Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Current Affairs

IMPORTANT: The transformation of Chechnya from mostly secular to fanatic Muslim in six years

 

We need to fully understand the EXTREME DANGERS of the Islamic political ideology. It appears that Chechnya degenerated from state secularism to extreme fanaticism in the course of a mere six years.

This transformation in the course of a mere six years sends shivers through my spine.

Political Islam is the worst kind of ideology one can have – much worse than even extreme communism.

==FROM AN EMAIL I HAVE RECEIVED ==

During the Soviet period the majority of people living in Chechnya were atheist. Atheism had become widespread especially among the young and middle-aged population at the expense of Islam and Orthodox Christianity. By the mid-1980s, only 12% of residents in the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Republic identified themselves as “believers” in a religion.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Chechens tried to break away and form their own independent country. They were secular back then. The secessionist movement was motivated by nationalism rather than religion.

The Russians lost the First Chechen War and Chechnya became de-facto independent for three years. However, the Chechen people began affirming their cultural identity which was Islamic. and this made them religious. A lot of Arab mujahideen moved to Chechnya during the first war, and their influence on the Chechen militants converted many of them to Salafism. The president Aslan Maskhadov instituted Sharia to appease the conservatives and weaken the Salafist opposition.

During those three years, Chechnya degenerated into a tribalistic hell-hole like Papua New Guinea, as the various clans fought each other and indulged in beheadings, kidnappings, and rape. Even slavery made its come-back during those years.

By the beginning of the Second Chechen War in 1999, the people were already extremely conservative Islamic fanatics.

All this change took place over the course of six years.

DNow the whole republic is a cesspool of Islamic fanaticism, with thousands of Chechens having died waging jihad against Russia and in other countries.

To quote Chechen jihadi Dokka Umarov:

“Before the start of the first war in 1994, when the occupation began and I understood that war was inevitable, I came here as a patriot. I’m not even sure I knew how to pray properly then.”

Continue Reading

India’s reality today, in the documentary Reason by Anand Patwardhan

Thanks to Melroy Fernandes for sharing this:

https://scroll.in/reel/893699/india-today-anand-patwardhans-documentary-reason-holds-a-troubling-mirror-to-the-headlines

The full documentary is very long and has been broken up into snippets on Youtube that can be accessed here.

The documentary provides deep insight into the vicious and violent India that’s being created by RSS and Modi. The situation is dire and the world is simply keeping quiet. Modi the criminal is leading the charge against everything that Gandhi and Nehru fought for.

I’m informed that the following snippets are particularly relevant:

 

 

 

Continue Reading

LKY was extraordinarily influential in changing China – the amazing story in LKY’s understated words

These extracts from LKY’s 2000 book, FROM THIRD WORLD TO FIRST, confirms how deeply Singapore has influenced China.

====

My meeting with Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping was unforgettable. A dapper, stocky man of 74, not more than five feet tall, in a beige Mao suit came down from a Boeing 707 at Paya Lebar airport in November 1978. … We met that afternoon for formal discussions in the cabinet room.

He invited me to visit China again. I said I would when China had recovered from the Cultural Revolution. That, he said, would take a long time. I countered that they should have no problem getting ahead and doing much better than Singapore because we were the descendants of illiterate, landless peasants from Fujian and Guangdong while they had the progeny of the scholars, mandarins, and literati who had stayed at home. He was silent. [Sanjeev: This was a crucial first in LKY’s influence over China – that he was a “lowly” Chinese, so the Chinese could obviously do much better]

The next day I made my points in one hour-actually half an hour, without the translation. … He was the most impressive leader I had met. He was a five-footer, but a giant among men.

Before his departure I called on him at the lstana Villa to talk for some 20 minutes. He was glad he had come and seen Singapore again after 58 years. It was a dramatic transformation and he congratulated me. I replied that Singapore was a small country with two and a half million people. He sighed and said, “If I had only Shanghai, I too might be able to change Shanghai as quickly. But I have the whole of China!”

He said he had wanted to visit Singapore and America before he joined Karl Marx – Singapore, because he had seen it once when it was a colonial territory, while on his way to Marseilles after the end of the First World War to work and study; America, because China and America must talk to each other.

… At the airport he shook hands with the VIPs and ministers, inspected the guard of honor, walked up the steps to his Boeing 707, then turned around and waved goodbye. As the door closed on him, I said to my colleagues that his staff were going to get a “shellacking.” He had seen a Singapore his brief had not prepared him for. [Sanjeev: Deng’s eyes opened from this visit, which proved crucial in China’s transformation] There had been no tumultuous Chinese crowds, no rapturous hordes of Chinese Singaporeans to welcome him, just thin crowds of curious onlookers.

A few weeks later I was shown articles on Singapore in their People’s Daily. Its line had changed. Singapore was described as a garden city worth studying for its greening, public housing, and tourism. We were no longer “running dogs of the American imperialists.” Their view of Singapore changed further in October the following year, 1979, when Deng said in a speech, “I went to Singapore to study how they utilised foreign capital. Singapore benefited from factories set up by foreigners in Singapore: first, foreign enterprises paid 35 percent of their net profits in truces which went to the state; second, labour income went to the workers; and third, it [foreign investment} generated the service sectors. All these were income [for the state}.” What he saw in Singapore in 1978 had become a point of reference as the minimum the Chinese people should achieve.  [Sanjeev: This was the TRUE start of China’s transformation

At the end of January 1979, Deng visited America and restored diplomatic relations with President Carter without the United States abandoning Taiwan.

On my second visit to China in November 1980, I found many changes. … Premier Zhao Ziyang met me for talks. He was a different character from Hua Guofeng or Deng Xiaoping. Of medium build, he had the complexion of someone with a light suntan over his fine features. I had no difficulty understanding his Mandarin because he had a good, strong voice without any heavy provincial accent.

… The next morning I met Deng Xiaoping for over two hours in a different room in the Great Hall of the People. … Deng argued that China was a huge country with a large population. It did not need the resources of other countries. It was preoccupied with the problem of uplifting its people out of poverty and backwardness, “a great undertaking that might take half a century.” China was too populous.

Premier Zhao Ziyang met me again in Beijing in September 1985. He referred to me as an “old friend of China,” their label for those they want to put at ease. Then he asked for my impressions of the places I had visited on my way to Beijing.

His manner encouraged me to speak up. I said I could give inoffensive observations, leaving out the critical, but that would be of no value to him. I first gave him my positive impressions. … Then I gave the negatives: Bad old practices were unchanged. As prime minister for over 20 years, I had stayed in many guesthouses, and could guess the nature of the administration from their condition. Jinan’s huge guesthouse complex gave an impression of waste; I was told my suite with its giant-size bathtub had been built specially for a visit by Chairman Mao. The labor to keep this complex in good condition could be put to better use running a top-class hotel. Because guests in residence were few and far between, the staff were out of practice.

Next, the poor road system. Parts of the 150-kilometer (approximately 90-mile) road from Jinan to Qufu, the birthplace of Confucius, were just mud tracks. The Romans built roads that lasted 2,000 years. China had labor and stones in abundance and there was no reason why there should be mud tracks linking Jinan, the provincial capital, to Qufu with its tourist potential.

Singapore had little culture or history and a population of two and a half million, but it had three million tourists a year (in the mid-1980s). China’s monuments and ruins resonated with history. Selling scenery, fresh air, fresh food, laundry services, curios, and souvenirs to tourists would give much employment and put money into the pockets of many people. China, with a population of about 1,000 million, had only 1 million tourists a year-800,000 overseas Chinese and 200,000 foreigners. [Sanjeev: This is HUGE – a full-fledged lecture from a minnow to a giant. But China took the painful message and acted to fix the problems]

Hesitantly, I suggested that they might like to send some of their supervisors to Singapore. They would not encounter language and culture differences and could observe our work ethics and attitudes. Zhao welcomed my proposal. He suggested that our managers and experts at top, middle, and grass-roots level visit China to assess their workers in a Chinese context. I said their workers might not respect our supervisors, because they were “descendants of coolies from Fujian province.” Later, they sent several delegations of managers of their state-owned enterprises to Singapore. They saw a different work culture that placed importance on the quality of work. [Sanjeev: Once again, LKY forced China to learn from Singapore]

He said China had three major economic tasks: first, build up infrastructure like roads and railways; second, upgrade as many factories as possible; and third, improve the efficiency of their managers and workers. He described the problem of inflation. (This was to be one of the causes of the trouble in Tiananmen four years later.) He wanted more trade, economic and technical cooperation between China and Singapore. China was ready to sign a three-year agreement with us to process not less than 3 million tons of Chinese crude oil per year, and would import more chemical and petrochemical products from Singapore as long as they were at international prices. Thus began their participation in our oil industry.

Their state oil company set up an office in Singapore to handle this business and also do oil trading.

… I was taken to meet Deng. He bantered about his advanced age of 81 compared to my 62. I assured him that he did not look old. … He repeated that he was already 81, ready to meet Marx, that it was a law of nature and everyone should be aware of it, except Mr. Chiang Ching-kuo.

… When I next met Zhao Ziyang, on 16 September 1988, he had been promoted to general secretary. He saw me at my villa in Diaoyutai, their guesthouse complex, to speak about China’s economic problems. He was disturbed by a wave of panic buying throughout China a few weeks earlier, in late August and early September. They had had to reduce construction, control the growth of money for consumption, and slow down economic growth. If other measures did not work, the government would have to stress party discipline – I took this to mean “punish high officials.” The panic buying must have reminded him of the last days of the Nationalist government in 1947-1949.

Then he took me to the restaurant in the Diaoyutai complex to celebrate my 65th birthday. During dinner, he asked for my views on a recent television series he had sent me, the “Yellow River Elegy,” produced by some younger members of his reform program think tank. It had depicted a China steeped in feudal tradition, tied down by superstitions and bad old habits, a China that would not make a breakthrough and catch up with the modern world unless it abandoned its old conformist attitudes.

I thought it overpessimistic. China need not abandon its basic cultural values and beliefs in order to industrialize and modernize. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore had all sought to preserve their traditional values of thrift, hard work, emphasis on scholarship, and loyalty to family, clan, and the wider nation, always placing community interest above individual interest. These Confucian values had resulted in social cohesion, high savings, and investments, which led to high productivity and growth. What China needed to change was its overcentralized system of administration and the attitudes and mindset of the people, so that people would be more receptive to new ideas, whether Chinese or foreign, and be willing to test them out and adapt them to China’s circumstances. This the Japanese had done successfully. [Sanjeev: Amazing lecture by LKY – but the good thing is that the Chinese did listen to him and learnt]

Zhao was concerned that China’s economy was not taking off like those of the NIEs without being plagued by high inflation. I explained that this was because, unlike China, the NIEs never had to deregulate planned economies with prices for basic commodities controlled at unrealistically low levels.

He exuded the quiet confidence of a good mind that took in briefs swiftly. Unlike Hua Guofeng, he was a gentleman, not a thug. He had a pleasant manner, neither abrasive nor bossy. But one needed to be tough and ruthless to survive at the top in China, and for the China of that period he was too liberal in his approach to law and order. When we parted, I did not know that within a year he would become a nonperson.

The next day, 17 September 1988, I had my last meeting with Deng. …  I praised China’s economic progress. Yes, there had been “pretty good results” during the last decade, but good economic development had created new problems. China had to curb inflation. It was important to strengthen discipline. The central government had to exercise effective control but not contradict the opening up to the outside world. Good management was more important after opening up, otherwise there would be anarchy and “great chaos under Heaven.” China was a large country but backward in technology and even in culture. In the past decade, they had solved the problem of food and clothing. Now they wanted to reach a xiao kang (comfortably off) stage, quadrupling their 1980 per capita GDP to between US$800 and US$1,000. China had to learn from others, “including you and even South Korea.”  [Sanjeev: This speaks of the MASSIVE LEVEL OF INFLUENCE that LKY had on Deng]

I complimented him on the considerable changes in China, not only in new buildings and roads but, more importantly, in people’s thinking and attitudes. People were more critical and questioning, but optimistic. I said his 1979 visit to the United States, telecast in daily half-hour programs, had shown U.S. conditions, changing Chinese perceptions of America forever.

Deng remarked that the Americans had treated him very thoughtfully. … Deng said he dearly wanted to ensure the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland before he went to meet Karl Marx.

 

Continue Reading

Cowardly Australian Senate has censured Anning instead of debating him

A few months ago I wrote on Catallaxy Files: Fraser Anning’s ill-articulated concerns are a fight for Australia’s soul

I’ve not had time to go back to it but note that there are 105 comments on that article.

In the meantime, Fraser Anning has been censured by the Australian Senate.

I’m deeply concerned about this. I had a look at his Open Letter to the PM of Australia and I note some pretty legitimate concerns – similar to what he had expressed earlier. I’m going to re-publish his Open Letter below along with some annotations.

I am deeply concerned that if people like Anning are forced out of politics, out of the democratic process, this could lead to some hot-blooded youngsters, who take this as a signal that the political option has been ruled out for them, to directly take to arms against migrants.

Instead of censuring him, the Senate should have listed his Open Letter for debate.

====OPEN LETTER TO THE PM===

27 March 2019

AN OPEN LETTER TO

PRIME MINISTER SCOTT MORRISON

from

Senator Fraser Anning

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. [Sanjeev: Anning has never defended the crime – UNLIKE MODI WHO HAS DEFENDED MUCH A WORSE CRIME AGAINST MUSLIMS, but whom Australian politicians meet and greet as a long lost friend.]

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. [Sanjeev: Anning is right on this – he is being deliberately sidelined and his questions being deflected, he has a RIGHT to raise this issue as a parliamentarian.]

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. [Sanjeev: This is a key point to remember – and that MANY MORE such people are likely to emerge if this issue is not confronted clearly.] To blame conservatives for Christchurch, as is now happening, is as irrational as blaming democratic socialists for Communist mass murder. [Sanjeev: Of course in this I disagree – democratic socialist societies are the first step towards Communist mass murder. That, however, is entirely different to the “conservatives” driving such crimes.].

It is completely appropriate to consider contributing causes. This mass murder is clearly a form of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-cultural violence. [Sanjeev: well said. This is a basic fact.]

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. [Sanjeev: It is important that no derogatively says that Japan has a “Yellow Japan policy”, while the “whites” of course had the contemptible “White Australia” policy. Double standards, clearly – Anning is merely raising the issues]

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. [Sanjeev: While not always true, recent polls do suggest that the majority of the people of Australia are no longer supportive of more migration]

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.  [Sanjeev: This is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Why not engage with Anning in debate? Why censure him?]

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. [Sanjeev: Anning has a very powerful discussion about the tribalism involved in multi-culturalism. I fully support him on this.]

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. [Sanjeev: Yes, double standards indeed]

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. [Sanjeev: One can’t agree more. Anyone who tries to SILENCE DEBATE is a serious part of the problem]

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? [Sanjeev:  I disagree with any policy that discriminates on the basis of religion. Instead, Anning should be looking for a commitment to liberty and tolerance from migrants.]

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. [Sanjeev: Anning is a powerful communicator and his message can’t be shut down by censure. DEBATE HIM!!]

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

Continue Reading