On Target, 6 February 1981. "The French Revolution did not arise merely out of conditions or ideas peculiar to the eighteenth century, nor the Bolshevist Revolution out of political and social conditions in Russia, or the teaching of Karl Marx. Both these explosions were produced by forces which, making use of popular suffering and discontent, had long been gathering strength for an onslaught, not only on Christianity, but on all social and moral order.
"It is of immense significance to notice with what resentment this point of view is met in certain quarters. When I first began to write on revolution, a well-known London publisher said to me, 'Remember that if you take an anti-revolutionary line, you will have the whole literary world against you.’
Mrs. Nesta Webster, in the Preface to her "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" (1924)
THE REAL ASIAN THREAT
While the whole of the Western world is faced with a deep peril, the threat to those attempting to sustain a British culture in Australia and New Zealand is much greater than the threat to the peoples of the United Kingdom. The peoples of Western Europe do at least share a common Christian culture. The British people have a much greater prospect, grim though it may be, of preserving the foundations of their culture in a centralised Europe, than have Australians and New Zealanders in a centralised Asian structure in which the culture of the European must be swamped by an alien Asian culture. For this reason Australians and New Zealanders must make every endeavour to elect only those politicians who strongly oppose those policies which threaten to Asianise their countries. There is still time to avoid complete disaster.
- - Eric D. Butler, The New Times Vol.61 No.6, June 1997
MR. CALWELL DISMISSES THREAT OF COMMUNIST CHINA
O.T. 26 January 1968: "I firmly believe that Communist China does not constitute a threat to Australia or to any other country now, or in the proximate future...The basis of our Government's case for our continued involvement, alongside the United States, is that unless the war in Vietnam is won China will soon conquer the whole of South-East Asia and, ultimately, Australia. This is just so much unadulterated nonsense. China is in no position to attack anybody and, particularly, Australia separated, as we are, by thousands of miles of ocean."
- - Mr. Arthur Calwell, M.P former Leader of the Australian Labor Party Opposition, The Herald, Melbourne, January 23.
Since returning from his trip overseas, during which he was persuaded that Australia was a "hillbilly" country compared with the wonderful Soviet Union, which is bristling with "progress", Mr. Arthur Calwell has been given adequate opportunities to outline his views on a wide variety of subjects. The Communist Tribune is delighted with most of Mr. Calwell's views. He fosters the Communist propaganda "line" that the war in Vietnam is really only a civil war in which Americans and Australians have no part.
In his Herald article quoted above, Mr. Calwell falsifies history by stating that, "The Vietnam war began as a civil war when the National Liberation Front was formed to oppose the corrupt Diem regime." Mr. Calwell has apparently not heard of the irrefutable evidence provided by the Communists themselves, that when the Diem regime refused to collapse, as was confidently anticipated, it was formally agreed in Hanoi that a campaign of revolution and terror had to be unleashed against South Vietnam.
If we were to believe Mr. Calwell, we should ignore the worldwide revolutionary movements being fostered and supported by both Peking and Moscow. And we should not take too seriously the authoritative directions by Communist leaders.
Let us briefly examine some of the evidence concerning the revolutionary intentions of the Chinese Communist leaders. On April 29, 1954, Republican Senator Knowland read into the U.S. Congressional Record Mao-Tse-tung's strategy for world conquest as taken to the Soviet Union in 1953 by Chou En-lai. No Communist leader has ever denied the authenticity of this strategy. Mao Tse tung stressed that a major conflict had to be avoided because of the greater strength of the West. "The United States must be isolated by all possible means. Britain must be placated by being convinced that there is a possibility of settling the major issues between East and West and that the Communist and capitalist countries can live in peace. Opportunities for trade will have a great influence on the British mind.
"France" must be made to feel a sense of greater security in co-operation with us than with the Western countries."…
Mao Tse-tung went on to say that after the "liberation" of Vietnam, Burma and Thailand would capitulate, and that Indonesia would fall to the Communist camp like ripe fruit and the Malay peninsular would be encircled. Unfortunately for Mao the Americans did eventually provide an intervention in Vietnam, and the Chinese-backed coup in Indonesia in 1965 backfired through a miracle. We presume that Mr. Calwell has heard of what happened in Indonesia, when the Chinese Communists, although a long way from Indonesia, were able to come within a hairbreadth of taking over Indonesia. If they had, Australia would now be sharing a border with the Communists in New Guinea.
But the Chinese Communist leaders have not given up…
ANOTHER SURRENDER TO COMMUNIST CHINA
O.T. 6 February 1981: The Fraser Administration's decision to exchange defence attaches with Communist China is not only a significant upgrading of relations between the two countries, but further evidence of a willingness to assist the strategy of the power men in Peking. Ever since Prime Minister Fraser made his first visit to Communist China, early in 1976, and made his asinine claims about the Peking Government giving up its global revolutionary plans, he and his colleagues have progressively surrendered to the Peking strategy.
The power struggle, which has been continuing in Communist China, does not mean that Marxism-Leninism has been rejected in Peking. Both the late Mao Tse-tung and his opponents, including present leaders, have insisted that they are the only true Marxist-Leninists; that the Soviet are "revisionists".
Before his death Mao Tse-tung was giving attention to how best China might extricate itself from a situation in which it was under pressure from the South, with American involvement in the Vietnam War, and from the North by the Soviet Union. When the dust of the Cultural Revolution settled, Mao Tse-tung directed his attention towards an external strategy, which would deal with both the two major powers, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union. About the same time Dr. Henry Kissinger was responsible for an open shift in American policy, with Peking quickly exploiting the changed situation with its famous "ping-pong" diplomacy.
Aided by the media, large numbers of gullible people, including politicians, in the West, believed that there was real change in Communist China. David Rockefeller and his international banking friends moved towards their long desired objective of making massive credits available to China. President Nixon made his famous trip in February 1972, but with Peking propagandists creating an image of Nixon arriving as "a defeated imperialist dog stooping for compromise". The Chinese Communists achieved a major diplomatic victory. A document circulated amongst Chinese Communist cadres at the time of the Nixon visit said, "We are now facing two major enemies - the American imperialists and the Russian revisionists. We have to knock down both these enemies... Are we ready to unite with one and oppose the other? Answers depend on the situation. Shift of emphasis must take place as the situation develops."…”
DECISION MADE AT HIGHEST LEVEL TO BRING COMMUNIST CHINA INTO N.W.O.
“Germany’s Role in the Struggle for the World,” by Eric D. Butler
Clearly a decision was made at the highest levels early in the seventies that it was essential to bring Communist China into a New World Order in the same way that the former Soviet Union was being embraced. The instruments of International Finance were now available to attempt this achievement. Much to the amazement, and horror, of orthodox Anti Communist Americans, it was President Nixon, generally presented as a staunch anti-Communist leader, who took the first step concerning China, under the influence of Dr. Henry Kissinger, a German-Jewish immigrant of a mysterious background. The arguments used to justify the historic shift in American foreign
policy were, of course, most sophisticated: The West could have influence on Communist China unless it was made welcome into the "international community". This meant that Communist China had to be brought into the United Nations at the expense of the Nationalist Chinese government based on Taiwan. But much more important, billions of dollars had to be made available to Communist China in order that it could "modernise" its economy.
The spectacular industrial developments taking place in China are primarily the result of International Finance making available billions of dollars to transfer Western technology into China, where a large and passive labour force is available…
AND NOW TO THE AUSTRALIA OF 2016
Australia’s Chinese community: inscrutable ties to another China
Rowan Callick, The Australian August 27, 2016
China Correspondent, Beijing
“News stories this week about the Chinese world within Australia are worrying people. This newspaper revealed that concerts are planned for Sydney and Melbourne, sponsored by local Chinese business, to celebrate Communist Party dictator Mao Zedong. (Tse-tung…ed)
Media reports have listed considerable donations made by Chinese business people to state political parties. We previously have learned how the Chinese-language media in Australia has become dominated by pro-Beijing owners.
What’s happening within Australia’s Chinese community? This is a large group of almost one million people within the total population of 23 million…
For many, being able to build their own lifestyles without having a big brother potentially breathing down their neck — policing the internet, controlling the courts, limiting public discourse — is a further positive…
For others — a small, rather determined and focused minority group — China means only the People’s Republic and its ruling party…
Australians in China cannot play any kind of political role there, nor imagine using a state venue to celebrate a controversial Australian. Huang Xiangmo, chairman of the Yuhu Group that gave the West Australian Liberal division $280,000 in 2013-14 and a major donor inside China, explained in China’s Global Times in April that “overseas Chinese should accumulate strength in politics. In countries like the US and Australia, such strength includes ‘hard power’ like votes and cash, also ‘soft power’ like political operations. Money is the milk for politics. It is a common problem that overseas Chinese have not organised their political involvements adequately, and this needs to be resolved.”
The acceptance of a donation, in Chinese cultural terms, implies a debt, however nebulous. Just as Chinese business figures are assiduous in seeking photos with political leaders, which they frequently display — suggesting a capacity to influence.
Even if they become Australian citizens, Chinese people are perceived by the PRC as remaining “Chinese” in important ways — and may even become members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference which is officially “China’s top advisory body”.
One such past member, Sydney-based businessman Qian Qiguo, has been, variously, head of the Australian Action Committee for Peace and Justice; the China and South Korea Community Alliance, which has demonstrated against Japanese “rightists”; the Australian Confucius Research Society; and the Sydney Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, of which Huang chairs the national branch.
The degree to which such bodies and people have organic links to state or party agencies in China remains unknowable… That there are widely ranging views among Chinese people in Australia is clear — and will become palpably so if the controversial Mao concerts go ahead…”
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
August 27, 2016
Remembering the Biggest Mass Murderer in the History of the World
Ilya Somin - The Washington Post
Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world? ... Both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people - easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.
Historian Frank Dikötter, (Looking Back on the Great Leap Forward
Frank Dikötter - History Today
http://www.historytoday.com/frank-dik%C3%B6tter/looking-back-great-leap-forward <http://www.historytoday.com/frank-dik%C3%B6tter/looking-back-great-leap-forward> )
author of the important book Mao's Great Famine recently published an article in History Today, summarizing what happened: ...
Dikötter's work is noteworthy for demonstrating that the number of victims may have been even greater than previously thought, and that the mass murder was more clearly intentional on Mao's part, and included large numbers of victims who were executed or tortured, as opposed to "merely" starved to death….”
And now we read: “Concerts are planned for Sydney and Melbourne, sponsored by local Chinese business, to celebrate Communist Party dictator Mao Zedong.” (Tse-tung…ed)
Eric Butler did warn us what could happen to Australians and their culture!