You are here

No More Admissions Required: Australia Is Full!

My website: ~ My Book: Agent Provocateur: the backlash against the anti-smoking campaign ~ is concerned with Civil Rights, Over Population & Pollution

Origins and explanation of illustration [1]
Just so we understand one and other, I have some (not all!) - definitions of the words Patriot; Traitorous, and Bigot; they are derived from a thesaurus, and as such, become somewhat diluted as one progresses through the synonyms, however, I believe that essentially, the following words are best described as follows:

The thesaurus definition & synonyms of a patriot are: devoted; dedicated, dutiful, faithful, fervid, jingoistic, loyal, nationalistic, statesmanlike, zealous.

The antonyms of patriot are: antisocial, misanthropic, traitorous.

The Thesaurus definition of traitorous are: unpatriotic; double-crossing, double-dealing, ,betraying,

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong.

The main definition of a racist is bigot: and a bigot is describes as being an intolerant, prejudiced person.

... And so, I would like to reiterate what many of us quite well understand, and that is, that further populating of Australia by means of Immigrants is unsustainable.

I hope not to be 'read' as a bigot, but rather as a patriot, wanting to preserve for current and future (made in Australia) - generations, a sustainable Australia.


- I have understood this:

All sustainability of our community requires adequate, clean water and housing. Neither of these requirements is commensurate with burgeoning populations who require more than an adequate supply of water.

Equally devastating to sustainability is the increasing requirement to find land suitable for housing (using arable land) and infrastructure, within the newly built ‘communities’, to enable them to function as a robust, productive society.

None of us wants to see our quality of life reduced – we all want to be able to use water when we want to, and a comfortable, affordable home – and jobs to fund our standard of living.

None of what I am saying is news ~ but I put forward the notion that it is patriotic to feel this way, and not a bigoted, antisocial motivation that drives me to write here, in this blog.

Further more, it should be noted that there is unlikely to be a reciprocity in the countries from whence our immigrants arrive; i.e. I would almost be certain that amongst other nations there would be a legal instrument to prevent advantage being taken of the nationals of those countries by international arrivals, intending to 'set up house'.

I believe that, as expected of us, we would fight, as patriots, for our Country - if we were at war ~ why are we not expected to feel the same way to keep our standard of living - to keep the peace? .. to maintain and keep our way of life, our valuable resources?

I believe that all Australians have a right to keep Australia safe, viable, and sustainable.

... Singapore has to buy water from its neighbor - Malaysia... do Australians want to... be in the same boat?

By the way, hands up those of you who feel betrayed by successive governments who have 'sold us out' to an unsustainable 'ideology' of populate or perish? I, at least feel, that successive governments in Australia have been treasonous - have been traitorous - to the Great Australian Dream.


Candobetter Editor:

Nation and Citizenship

Agent Provocateur has hit the nail on the head in defense of patriotism. There have been attempts recently to massage 'Nationalism' into a politically incorrect term. Whilst nationalism can get out of hand, as in National Socialism, and whilst Marx made good points about international workers' rights, the location of human rights and rights of citizens has always resided in the concept of the nation - first in Roman law, and later in French law. (To contrast: in Ancient Rome about 2% of people were citizens with full rights (women could be citizens but did not have full rights. ). By the end of the Roman Empire about 9% of people were citizens. A theory is that the rulers began to sell citizenship in order to increase their tax-base. [Sources: It has been estimated by William Scheidel, "Population & Demography" (Princeton-Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2006, that, towards the end of the empire, about 9% of the Roman Empire of about 70 million were citizens. This was after the rules of citizenship had been considerably relaxed. Bruce Bartlett, “How Excessive government killed the Roman economy, The Cato Institute, David Mattingly, An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 2006, pp 166]

Nationhood and citizenship within it was the basis of the French revolution, which substituted a code of rights to property, shelter and self-government (i.e. the rights of 'free'-men for feudal subjection where only a very limited number of people in a polity had the right to own property and their own persons. If we abandon the concept of citizenship and the rights of citizens we abandon our rights to self-government. Then we risk becoming plastic entities in small power-bases where rights must constantly be negotiated. This was the situation during the medieval era in Europe. Because of the very poorly defined rights of citizens in most anglophone government systems, this constant renegotiation is a feature of our struggle to control national assets and resources.

[1] Origins and Explanation of Illustration. The illustration is of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, dated 1789, and the chief document of the first democratic French Parliament, 1789. Called a 'revolutionary' parliament, it was actually a legal parliament, formed with the King's consent, and based on legal rights of subjects which were carried principally by representatives of the low clergy and the ordinary people of Britanny, who were soon joined by people from all over France. The first violent act of the Revolution was when the king, in an attempt to rescind his authorisation of this document, surrounded Paris with royal troops under his command, with the intention of intimidating the people there. This prompted the famous 'storming of the Bastille', which has often been severely misinterpreted by anglophone sources as a strange attempt to liberate a few disreputable nobles from a debtors' prison by ignorant and misguided 'commoners'. The Bastille was, in fact, broken into by the frightened people of Paris in order to obtain gunpowder and weapons to defend themselves against the King's army.

The king backed down on this occasion, but monarchists in Europe constantly attempted to give him support to bring down the revolution. The French revolution did not end until 1846, and there were three restorations of monarchy. Napoleon's role was very interesting and important and represented France's war against a coalition of European monarchies, plus fascinating trade wars with England using this coalition. I

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens 26 August 1789was passed by the Assembly on 26 August 1789.

Passed by the National Constituent Assembly.

"All men are created and remain free and have equal rights.
That the natural rights of man are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.
That the principle of sovereignty resides in the nation.
That the law is an expression of the general will and that all are equal before it.
That every man has the right to be presumed innocent.
That everyone has the right to liberty of expression and that no-one may be harassed because of their opinions, including religious ones.
That the Constitution rests on the separation of powers.
That Property is an inviolable and inalienable right."

Under the Roman Law structure of French (and most European government) which Napoleon reinforced, it is difficult for private individuals to control more property and power than the state. The key to democracy here is citizens' rights as members of the state. In British law it is more easy for private individuals to gain control of property and power, which we seen in the rise of massive international corporations, which began in the era of coal-and iron based colonialism from Britain. The interpretation of the inviolability of property within the british structure of US government has had a problematic and undemocratic outcome in the US system. The Australian system also lends itself to this distortion, whereby it is possible to aggregate enormous amounts of land and resources under private ownership. Then the owners can form a private power-base, such as we see in The Property Council of Australia. Such a base has the power to influence government well beyond democratic control and there is always the danger that Government will merge with such power bases, which has happened in Australia.

Right to Vote

In France and Britain, women did not acquire full citizenship with voting rights until the 20th century. (British women 1928, with some property restrictions, and French women in 1944, with no property restrictions) However, France was way ahead of Britain and the rest of the world, in granting qualified (i.e. with exceptions) ‘universal’ male suffrage in 1792. Although this suffrage excluded women, the clergy, soldiers and Algerian French, it did not exclude the poor and landless (as long as they were men, of course). Universal male suffrage in Britain did not occur until 1918. Prior to the granting of universal male suffrage in France and Britain, voting rights depended on the possession of landed estate.


On the front page of Heidelberg Leader, the local Banyule newspaper, last week was the headline:"Investor interest - Asian buyers join property search"[1].

The article goes on to say "Foreign investors are powering Banyule's property market surge". The auctions are fully booked until Christmas, and the market, according to one real estate agent after 10 years, the market had never been stronger! "All the signs are good....". Asians, particularly, were fuelling the market. According to the agent, "eight of the 10 sales in 3081 postcode are Asian buyers". "Great investment opportunities compared to Beijing", no doubt is true.

Last Saturday had some "terrific results". A recent brochure from a real estate agent showed local sale results in the area all well over $1 million!
Australia used to be known as a country of home-owners. Not any more.
The ability of local young people to buy a house has been destroyed by the pro-growth lobby who are benefiting by forcing housing prices to rise out of reach of the average person.

Housing and mortgages have steadily risen along with land prices due to population growth - deliberately driven by our excessive immigration rate. House prices push up the rental markets too.

Our housing market has been globalised to the detriment of our existing population.

Housing is a basic human right, not a privilege.
The parasite investors are becoming wealthy at the expense of the majority! "Working families", and our youth, are mere victims. They will need a king's ransom to buy an average house?

Our State government has a mandate to make policies for the benefit of the people of Australia, not for a select group of business elite and foreign investors who are being given priority over the majority of the electorate.
This is treachery and a betrayal of the interests of the people of Australia, and sell-out to the highest bidder, without any consciousness or patriotism.
Our government is globalising Australia for international education, for cheap citizenship and now our property market.


1, The online version of this story is "Asian led investor interest in Banyule property" of 22 Dec 09. - JS

Foreign ownership in Australia property not only pushes up prices for Australia real estate, by increasing demand relative to supply, increased scarcity indirectly pushes up prices of rents. Foreign ownership of residential property end up displacing local people, because it makes the Australian way of life which is centred around owning one's own home, out of reach.

Foreign ownership of Australian proerty is a form of invasion. It is property invasion.

Melbourne and Sydney have seen interstate migration to Queensland largely because locals cannot afford the lifestyle they once aspired to in these two cities. Queensland has been cheaper and still is comparatively. But look at the consequential sprawl from Lismore to Tweed to Noosa!

"The Australian Government's approach to foreign investment policy is generally to encourage foreign investment in Australian property, business and industry."

Foreign Investment Review Board Policy

Residential Real Estate

"The Government seeks to ensure that foreign investment in residential real estate increases the supply of dwellings and is not speculative in nature. The policy seeks to channel foreign investment in the housing sector into activity that directly increases the supply of new housing (that is, new developments such as house and land, home units and townhouses) and brings benefits to the local building industry and its suppliers.

The effect of the more restrictive policy measures on developed residential real estate is twofold. Firstly, it helps reduce the possibility of excess demand building up in the existing housing market. Secondly, it aims to encourage the supply of new dwellings, many of which would become available to Australian residents, either for purchase or rent. The cumulative effect should be to maintain greater stability of house prices and the affordability of housing for the benefit of Australian residents."

But the policy is not working!

The policy states that "Foreign persons are prohibited from acquiring established dwellings for investment purposes (that is, they cannot be purchased to be used as a rental or holiday property), irrespective of whether they are temporary residents in Australia or not."

But here are the exceptions:

* "Foreign persons who are temporary residents in Australia do not require approval to acquire a second-hand dwelling as their principal place of residence."

* Foreign-owned companies can acquire second-hand dwellings for the purpose of providing housing for their Australian-based staff (including migrants) provided the company undertakes to sell or rent the property if it is expected to remain vacant for six months or more.

*Vacant Land can be acquired by foreigners so long as substantial construction of single dwelling or multi-dwelling commences within 2 years."

Other exemptions (extract):

* You are a New Zealander
* You hold a permanent resident visa
* You are a temporary resident
* You are purchasing new dwelling(s) from the developer, where the developer has pre-approval to sell those dwellings to foreign persons
* You are acquiring an interest in developed commercial property valued at less than $50 million or $953 million (indexed annually) for US investors
* You are acquiring an interest in developed commercial property where the property is to be used immediately and in its present state for industrial or non residential commercial purposes."

So foreigners with money can go for it!

Rudd has removed barriers to entry into Australia from both a property ownership and employment perspective. His globe trotting penchant makes him think he's on the world stage with the big boy like the US, UK and China. But he is sick of punching above his weight. I'll fix that thinks Rudd, immigration! Invite em in from everywhere, recond immigration will fix it. Australia will get big and populated like the big boys and then they'll start listening to me at the negotiating tables.

Neocolonial Ruddism is all about one man's insecurity as a diplomat. Of course people from less well off countries want to come to Australia. Of course people from overcrowded countries want to come to Australia. Rudd selfishly ignores the costs and impacts on Australia. State Governments can't cope with the populations they've got.
But that's we're Rudd's got the control and power. The populous states are all Labor.
For Labor premier to dare criticise Rudd would be heresy.

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885

"Asian led investor interest in Banyule property" of 22 Dec 09. - JS

..."Our housing market has been globalised to the detriment of our existing population."

I have recently had the following confirmed by a colleague:

I work with a Chinese Nurse & her husband is a doctor/surgeon ~ they have 3 sons ~ (something that they could not have in China, which has, predominately from the 1980's - a one child policy)

While this couple arrived in Australia through 'appropriate channels' ~ she has told me that many do not: she was telling me that a few years ago, it was common practice for Chinese (& other races) - to pay $30,000 a head to 'get into' Australia.

She believes that the price (paid to the Government) is higher now, but 'no problem for Chinese' - many who are involved in what we would consider 'criminal activity' to earn their money.

Often the male head of the house, involved in the lucrative, but illegal earnings (in - say China - as well as other countries ) - will stay put, sending his family to Australia first, to establish a life here. He may then continue to earn large sums of money to buy homes etc. ( homes, plural: for the other members of the family)

This practice has of course, sent house prices through the roof ~ and no hard working, honest employee and Australian National can compete with the astronomical amounts of illegally earned income, which these 'Immigrants' bring with them.

If the knowledge of this practice is intolerable to you ~ ask yourself this question: What can be done about it ?

“Talk is cheap. Words are plentiful. Deeds are precious.”

H Ross Perot quotes

My Book Is Here:

Agent Provocateur: the backlash against the anti-smoking campaign ~ is fundamentally about Civil Rights ~ also discussing Over Population & Pollution..

Available for sale on line and available at the National Library of Australia: ISBN:978-0-646-50739-2

600,000 more immigrants in the last 4 years.

That's more than Tasmania.
More than Newcastle.
More than the Aborigines.

Any idea who wrote this note I found in my mailbox recently. It's not even "signed" by any organisation or individual... (sigh)

A more than clever bastard wrote it.

I got one too - not impressed :(

Thanks Anonymous (actually **********, News Ltd "journalist").
We've heard enough from you on this matter.

Editorial comment: Although I also don't have a high opinion of News Limited and many of its journalists, I'm not sure if it is or is not relevant that an anonymous post in this discussion is from a News Limited journalist and who it was from. How were you able to work out that it was a News Ltd journalist and who it was from? And which post it was? - JS