Credit belongs to Dr. David Pascoe for his earlier Facebook revelations of the questionable influence of Chinese companies with Australian politicians and political parties.
PM Turnbull stands grinning beside the Chinese Ambassador
He vows to fight Australian ‘protectionism’: David Pascoe translates for us –
That's shorthand for Australians standing up and not wanting their country flogged off by corrupt Liberal and National Party politicians.
ABC News 24/8/16:
Chinese companies are the biggest corporate donors to Australia's major political parties.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's links to Chinese political donors
Sydney Morning Herald 24/8/16:
Chinese political donations raise questions. Chinese businessmen with links to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have donated half a million dollars to the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party during the past two years, political disclosures reveal.
All the donors have links to the Chinese government, and the vast bulk of the money was given by companies with no apparent business interests in WA. Ms Bishop, the leading federal member of the party in that state, has singled out each of the three key donors for praise.
Several of the donations have been obscured by the channelling of funds via executives or related companies, or by the donors' failure to disclose them to the Australian Electoral Commission, in apparent breach of Commonwealth law…
The revelations raise further questions about foreign donations linked to ministers with trade and diplomatic responsibilities. Coming amid calls for a ban on foreign money flowing into Australian politics, they will heighten anxiety about the influence of foreign governments in Australian politics and business…”
AND IN AMERICA
Many Donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State Friday - August 26, 2016
Access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap!
- - buchanan.org
Consider what the Associated Press reported this week:
The surest way for a person with private interests to get a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, or a phone call returned by her, it seems, was to dump a bundle of cash into the Clinton Foundation.
Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totalled $156 million.
Conclusion: Access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more. To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one's plea, the cover charge was high.
IN AMERICA MONEY TALKS….
In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight.
Plutocracy: A state or society governed by the wealthy
Oligarchy: Oligarchy is a type of government controlled by a small group of people
A study, which appeared in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, found that America is not a democracy, but was instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is:
"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.
The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:…”
Read further here… http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/04/14/us-oligarchy-not-democracy-says-scientific-study
Comment: I am not sure America should now be described as an ‘Oligarchy’.
The online Dictionary had this to say:
“Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos, meaning "wealth", and κράτος, kratos, meaning "power, dominion, rule") or plutarchy, is a form of oligarchy and defines a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens.
Plutocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plutocracy and Oligarchy Differences
Definition is most crucial for understanding the concepts of Plutocracy and Oligarchy. Plutocracy is defined as and Oligarchy is defined as System governed by a few powerful people.
Also word origin period gives us some idea about the history of that particular government type. The word origin period of Plutocracy is 16th century AD and that of Oligarchy is 15th century AD.
When we are discussing the Plutocracy and Oligarchy differences, history is a significant aspect. If we put the history of Plutocracy in single line then it will be Government ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens since 16th century and Oligarchy history can be represented as Philosophy that dates back to 1000-500 BC. The place where Plutocracy originated is Greece, while the place of origin of Oligarchy is Greece, Rome.”
The Puritan Tradition in America
Whether Plutocracy or Oligarchy is the most accurate description of modern America, the warning by Stanley B. James over seventy years ago has proved he well understood the direction Puritanism would take and foresaw where the American nation was heading.
Source: The Social Crediter, 18 October 1941.
In an article in the Catholic Herald of October 6, 1941, Stanley B. James points out that the view that America in the West may act as a corrective to the dangers involved in our alliance with Russia in the East must be accepted with caution.
"It may even be," he observes, "that certain points of resemblance between the two makes the combination specially menacing. There is, in the first place, the danger to our national traditions. To regard the United States as a larger Britain is a gross error."
He goes on to say that one of the reasons for our strength is that we possess a class, members of which are relatively independent of popular clamour and free from suspicion of mercenary motives as regards their public actions, a class in which the words 'honour' and 'loyalty' still carry weight, and in which traditional culture still survives.
Many forces have tended to break up our cultural values and of these not the least have been the transatlantic influences functioning through the cinema and the radio (remember this was 1941…ed) - and it is the worst elements of American life which are the most articulate.
Mr. James then traces the Puritanism which is associated with the origins of American civilisation through various modifications to its modern derivative - Plutocracy.
Mr. James continues: -
" 'Every American,' says Professor Siegfried in America Comes of Age, 'is at heart an evangelist, be he a Wilson, a Bryan, or a Rockefeller. He cannot leave people alone, and he constantly feels the urge to preach. His good faith may be incontestable and his efforts often magnificent, but one is always aware of a certain moral superiority which is the most unsympathetic of Anglo-Saxon traits. His self- satisfaction as a member of God's elect is almost insufferable, and so is the idea that his duty towards his neighbour is to convert, purify, and raise him to his own moral heights.'
“… The Plutocrat as a preacher has one advantage, however, which his predecessor lacked. The latter might threaten the fires of Hell but he could not offer mundane inducements to accept his guidance. It should be observed that the type now under discussion has adopted a new technique in the art of dominating the world. The Nazi depends on force, the Communist on subversive propaganda, but the plutocracies have discovered that nations can be controlled by promises and threats couched in monetary terms, or, in blunt English, that they can be bribed. The method indicated plays a considerable part in Western diplomacy. As it happens, we are able to study this technique in actual operation, and thus learn how an affluent U.S.A., professing the most altruistic motives, might exploit the weakness of an exhausted Europe in order to impose on it the civilisation so admirably illustrated in Hollywood films.
"Speaking of the programme for unifying .... [the Americas] John E. Kelly, in an article contributed to a recent number of America, says: ... 'Hemisphere defence means to Latin America more than forts against the landing of panzer columns; it means also the preservation of their Catholic way of life and their Spanish tradition... The political and cultural phase of the New Deal campaign has its commercial and economic fellow.
The first step in implementing the 'Good Neighbour' policy was the appropriation of five hundred million dollars, to be distributed to applicant Latin-American Governments, for defence projects, public works, health and culture developments, etc.... This is power politics, the use of money to influence governments to obtain political and military advantages… It is highly reprehensible when practised by totalitarians.'
"The description here given applies, it is obvious, only to a section, though it is to a powerful section, of the North American public. There is another section as high-minded, disinterested and generous as any public in the world. But there remains the possibility, unless we are on our guard, that our fate may be neither to be conquered by the Nazis, nor revolutionised by Moscow, but to be bought in the interests of philistinism and plutocratic materialism.
From that point of view, it is possible to regard the materialism of the East and that of the West as complementary to one another, differing only in the fact that they represent different classes, but constituting together a pincer movement between which, spiritually speaking, we may perish.” (emphasis added…ed)