Comments

1. Because Australia has long ago exceeded its optimum population, additional numbers cannot create additional wealth, contrary to what many economists pretend. It can only make each existing inhabitant poorer on average because there are more people to divide the national wealth amongst.
2. The growing scarcity of shelter forces those who have to buy it or rent it from others to pay for it an even larger proportion of their income.
3. The land speculation and renting 'industries' and most of the banking 'industry' that create no wealth whatsoever, whilst consuming a good deal of our nation's economic resources.

It is instructive to realise that the same heroic, courageous and principled person that stopped President Reagan launching nuclear war against the Soviet Union in the 1980's, tried to stop the 1992 and 2003 wars against Iraq, tried to stop the war against Afghanistan, and spoke out about the false flag terrorist atrocities of 11September2001 , also opposes unlimited immigration into the United States.

Perhaps it takes the same courage to stand up to the politically correct.

Below is what former Lieutenant Colonel Bowman has published on his web-site www.thepatriots.us:

www.thepatriots.us/pg_02_issues.html
http://www.thepatriots.us/pg_02_issues.html#MM

Immigration: "Immigration is a complex issue which cuts across party lines. Those in favor of “amnesty” or a “guest worker program” include pro-corporate Republicans, elements of the Roman Catholic Church seeking new congregants to replace millions of alienated and excommunicated parishioners, a few Union leaders hoping for new dues-paying members, and liberal Democrats driven by compassion for poor illegal immigrants seeking a better life. Those opposing the “guest worker program” include a few racist Republicans and a lot of disgruntled taxpayers who don't want to subsidize social services for illegals. None of the above groups sees the critical problem with illegal immigration (or indeed with uncontrolled legal immigration). The problem is that large numbers of immigrants willing to work for peanuts depresses the wages for all working Americans, including what's left of the middle class."

In Australia, the same political groups that stridently support mass immigration are publicly silent on the excuse for the current war against Afghanistan, despite raging controversy surrounding Jon Faine's attempt to start a witch hunt against Kevin Bracken.

Whilst Green Left is publicly silent on the 9/11 controversy, individual members of the 'Democratic' 'Socialist' Party, who distribute Green Left Weekly will take you aside to push something very similar to the official US government story about 9/11.

Anglophones need to take what they read about Venezuela in the Anglophone press with an entire shaker of salt. I agree with James that Chavez is wrong to prevent Arizonians from taking democratic control of their territory to prevent flooding of the labour-market and to prevent exacerbation of ecological degradation by overpopulation, but his remarks could be made in the context of an ongoing propaganda war between the US and Latin America, where the US has for many years sponsored and marketed privatisation and exploitation. I went into this with an open mind when I researched the article which I cite below for a book of energy articles in 2008. I cannot see how things could possibly have been described as 'better' - except for the corrupt elites - before Hugo Chavez won power.

Venezuela before Chavez:

“In 1998, or 168 years after independence, a tiny wealthy elite was separated by a vast chasm from the rest of the people, of whom one quarter were unemployed. This seems disgusting when you realize that Venezuela was then the second biggest [oil] exporter in the world and had received around 300 billion dollars in oil sales – or the equivalent of 20 Marshall Plans - over the preceding 25 years. It was in this context that Hugo Chávez and his social plan won the elections of 6 December 1998 with 56.24% of the votes.” (Nicolas Lehoucq, Paris Institute for International Studies).

Why and how Chavez won government of Venezuela:

"From the 15th C the indigenous long-term stable clan and tribal populations of Chávez’s people were ravaged by invasion, immigration, disease, dispossession and slavery. The original peoples nearly died out, then, completely disorganized, ballooned in circumstances where child labour was the only source of additional income for low-wage landless people. What is now called Venezuela contained a stable population estimated at around 400,000 Amerindians in 1498. (Now the population is around 27 million.) In the early 16th C King Charles Martel V granted Welsers German banking firm rights to exploit the people and resources of Venezuela in payment of a debt. The colony returned to the Spanish Crown within 20 years and hereditary land grants were made to conquistadores for a time, but later declared illegal. Meanwhile the Amerindians fought back until smallpox overwhelmed most of them in 1580. Not until 1821 did Simón Bolívar win the long indigenous struggle for independence.

In 1921 the discovery of oil permitted agricultural and industrial development. At the start of the Second World War Venezuela’s oil production was only exceeded by that of the United States. Much of the oil concession development involved attracted US, British, and Dutch companies. Venezuela became a democracy in 1958 and founded OPEC in 1960.

The historic inequities of colonial land distribution guaranteed a large population of impoverished rural labourers. As oil prices waxed and waned, productive agricultural holdings were neglected and waves of poor people left the country regions to look for work in the city, creating the slum of Caracas. Between 1959 and 1964 the government redistributed rural land to 150,000 families but many resold the land to speculators, it is said, because they had little education about farming and no ready market for their product. Other wealth redistribution and educative policies were carried out but these programs failed to establish themselves against a background of depressed commodity prices and political schism. The then Democratic Action (DA) government was aligned with the USA but many Venezuelans were sympathetic to the Castro regime in Cuba, which was charged with supplying arms to guerrillas in 1963. The state became increasingly repressive in the context of continued political unrest. In 1968 the Social Christians (SC) won government and remained in power until 1973.

In the wave of nationalizations following the first oil-shock, the DA Government created the State-run oil and natural gas company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA) in 1975-1976. PdVSA is Venezuela’s largest employer and provides 80 per cent of export earnings but, reflecting later trends to privatization, government revenue declined from 70.6 per cent in 1981 to 38 per cent in 2000.

The oil countershock of 1979 culminated in currency devaluation by one third and a change to an SC government, which remained in power until 1983, when AD was returned under Jaime Lusinchi. Despite promises to diversify the economy and deliver on housing, public health and education, the situation continued to deteriorate. In 1988 another AD president, Carlos Andrés Pérez, introduced an austerity regime, removing subsidies on gasoline as well as on a number of important consumables, culminating in hunger riots in Caracas, with a death toll of thousands.

Two attempted military coups took place against a background of continued repression in 1992 and Hugo Chávez led one of them. President Pérez later went to prison for 28 months with the government limping along under another recycled leader, Caldera, whose foreign policy was very USA friendly. In 1995, 103 per cent inflation hit the Venezuelan middle class. In 1997 doctors, university professors, and national telephone company workers went on strike. In December 1998 Hugo Chávez won the Presidency.

On 30 December 1999 Venezuela’s 26th constitution was approved by 71 per cent of votes. The Senate was replaced by a single chamber National Assembly, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela came into being, named after the National hero. Presidential terms increased from five to six years and limitations on presidents serving a second consecutive term were lifted, but it became possible for the public to sack a president through a publicly initiated referendum. Privatisation of the oil industry, social security, health care and other major state-owned sectors was outlawed." (The above was an excerpt from the following book-chapter: Sheila Newman,"Venezuela, Chavez and Latin-American Oil on the World Stage,"Chapter 10 in The Final Energy Crisis - 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, UK, 2008.)

Gillard's reckless legacy of waste and mismanagement from her championed 'education revolution' continues to plague her credibility now as PM. Gillard was complicit in the Rudd gang of four's failed insulation scheme and the failed green loans scheme. The Gillard Government's nationalisation of health has stalled. The emissions trading scheme seems all but abandoned. The Murray Darling water sharing solution ignored rural communities.

Some record of so-called 'reform'! It is not reform - it is Rudd's popularism legacy.

Now PM Gillard is spruiking 'reform' in tax and superannuation under another hastily thought through scheme, which in true Labor style has sought to only divide and conquer the mining industry. How can reform be based on selective favouritism of a few big mining companies?

It is Labor short-termism at best, driven by classic Sussex Street manipulative self-serving bullying. Dare anyone disagrees with Labor and its methods of 'reform', or Gillard will label you a 'Hansonite'. How unfair on someone who has long left politics!

Gillard is not moving forward. She is policy spinning and getting nowhere fast.
Her inexperience and simpleton outlook is revealing the real Gillardite that the Sussex Street puppeteers implanted as PM. Gillard and Keneally should really get along - same party, same puppeteers, albeit different puppet shows.

“Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relics from long ago, we are best shed of them.