Having sold and ceded our sovereignty to the US on the international market, all but rendering Australia incapable of making independent decisions, Morrison is now hellbent on squandering domestic sovereignty. He is dividing the nation on the most basic of issues, the rights of women.
Without domestic sovereignty, which requires a clear consensus on how to handle fundamental issues, whether natural disasters, climate change or a significant social problem, a nation is weakened and open to exploitation both from within and without.
By that definition, Australia is without sovereignty. It has ceded defence and foreign policy strategy to the United States and in the process alienated it’s largest trading partner, China. At the insistence of the United States, it blamed China for the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, resulting so far in loss of trade amounting to around $50 billion in the agricultural, mining, investment, student and tourism sectors. It was not a smart move and has some way yet to run, particularly as under direction from the CIA, the Minister of the Australian Homes Affairs Department, Dutton, agreed to give asylum to US backed, Hong Kong activist, Ted Hui, last week.
This move has further angered China and has probably put paid to talks seeking to repair damage to the relationship and restoring normal trade. Mimicking the United States, Australia has decided to become paranoid about China and to officially dislike it. Australia has no reason to do so. Any attempts by the Chinese to undermine Australian sovereignty can be countered by the many intelligence agencies Australia sees fit to foster.
America, on the other hand, has worked itself into a slather, based around the fact that it wants to remain the World’s top dog. With the Chinese economy strengthening year by year and the American economy declining it has looked for someone, anyone, to blame other than itself. China became the whipping boy. Instead of looking for co-operative arrangements with China leading to mutually positive outcomes, America took China on. It wants to contain China. It wants to weaken China; it wants to reduce competition.
American diplomatic skills are weak. It has not sought to seriously negotiate with China. When American diplomacy breaks down it quickly resorts to the threat of force, or it engages in military exercises designed to intimidate. And Australia has given up sovereignty to assist, such as patrolling shipping lanes in the South China Sea with or on behalf of the US. There is no threat to Australia from Chinese claims in the South China Sea. There is from banging our little drum on behalf of America.
Certainly, regional dynamics have changed with the aggressive leadership of Chinese President, Xi Jinping. With growing wealth comes increased well-being and power. Xi is keen and determined to carve out a new place for China in the world. He seeks respect for China, perhaps not always in the most subtle of ways but understandable at the hundreds of years of humiliation at the hands of European and Japanese occupying powers. If you don’t understand that about Hong Kong then you understand nothing of Chinese history.
There has been absolutely no reason to be part of American foreign policy toward China. At a time when America was vilifying China and blaming it for stoking the war in Viet Nam, Australia, reclaiming its sovereignty under Labor leader, Gogh Whitlam, from the craven LNP, opened relations with China. It parlayed successfully with Mao Zedong, a leader infinitely more aggressive than Xi Jinping, and with skilled diplomacy turned it into a most enduring and productive relationship for nearly 50 years before being trashed by Morrison. Ceding sovereignty to the US over China has cost us dearly and maybe costlier if the US in its infinite stupidity goes to war with China.
And war is a possibility with the US arms industry pushing policies of confrontation. To assist the United States in their competitive paranoia we purchased from them a flying lemon, the F35, foisted upon a gullible and sycophantic John Howard, who became a major seller of Australian sovereignty, all the time hiding the sale behind the so called Anzac tradition and Australian jingoism. Australian diplomacy has been a victim with senior appointments going to LNP politicians and resource cuts to overseas posts, language training and aid. Regional posts have been particularly hard hit with Australia being unable to influence adverse political developments, most recently the military crack down in Myanmar. A diminution of diplomatic influence represents a diminution of sovereignty. One actor who benefits from this is China. And America will not protect our interests in Asia because we have different interests and because its influence is limited. Again, Myanmar is a case in point.
As we know Morrison is a blustering bully. He is not a nurturer; I doubt he would even understand the meaning of the word. Having sold and ceded our sovereignty to the US on the international market, all but rendering Australia incapable of making independent decisions, Morrison is now hellbent on squandering domestic sovereignty. He is dividing the nation on the most basic of issues, the rights of women. And it centres on the most ugly and cruellest of reasons, denial of rape, concerning people and environments he is directly responsible for. An issuing looming is the likely failure of timely Covid vaccinations of the Australian people. The infection of a doctor in Brisbane this week is indicative of the coming Covid corruption that may yet put us all at risk. Morrison had himself injected with the superior Pfizer vaccination which is not available to the rest of the population. How will that play out? It is deeply divisive, which is the antithesis of fostering sovereignty.
Morrison is squandering, indeed exploiting social capital for his political survival. His behaviour and his instincts are dictatorial. Australia’s loss of internal cohesion at the hands of Morrison further undermines what remains of our limited sovereignty.
Comments
72 responses to “Without leadership, Australia is vulnerable to foreign powers including the US”
Those leaders who do not betray Australia are removed: Whitlam, Rudd and Gillard.
Isn’t it time to reconsider nationalism? Is it not the case that Rothschild was correct when he said he could control a country, once he controlled its money? Money laundering is one of the 5 eyes key industries!
Too many verbose stories just turn readers off, lads. And it is the lads, who make each comment into a dubious history lesson.
short comments PLEASE!
Lots of distraction by weak arguments about China….
We need more women in power. USA and UK have spent generations investing in men….
Lots of distraction by weak arguments about China….
We need more women in power. USA and UK have spent generations investing in men….
Thank you Bruce- From a positive viewpoint, I am enjoying Morrison and LNP’s campaign to lose the next election on trade and women’s issues. Good luck to them!
Mr Morrison became Prime Minister with effectively no foreign policy experience.
Twenty years ago it wouldn’t have mattered. Under Mr Howard Australian foreign policy was essentially the US alliance and nothing else. The US wants to invade Iraq? No worries. We’re in!
But with the rise of China and the rapid decline of the US everything have changed. It is now very important to have a Prime Minister with a sophisticated understanding of foreign policy. Mr Morrison is living in the past. He should go.
Love your stuff mate!
Having more women in positions of power may help. Gladys notwithstanding…
And Jodi who threw Shaoquett Moselmane under the shock-jock bus.
We need more debate and local action to reduce the influence of corporations. Ultimately, this means buying them up. The approaching financial disaster will do nicely as assets will be cheaper then.
Close investigation of mining activities banking etc may reveal that licence conditions have been breached and that the operation should lose the licence altogether. A state or Feral controlled corporation should replace it. Norway shows the way?
I very much appreciate the excellent work of Bruce Haigh.
The entire LNP are ignorant wannabe demagogues, aided by a craven ALP. Misogynist, even the women, and thoroughly racist they cling to nurse – white male USA – thus demonstrating a pitiful weakness to power, and viciousness to everyone else. Each day brings more gloom. Women today, First Nations tomorrow, Look over here!
I totally agree Jocelyn. According to the original French definition the right have always believed in the conservative hierarchy of entitled wealthy superiors at the top, ranging down to lessor humans on the lowest level that continue to be neglected. Equality is anathema to their cause. They choke on it.
The left were originally more into flatter models of social and financial equality.
How on Earth can the LNP understand equality with their conservative heritage? And with Labor wanting to look like mini-Liberals, whatever happened to their roots? It certainly isn’t unions today, they are now hierarchies too, with lots of very rich ‘proletariats’ sitting at he top.
Well, Jocelyn, that’s the sort of remark that will be popular here,but I’d like to challenge the “white, male USA”. Biden’s 15 strong cabinet has 5 white males who identify as heterosexual, and 10 who are people of colour, women or members of the LGBTQI community.
Many posters here have commented that Australia’s cabinet should be more diverse. How odd that I have never seen anyone here advocate that the Chinese government might add women, or ethnic minorities to their politburo standing committee, which has 25 members. Perhaps George can tell us how many are female and how many are not Han. Their names are listed on Wikipedia under CCP Politburo
Good God you are a good boy when it comes to lapping up propaganda. Who’s REALLY in control Barney. How did the blacks do under Obama or is this just all a branding exercise? Less time virtue signaling, more time looking at the RESULT shall we?
Barney, there is lot of difference between criticising the domestic political situation in one’ s own country concerning these rape and sexual abuse issues, compared to the permanent negative criticism of another country that is not your own, or the fact that there are few women in key positions in China. It’s generally why we employ experts to deal with negotiations.
You can criticise the situation in your home, but if you go next door and criticise your neighbour claiming the moral high ground, what do you think will happen?
Perhaps we could also target the religions in the world while we are at it, including Christianity too where the leaders and people in important places a predominantly male. What’s your take on that? Where’s the female pope? How many female bishops are there in Australia? Female Dalai Lamas? I can even tell you that in the 1990s when I saw the Dalai lama in Sydney the hierarchy on stage was: high up male abbots and monks first, ordinary monks, male organisers and sponsors, female organisers and sponsors, and Buddhist nuns last. Female Buddhist nuns are still inflicted with an extra ‘basket’ of moral teachings. They are less pure than men. So let’s target someone else for a change, and not just the Chinese because you found another opportunity to put the boot in.
If you keep berating China, then explain how that will ever change anything? What you don’t get is that it just makes China shut the door and become more nationalistic. Had we kept the door open with a more positive relationship we would have achieved far more, simply because China would change, doing it out of its own volition. If any country in the world has demonstrated it can absorb new and good value systems from other countries it has been China. As a country it has been showing a long track record of opening up to the West. It even adopted capitalism, a huge change. Two of the most popular and influential countries in China used to be Australia and America. Out of a very strong interest and respect for both countries China was changing significantly, at it own pace and with its own sense of autonomy. But now due to the persistent negative whinging of Australia and the US, we have no effect. The door is shut.
I don’t bother reading Basil or Barney but appreciate learning from your replies.
Good for you Vacy. You keep your head buried, you’ll feel much better.
Exercising discretion
Why is what I write keeping heads buried, but not what you write Barney?
Because I am almost the only one not shouting into the echo chamber and feeling good about having my opinions reflected back at me. It seems Vacy thinks any opinion not her own is not worth bothering with. She couldn’t possibly learn anything from me. Well, that’s her right – and mine to criticise it.
I don’t know whether you post anywhere else, George. You are so prolific here that I suspect not. But I would love to read your comments on the Australian website. That would be the equivalent, and it would be very valuable, even though you would spark outrage and dismissal just as I do (both here and there).
So my motivation is to make comments that appeal to people and that is what I get off on?
Your putting the cart before the horse with me Barney. The views I hold and write about are my own, and generally I have some evidence I argue to back them up. I’ve never sort to be here to become popular, its how it has evolved.
The Australian website? I signed Rudd’s petition. It’s Murdoch rubbish.
They simply edit out anything I have ever tried to say there, they simply don’t post them. And if you still believe it is a valid source information then what will it take?
It is the same on Nine Entertainment’s papers too. I can write shorter comments on the basis of fact, stick to the rules, but they won’t print it either. Meanwhile they are very happy to print a great deal of simplistic comments, fuelled by ignorance, an don occasion racist replete with all of the anti-Chinese name calling.
So my motivation is to make comments that appeal to people and that is what I get off on?
Your putting the cart before the horse with me Barney. The views I hold and write about are my own, and generally I have some evidence I argue to back them up. I’ve never sort to be here to become popular, its how it has evolved.
The Australian website? I signed Rudd’s petition. It’s Murdoch rubbish.
They simply edit out anything I have ever tried to say there, they simply don’t post them. And if you still believe it is a valid source information then what will it take?
It is the same on Nine Entertainment’s papers too. I can write shorter comments on the basis of fact, stick to the rules, but they won’t print it either. Meanwhile they are very happy to print a great deal of simplistic comments, fuelled by ignorance, an don occasion racist replete with all of the anti-Chinese name calling.
Thank you Dr Vacy
Thanks George.
Why isn’t it a valid question why there are no (or so few) women on the Chinese politburo and no ethnic minorities? Man Lee, that ardent defender of the West, just a day or two ago said Australia would be much better off with more women in leadership. Maybe so, but what’s the evidence, and if it’s true why doesn’t it apply also to China?
It may not be clear that I am not Catholic, and that I disagree with the Roman church on women priests. Theologically, I am an egalitarian, taking as the central verse Paul’s letter to the Galatians (in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek nor Jew). However, the Anglican and Lutheran churches have women bishops. In Melbourne, where I live, the Anglican diocese has four assistant bishops, two male and two female. This is not to deny historical (and current) misogyny in the churches. But the New Testament accounts (eg Acts) make it clear that there were women in leadership roles in the earliest church.
Criticising China makes it more nationalistic, you say. How can that be, when you and others have made it clear that China has no interest in Australian posturing (as you see it), and carries on down its own (entirely admirable, as you see it) path regardless. I have agreed with you before that we would have done better to keep the door open, but may I ask you for the evidence that “China would change”? It can’t both see as us an entirely irrelevant racist enclave at the bottom of the Pacific and at the same time value our opinions.
You say Barney:
” How can that be, when you and others have made it clear that China has no interest in Australian posturing (as you see it)”.
Actually, I personally have never said that. I think you have confused my view with others.
If you read the Global Times (GT), considered here to be the mouthpiece of the CCP, as I have said before, you will find that China directly responds with articles and cartoon images concerning what Australia does. But it is never several negative articles per day like here.
Australia has been called out in the GT for being the US’s lapdog (which I would agree with), particularly since Morrison has been in power. Most views concerning Australia started to change under the Trump presidency and when Turnbull ejected Abbott. Before Trump’s win, commentary in the GT on Australia was frequently very good. Tony Abbott often said positive comments about China and especially Xi Jinping. Great efforts were taken to broker an significant FTA with China under Abbott’s government. But then that all changed towards the end of Turnbull’s reign, and then got seriously worse under Trumpophile Morrison.
The GT is also a good source for finding out what our side is up to which is often omitted in Australian newspapers.
China often writes articles concerning both the US and Australia in the hope the relationship may get better, even after the first day of the recent Alaskan meeting. You won’t find that in any Australian media. No efforts from them to get the relationship back on track, and China never gets to have a right of reply. If somehow a reply seeps through, say from the Chinese Embassy in Canberra, it also becomes the focus of media vilification.
China sees Australia as mini-me America these days so we are taken for being pretty much one and the same, although my extended view is that they actually hold more respect for America. Australia is more often seen as a country that runs out and shoots its mouth off at China, but then hides behind daddy US’s military power. In that way they see us as pathetic. Just think for a moment if the US didn’t exist in all of this – would Australia be so willing to berate a country with 57 times the population compared to what we have? And in this country the media and government have never told us that we actively and aggressively thwarted trade for China, its only ever said that China is the aggressor. That is a lie.
We “blocked more than 100 Chinese imports using a dumping duty approach inconsistent with World Trade Organisation rules” to start with, and there is much more to the story if you want to know. But here we are the victims lamenting over wine and barley and a few other exports. Meanwhile Australia leading the charge, has seen another 5Eyes country – Canada – pick up on its barley exports to China. What utter fools we are to be the US’s megaphone.
Women in the churches? Sure there are a few, but nowhere near as many as men, especially in key positions. Members of my family (mainly uncles and their wives ) have been involved in Anglican faith for years, some of the men were even bishops, but many women actually seeking to advance in the formal hierarchy of the church will tell you what a sexist organisation it still is. Same for gay or transgender. I saw one cousin pay for that with the Bishop’s constant rebuke.
You may have a different view personally about equality, but what if the god you worship turned out to be female, and Chinese? A sort of Christian Kuan Yin with socialist characteristics?
Jesus appears to be on the socialist/Marxist path in the Gospels, theologists and philologists have discussed this. He even lived in a shared commune it is said. And was it not feared by the Romans that he might start a Jewish revolt aka revolution?
If you want my personal view on women in the CCP, then I also say there should be definitely more women in higher levels of governance, and generally within the party (as in every country). But I do not want to use that as just another way to vilify China when we in Australia are still fighting over the same issues. The Chinese must do their own evolution, it is also a sovereign country.
Mao Zedong originally said “women hold up half the sky” or “women can hold up half the sky” depending how you translate it in English and how you semantically interpret the word 能 néng or ‘can’ in Chinese. They have more than one nuanced word that means ‘can’. It can also mean ‘able’ in Chinese.
Within the 92 million strong CCP its about 25.6 % female membership(2019), but what is significant is that it increased to that far higher percentage from 16.9% in 2009. (I can give you the link if your want).
So as China gets more prosperous and education has become more accessible, as well as international study has been made more possible (until Corona), female involvement in the CCP is significantly on the rise. It is improving very significantly, just as we are doing, depending on the various political party proclivities in Australia.
Apologies if I misrepresented you.
The only issue I want to take up is the idea of a gendered God. God is beyond gender, and there are female and male metaphors for God in the Bible, as well as plural and single names (Elohim is plural, El Shaddei is not). Perhaps it is unfortunate that we use the male pronoun.
I don’t believe in a god in the same way as you do Barney, at least in the form of a subjective or personal god.
Happy to discuss it. The only acceptable use of the word I would except now is pantheism, much as Baruch de Spinoza outlined in the 17th Century.
You’re a very patient interlocutor!
I tend to agree China has room to improve on gender equality, but in fairness, would also acknowledge China’s achievement (to my knowledge) in improving the literacy and education levels of women in China and their employment opportunities. (China’s achievements are striking when comparing with India.)
I hope to see gender equality in China’s politburo one day … It seems to me there are good prospects that China will one day surpass Japan in achieving gender equality within the leadership ranks. (Taiwan seems to have surpassed Japan in this regard.)
Incidentally, I would credit communism for the status that women in China enjoy today. Would you agree?
Thank you Kien Choong. Yes, I would agree. The CCP’s achievement since 1949 has been extraordinary, and it would be churlish to deny it. Even though there have been some severe missteps along the way.
But, as you will already know I think, that doesn’t put it beyond criticism in a number of areas.
Very well said Bruce. Thank you.
You are right on the ball as usual.
Morrison has betrayed Australia and we will pay a significant price for it. We are lined up for disaster at many levels. When should we hoist the Stars and Stripes? Why change words in our national anthem when we replace the whole lot with the Star Spangled Banner, replete with all the verses about war and bombs and guns?
Right now we are dependent on China to boost our GDP with iron ore. When China finds other sources, and it will – even India is selling China iron ore now – the happy clapper’s days are over. I suspect Morrison’s downfall will be spectacular, as it was with Trump, his main influence. Every now and then you get the feeling that his egg of a government is cracking apart. Should the rotten contents be exposed, it will be hard to hide the stench.
I don’t think we could have a worse leader for the times and one that has no genuine social skills. He is more like a passive-aggressive who is estranged from people due to a fair dose of empathy devoid character which looks very much like sociopathy. He puts on a show, modify’s his image, often to look like the nice guy, talks waffle, terrorises people behind the scenes, and demonstrates an extreme awkwardness with being authentic through using normal social skills. The product is a dangerous fake that lies his teeth off and hides away so he can avoid scrutiny and responsibility. He is never wrong, obstinate, and incapable of listening. To see him turn his back on the opposition speaking in government, or to shut down debate in parliament once again, is the mark of a man who does not know what honesty or fairness is.
Meanwhile the rotten press criticise but always come back to saving him at some point. Much of big business loves such a weak and irresponsible leader, it allows them to get away with environmental destruction, corruption, predatory capitalism, and avoid paying their fair share of tax. Just look at how the banking royal commission worked out. No wonder Kenneth Hayne did not want to shake Fydenberg’s hand. It wasn’t because of Coronavirus, but another kind of pernicious virus.
In terms of the motives of Xi Jinping, I would say he is fully aware of US pressure on his nation, and since you touch on the history, he is never going to let China go through Opium Wars 2.0. China learnt a lot out of the past, when it was not equipped to fight the superior naval powers of the British fleet. Imperialist suppression included many other nations as well and they all pushed China into a corner despite much resistance. It culminated in the Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901), and there once again was lacky Australia helping out another UK – US driven “coalition of the killing”. Japan was invited in on the suppression too, making it a member of the imperialist club with the consequence of it eventually causing WWII in the Pacific. Another extraordinary US stuff up in foreign relations too. But somehow the myth is that they saved us in Australia. Well actually we saved them by joining in to correct the mess they had made. Vietnam was the same.
Lingering notions of mandate of heaven will also see Xi Jinping make sure he will never let his country down. While it is a long time since the Qing dynasty was disposed of, Xi Jinping must continue to keep 1.4 billion people happy, well fed, and prosperous, otherwise the ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ dynasty will face what every dynasty in the past has faced as well. When Western people accuse him of being a dictator ‘for life’, they don’t understand this basic fact, nor do they understand he was actually voted in to do the job. I think most Chinese currently see him as doing a very good job, and part of that is knowing that he is preparing the country for a win if a conflict started. That’s every country’s right, and no one else in the world presides over 1.4 billion people or has any inkling of what it is like. That’s 57 times more people in the population than our holidaying, part-time, and slippery dippery prime minster ever has to be concerned about. It’s a real job for Xi Jinping.
Nobody knows what motivates the happy clapper. Is it his religion beyond the punishing Liberal ideology? It is so weird in its views it certainly could be, especially since his buddies in the states he liked most, Pence and belligerent Pompeo, are also Pentecostals. (Trump also played and manipulated with the religion theme many times). Morrison has stacked his cabinet with Pentecostals and evangelists too. None of them reflect anything of the teachings of Jesus, and the religion they follow is more soteriological than about curbing ones behaviour to be a kinder or more caring person. They represent the total opposite, unless it is support for their own, and even then loyalty can last less than 24 hours in some cases; like when Morrison knifed Turnbull.
There is a very secret agenda going on with this government which is rife with a sick ideology. But Australians are not privy to know about it. I don’t say it is a conspiracy, but a collusion that involves members of the government, key figures in the right wing media, and even two different police forces. It is highly concerning. How many are onboard with this?
The only hope for Australia and China, as for Australia alone, is a change of government, but even then, within ranks of Labor there are some very suspicious individuals and members of the crazy Wolverines. Something is very rotten in the state of Australia, and while we talk of Coronavirus, it is clear that an even worse virus is killing our democracy and sovereignty with great speed and extraordinary voracity.
Well said and I agreed with You 100% , Sir !
Thank you Garuda First.
Let’s hope the king of birds protects us from mindless and oppressive warfare.
Dutton, under the direction of the CIA, gave asylum to US-backed Chinese dissident Ted Hui. Says it all, doesn’t it? A poodle does what a poodle has to do. Like Hong Kong activists, we should scrap our own flag, and just fly the Stars & Stripes.
He is just nasty malicious fool way out of his depth on China.
How do we know it was under the direction of the CIA?
Here you go:
https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Dale-Scott/3436/article.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/the-us-opium-wars-china-burma-and-the-cia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_in_Burma
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-08-28/they-were-cia-backed-chinese-rebels-now-you-re-invited-their-once-secret-0
https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Trade/dp/1556524838
Happy to supply more.
Thank you George for a formidable list of articles, and I will honour you by reading them. But – sorry if I wasn’t clear – I intended my question to be explicitly in response to Man Lee’s statement that Ted Hui got asylum at the direction of the CIA. I must have hit reply in the wrong spot.
There is very likely to be CIA intervention in Hong Kong, and there is clear evidence that an identified American posing as a Chinese person was leading the protests via social media. He is formerly from an NGO, which is often how the CIA insert agents into foreign countries. Without doing the research, I’m certain Man Lee can verify his claim.
All I can say is that Ted Hui is not the person he appears to be, and Morrison’s intervening was just another deliberate poke in the eye of China. Hong Kong was never a democracy under the British, it never really belonged to the British, and China is not going to let it be a democracy, especially under the current US pressure. Whether you or I like that is not relevant. The country functions out of stability, stirring the pot at this stage will not be allowed for 7.5 million in Hong Kong (assuming they all actually wanted democracy) compared to the 1.4 billion on the mainland. The facts are that many people who live in Hong Kong are not in great haste for any push for democracy, and some of the protestors have been very violent agitators stirring the pot. None of this has appeared in Western MS media however, because it is part of the US campaign to destabilise China wherever it can.
The question is: Why if countries like the US and Australia think it is OK to push democracy on a sovereign country like China, when their greatest fear is supposedly about China forcing communism on their countries, or interfering in US and Australian politics?
Bruce said in his piece above: “It was not a smart move and has some way yet to run, particularly as under direction from the CIA, the Minister of the Australian Homes Affairs Department, Dutton, agreed to give asylum to US backed, Hong Kong activist, Ted Hui, last week”.
If I apply simple logic to what Bruce has said- Dutton and the Australian government would not know whether one is Arthur or Martha from among the dissidents, and which ones are of sufficient value to warrant it. Not only did the Australian government make an exception to the Covid repatriation rules, Ted Hui was able to come with his extended family including his parents.
The guys running the Western Hong Kong show are the CIA, with support from MI6. That’s the remit of the CIA, that’s their job! I am sure ASIO/ASPI also co-ordinate the media publications with them too.
The Americans think he is of value. Good to use to poke China in the eye. Ted Hui was good at his antics in the HK Legislative Council. Here he is throwing some very foul smelling stuff in the Council. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSjXdQO6YGQ
I think the Americans will find that he is a dud. Actually not very bright. He was both a member of the Legislative Council, as well as being a District Councillor, and was pulling in megabucks from both jobs. Somebody will have to pick up the tab for him here whilst he enjoys his new country!
Well said George. The bulk of the population seem unaware or do not care and therein lies the nub of the problem. I was sick when Morisson got elected. It all flashed before my eyes, but I have been angry since Howard was elected. I hoped Rudd and then Gillard would bring an end to the Howard regime, but they didn’t see it for what it was and both were far too cautious and Rucdd too self indulgent.
I can agree with all of that too Bruce
Thanks for your positive comment, and please keep up the good work, no one quite hits the hammer on the nail concerning the sell out of vassal state Australia to the US as well as you always do.
Many of us have fire in the belly over Howard and now Morrison’s betrayals.
Thanks George. You are pretty good yourself.
There’s a lot in common.
Brilliant- thank you
Thank you too Dr Vlazna, your work beyond here is excellent too, if I may return the compliment.
The openess of the Australian economy, except to enemies (!) like China, shows a lot. China has sovereignty. Jack Ma now knows that. Capitalism means allowing unknown families to take more than they should via corporations that can sue states that exercise sovereignty! The banker power now exists through a developed bond market that most countries appear to rely on, ignoring the benefits of sovereignty, ie relying on their own resources: local people working hard and to a cunning plan!
Malcolm Turnbull was never a Republican. Howard was always responsive to corporate needs. PMs are often members of the Rhodes club. Gillard was defenestrated by her allies and enemies. Too late to stop Morrison, but taking aim at some of his cabinet might help?
“Hundreds of years of humiliation”! Gosh, not even the Chinese claim that. One hundred years will do nicely.
Actually if you bother to do the research you’ll find that it is was well over 100 years. So it would be better not to be lazy and rely off fact by doing the research, instead of making claims out of pure prejudice and ignorance.
Prior to the British forcing opium down the necks of Chinese to restore their silver trade imbalance, the Portuguese were already selling Bengal grown opium to China in the early 1700s. By 1773 The British well were at it full swing too, and that is also when they changed their tune and started vilifying and berating China so they could look better as the world’s largest state-based, military-backed, drug dealers back home. Out came the claims of barbarism and other nonsense for which the British were far worse in that their barbarity and cruelty was inflicted on most of their empire around the world without restraint.
Prior to then, the English were impressed by China seeing it as a very advanced and mature culture. It’s surprising how the views changed when significant amounts of money, exploitation, and smuggling crime, were involved. The first Opium war 1839–42 was the result of years of trade and illegal opium plaguing the nation. Complaints fell on British tin ears. Prior to the war out of frustration, the Emperor specifically wrote to Queen Victoria pleading that she stop the trade. To be fair, no one knows if she read it, but members of the British aristocratic government would have known full well the message it contained. China in receiving no response, took action by confiscating the opium off boats in Canton and destroyed it, the result being that the British sent their most powerful navy ships to smash the Chinese into submission. For that China lost Hong Kong (Treaty of Nanking) as an act of theft due to bully boy authoritarian power, and they were charged at least ten times the price of the opium they destroyed as a reparation. US21 million in today’s terms.
So shall we say that from 1773 until today makes it just under 250 years. Even if you date it back to the First Opium War then we are talking 182 years.
The English were more barbaric as far as the Chinese were concerned (amazingly the Chinese had a view too), but that was swamped with Western propaganda. Just look at what they did to Australia’s First Nations people (not sure if you have done your history there either). Want to know more? Just read all 568 pages of Richard Gott’s “Britain’s Empire”, it will make you feel sick to the stomach with nausea. British did not even abolish slavery for an ethical reason, it was because there was so much ongoing rebellion in the colonies that they were no longer worth defending. This was particularly the case with the sugar plantations in the Caribbean, the destination of British slave trade from Africa.
The US who also made a killing selling Turkish opium, took over the Western imperialist cause, eventually reaching the level of shrill nonsense they are propagating today. What the US don’t tell you is that they built their early railways out of opium money and used Chinese labour because they were far more capable than US workers. But for that they were given a pittance, often ripped-off, kept isolated from Americans, had no rights, and suffered ongoing racist attacks etc etc. Warren Delano, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s grandfather made his fortune out of illegal opium trade, it is where the family’s money came from. FD was Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin as well. Go figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Delano_Jr.
During all of the entire time of the revolution in China after the Qing were disposed of, the US only backed Chiang Kai-shek, and handed him Taiwan after WWII in the Pacific. Returning to the opium trade and using the CIA they helped the Kuomintang in another round of mass opium trade near the Burmese border and Golden Triangle to raise more funds for their weapons budget to fight against Mao. Now the US vilify China again and provoke demonstrations in Hong Kong ignoring Chinese sovereignty.
The point of this last paragraph is to point out that bad-mouthing and working contrary to China’s success was started first by the British, and then followed by the Americans for at least 187-250 years.
The Chinese are being kind to call it the “century of humiliation”.
Nearer 200. Think Hong Kong 1841.
Actually if you bother to do the research you’ll find that it is was well over 100 years. So it would be better not to be lazy and rely off fact by doing the research, instead of making claims out of pure prejudice and ignorance.
Prior to the British forcing opium down the necks of Chinese to restore their silver trade imbalance, the Portuguese were already selling Bengal grown opium to China in the early 1700s. By 1773 The British well were at it full swing too, and that is also when they changed their tune and started vilifying and berating China so they could look better as the world’s largest state-based, military-backed, drug dealers back home. Out came the claims of barbarism and other nonsense for which the British were far worse in that their barbarity and cruelty was inflicted on most of their empire around the world without restraint.
Prior to then, the English were impressed by China seeing it as a very advanced and mature culture. It’s surprising how the views changed when significant amounts of money, exploitation, and smuggling crime, were involved. The first Opium war 1839–42 was the result of years of trade and illegal opium plaguing the nation. Complaints fell on British tin ears. Prior to the war out of frustration, the Emperor specifically wrote to Queen Victoria pleading that she stop the trade. To be fair, no one knows if she read it, but members of the British aristocratic government would have known full well the message it contained. China in receiving no response, took action by confiscating the opium off boats in Canton and destroyed it, the result being that the British sent their most powerful navy ships to smash the Chinese into submission. For that China lost Hong Kong (Treaty of Nanking) as an act of theft due to bully boy authoritarian power, and they were charged at least ten times the price of the opium they destroyed as a reparation. US21 million in today’s terms.
So shall we say that from 1773 until today makes it just under 250 years. Even if you date it back to the First Opium War then we are talking 182 years.
The English were more barbaric as far as the Chinese were concerned (amazingly the Chinese had a view too), but that was swamped with Western propaganda. Just look at what they did to Australia’s First Nations people (not sure if you have done your history there either). Want to know more? Just read all 568 pages of Richard Gott’s “Britain’s Empire”, it will make you feel sick to the stomach with nausea. British did not even abolish slavery for an ethical reason, it was because there was so much ongoing rebellion in the colonies that they were no longer worth defending. This was particularly the case with the sugar plantations in the Caribbean, the destination of British slave trade from Africa.
The US who also made a killing selling Turkish opium, took over the Western imperialist cause, eventually reaching the level of shrill nonsense they are propagating today. What the US don’t tell you is that they built their early railways out of opium money and used Chinese labour because they were far more capable than US workers. But for that they were given a pittance, often ripped-off, kept isolated from Americans, had no rights, and suffered ongoing racist attacks etc etc. Warren Delano, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s grandfather made his fortune out of illegal opium trade, it is where the family’s money came from. FD was Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin as well. Go figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Delano_Jr.
During all of the entire time of the revolution in China after the Qing were disposed of, the US only backed Chiang Kai-shek, and handed him Taiwan after WWII in the Pacific. Returning to the opium trade and using the CIA they helped the Kuomintang in another round of mass opium trade near the Burmese border and Golden Triangle to raise more funds for their weapons budget to fight against Mao. Now the US vilify China again and provoke demonstrations in Hong Kong ignoring Chinese sovereignty.
The point of this last paragraph is to point out that bad-mouthing and working contrary to China’s success was started first by the British, and then followed by the Americans for at least 187-250 years.
The Chinese are being kind to call it the “century of humiliation”.
The Chinese claim 100 years of humiliation. If anyone would have an interest in claiming “hundreds” it would be the Chinese. They are not being “kind”. I’m prepared to go with the Chinese version. Just love your potted history, but I actually like to read real history of China by real historians.
Meanwhile you show little understanding of the history, and do not counter any of my claims. Easy peasy, you just make claims without providing evidence.
Your rapid response even tells me you did not read half of it. I only just finished editing it.
Do not conflate “humiliation” with foreign interference or encroachment in China. The Chinese claim of a hundred years relates to the the period after the Opium Wars when foreigners were able to claim extra-territorial rights in China. That was humiliation. If any one has the right to claim when “humiliation” began, it’s the Chinese, not you.
And, by the way, you have a tendency to throw around criticisms of prejudice and ignorance against others far too easily. This is an easy tactic by someone on the losing side of an argument.
“The Chinese claim of a hundred years relates to the the period after the Opium Wars when foreigners were able to claim extra-territorial rights in China.”
Yes they are being kind, it started way before. I’ll back Bruce, and I have explained why. Obviously the period before the First Opium War and theft of Hong Hong through duress, after pleading with Queen Victoria to stop the trade, was not humiliating even if they were cowered.
“And, by the way, you have a tendency to throw around criticisms of prejudice and ignorance against others far too easily. This is an easy tactic by someone on the losing side of an argument.”
No, I just call out people who make claims that suit their pro-Western agendas, and in this case it is about diminishing what China actually faced over a much longer period of time than 100 years.
A very strange argument George. You are saying that when I support China’s claim regarding humiliation, I have a pro-western agenda. This logically must mean the Chinese have a pro-western agenda. This is beyond bizarre.
Nothing of the sort. Its just your inability to accept that China faced far more time than 100 years cowered and humiliated by the British, US, and many other imperialist countries. You contradicted Bruce not me, I substantially added to the history to show that 100 years is far less than what China experienced. In fact the post land grab after the first Opium War, furthered during the second Opium War and beyond, were the direct manifestation of the exploitation of China that had been going on for far longer. You don’t appear to accept that.They eventually had smuggling operations all along the coastline where they made their land claims. The US was already patrolling the Yangtze with gunboats to look after its business interests in 1854 as well.
Your pro-Western agenda is that in my view, you seek to diminish the significance of what happened, by going for the definition that diminishes what the experience was like for the Chinese in full.
Well George, I have to concede – Chinese humiliation goes way beyond 100 years. The Qing dynasty was a foreign one that lasted 300 or so years. Ruled by the foreign Manchus, Han Chinese were humiliated, men forced to wear the queue (aka “pigtail”), forced to live in the “Chinese” city in Beijing, outside the inner city reserved for Manchus, etc., etc. Right up until the end of the Qing dynasty in 1911, Chinese called for an end to their foreign rulers. This was real humiliation. But of course current Chinese do not refer to this period as “humiliation”. They refer to 100 years of humiliation which cover the period from western powers gaining extra-territorial rights – not the period before – until these unfair rights came to an end. The Chinese and I agree on this. If this means the Chinese and I have pro-western prejudices, then this, I guess, is the strange world of George.
Well I will accept that the modern Chinese definition is as you claim, and I am pleased that we can reach a point of agreement. I only wanted to point out that Bruce had a good point concerning longer term ‘humility’ and that there is much history to verify it. Since the concept of a “century of humiliation” was first expressed, many in the West have simply dismissed it as the Chinese playing the victim, and that the history is too far back to be taken seriously. That is a convenient position when we also remember events long ago that impressed a sense of injustice on our minds. And for the people at the receiving end it was far more real than the experience of the oppressor. In Australia indigenous Australians are a case in point.
When you said “One hundred years will do nicely,” it appeared to me that you were dismissing the reality experienced by the Chinese people that Bruce claimed. That is why I challenged you.
My world is not strange, unless you think arguing for a less biased opinion in support of the Chinese people is wrong given most of the press in Australia does the opposite. Many Chinese people here as well are paying a big price, simply for the sake of their ethnicity.
“One hundred years will do nicely” because that’s what the Chinese claim. If it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me. George, your world is very strange. You see things in very ideological, black and white terms – the world works in more complex ways than you seem to understand.
As if you weren’t in a world of ideological,very black and white terms.
Your last sentence might justify a claim of ignorance, George. It does not justify a claim of prejudice. It is a constant motif of your posts that your opponents are prejudiced; they never have any arguments, it’s only that they are racist. I have suffered that on more occasions that I can number; Basil is absolutely right. It is a very unpleasant trait that you get away with because you are shouting to sycophants in the echo chamber. Do you ever post elsewhere?
“It is a constant motif of your posts that your opponents are prejudiced”.
Well you always refer to me as someone that is prejudiced in my views, going so far as to say I’m a China apologist on occasion. It’s your common theme here. We are all wrong.
I point out the prejudice with verifiable evidence that few seem to want to counter. In this example I simply agued on the part of Bruce given he was rebuked for saying the Chinese period of humility extended far further back than 100 years. That was the reality for the Chinese then. How much evidence do you want? I covered why extensively. I’m not complying with any modern Chinese definition, I don’t think Bruce was either when he said: ” [Xi] seeks respect for China, perhaps not always in the most subtle of ways but understandable at the hundreds of years of humiliation at the hands of European and Japanese occupying powers”.
Basil also says: “One hundred years will do nicely”. Who for? It was much longer than that in reality.
“it’s only that they are racist”
No, it is not only that, but you never accept that ‘yellow peril, and ‘McCarthyism’ are still latent factors in Australian minds, that there is a long history of Sinophobia in Australia and that the current government and the media are milking those feelings for political reasons.
If there is no racism in any of this, then why are Chinese and Asian people undergoing racist attacks at the rate of 30% for general abuse and 20% for physical attacks? Even a pair of Vietnamese sisters were physically attacked. How often are you abused by people for your appearance?
Unfortunately some people, and I’m not saying Basil here, do come from racism but frequently don’t see it, or are not aware of modern definitions of what it means.
” shouting to sycophants in the echo chamber.”
I wonder what others think of that? Maybe from many Chinese people that live here, they face the racism, and the permanent biased media accounts of China. And lets not talk about echo chambers over at Nine Entertainment news, News Corp and Sky News. Of course using the word echo chamber makes everything anyone says here not worth a cracker either does it? We are all invalidated by your comment.
Maybe so, maybe you are (nearly) all invalidated by that comment. I learnt it on this website, from the posters here who constantly abrade me for believing anything at all in the mainstream press. I see the MSM are reporting that that US is going to ask China to respect Australia. How could they invent such total fabrications? I’m sure the China propagandists here don’t believe the US said that; it doesn’t fit the narratives. Too many minds here are shuttered by ideological blinkers (just as you accuse me of being). People on this website are no more open-minded than those who post on The Australian or Spectator, which is precisely why I post on all three, and am loathed on all three. Rarely get on the Australian, though – considerable censorship. When I’ve had enough I’ll stop.
Of course there is anti-China racism in Australia. I must have acknowledged and condemned this a score of times. It is inexcusable and reprehensible, especially when it turns to abuse or violence. The mistake constantly made in this bubble is that ANY and ALL criticism of the Chinese Government must necessarily stem from racism. After all, no one here can admit any fault in China. Therefore no criticism of China is possible on this website. Such criticism is always and only racist. Even TL, a self-identified Asian, gets accused by the truly unpleasant Meeple of wanting to be white. He could hardly be more racist, but no one here will call him out. The height of hypocrisy.
The reason I am writing all this to you is because you are a highly accomplished poster in good command of your subject. You really don’t need resort to that.
Lol Barney Barney Barney, you can’t hide sh.t made up by Zenz, ASPI, NED etc. behind some MSM brand and call it all legit. We need FACTS. So far all your criticisms are just copy paste of these CIA backed evidence free soundbites so how do we take you seriously?
Ideological blinkers from someone who believes in talking stakes and virgin births? Oh got you had me in stitches. Facts Barney, Facts! And no, repeating a lie with an MSM branding repeatedly doesn’t make it a fact, like where is all that WMD in Iraq?
George, If only the many anti-China Chinese people in Hong Kong or Australia knew even 10% of what you know, they would not be so! Thanks for sharing the facts.
Thank you Man Lee
“Morrison had himself injected with the superior Pfizer vaccination which is not available to the rest of the population.”
Is there any information regarding the rest of the family, Jen, the kids, mother and the mother in law, have they been vaccinated, if so which vaccine, asking for a friend?
This man and his government are evil, and division is their weapon of choice.
The word is they have all been given the course of Pfizer vax. Would probably include various close contacts like Jen’s support person. Generally speaking, it would be routine for all close contacts of a household to receive vaccination. It’s the rubbing the country’s collective nose in Morrison’s exercise of privilege that’s offensive.
Arguing Australia has no soverignty is really talking too highly about Australia which never had full soverignty to begin with.
When you outsource your security to someone else, you don’t have soverignty, simple as that as Whitlam have already demonstrated. All that “security” isn’t free!
Not only do we have to pay, but when you are protected by the Mafia Gangster, you should also be prepared to get thrown under the bus!