Plans to build $500 million Chinese theme park on NSW Central Coast bushland

Hi Dennis, This is a long post. I hope it makes sense. Firstly, I agree that having foreign assets or people or foreign assets and people in important quantities will undermine sovereignty and democracy. Some precisions before further consideration of this: You wrote: "How long before China has a claim on Aus like Russia on Ukraine? With China having more and more interest in assets here, I wonder if a future scenario could play out, where disenfranchised Australians, pushed out of homes decide to reverse the foolish decisions to allow foreign ownership of land, residential property etc. Would that be a threat to China's interests? Would China, or another nation investing then have to decide whether to use force to protect their interests here? I think it a feasible prospect." I don't know if one could say that Russia 'annexed' Crimea when a decision was apparently made by a huge majority of 'Russian' Crimeans to become Russian. In my view, for your analogy to succeed where China might use force to protect assets in Australia against Australians seeking to assert their ownership of all assets on Australian territory, you would need to have a large body of 'Chinese' Australians making a decision to become Chinese because it was in their interests. Separate administration of foreign assets and military outposts In Crimea's case Crimea's separate administration must have made that decision easier. If special rules were made for Chinese development of parts of Australia, this could amount to a similar sort of situation of separate administration. Russia already had military bases in Crimea by agreement with Ukraine so if force had been necessary, it already had forces there. [1] But maybe we are also overlooking a more pressing example of foreign assets and their defense in the problem of American presence on foreign soil. US military bases have separate administrations and military assets here and all over the world. I think they are planning new ones for Ukraine and these will put them in a geographical position to invade Russia. Conversely, Russia having military bases in Crimea does not put them in a geographical position to invade America. I suspect that one of the reasons why Merkel and other European heads of State are going along with the US in its warmongering is that they are frightened of the capacity of the US military bases and weaponry to blow their countries to smithereens. Otherwise it seems odd to me that the European countries that normally avoid nearby wars (due to recent memory of invasions) are not pulling back from the warlike US NATO line towards Russia. The US also embraces globalism and confuses capitalism with democracy. Europe has no such tradition of confusion, but it is giving into pressure from US influences on the EU, to capitalise its democracies. Similarly, is the presence of US bases in Australia and the knowledge of all its weaponry that can be aimed on any country also the reason that Australia is so slavish towards the US in international politics and economic globalisation? Malcolm Fraser suggests that we would be better off not aligning closely with the US in this interesting interview. http://candobetter.net/node/3986 Returning to the original problem of how having foreign assets or people or foreign assets and people in important quantities will undermine sovereignty and democracy, I hate to say it, but I think that our power-elites know this, intend it and don't give a damn about what we think. They are simply too far removed from our reality, like Marie-Antoinette. They have no notion of solidarity with their compatriots. It is arguable that sovereignty and democracy have already been sold off along with all the other assets. It seems obvious to me that We-the-people are dealing with Them-the-globalisers. That is, the majority of our politicians and power-elites have long since been won over to the idea - financially convenient for them - that nations are passé. They think that the whole world is to be privatised for 'development' by corporations and trusts. Citizenship is to be replaced by financial contract. That seems fine to rich folk who live in castle like structures and have no fear of absolute poverty. For them there is always money to negotiate with and they expect to win from this dissolution of the nation states. In such an ideology it is okay to give a Martian developer a 55 yr lease and permission to import Martian employees to develop a large swathe of once-were-Australians territory. Will the Martian government step in to defend Martian assets and expatriots if that enterprise is subsequently threatened, say when the 55 yr lease ends? Or will the Martian developer raise a private army from his Martian employees when they perceive that their jobs and company houses are threatened? The globalists will propose a longer lease, selling the land to the Martians or a Martian-Venusian-Australia merger. Or, if they think it more profitable, they will go to war, like NATO seems to want in Ukraine. Prior to the nation state people were used to kings swapping kingdoms like monopoly cards. We are returning to that state of affairs. The power-elites who benefit from dissolution of nation states are not going to give this to us straight because that would risk instant severe revolt; we are finding out slowly as we question, initially indignantly, subsequently with despair, our loss of the citizen power once embodied in State assets where politicians and public servants had obligations towards the rest of us. The financial contract situation replacing citizenship will be a feudal relationship - if we are lucky. I say 'if we are lucky' because feudal relationships entailed rights as well as obligations. Good luck if you have to constantly renegotiate with a succession of employers. Even worse luck if you don't even have employers. All we have in Australia are bills like the Victorian bill of Human Rights, which accords the most basic of rights but not the means to attain them. We have no civil rights; we only have whatever is our financial and situational capacity to negotiate. In the absence of a nation state we have statelessness, without rights or place. Our new definition is employed and unemployed, with an overclass known as employers, investors and developers. As to what we might do about this. A beginning is to talk about it and recognise it. NOTES [1] Whilst protecting the people in Crimea from the kind of thing that has happened in East Ukraine (violence initiated by Kiev), Russia could also be construed as protecting military assets. On this matter, Putin has said,

” in my conversations with my foreign colleagues I did not hide the fact that our goal was to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will. And so we had to take the necessary measures in order to prevent the situation in Crimea unfolding the way it is now unfolding in southeastern Ukraine. We didn’t want any tanks, any nationalist combat units or people with extreme views armed with automatic weapons. Of course, the Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defence forces. They acted in a civil but a decisive and professional manner, as I’ve already said."

Putin continues:

"It was impossible to hold an open, honest, and dignified referendum and help people express their opinion in any other way. Still, bear in mind that there were more than 20,000 well-armed soldiers stationed in Crimea. In addition, there were 38 S-300 missile launchers, weapons depots and rounds of ammunition. It was imperative to prevent even the possibility of someone using these weapons against civilians. [I.e. there was a safety issue.]"(Source: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/7034)