Tags: alp

Daniel Andrews has sold out Victoria to the Strong Cities Network (SCN) with PRIVATISED POLICE

Dig a little deeper and it becomes obvious as to what's happening in Victoria.
Daniel Andrews has also sold out Victoria to the Strong Cities Network (SCN).

What is Strong Cities Network?
The privatisation of a Police Force governed by global NGO's. And Victoria is the only state in Australia to sign on.
Why do you think the Police at Melbourne's Freedom Day Rally acted like goons, were dressed in black and didn't have the Australian logo on their uniforms?

SCN is an initiative of London based think tank ISD.
Their mission statement is to "Power Solutions to Extremism and Polarisation"

But it's the link to the Partners and Funders that gives everything away.
Of course George Soros is involved with his Open Society Foundation. And Big Tech is involved with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft amongst others.
Amongst NGO's and Think Tanks, the dubious Brookings Institute sticks out - and I'm sure a deep dive into some of these would connect Bill & Melinda Gates and the Rockerfeller Foundations everywhere.

What struck me really odd are the connections to Australian Universities such as Curtin and Victoria Universities and various Australian government departments - including our very own asshole, Dicktator Dan.

So as you find out today that the curfews in Victoria are not based on the Chief Health Officer's advice, and rather Dicktator Dan has put this in place, remember that From Sent1nel (https://www.facebook.com/sent1n3l/posts/132412898571458)

Dicktator Dan even hosted the Strong Cities Global summit in 1998

From Sent1nel (https://www.facebook.com/sent1n3l/posts/132412898571458)

Do You Know How Ruthless The Neo-Liberals Are?

Neo-liberalism is both an economic and a political doctrine. Its economic policy is the unrestricted pursuit of private profit. The political policy is called small government, meaning that governments should not regulate or engage in economic activity. They believe these two policies will produce the best outcome for all of society.

Neo-liberalism is dangerous for two reasons. The first is that the goal of neo-liberal policies is to remove anything which stands in the way of maximizing the profits of people with money. Neo-liberals insist that all of their policies produce the best results for everyone, but this is a lie. The second reason it is dangerous is that few people understand that neo-liberal policies are behind virtually every government “reform” introduced for decades.

Deciding what Australian neo-liberals actually think is not easy, but we can start with what they say. The words words listed below appear again and again in the mission statements of the neo-liberal think-tanks listed at the end of this article:

Individual liberty
Free enterprise
Free markets
Free speech

Neo-liberal think-tanks present themselves as advocates of freedom and liberty. But do the believe what they say? Do the walk the talk? Let's start with free speech.

Free Speech
About the only free speech issue which neo-liberals in Australia have raised publicly is the repeal of some sections of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 because Andrew Bolt was found to have breached the act in 2009.

Are any of the neo-liberal think-tanks active in promoting the freedom of Julian Assange? He has been detained for 6 years. Many people believe the reason he has been detained is to restrict his freedom of speech and the access of ordinary people to important information. The UN itself has found that his detention is totally unjustified.

We could ask who actually has free speech in our society anyway? If you own a newspaper, you have free speech. Otherwise what you say will not be reported unless your message is approved by the few people who own media outlets. Australia has one of the most powerful media monopolies in the world. Surely this constitutes a limit on press freedom in Australia, and press freedom is essential to freedom of speech. Have you ever noticed the IPA or any other neo-liberal think tank complain about this? They only object to the publicly funded broadcasters like ABC and SBS because they are not private. They are indifferent to the overall media monopoly and the way it limits freedom of speech in Australia.

So while these think-tanks claim that they support free speech, they do not acknowledge that in our society there is no free speech. The media in Australia and the West as a whole is a cartel of a few giant corporations. This means that their support for free speech is empty. They do not object to the media monopoly because it is a monopoly of private firms and nothing should hinder their pursuit of private profit.

This gives an insight into the thinking of the neo-liberal think-tanks. They repeat stock phrases like 'free speech' while at the same time ignoring the obvious fact that what they support does not really exist. Perhaps they support Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy as well.

Free Enterprise
Their support for free enterprise is no better. If we look at the West we see all important areas of the economy are dominated by cartels. Large chunks of Australia's four giant banks are owned by the same three groups: Combined HSBC (Nominees), JP Morgan Nominees and Combined Citicorp. No wonder they are almost indistinguishable. Several giant oil companies, once know as the Seven Sisters, control much of the worlds production and distribution of petrol and diesel. Virtually every area you look at is the same. This means that just like free speech, there is no free enterprise in our society.

While Adam Smith also was an advocate of free markets and free enterprise, he was also quite well aware of the way monopolies and cartels can destroy free markets.

“Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price 'which can be squeezed out of the buyers'. Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.”(1)

Such warnings about the health of our free market economy never come from today's neo-liberal thinkers.

Free Market
While it is harder to prove, it is not difficult to find statements by reputable economists who will admit that there is no international free market. How can this be? The answer is that over the last 30 years of bank deregulation in the USA there are individuals like George Soros and institutions who can mobilize sufficient assets to manipulate the currency of major countries, the price of raw materials, and the prices of stocks on Wall Street. Why have you not heard about this before? Well, who is going to tell you?

So far we have seen that some of the things the neo-liberal think-tanks support are actually myths and fictions. They are a carefully crafted set of lies which are repeated by people who ”believe in” the system. They are articles of faith like the virgin birth or the Resurrection of Jesus for Christians. Are the four or five owners of the media in the West going to tell you they are a cartel? Many ordinary people want to believe they have free speech, press freedom, free – competitive – enterprise and free – unmanipulated – markets. Neo-liberals say they support these things because they know this is what people want to believe. These phrases are the sheep skin which covers the neo-liberal wolf that we will now reveal.

The Free Market and Nothing But the Free Market

While the idea of a free market may sound attractive to some, there is a real sting in the tail when you insist, as the neo-liberals do, on having nothing but the free market in society. LibertyWorks Ltd gives this account of the nature and virtues of free markets:

“Free markets allow buyers and sellers to willingly engage in interactions that create value for both parties. Buyers reward sellers who produce goods and services that appeal to them and sellers are encouraged to take risks and work hard to develop new ideas, products and services to appeal to potential buyers. Neither buyers nor sellers are coerced into proceeding with any transaction, they are entirely voluntary, and move forward if both parties perceive they get something out of it. It’s only free markets that produce these voluntary win-win interactions and each time they do, they economic pie expands.”(2)

When they say “neither buyers nor sellers are coerced into proceeding with any transaction, they are entirely voluntary” they overlook the “transaction” in which a worker sells their labour to an employer. It is only “voluntary” in a strictly legalistic sense. If they live in a neo-liberal paradise which has nothing but the free market a worker who does not sell their labour to an employer will starve to death.

LibertyWorks rejects the idea that a government should give support to an unemployed worker. “Government created transactions do not create value, they take value from some people and give it to others without increasing the economic pie.”(3) In other words, for the neo-liberals at LibertyWorks, creating “economic value” is the only thing that is important in society. Saving the life of an unemployed worker is seen to have no value at all. The only value in society they recognise is economic value, which is private profit.

Does this mean that for neo-liberals the only thing of value in the universe is creating economic value? Is this their fundamental but well-hidden assumption? Can this be simplified to this article of faith: the only important/necessary/valued activity in society is creating a private profit? Or: Everything must maximise private profit, so anything which hinders the maximisation of private profit should be removed.

Individual Liberty
In the years since 9/11 there has been a massive attack on what was previously taken to be individual liberties, but it seems the neo-liberal think-tanks have been thinking about other things. We might compare what they have been doing for the last few years with an organization called Civil Liberties Australia. Their mission statement is:

“We stand for people’s rights, and go in to bat for everyone’s civil liberties.
“We monitor police and security forces, and the actions and inaction of politicians.
“We review proposed legislation, to make it better, and keep watch on government departments and agencies.
“We work to keep Australia the free and open society it has traditionally been, where you can be yourself without undue interference from ‘authority’.”

These are all goals of a libertarian organization. Here are some of their projects:

“Correcting the worst excesses of anti-terrorism laws.
“Helping to safeguard people’s data and privacy, especially in health.
“Cooperating with similar groups on privacy, prisons, refugees, mental health, drug law reform, aboriginal rights, migrant rights, whistleblowers, voluntary euthanasia,
campaigning against the death penalty.
“Monitoring prisoners’ and detainees’ rights in jails, particularly juveniles.”

When is the last time you noticed LibertyWorks, Australian Taxpayers Alliance, or Centre for Independent Studies fighting for privacy, prisons, refugees, mental health, drug law reform, aboriginal rights or migrant rights? Our individual liberties have been eroded by new technology and government policies, all under the watchful eyes of the neo-liberals in Australia.

Privatisation and Deregulation of State-owned Enterprises
Earlier we saw what I called the neo-liberals' article of faith: Everything must maximise private profit. Since government enterprises do not produce a private profit, neo-liberals insist on the privatisation of all government enterprises. For years the right has insisted that government owned enterprises are inefficient and wasteful, since only the pursuit of private profit will cut costs to the lowest possible level. What I have called their article of faith is a different kind of reason which has nothing to do with efficiency or waste. Since we must create the most value = private profit possible in society, all non-private activity must be privatised.

Deregulated Workplaces and Abolition of the Minimum Wage
The same neo-liberal article of faith we uncovered above justifies both of these demands. Government regulation of workplaces will impose work practices on the employer which almost certainly will be seen to cut into their value = profitability. In the same way an employer may be able to find workers who will work for less than the minimum wage, which would increase the profitability of their enterprise.

Trade Liberalisation
Trade liberalisation, that is the removal of any tariffs or other legal requirements which could hinder the importation of the cheapest possible items also follows from the article of faith that nothing should hinder the profitability of enterprises. Globalist treaties like the TPP are simply examples of the article of faith applied to international trade.

According to neo-liberals, when governments give money to an unemployed worker, this does not create value. Usually the money used by the government is derived from taxation. This is how LibertyWorks understands taxation:

“In contrast to free markets, government provided services are always win-lose transactions. Governments tax unwilling citizens to redistribute the proceeds to others in the form of cash or 'services'. While the recipients of the largess are typically happy to take the handouts, we should remember that everything that is given to them has been forced from someone else.
“Under this system, 'winners' seek to maximise their wins and the coerced seek to avoid additional losses. Government created transactions do not create value, they take value from some people and give it to others without increasing the economic pie.”

Taxes come from “unwilling citizens” who are forced or coerced to pay them. LibertyWorks concludes that “Government heavy economies (...) are morally inferior to free markets because they rely on coercion to function.”

Do the thinkers at LibertyWorks realise that governments not only coerce people to pay taxes, they coerce people to obey other laws like speed limits, prohibitions against theft, murder or pedophilia. Sometimes they even coerce their citizens to join their military to fight and die for their country.

Coercion by governments is an essential feature of governments, without which they cannot exist. Why does this coercion make governments “morally inferior” to free markets? The use of force by governments is just a simple fact of life. LibertyWorks presents such coercion as a defect rather than realising it has been a necessary feature of complex human societies for thousands of years. And who thinks that government coercion is always immoral? Anarchists.

Smaller Government
Smaller government means little or no regulation and no government enterprises. However it also means much less taxation, which neo-liberals see as theft of what is rightfully theirs and theirs alone. They want us to believe that the “hidden hand” of the market will insure that the unrestricted pursuit of private profit produces the best result for all of us. If there was a genuine free press and free academic inquiry neo-liberalism could be unmasked rather easily. Under the not so hidden hand of corporate censorship the task is more difficult.

Limited Democracy

While virtually all Australian neo-liberal think-tanks use words like 'freedom', 'liberty', etc., the word 'democracy' is not nearly as common, and is sometimes endorsed only as limited democracy. Why is this?

The answer is rather simple. Neo-liberals will not endure anything which restricts the maximisation of private profit. Where might some of these restrictions come from? From demands by people for safe consumer products, safe working environments, careful handling of dangerous products like explosives, chemicals or radiation. The greatest threat they see to their unlimited pursuit of profit is people demanding their democratic governments protect them from these and other dangers. Neo-liberals would prefer limited democracy or perhaps no democracy at all, as in Chile under Pinochet.

My conclusion is that neo-liberalism is dangerious because it values only one thing, maximising private profit, and quite simply nothing else matters. The lives, the health, and the living standards of the citizens of any country like Australia are therefore at risk. So is democracy, political freedom, press freedom and the usual understandings of individual liberty.

These policies are not only pushed by the Liberal and National Parties. It is clear the the Australian Labor Party and the Greens in Australia also follow the neo-liberal agenda. They have all gone along with cuts to government spending, deregulation and privatization, three pillars of neo-liberal economics. The political situation is so bad that no political party dares to challenge the truly evil assumptions behind neo-liberalism.

First and foremost, neo-liberals do not value human life itself. If you cannot work to support your self and you do not have money to buy what you need to live, you can starve. The Nazi phrase “useless mouths” comes to mind. In reality the neo-liberal article of faith and the policies based on it are completely ruthless. What else would you say of people who insist it is acceptable, if not morally superior, to allow the unemployed, the homeless, single parents, age pensioners, the disabled and mentally ill to starve to death because to give them food and shelter does not increase economic value = profit? It is time that the mask of respectability is torn from the faces of people who care only about maximising private profit and are indifferent to the lives of ordinary people forced to suffer only to increase the wealth of the super-rich.

Australian Neo-liberal Think-tanks which are members of the Atlas Network, a nonprofit organization connecting a global network of more than 450 free-market organizations in over 90 countries.(7)

Brisbane, Australia

Sydney South, Australia
(Includes the Menzies Research Centre 1994)

St. Leonards, Australia

Sydney, Australia

Melbourne, Australia

Brisbane, Australia

Subiaco, Australia


1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
2. https://libertyworks.org.au/vision-mission/
3. Ibid.
4. https://www.cla.asn.au/News/cla-policies/
5. Ibid.
6. https://libertyworks.org.au/vision-mission/
7. https://www.atlasnetwork.org/

Part 2 - What You Don't Know About the EU Migrant Crisis – It Was Planned

It is natural to assume migrants and refugees are coming to the EU because of the NATO wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. This is certainly correct, but there are interesting reports that will show there is much more to this current mass migration.

To summarize the earlier article, Part 1 - Things You Don't Know About EU Migrant Crisis – It's Not About Refugees.(1) Most of the migrants are not refugees, many migrants and refugees are given an allowance after they are registered in the EU, and there are millions of them. The money offered seems modest to us, however as one author explained: “Compared to the places and situations where the refugees are escaping from, this temptation of free money is practically impossible to ignore.”(2)

The level of payments reported for Italy in Part 1 seem high compared other countries. Refugees in Germany receive up to 345 euro per month from the government, while in Sweden the maximum monthly allowance is 224 euro.(3) Nevertheless the cost of this massive wave of migrants is high. In 2016 the German media suggested the total amount the government will have to pay to support migrants is about US$46 billion per year.(4) In January 2017 a paper in the UK estimated the German migrant policy could cost them US$51 billion by the end of 2017.(5) This amounts to about A$65 billion, so is hardly small change.

It is well known that the EU governments are demanding Neo-Liberal austerity cuts to public services that are much the same as what we have suffered in Australia. Why would otherwise penny-pinching governments give so much money to people who are not expected to do anything in return for their payments? If anyone does not smell a rat here, they do not understand the mindset of today's Neo-Liberal politicians.

One of the thousands of tweets with "#Refugees" hashtag sent in August & September 2015.

Refugees in Turkey and many other countries are not allowed to work, so they rely on relief donations just to have food to eat. Consider this:

“An article published in the Suddeutsche Zeitung on October 14th 2014, states that Syrian refugees in Turkey are going hungry due to lack of funds for their upkeep. It states that 280 million euros more are required to feed the refugees.”(6)

This is about US$321 million. When you consider the actual cost of migrants to Germany today – which surely could have been estimated by German bureaucrats in 2014 - you must ask the question: If the Germans or the EU bureaucracy did not want millions of migrants flooding into the EU, why didn't they just pay the very modest cost of feeding them in Turkey? The cost of US$321 million for food is about 0.5% of the current cost of housing migrants in Germany this year. How could the bean-counters overlook this way of saving themselves billions of euros?

Before 2014 the EU did not encourage migrants coming through Greece or Italy. They wanted to block the overland route for undocumented people seeking entry to the EU from through Greece from Turkey. As a result the EU agency for border security helped the Greek government put up a 6.5-mile steel fence at the Evros River. They also provided Greek border police with search dogs, night-vision goggles, and helicopters. These actions produced the desired effect. 6,000 migrants were detained by Greek authorities in July 2012 but only 45 six months later.(7)

In response to the closing of the land route, migrants began making the voyage from Turkey to Greece by sea. This forced the Hellenic Coast Guard to use “pushback” tactics, repulsing boats away from the Greek coast into Turkish waters. However this practice violates international law and Amnesty International with other NGOs raised the issue in the media.

At this point we need to highlight the work of George Soros. He is a politically active billionaire. One of his causes is “open borders” and mass migration. He funded many of the NGOs active in criticizing Greece for its “pushback” tactics. However he also had a political friend in Greek politics, Alexis Tsipras, leader of the political party Syriza. In the next round of elections, Syriza won big, first in European parliament elections in May 2014, and then in Greek parliamentary elections called in January 2015. In this election Syriza was three votes short of a parliamentary majority. This allowed Tsipras, allied with a small center-right party, Independent Greeks (ANEL), to govern. (Ibid) The central issue in these elections was not migrants but the EU “bailout”. Syriza opposed this legalized robbery. (In the end they agreed to the “bailout” in spite of the fact they won the election by opposing it.) As soon as he was in office, Tsipras' government moved to completely change the Greek migrant policy.

In its first month, Syriza’s deputy immigration minister announced the government would turn refugee detention facilities into welcome centers. They also discontinud Operation Xenios Zeus, an aggressive policy of identifying and deporting illegal migrants. On April 14, the government declared all Syrian refugees would receive documents for onward travel to Europe.(8) Greece not only welcomed migrants, they gave them valid travel documents for the rest of the EU. Between April and August 2015 arrivals increased 721%, from 13,133 to 107,843. More refugees arrived in July than in all of 2014.

Austrian intelligence officials have reportedly revealed that US government agencies are paying for the transport of migrants to Europe. On August 5th, 2015 Austrian magazine Infodirekt reported:

“It has come to our knowledge that US organisations are paying for the boats taking thousands of refugees to Europe. US organisations have created a co-financing scheme which provides for a considerable portion of the transportation costs. Not every refugee from North Africa has 11,000 Euro cash. Nobody is asking, where is the money coming from?”(9)

We have seen that Soros and his political friends like Tsipras worked to encourage increase migration to the EU. We have also seen that Germany wants to encourage migrants to “replace its aging workforce” and/or drive down wages. Here we see that the US is also quietly involved as well. Why would they spend money assisting migrants to enter the EU?

Thousands of smartphones were provided to US-funded ‘activists’ during the ‘Arab Spring’. It is unsurprising, therefore, to see that smartphones are being supplied to thousands of migrants by NGOs once they arrive in Europe. Investigations in Germany showed that migrants were being supplied with smartphones by Austria’s A-1 mobile phone company. The A-1 mobile company is controlled by Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim. (10)

Former U.S. State Department official J. Michael Springmann has just published a book entitled Goodbye Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel’s Migrant Bomb. He believes that the refugees and migrants were deliberately created by the US to be used as political weapons to advance their interests. The resulting chaos is cold-blooded strategy. Springmann offers evidence that the US has assisted the process by explaining that the have sett up a Wi-Fi network for smartphones in the EU:

“CISCO’s Tactical Operations (TacOps) team supported by the volunteer Disaster Response Team (DRT) from the U.K. and Ireland, Google, and NetHope have installed Meraki-based Wi-Fi networks and device charging stations at more than 17 sites along the migration route in Southern and Central Europe."(11)

Cisco is American multinational IT company which specializes in networking. Cisco says of its Meraki access points that they “are built from the highest grade components and carefully optimized for a seamless user experience. The outcome: faster connections, greater user capacity, more coverage, and fewer support calls.” In other words, this is a state of the art system which provides “deep network insight enabling smarter network management.”(12) NetHope, a shadowy organization headquartered in CIA-friendly Fairfax County, Virginia, is tied to the US government. Springmann believes one reason the US has to support mass migration is to destabilize Europe as an economic challenger to the US.

Content-analysis of a great number of tweets that triggered the ongoing wave of migration from Turkey to Germany since August 2015 suggests that these human streams were inspired and channelled from outside of continental Europe. The following analysis is taken from the article “Who Is Twitter-Luring Refugees To Germany?”(13)

According to Vladimir Shalak from the Russian Academy of Science who developed the Internet  Content-Analysis System for Twitter (Scai4Twi), his study of over 19000 refugees-related original tweets (retweets discounted) demonstrates that the vast majority of them mention Germany and Austria as the most refugee-welcoming countries in Europe:

Counties mentioned in tweets containing "#Refugees hashtag", by percent

Importantly, 93% of all tweets dedicated to Germany contained positive references to German hospitality and its refugee policy:

• Germany Yes! Leftists spray a graffiti on a train sayin “Welcome, refugees” in Arabic
• Lovely people – video of Germans welcoming Syrian refugees to their community
• Respect! Football fans saying “Welcome Refugees” across stadiums in Germany.
• This Arabic Graffiti train is running in Dresden welcoming refugees: (ahlan wa sahlan – a warm welcome).
• ‘We love Germany!,’ cry relieved refugees at Munich railway station
• Thousands welcome refugees to Germany – Sky News Australia
• Wherever this German town is that welcomed a coach of Syrian refugees with welcome signs and flowers -thank you.

Analysis of 5704 original tweets containing "#RefugeesWelcome” hashtag and a country name lead to even larger gap between Germany and the rest of Europe:

The next step is to study the source twitter accounts where the hashtag #RefugeesWelcome + Germany originate. Next diagram shows the countries of origin of the relevant twitter accounts (where they could be idenfitied):

As you see, only 6,4% of all tweets with “#RefugeesWelcome”+Germany came from Germany itself. Almost half of them were originated from UK, USA and Australia! Looks like your remote planetmates are blushlessly inviting guests to visit your home without inquiring your opinion beforehand!

Perhaps nothing explains Soros' views on mass migration better than his own comment on the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s policy to not take migrants in Hungary: “His (Orbán's) plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”(14)

The refugee crisis has been blamed on the NATO proxy war in Syria. But who asks how people in the Middle East suddenly knew Europe would open its gates and let them in? The refugee crisis is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It has been promoted by Soros funded NGOs such as the Open Society Foundation (OSF), the US-based Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants. All advocate the resettlement of Muslims into Europe. This is just one operation among many:

“An example of what these NGOs do was discovered in 2015 by a Sky News reporter who found “Migrant Handbooks” on the Greek island of Lesbos. The handbooks, written in Arabic, had been given to refugees before crossing the Mediterranean by a group called “Welcome to the EU” which is funded the Open Society Foundations.(14)

Soros has not only backed groups that advocate the resettlement of migrants into Europe. The “Merkel Plan” was created by the European Stability Initiative, and the chairman Gerald Knaus is a senior fellow at the Open Society Foundations.(15)

Soros has created an international network of individuals and organizations quietly working together to give the appearance of a “spontaneous” result of the NATO wars in the Middle East. But would this flood of migrants have happened if money was provided to feed and house them in Turkey and other countries? If countries in the EU did not offer allowances to the migrants who are not refugees? If Greece has not suddenly offered migrants valid travel documents? If migrants were not provided with free smartphones and state-of-the-art networking hardware? If NGOs had not handed out guide books in Arabic? If people in the US, UK and Australia had not sent tweets inviting migrants to the EU? The next question is this: What is the purpose of mass migration to the EU and who is behind it?

Many people agree with Soros' advocacy of suppoAre they afraid to speak out against the genocidal wars launched by the US and NATO? rting migrants and refugees. Those who oppose his plans are called “racists”. Consider this: Pro-migrant activists made much of the Greek “pushback” as being against international law, which it is. How many of these pro-migrant activists, including Soros himself, protested against the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya? These also contravene international law, specifically Article 2 of the United Nations Charter signed in June 1945.

It is strange to some of us that the pro-migrant activists are only interested in the welfare of the people they call migrants and refugees after they leave their war-torn countries. Why don't they care about them when they were being bombed as citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya? What is the “moral” difference between a citizen of Syria and a migrant from Syria? Why ignore a person's fate in their home country and then be outraged by their treatment when they leave? Isn't this hypocricy? If international law had been upheld and these countries not illegally attacked, would there be millions of “refugees” trying to get to the EU?


1. http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/33239.html

2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/are-the-us-elites-attempting-to-destroy-europe-by-triggering-a-flood-of-immigrants-and-refugees/5502526

3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/are-the-us-elites-attempting-to-destroy-europe-by-triggering-a-flood-of-immigrants-and-refugees/5502526

4. http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperialisms-migration-agenda-who-is-funding-the-refugees-transport-into-europe/5504056

5. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/761162/Angela-Merkel-Germany-Migrant-Crisis-costs-refugees

6. http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperialisms-migration-agenda-who-is-funding-the-refugees-transport-into-europe/5504056

7. https://spectator.org/greece-george-soros-trojan-horse-against-europe/

8. Ibid.

9. http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperialisms-migration-agenda-who-is-funding-the-refugees-transport-into-europe/5504056

10. Ibid.

11. http://www.globalresearch.ca/refugee-crisis-manufactured-migrants-are-tools-in-u-s-empires-grand-chessboard/5596706

12. https://meraki.cisco.com/products/wireless

13. http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-twitter-luring-refugees-to-germany/5477477

14. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

15. Ibid


A challenge to the ALP. Don’t you need some new policies?? Why not pick a few - even just one – from Syriza’s 40 point program for Greece? They want to end austerity. What a novel idea!

Over the last 30 years the political agenda has been narrowed down so much that the similarities between the major parties far outnumber their differences. It is now time to change this and put some new issues before the Australian people. The victory of the Syriza party in Greece shows that some different policies do not mean failure at the ballot box. Who knows, they might even bring success?

bill shorten 1
Bill Shorten

You can find all 40 points at the end of this article. Consider just a few of them in the current political climate in Australia, where people are angered by the cuts introduced and planed by the Abbott government:

Increase taxes on the wealthy?
3. Raise income tax to 75% for all incomes over 500,000 euros.
6. Adoption of a tax on financial transactions and a special tax on luxury goods.

Increase social services?
13. Open dining rooms in public schools to offer free breakfast and lunch to
14. Free health benefits to the unemployed, homeless and those with low salaries.
15. Provide government subsidy of up to 30% of mortgage payments for poor families who cannot meet payments.
16. Increase of subsidies for the unemployed. Increase social protection for one-parent families, the aged, disabled, and families with no income.

Take control of major parts of the Australian economy and reverse privatization?
18. Nationalisation of banks.
19. Nationalisation of ex-public service & utility companies in strategic sectors for the growth of the country such as railroads, airports, mail, water.
(Remember how those silly old dead bastards who ran the ALP in the 30s and 40s wanted to nationalized the banks? Perhaps now some of you are beginning to understand why they wanted this.)

A new direction in foreign policy?
37. Withdrawal of Greek troops from Afghanistan and the Balkans. No Greek soldiers beyond our own borders.
38. Abolition of military cooperation with Israel. Support for creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

Greece: SYRIZA's 40-point program

1. Audit of the public debt and renegotiation of interest due and suspension of payments until the economy has revived and growth and employment return.
2. Demand the European Union to change the role of the European Central Bank so that it finances states and programs of public investment.
3. Raise income tax to 75% for all incomes over 500,000 euros.
4. Change the election laws to a proportional system.
5. Increase taxes on big companies to that of the European average.
6. Adoption of a tax on financial transactions and a special tax on luxury goods.
7. Prohibition of speculative financial derivatives.
8. Abolition of financial privileges for the Church and shipbuilding industry.
9. Combat the banks' secret [measures] and the flight of capital abroad.
10. Cut drastically military expenditures.
11. Raise minimum salary to the pre-cut level, 750 euros per month.
12. Use buildings of the government, banks and the Church for the homeless.
13. Open dining rooms in public schools to offer free breakfast and lunch to children.
14. Free health benefits to the unemployed, homeless and those with low salaries.
15. Subvention up to 30% of mortgage payments for poor families who cannot meet payments.
16. Increase of subsidies for the unemployed. Increase social protection for one-parent families, the aged, disabled, and families with no income.
17. Fiscal reductions for goods of primary necessity.
18. Nationalisation of banks.
19. Nationalisation of ex-public (service & utilities) companies in strategic sectors for the growth of the country (railroads, airports, mail, water).
20. Preference for renewable energy and defence of the environment.
21. Equal salaries for men and women.
22. Limitation of precarious hiring and support for contracts for indeterminate time.
23. Extension of the protection of labour and salaries of part-time workers.
24. Recovery of collective (labour) contracts.
25. Increase inspections of labour and requirements for companies making bids for public contracts.
26. Constitutional reforms to guarantee separation of church and state and protection of the right to education, health care and the environment.
27. Referendums on treaties and other accords with Europe.
28. Abolition of privileges for parliamentary deputies. Removal of special juridical protection for ministers and permission for the courts to proceed against members of the government.
29. Demilitarisation of the Coast Guard and anti-insurrectional special troops. Prohibition for police to wear masks or use fire arms during demonstrations. Change training courses for police so as to underline social themes such as immigration, drugs and social factors.
30. Guarantee human rights in immigrant detention centres.
31. Facilitate the reunion of immigrant families.
32. Depenalisation of consumption of drugs in favor of battle against drug traffic. Increase funding for drug rehab centres.
33. Regulate the right of conscientious objection in draft laws.
34. Increase funding for public health up to the average European level.(The European average is 6% of GDP; in Greece 3%.)
35. Elimination of payments by citizens for national health services.
36. Nationalisation of private hospitals. Elimination of private participation in the national health system.
37. Withdrawal of Greek troops from Afghanistan and the Balkans. No Greek soldiers beyond our own borders.
38. Abolition of military cooperation with Israel. Support for creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
39. Negotiation of a stable accord with Turkey.
40. Closure of all foreign bases in Greece and withdrawal from NATO.

(These 40 points can be found here: http://links.org.au/node/2888)


In December 2013 Senator Penny Wong wrote an Opinion Piece entitled "TPP Must Not Trade Away Australia's National Interest". Its real purpose is to hide from Labor supporters how the party paved the way for the the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Australia. Her comments about the TPP are just as shameful as the TPP itself. There is no way the Labor Party can escape the blame for blindfolding the public about this so-called "trade" agreement. They should have walked away from it years ago, but they didn't.

Senator Wong begins with a few motherhood statements about how Labor supports "reducing barriers to trade can boost our economic growth." As inoffensive as this may seem, it overlooks the fact that the TPP is NOT ABOUT TRADE. It is only called a trade agreement to disguise the fact that the agreement is really about destroying the sovereignty of all the nations that sign it, including the US itself. By continuing the pretence that the TPP is about trade, she fails to explain to her readers the reason some 600 multinational companies are pushing President Obama to implement the TPP as quickly and as silently as possible. If the TPP was explained to the citizens of the relevant countries, they could not understand how their leaders could consider agreeing to such a corporate takeover of their political system.

Another serious distortion is her claim that "the TPP could be an important stepping stone to closer economic engagement across the Asia-Pacific region." In fact the TPP is not about "closer economic engagement" between countries, but the subordination of all the signatories to the demands of the largest multinational corporations. Further she ignores the fact that the TPP does not include China, Australia's largest trading partner and the real powerhouse economy in Asia. We increasingly depend on trade with China. So much for closer economic engagement with Asia!

Senator Wong points to four areas where she admits that the TPP might just possibly not be in Australia's interest:

(1) If it undermined the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
(2) If it shifted “the legal balance between creators and users of protected works.
(3) If it "constrains the ability of future governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters where those laws treat domestic and foreign businesses equally".
(4) She also makes a vague reference to some problems identified by the Productivity Commission about the Investor State Dispute Settlement system. (This "dispute mechanism" is the centrepiece of the TPP. It is the method used to override decisions of any sovereign state. You don't need to refer to the Productivity Commission to work out what is wrong with this feature of the TPP.)

Note that Senator Wong DOES NOT ASSERT THE TPP IS NOT IN AUSTRALIA'S INTEREST. She knows it is not in Australia's interest but avoids saying so. However, if she did acknowledge this, it would raise the obvious question: Why did Labor go along with it for all those years? Still we could ask another question: If YOU have no real idea whether this is in Australia's interests or not, what are you doing RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT? Does Labor really think they can escape blame for this monster?

Senator Wong concludes with a statement of what she claims is one of Labor's core values: "Labor believes the full text of any proposed TPP should be released well before it is signed." Oh really?? Virtually the whole of the TPP has been negotiated during the term of the previous Labor government in which she served as a minister. She KNOWS it was IMPOSSIBLE to undertake these negotiations without agreeing to COMPLETE SILENCE and highly limited disclosure. As far as I know, there are even no members of the US Congress who have seen the TPP documents. Labor believes nothing of the sort and they never did!


Labor believes it is a good thing to do exactly what the US wants. Their real difference from the Liberals is that they hide this fact from their supporters. The TPP negotiations show where the loyalties of the senior members Labor and the Liberal parties can be found. They care more for the interests of the US government and the 600 multinational for which they speak than the citizens of Australia who actually pay their wages. I believe supporters of Labor who cannot stand the TPP should realize that it is just as much a result of Labor as the Liberals. Blind Freddy can see that this totally secret attack on the power of elected governments is a complete disaster. It is not in the national interest of any country, even the US itself. It is only in the interest of the 600 multinationals who worked to create it. Sorry Senator Wong, the TPP is your baby just as much as it is Tony's. We know who the parents are, and we will not forget.

Senator Wong's article can be found here: http://www.stephenjones.org.au/senator_penny_wong_tpp_must_not_trade_away_australia_s_national_interest

For more information on the TPP see: