themselves and to everyone else.

A new theory of economics is needed

We need a way of managing our affairs that promotes stability, and does not depend on an  ever-increasing population with an ever-increasing consumption of the earth's resources.

Until this happens, gestures like the banning of plastic bags will be just that - futile gestures.

More about plastic bags

Since the ban on plastic bags has come into effect, there have been several commentators pointing out a few relevant facts, such as that the ordinary plastic bag is actually more 'environmentally friendly' than a cloth bag.  And such that re-using bags can result in the harbouring of bacteria and the cross contamination of food.

Craig Kelly,

Andrew Bolt   "Maximum politics for minimum gain."

And here is an interesting excerpt:

"Assessment of the Potential for Cross-Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags, was conducted by researchers from Loma Linda and Arizona universities. He is the abstract (with emphasis and a link added):

The purpose of this study was to assess the potential for cross-contamination of food products by reusable bags used to carry groceries. Reusable bags were collected at random from consumers as they entered grocery stores in California and Arizona. In interviews, it was found that reusable bags are seldom if ever washed and often used for multiple purposes. Large numbers of bacteria were found in almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half. Escherichia coli were identified in 8% of the bags, as well as a wide range of enteric bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens.
When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours, the number of bacteria increased 10-fold, indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags. Hand or machine washing was found to reduce the bacteria in bags by > 99.9%. These results indicate that reusable bags, if not properly washed on a regular basis, can play a role in the cross-contamination of foods. It is recommended that the public be educated about the proper care of reusable bags by means of printed instructions on the bags or through public service announcements.
The same study found no bacterial presence whatsoever in single-use plastic bags."

And just a small fact to finish: 
Brown paper bags cost 7 times more in 'emissions' than a plastic bag
Cotton bags cost 327 times more.

So don't criticize those of your acquaintances who claim that what you see as a nice thing for the environment - 'Save the planet' etc,  is maybe not as useful as you thought.   We all care for the environment. So many beautiful places to see, and no-one wants it ruined. But when there are initiatives marketed as helping to 'save the planet,' it is a good idea to first think about whether its overall impact is positive or negative.

Friday, 8 June 2018

Threat? What threat?

In 1996, two British nurses living in Saudi Arabia were convicted of the murder of a fellow nurse, Yvonne Gilford. Like most foreign workers, they lived within a gated, 'secure' Compound. To most observers, their guilt was doubtful, and there was talk of a Saudi security guard seen in the area where the nurses had their rooms.  

The women's motive was supposedly something to do with a passionate lesbian love affair. To most of us, the idea that middle-aged women might murder for passion seems so unlikely as to be ludicrous.  (Gilford was fifty-nine.)  But the Saudi religion is Islam, and Islam has a very odd idea of female sexuality.  

Another possible motive was theft, and one of the nurses supposedly used the credit card of the victim.  

The murderers confessed (under coercion,) were sentenced, one to death by beheading, but both were later returned to Britain. 

Most of the world thought they'd been framed.    

But whether they were guilty or not is not what I wanted to talk about. Some years afterward, I worked with another medical professional, who had lived and worked in the same facility at the same time, and she told me that 'all of them there' were convinced that the accused nurses were undoubtedly guilty, and in a 'wise' sort of a voice, she told me that people will do anything for money.

But what I think is that it would have been too threatening a thought that anyone could be at risk of being framed for murder while in a country with such a different justice system, and far prefer to think that the two were guilty.  They felt safer that way. A lot safer. 

Tommy Robinson
It is akin to the reaction to the punishment of those who fall foul of the authorities because they speak too much truth.  

Tommy Robinson had been harassed for years because he spoke of the damage that the booming numbers of Muslim immigrants were doing to his home suburb of Luton, (London) and to make it worse, he spoke loudly about the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs (usually referred to as 'grooming gangs')  that were ignored for decades by the police.  

He is now in prison on what appears to most of the world to be a remarkably feeble pretext.  

But many, maybe most, people are saying that he knew he was doing the wrong thing and deserved to be locked up. It does not make one feel safe to think that the police and your government might imprison a person for too much truth-telling.  It does not make one feel safe to think that your formerly free and democratic nation is quickly turning into a totalitarian police state. 

We are like the three monkeys when we choose not to see what is happening. 

But it is vital we do see, before our freedom is gone. 

To quote Adolf Hitler - 'The best way to take control of a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

The edging toward the loss of free speech is happening in many places.  It is happening through persuasion, through 'education' especially at universities, and it is happening through coercion.  Occasionally, I still see someone say that being 'politically correct' is merely to do with politeness.  But it is far more than that.

When we cannot address the lunacy of having men who claim they are women competing in women's sport at a professional level without being accused of 'transphobia,' when we cannot speak of the ill effects of mass immigration without being accused of being 'racist,' and when we cannot talk of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism without being 'Islamophobic,' then we have lost our free speech.  

For the moment, in most places, criticism is as far as it goes, though even that is enough to  bring most of us into line.  But more and more countries are making 'hate speech' a crime punishable by a prison term. Oddly, this is not being used to control a Muslim imam calling for violence toward infidels, instead it is being used to silence those who criticise those Muslim imams who are calling for violence toward infidels.  

We are well on the way to losing our rights and freedoms, just as Hitler described. 

We must wake up, look around, read those articles many prefer to avoid, do not take as gospel the politically correct waffle you see on the ABC and like media, and start to reassert our rights.  Only if we use our rights will we manage to retain them.  I don't think it is too late.

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Declining Living Standards

Declining living standards due to over-population
and making it trendy! 

Due to a rapidly increasing population that is assumed to be inevitable, we are suffering a decline in our living standards.  The intriguing thing is that some of this declining standard of living has been re-interpreted as trendy!  

1. Taking up less space

Heard of  'Tiny Homes?'  
 They look cute, and are pushed as The New Thing!  It is asserted that one can live perfectly comfortably in a 'tiny home.'  There are TV programmes that have idealistic young couples searching for their special 'tiny home.'  They are pushed as if they were a desirable thing, rather than the squeezing of a family into a far-too-small space. 

They are very like caravans, (or 'trailers' as the American would say,)  though not all are made to be moved around.  There are differences, they look prettier, often with steep roofs,  and they are often worse-designed space-wise.   

There was a TV programme I watched that was touting the virtues of 'tiny living.' It showed the interior of one of these houses.  There was a projecting corner that I could see was made for hitting your head on,  and there was a bed upstairs without sufficient safety railing.  Get up to go the toilet, still half asleep, and an accident would be all too possible.

Left - It looks beautiful and very cute. 

The image on the right is little more than a bed on wheels.

I think there must be a deep instinct inside us that sees a cavity and imagines it as a home. 

The image (right)  is of the interior of a 'tiny home.' It looks attractive, but for long-term living?  I think a normal sized home is better.  And imagine the hazards for little children living there!

So 'tiny homes.' All they are is a loss of the living space that we have grown up with, and expect as a matter of routine. 

And yet they are supposed to be all the rage? 

 Cubicles instead of hotel rooms.

I saw a TV news reports that speaks of a trend in hotels to offer merely bed spaces instead of a hotel room.  There was a common area, where people could sit, and several bed spaces with doors, where one retired to sleep. The rationalisation was that one really only used a hotel room to sleep and could perfectly easily share other facilities with other guests.

Squeezing our houses into smaller areas.

We are firmly told that the house on a quarter-acre plot, with a picket fence and a big back yard is totally out of date. Now city houses are set so close, that one could leap from one roof to the next.  Those houses that manage a backyard at all, have a tiny one.

As a consequence, the way of life of families in the cities have changed. Now conscientious parents take their kids to the park every day so they can have some exercise and outside play.

There are new ways of being a child.  While my generation had space to roam in, today's children learn to line up to take their turn on the Flying Fox. 

There are positives. Children learn to get along with others at an early age.

But I pity them. We had so much more freedom than children do now.  Making our own little campfire and boiling up apples from the apple tree. Having a cubby house under the spreading boughs of an old pine tree. Dogs and cats and horses.

Even in a town, there were areas of free land where the kids would meet each day. Not structured playgrounds, but open areas where no-one cared if you built a bonfire or maybe 'jumps' for pushbikes.  Sliding down the slope on home-made billy carts or playing 'dams' at the edge of the creek.

Getting dirty, being free.  Kids these days are not very free.

We are told that people prefer city living and they prefer living in apartments.  I think it is more that they choose the best they can with the money they have, and that often means a small apartment.

Eating lesser quality food.

Old-fashioned vegetarianism is apparently no longer enough. It's been around too long. Now the trendies are declaring themselves 'Vegans'  - not even permitted milk or eggs. It is stated to be 'healthy,' though I doubt it. Humans have evolved as omnivores, and we know that meat is a more efficient provider of energy than plant foods. Look at an animal meat eater, such as a leopard or a lion. It will hunt, eat, and then lie around for hours, even days.  

Herbivores, on the other hand, are forced to graze all day to take in enough energy to sustain themselves. And look at primitives in areas where there is insufficient game to have a good feed of meat now and then. They turn to cannibalism, often of enemies, occasionally of excess wives. Except in desperate circumstances, that is in the past, when people were limited to what they could source locally. These days, vegans have a wide source of foods, and most manage to have enough protein to sustain health.

It is very trendy to be Vegan, and more and more people are taking up that choice, and feeling morally superior because they do.  

How much is it pushed and how much is it chosen? Hard to say, but certainly it is easier to feed an enormous population if they don't want a decent feed of meat most days of the week. 

Eating Insects.

Every now and then, someone will declare that 'with the increasing population,'  we will have to start eating insects, as it is 'no longer sustainable' to be meat-eaters.  There was even an episode of  the cooking reality show, 'Masterchef,'  that featured crickets as part of the menu, and many of the contestants demonstrated eating the things, and nearly all (maybe all?) featured them in their 'dish,' even though it was not stated as a compulsory part of the brief.

I would have loved to see the pep talk they had, off camera, to say just why they had to serve - (oh dear) - crickets! 

Eating all of the animal and all of the vegetable ‘because we can no longer afford to waste.’

On TV,  25th March, 2018, there was a programme about a chef who liked to cook up odd things to show how he abhors food waste.  Chicken rectum anyone?  Offal, not just liver, kidney and brains, but uterus?  Really?  The bitter parts of vegetables because one should not only eat the edible part. Cabbage leaves, not just the cabbage.  (The reality is that in selecting just those small parts of the animal, he probably wasted far more than the average cook at home in the kitchen.) 

And the commentator obediently said that whatever he sampled was delicious, and was probably making a horrible face off camera!  

There is a lot of talk about 'food waste.'  They invariably blame all of us, but nearly all householders waste very little edible food. 

We do eat only the parts of the food item that are generally regarded as edible.  Banana skins get thrown out, and so do apple cores and orange peel.  Bones, gristle, and often the excess fat of a cut of meat gets thrown out. The only way they can come up with the figures they accuse us of 'wasting' is if they count this as waste, rather than normal food preparation.   

Supermarkets and restaurants, of course, waste far more. 

No waste is good, (actual waste, I mean)  but fretting about it as if we were in the midst of the 1930s Depression?  That only comes about because people are fearful that there will be inadequate food to go around.  

Growing pretend meat in test tubes
With the burgeoning population (they always say this, as if there was no choice,)  we may no longer be able to have the area of grazing lands where sheep and cattle graze.  

At the moment, growing 'flesh' in the laboratory is horrendously expensive. It is quite impractical to produce commercial quantities.  The presenter of the TV programme I happened to see,  said that, nevertheless, it would become more efficient and it was 'inevitable' if we wanted to eat meat in the future.  Because why?  Because of our 'burgeoning population,' of course.  

There are plenty of articles about lab-grown 'meat.' Below are just two links to articles.

So we see declining standards of living because of a burgeoning population.
Mass immigration

But here's an idea. How about we control our population, and then we won't have to tolerate an erosion of our living standards? 

The birth rates in Western countries is already only at, or even below, replacement.  In third world countries, it is very high, and the living standard low.  And so enormous numbers of people emigrate, looking for a better life.  And this is why our population is soaring.

But taking in immigrants does not ease the pressure of population in their home countries. There are always more babies in those countries, especially as in most of the worst areas, contraception is either unavailable or against the religion. 

So now, too much pressure is put onto Western nations, who have to try to cope with the never-ending floods of immigrants, some of whom find it difficult to integrate, and more who choose not to try. 

Instead of accepting millions of new immigrants until we end up as poor and overcrowded as the worst nations are now, we should aim for a stable population for ourselves by a strict limit on immigration, and provide as much education and family planning clinics as possible in their countries of origin. Not many mothers really want a dozen children.  In many countries, they have no choice.

There is nothing wrong in looking after ourselves. I do not want to lose our land to more and more development, I like to see grazing stock, and I want my children and grandchildren to have the option of country living if they choose it.  

Don't be fooled by the pretense that things are merely fashionable when they are disguises for declining standards of living

Monday, 28 May 2018

Treachery from Within

The quote below is attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero.  From Google, Cicero was 'a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.'

'A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor, he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.'

I have seen this quoted several times recently, and that is because Western countries are now faced with 'the enemy within.'   Those admitted, often accepted as refugees, have taken their place in our home countries.  Many became useful citizens, but many others have never accepted that the values of their old homes should be forgotten,  even when those values were what made their old homes an unsafe place to be.  So now we see crimes we seldom saw before, and we see other people's agenda being pushed even from within our own government.

We MUST NOT have anyone whose values conflict with those of Australia representing us in parliament, Federal or State, or even in for local councils.

So who should be permitted to represent us in government?  

1. They must be an Australian citizen.  There can be no dual citizens permitted.  They must be Australian and Australian only.  Australian citizenship should not be easily granted. 

2. We cannot have in parliament any individual who believes in an ideology whose 'holy' books advocate what to us are crimes - from the beating of wives to the killing of 'infidels.' That would mean that no believing Muslim could represent Australia.

3. Every single person who represents us in local, state or federal government should be, not only an Australian citizen, but Australian born. This will not eradicate the possibility of treachery from within, but it will reduce it.  Some will act against Australian interests because of ideology, and some, sadly, will take bribes. 

Australian Citizenship.

1. Instead of four years permanent residency, there should be a requirement of fifteen years of residence and productivity.  That means not on welfare. 

2. There should have been no trouble from the applicant more than one or two parking tickets. There is theoretically a 'good character' requirement in place at the moment, but it is absurdly lenient.

3. Citizenship should not be granted to anyone merely because they are born in Australia. 

4.Citizenship should not be granted merely because one marries an Australian citizen. It is a privilege, not a right.

Who should be permitted to vote?

1. They must be an Australian citizen.

2. They must not be in prison.

3. If a person has committed an offence with a penalty of more than one year's imprisonment, they should permanently lose their right to vote. 

4. They should be aged eighteen or over.

5. Anyone who has been out of the country for more than five years should not be permitted to vote. They would be insufficiently familiar with the issues, and some expatriates would be feeling a geater loyalty to the country they live in rather than the country they have left behind.  

A lot of people will be thinking that all of this is absurd, maybe xenophobic, maybe 'racist,' certainly 'Islamophobic.'  It is not.  It is defence of our own country and our own way of life.

Treachery is happening.  It is treachery from within.

Local Councils:

At the moment, there are different and more lenient rules to run for election to local councils. They were devised when local councils understood their responsibility was to do with local development, garbage collection, the upkeep of roads, and so on.  But in recent years, they have become more political, and sometimes, treacherous.  

1. Australia Day/ Anzac Day.  Several local councils, mostly Sydney ones,  are attacking Australia Day as 'divisive.'  Some have stopped having naturalisation ceremonies on that day.  (Naturalisation means granting Australian citizenship.)  To attack Australia Day is to attack Australian values.  Anzac Day, likewise. 

2. Political Activism:  Councils collect rates to pay for their responsibilities. It is wrong to use these rates to pay for political campaigns.  An example is Sydney Council  spending $110,000 on the yes side of the campaign for same-sex marriage. That was late 2017.

That was an abuse of their power, but it was not really treacherous. This one could certainly be regarded as treacherous, that a council has sent ratepayers' money to Gaza.  Gaza is ruled by Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation.   Some councils advocate a boycott of Israel.

3. Development not in the interests of the rate-payers.  
There are many countries who are happy to invest in Australia, and there are some members of councils eager to reap rewards by accommodating them. Some, no doubt, are influenced by bribes, (maybe called 'donations,')  but a Chinese-Australian, for instance, might be happy to swing a vote toward China's interests rather than Australia's interests.  Others might be influenced by idealism, maybe that he feels that the idea of a country that acts only in its own interests is no longer in line with his 'progressive' values. 

State Government:

The same arguments apply to State Governments, especially in regard to problematic development by overseas firms.  It is a shame to see so much of our Australian farmland handed over to overseas interests, whether it is China or India.

Federal Government: 

It is federal government where the capacity for treachery is greatest.  In the past, treachery from within was more rare, simply because people were so much less mobile. Times have changed, and we must protect ourselves.  Otherwise, we could see our own country stolen away from us by traitors from within.

Threat 1 - Commercial Interests

A Chinese-Australian billionaire has been named as someone who bribed a UN official, and is also active in 'donating' to political parties and to universities with the motive of swaying decisions in favour of China.

Penny Wong

There are ministers who are adamant that to try and protect ourselves against foreign ownership of Australian land is somehow 'xenophobic.' 

For example, Labor minister Penny Wong wants to make it easier for foreign investors to buy our farms.  We have fought to protect our country from foreign invaders, and now we are going to simply sell it?  How utterly short-sighted!  

Penny Wong is Malaysian-born.  She is the Senate Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment.

Threat 2 - Political Leverage

 China has been accused of trying to influence Australian politics, and has definitely been doing its best to influence what is taught in universities. Their preferred map, for instance, does not show Taiwan as a separate country.  An Australian senator, Sam Dastyari, (no longer a senator)  was accused of allowing China to influence him. Bribes are alleged. Dastyari was not Australian-born, but whether that was an influence in his flawed loyalties is impossible to say. 

Saudi Arabia donates a great deal of money to Australian universities, though how much influence they manage is debatable.  It is safe to say that little would be taught that criticised the country, and not a thing that criticised its religion.

Threat 3 - The 'New World Order.'

 The 'New World Order'  is basically the eradication of borders, the promotion of mass immigration, and the moving toward a single world government. European countries that have relinquished control of some of their powers to the EU is an example. The EU started as a mere 'Common Market.' It has gone a long way further than that now. 

The United Nation has also garnered powers that nation-states have given up. Each time Australia signs a UN agreement, we have less power to decide Australian matters in Australia's interests and no-one else's.  

 Some say there is no such push, others say it is a worldwide conspiracy by the most powerful men in the world.      

Whichever is true, there is no denying that some very influential people appear to want us to drop borders and accept an unlimited number of immigrants - 'globalism.'  Look, for instance, at the amazing hostility to Donald Trump's desire to stop people and contraband flowing in from Mexico.    
Not many ordinary workers like the idea of globalism. Donald Trump's rejection of it was probably one of the main reasons that he was elected US President.  

Image taken from the Brexit campaign

Some European countries are fighting back against the imposition by the EU of the acceptance of enormous numbers of immigrants - Poland, for instance.  Other countries are increasingly veering toward what those in power and the media refer to contemptuously as 'far-right' or 'populist' parties.  Italy is one. Maybe in Europe, the pendulum has begun to swing against the suicidal open borders policy.  A recently published books speaks about it -  'The Strange Death of Europe' by Douglas Murray.   

Europe has been betrayed by those in power, and by those working against it from within.

Threat 4 - Islamisation

In more and more countries, blasphemy laws are being enacted. In practice, what is meant is that criticism of Islam is termed 'hate speech,' and those who commit this 'crime' can be punished.


There have been so many new immigrants surging into Sweden, immigrants from the sort of third world country that view women as chattels to be used as desired, that it is now known as 'the rape capital of Europe.'  Women are advised not to go out at night.

Police must not 'racially profile' suspects, and statistics are deliberately noncommittal about country of origin of criminals.

It recently came to light that school children were being taught Islam.

People who speak out about the high level of immigration and the dangers of Islam are liable for arrest for 'hate speech.'  Islam has strong laws against 'blasphemy.' It amazes me that a civilised nation pays attention to blasphemy laws, but it seems they do - only against Islam, of course. One can say what you like about Christians.

The Swedes are losing Sweden.There are forecasts that ethnic Swedes will become a minority in their own country within a couple of decades.


In France, they have been in a state of emergency for years. Terrorist attacks are frequent, the latest (at the time of writing) in Marseilles. (May 21st, 2018)


Germany now has to defend itself against Islamic terrorist attacks including 'rape jihad' such as the infamous attacks in Cologne, New Year's Eve, 2016. There are  'No Go Zones' and the culture has changed. It is very sad.  See the interview below.

London bus with 'Allah is great' on the side.

London police are trying to cope with surging knife crime, a lot of it by recent immigrants. They have a Muslim Lord Mayor and a Muslim Home Secretary.  They have a sign 'Allah is great' on London buses. There are the scandalous 'grooming gangs' or 'rape gangs,' especially targeting underage girls.  The culprits were Muslim, the girls not Muslim.  As the girls were 'infidels,' the abuse is not even wrong according to Islamic law. 

And yet the police appear to be more active in persecuting those who criticise Islam than they are in  the perpetrators or even in those Muslim imams who preach terrorism.

May 25th, 2018, Tommy Robinson was arrested and imprisoned for reporting on a trial of those involved in 'grooming gangs.'

Since the arrest was shown live, and since he did not appear to have been doing anything at all that was 'disturbing the peace,' there is outrage, with many talking of a police state, and others saying he was a racist and got what he deserved.

Left a bacon sandwich,
ended up dead. 
If this man is imprisoned with Muslims, he may very likely not survive.  He was brutally bashed on a previous occasion while in prison. 

There was another who criticised Islam by leaving a bacon sandwich outside a mosque.  He was arrested and sentenced to a year in prison.  For a couple of bacon sandwiches and a sign or two saying 'No Mosques.' He was killed by other inmates. That was also in Britain.  2016.

The Tommy Robinson arrest prompted this article by Bruce Bawer,  written May 26, 2018 

In the 'European Appeasement Olympics,' Britain wins. 

"All right, the competition is over. Britain wins.  For years I thought that Britain's long tradition of open debate and individual liberty would enable it to stand up more firmly to the encroachments of Islam than other Western European countries.

"But I was wrong. It is Britain that is falling fastest to Islam. It is Britain, our mother country, home of the Magna Carta, that is most firmly betraying its own history and values.' 

The above are short extracts.  It is worth reading the full article -

The Western World generally:

Some Muslims have bigger ambitions than raping white girls and maybe killing a few infidels.  As the Koran advocates, they feel that the whole world should worship Allah and submit to Islamic law.  Canada, for example. The video below is a Toronto imam explaining why and how Islam will take over in Canada.  With Prime Minister Trudeau apparently bent on placating all things Muslim, they are off to an excellent start.

The ambition is to impose Islam and Sharia (Islamic Law)  on their adopted countries.  No doubt many of the flood of new immigrants into Europe and other Western countries are merely trying to make themselves a new life with productive work.  There are others who are actively trying to choose the country with the most generous social security system.  But there are also those whose ambition it is to have the ummah  cover the whole world and are working toward that goal. The numbers of Muslim immigrants and the fact that they have much bigger families means that the countries will be changed anyway, with or without intent.  (ummah - the Islamic community)  

Most Muslims, luckily, do not support what are generally called extremists, but are more accurately called 'purists' in that they try to follow the instructions of the 'holy' books and the warlike example of Muhammad. 

Below is the link to a video showing radical Muslims being challenged by moderates.

The more that Muslims oppose the extremists, the better for all of us. If only Islam could be reformed to keep only the peaceful aspects, those aspects in keeping with Western law and Western civilization, no-one would have an issue with it, or at least, no more than with any other religion. But since Islam forbids questioning, and asserts its Koran as the final word, that is difficult. And the Sharia punishment for leaving Islam, 'apostasy,'  is death. 

In Australia, there are  many examples of betrayals by those we have taken in, some major, as in jihadist killings by immigrants, often those who have been granted citizenship, others apparently more minor - such as special women only slots at public swimming pools. 

This is Islamisation.  We are witnessing it.  Many of us don't like it one little bit. 

Can countries be lost to Islamisation?  

Of course they can.  Historically, it has happened time and again. Islam was not spread by peaceful means. Muhammad tried that in Mecca, but it didn't work very well, and after he moved from Mecca to Medina,  the ideology of Islam turned to conquest by any means necessary. 

Look at Lebanon.  This was a state that used to be Christian/secular and is now firmly Islamic.  Brigitte Gabriel said: ‘We had open borders and welcomed everyone.  Today, I fight every day to warn my new country, America, to not make the same mistakes.’


Islamic countries are becoming more strictly Islamic day by day.  The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,  recently made a call to all Muslims, everywhere, to join in the fight against Jews.  (Jews being 'dogs,' of course, and deserving only of death according to the Koran and Islamic teaching.)

Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, all are becoming more sternly Islamic. Women are feeling more pressure to veil, and in Indonesia, it was declared 'blasphemy' when a Christian candidate said that the Koran did not say that a Muslim had to vote only for a Muslim.  (The Koran doesn't mention voting at all, of course.)  But nevertheless, Ahok is now in prison with a sentence of two years for blasphemy.  And what that means is that Muslims will understand it to be sinful to vote for any other than a Muslim.  It is undoubtedly a factor in the rapid rise of Muslims in powerful positions in politics. In this case, democracy is working against us.

There are problems when we allow our parliamentary democracy to be undermined by those who are traitors to Australian interests. 

It is time for us to discriminate.  Discrimination is not a bad thing.  We need to discriminate against criminals and we need to discriminate against traitors. 'Multiculturalism' is only successful when the cultures are not too far apart -  Danish, Swedish, Italian, Greek -  these have all integrated successfully.  Later immigrants have not.  

We need to be far more fussy whom we allow into Australia, and far, far more fussy about whom we allow the privilege of citizenship.  As for government, we have to exclude all of those with conflicting loyalties.  We can be fussy if we choose.  It is not 'racist,'  or 'xenophobic' or any of the other adjectives used to stop argument and promote someone else's agenda.  There is no reason why we cannot keep Australia as a  civilised Western nation if we choose.  We only have to choose.