We keep hearing that someone named Kerry Schott is the architect of Malcolm Turnbull’s energy policy (aka. “National Energy Guarantee”), but who is this person? What is her background? What is her area of expertise? A little research reveals the disturbing truth.
Kerry Schott is a veteran oligarch of the Australian bureaucracy who has had an unusually eclectic series of appointments and employments over her lifetime.
She was born in 1944 and grew up in the town of Berrima, about 50km west of Wollongong. She initially trained as a teacher, and practiced teaching in NSW schools for a few years in the mid-1960s, whilst completing a Bachelor of Arts at the University of New England by correspondence. In the late 1960s she left teaching for a job at the Reserve Bank. She soon left for Canada, where she completed a Masters of Arts at the University of British Columbia. She then travelled to England and attained a doctorate at Nuffield College, Oxford.
She returned to Australia to work as an economist in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for the leftist Whitlam Labor Government (1972-75). The Whitlam Government was so horrendous that the 1975 federal election saw the biggest landslide in Australian history. Schott returned to England where she worked as an economics lecturer at the University of Southampton and the University of London. In 1979 she became co-editor of a new journal called Feminist Review.
Here are the titles of some of the articles published during Schott’s time as co-editor:
‘Socialism and Feminism: Women and the Cuban Revolution’ [No.3, 1979, pg. 99]
‘Queen Elizabeth I and the Persistence of Patriarchy’ [No.4, 1980, pg. 45]
‘Feminist Sexual Politics’ [No.5, 1980, pg.1]
In one 1980 issue on which she was co-editor, there was a cartoon viciously mocking Christianity. The cartoon showed a seemingly pregnant bishop and a female god pointing her hand from the clouds explaining how he could perform a home abortion on himself using alcohol and a knitting needle. This can’t be put down to youthful indiscretion because in early 1980, when the issue was published, Schott would have been 36 years old.
In 1982 her review of the book Markets and Minorities, authored by the well-known black American free-market economist Thomas Sowell, was published in the Times Literary Supplement [26th March 1982, pg. 358]. Needless to say, it was a negative review.
Schott continued her involvement with the Feminist Review. In the Spring 1983 issue [No.13] she contributed a book review. The subject of the review was the book A Theory of Inequality and Taxation by Patricia Apps (now a professor at The University of Sydney). The review endorses the book’s thesis, with Schott writing:
“…it is a relevant and important book for feminists, and indeed anyone else interested in getting a more equitable society…I hope this study has the big impact it deserves on economic policy and ideology in this area.”
What is that thesis? That feminist goals can and should be achieved via government enacting economic policies to discourage the formation of the traditional family unit (i.e. mother, father, and children in a single household). As Schott explains:
“…the nuclear family tends to do more trade with business firms than a more efficient and mythical household would do, and this helps to maintain the social institutional status quo…Attempting to get equity by simply taxing the rich more, means in the Apps world, that the rich will simply pass the tax burden onto poorer workers who are frequently women…Thus the usual policies to increase equity will not work. What is required are policies that change institutional behaviour…the encouragement of ‘household’ formations that are more efficient and possibly larger in terms of the numbers of adults might be encouraged.”
Schott was also a co-editor of the Socialist Economic Review 1983 . There were articles on topics like patriarchy, class struggle, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, and there is even an article attacking Margaret Thatcher authored by the late Sam Aaronovitch, who was a prominent member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
When the Hawke-led Labor Party were victorious at the 1983 federal election, Schott again returned to Australia to work in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations as Assistant Secretary and as an economic consultant for Labor’s Bill Hayden.
In 1984, Schott was a contributor to a book titled Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism. A review of that book in The Economic Journal [Vol.95, No.380] said the following:
“In contrast to the prevailing orthodoxy within economics…the contributors to this book see capitalism as inherently unstable due to the underlying conflicts within capitalist society.”
In the late 1980s Schott moved from Canberra to Sydney and started working at a Labor Party-aligned investment bank run by Nicholas Whitlam (son of Gough), Neville Wran (former NSW Labor Premier) and Turnbull. She remained in investment banking until 2003, working for Banker’s Trust, Deutsche Bank, and Caliburn Capital Partners. During her investment banking period she was also appointed to numerous boards by the NSW state government, including the University of New England, MetSouth Energy, NSW Film and Television Office, and the Environment Protection Authority.
Schott has been an Executive Committee Member of a Labor Party foundation dedicated to the memory of former federal Labor leader Herbert ‘Doc’ Evatt. Evatt was a communist-sympathiser who helped draft the infamous Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enunciates a long series rights enjoyed by all people around the world, but then, at the very end [Article 29], says people can’t exercise these rights if they do so in a way that is contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The declaration is based on the communist conception of rights, which is that they are given by the state (i.e. the political elites), and the state has the right to take them away as it pleases. The declaration completely rejects inalienable, God-given rights.
Schott was also a longtime board member of the Whitlam Institute, which describes itself in the following way:
“The Whitlam Institute within Western Sydney University is a dynamic public policy institute that commemorates and is inspired by the life and work of one of Australia’s most respected Prime Ministers, the Hon Gough Whitlam AC QC. “
In 2003 she was appointed deputy secretary of the NSW Treasury and, in 2006, was appointed head of Sydney Water where she promoted global warming ideology, pushed for expensive white elephant desalination plants, and advocated drinking recycled sewage water.
*Note: I’ve got further information to add to this article, especially an explanation of why leftists, like Schott and Turnbull, get involved in the banking and corporate sectors, and why they support privatisation and “market mechanisms” despite the seeming contradiction with their left-wing ideology. Put simply, they are pursuing the same end goal but via a cunning new method. Stay tuned for further explanation.
**Update [10th August]: I have decided to expand the further information I had for this article into a whole new article on the subject of the left’s infiltration of capitalism (eg. via banking, privatisation etc). It should be ready in a few days.
In London, on Monday the 10th of July 2017, between 6:00pm and 7:30pm, an event was held at the “One Birdcage Walk” building in Westminster. At this event Malcolm Turnbull was presented with an award by (then) UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd, an ideological fellow-traveller who, for example: supports shutting down all coal-fired power stations by 2025; wants to imprison anyone who views what she calls “far-right” propaganda; and has been accused of hiding documents from a public inquiry into the UK’s elite paedophile rings.
At 3:00pm, three hours before this event started (12 midnight AEST), the Australian media publicly released the text of Turnbull’s prepared speech along with related, pre-prepared political commentary. The text of the speech was given to the media by Turnbull’s staff.
This version of the speech began with the following:
“In 1944 Menzies went to great pains not to call his new centre right party a conservative party – rather he described our party as the Liberal Party which he firmly anchored in the centre of Australian politics. He wanted to stand apart from the big money, business establishment politics of traditional conservative parties…”
Turnbull went on to say that fascism, communism, and classical liberalism all had no appeal in 1944, when Menzies founded and named the Liberal Party. He added: “The sensible centre was the place to be. It remains the place to be.”
Although he never states it explicitly, Turnbull seems to be saying that Menzies didn’t intend the party to be conservative. If you read it carefully though, the text itself is ambiguous on this point.
When he delivered the actual speech three hours later, at 3:00am AEST, there were important differences and additions that, had they been in the version initially released to the media, would not have facilitated such headlines. The story though, by this time, already had unstoppable momentum, and the newspapers, complete with commentaries, had already been printed for the following morning.
The additions included an explicit acknowledgement of John Howard’s thesis that the party includes the conservative tradition. Tony Abbott’s name was also added as being the source of the phrase “sensible centre”.
Senator Cory Bernardi explained this oft-used trick:
“The Prime Minister’s office…know exactly what they’re doing when they put out briefing notes. And if they gave notes to journalists it was designed to convey a particular impression… When the actual speech is delivered there’s the plausible deniability, but the whack has already been dealt through the media.”
It is obvious this was a scheme concocted with the purpose of embarrassing conservatives by causing in them a hasty, angry retort, the substance of which could later be easily debunked. Thankfully, conservatives in the party were wise enough hold back. Instead, Turnbull was widely condemned, including by some of his own sycophants. I have listed some of the criticisms below (sources are linked via names).
“…[The speech] was delivered in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
“It just frustrates me, and it must frustrate so many of our Liberals, that unlike Menzies and unlike Howard…Malcolm hasn’t been able to meld the different views within the party…He’s actually poured petrol on the fire…We might find that the Prime Minister is saying the middle ground is the way to go, but sadly so much of what we have done in recent times is not the middle ground, it’s not the Liberal way…we are attacking some of the fundamental institutions on which this party was established in 44..”
“…he appeared to claim the mantle of being a modern-day Menzies. If that was Turnbull’s intention, he wears it poorly, like a suit that is far too big for him…And Turnbull’s cheeky wink to Abbott searching for the “sensible centre” is equally disingenuous. Abbott is an unashamed social and economic conservative. He used the term “sensible centre” in the lead-up to the 2013 election for one purpose. “We will bring the workplace relations pendulum back to the sensible centre,” Abbott said, retreating at breakneck speed from Howard’s Work Choices…”
“Centrism is not a political philosophy. Centrism doesn’t tell you which direction the country should go. It doesn’t tell you whether the size of government is too big or too small. It doesn’t tell you what we should do on any policy area…the sensible centre just means nothing.”
“If you think back to great political leaders, none sought out the centre. They created the centre…In practice, for centre-right parties appeals to the centre have meant taking policies from a left-wing play book…”
This plot was too clever by half, and it went down in flames.
Even John Howard weighed in, without explicitly directing his comments to Turnbull:
“I recognised that on some issues the right approach was not the mid-point in the argument…Margaret Thatcher didn’t have a mushy middle when it came to handling the miners’ strike and her assault on trade union power, which was long overdue. It was the same with Reagan on some issues.”
Turnbull probably did, however, succeed in another purpose. Given that the entire media were repeating, throughout the day, the falsehood that Menzies didn’t want the Liberal Party to be conservative, much of the general public may have absorbed this nonsense.
These are not considered ‘progressive’ policies and attitudes now, nor were they in Menzies time. Indeed, he was attacked for these policies whilst in office.
So why did Menzies call the party ‘Liberal’? It largely comes down to marketing and the semantic peculiarities of the time. Gerard Henderson writes:
“As there was no precedent for a conservative political movement in Australia, it was not surprising Menzies chose the name Liberal when forming the new party in 1944. It’s also possible he was conscious that the Conservative-Labour divide in Britain reflected the class system in that country.”
Veteran journalist Jim Middleton makes a similar point:
“You’ve got to remember that Menzies was confronting a successful, interventionist, leftist Labor government. He needed to dislodge votes from the Labor party to win back power…to do that of course he was not going to talk about conservatism, he was going to talk about liberalism, and talk about inclusion and those sorts of things…”
Menzies was conservative by our modern definition of that word, indeed he was ultra-conservative by today’s standards, but he was even conservative by the standards of his own day.
From a leftist-‘progressive’ point of view, we see longtime Canberra Press Gallery journalist Mungo MacCallum writing, albeit deridingly:
“Menzies was a Victorian…He was born in the 19th Century and remained a creature of it all his life…I am ancient enough to have grown up under Menzies and I even met him a couple of times, and it never occurred to me that he was anything but a big “C” Conservative…his social attitudes were even behind his own times”
In Menzies’ day many of the policy positions that today define a ‘conservative’ were ubiquitous societal norms. Hence, back then, the word “conservative” meant something somewhat different. It had connotations of the old, strict British class system that ‘New World’ colonials were less enthusiastic about.
Nor was the word ‘progressive’ used in the same way in Menzies’ time. To demonstrate that we need only look at Menzies’ speech to the Liberal Party’s Federal Council meeting on the 12th of April 1965. In that speech Menzies describes the following three policies as “progressive”, “innovative” and anti-conservative:
– Attracting foreign capital for resource development
– The ANZUS treaty
– Funding for Catholic & independent schools
Today the ANZUS treaty is considered conservative, and opposed by arch-‘progressives’ like the Greens and the left-wing of the Labor Party. Attracting foreign capital for resource development is also opposed by those same forces, just look at their attitude to mining. On schools, Turnbull himself just cut federal funding to Catholic & independent schools.
So you can see how the evolutionary nature of the language can create opportunities for diabolical operators who seek to confuse. In his provocative speech in London, Turnbull cited the following quote from Menzies:
“We took the name “Liberal” because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise, and rejecting the socialist panacea.”
(On a side note, Turnbull exposes his sloppiness here by claiming this quote dates from the time of the party’s founding. In fact the quote is from Menzies’ 1967 book ‘Afternoon Light’.)
This passage is endlessly quoted by left-faction members of the Liberal Party as a justification for their existence, whilst they ignore Menzies’ policies and almost everything else he wrote. John Howard, who authored the 720-page book titled ‘The Menzies Era’, says:
“These words are quoted ad infinitum…I have never interpreted that phrase as a repudiation of conservative values…And the suggestion that Menzies wasn’t conservative in many respects is absurd. Of course he was.”
Menzies said of the National Party (then called the Country Party) that they were “our close and almost indistinguishable ally”. That quote is telling because the National Party are, explicitly, a conservative, Christian party. Their federal constitution proclaims:
“The objects of the Party shall be to promote within Australia a society based on Christian ethics and loyalty to the Crown…[and] ensure the continued development of the Party as an independently organised conservative political force…”
Finally, I should point out that even Turnbull himself has admitted that Menzies was an ardent conservative. When Turnbull was a journalist for the Nation Review he wrote:
“The population expects Liberal leaders to be grey-suited Tories of the bluest stamp. Askins, Menzies’ Boltes win elections. Gortons, Sneddens and Lewises are likely to lose them.” 1
On that point, Turnbull is right. “Liberals” like himself have a tendency to be electoral losers. Backbench take note.
23rd July, 2018
Malcolm Turnbull has informed us on multiple occasions that he is a proud feminist. Indeed he has been publicly enunciating this for at least the past 30 years.
This is something he imbibed from his mother, Coral Lansbury, an ardent feminist, atheist1 and Labor Party supporter. Coral was a prolific scriptwriter for ABC radio soap operas, and her writing included what she called “crypto-feminist” themes. Radio soap operas were extremely popular before the television era and so this propaganda would be broadcast to the masses of Australia in a potent exercise of mass brain-washing.
Feminism is an ideology that pretends to be about helping women, but is, in reality, just a Trojan Horse for leftist-globalist ideology. Most people won’t accept the raw version of leftist ideology, but if you dress it up as “helping women” it becomes palatable.
Leftists oppose the true institution of marriage, one man & one woman united for the purpose of raising children. They want to stop marriage, at least as a general practice, and they have lately been succeeding. One means of achieving this has been to manipulate women into leaving their husbands.
Turnbull has, for example, encouraged women to leave their husbands even over just “controlling behaviour” which he defines as “domestic violence” even when there is no physical violence involved. Moreover, Turnbull has made statements to the effect that only women can be victims of domestic violence. In an appearance on Channel 9’s Today show [22nd Sep, 2015] Turnbull said:
“The issue of family violence, or domestic violence as it’s often called – which is just violence against women, which is the way I prefer to describe it – is an enormous one.”
The traditional family unit has a man at its head, with ultimate control. Turnbull is effectively defining this situation as immoral, with the male head guilty of “domestic violence” even if he hasn’t laid a glove on his wife.
But feminism is a versatile weapon in the hands of a leftist, and the traditional family unit isn’t the only victim. Turnbull has, for example, used feminism as a justification for attacking that great pillar of Australian culture we call ‘mateship’.
When, in the late 1990s, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, wanted the word ‘mateship’ put into the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Turnbull opposed and mocked it, saying:
“Howard tried to argue that ‘mateship’ was not a masculine term, but women were not convinced. Mates and mateship were as blokey as you could get. This was a preamble wearing thongs, stubbies and a blue singlet.” 2
Furthermore, just two months after Turnbull became Prime Minister, his government started organising new signage for the Kokoda Trail which removed the word ‘mateship’ and replaced it with ‘friendship’, whilst simultaneously spending millions of dollars to promote “gender equality” (i.e. feminism) on the trail.
As Prime Minister, Turnbull has also heavily promoted “International Women’s Day”, one of the primary propaganda devices for pushing feminism. In 2016, for example, he celebrated by mandating that government boards be comprised of 40% women at an absolute minimum. In 2018 he was so excited he wore two purple ribbons on his lapel instead of one, yet he can’t bring himself to ever wear an Australian flag pin.
The idea for “International Women’s Day” was conceived in 1910 at the Socialist World Congress in Copenhagen, a major conference of the organisation known as the ‘Second International’.3 The ‘Second International’ was a global coalition of communists and socialists whose membership included Bolshevik leader Vladmir Lenin, an attendee at the 1910 conference.4
No date was specified at the aforementioned conference, and so dates varied among different leftist groups in different countries. In 1917, Russian communists held a women’s day on the 8th of March (23rd of February in the Julian calendar) and actually used it to initiate their successful coup d’état against the monarchy.5 Communist women whipped up riots in the streets of Saint Petersburg, and used emotion to sway soldiers into abandoning their loyalty to the monarchy. This escalated into the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II and the eventual establishment of the Soviet Union.
Trotsky later wrote about how the communists used women to achieve their goals:
“A great role is played by women workers in relationship between workers and soldiers. They go up to the cordons more boldly than men, take hold of the rifles, beseech, almost command: “Put down your bayonets – join us.” The soldiers are excited, ashamed, exchange anxious glances, waver; someone makes up his mind first, and the bayonets rise guiltily above the shoulders of the advancing crowd.” 6
In June 1921 the ‘Second International Conference of Communist Women’, held in Moscow and chaired by Clara Zetkin, proclaimed the 8th of March as the fixed date for “International Women’ Day” in remembrance of those communist Russian women whose activities had facilitated the revolution.7,8
In 1922 Vladmir Lenin decreed that the day be made official and observed annually. In the same year the newly formed Chinese Communist Party recognised the day and began celebrating it.3 When they took control of mainland China in 1949 they immediately made it an officially recognised day, with women given half the day off.
In 1975, the day was officially adopted by the United Nations,9 after which it was increasingly promoted by governments in Western countries as the ‘politically-correct’ alternative (or replacement) for Mother’s Day.
In promoting so-called “International Women’s Day” Turnbull is perpetuating this communist legacy, and backing an ideology that seeks to crush the traditional family unit.
1. Manning, P. (2015). Born to Rule: The unauthorised biography of Malcolm Turnbull. (ch. 1). Melbourne University Press.
2. Turnbull, M. (1999). Fighting for the Republic. (p. 89). Australia: Hardie Grant Books.
3. Kaplan, T. (1985). On the Socialist Origins of International Women’s Day. Feminist Studies, 11(1), pp. 163-171.
4. Rice, Christopher (1990). Lenin: Portrait of a Professional Revolutionary. London: Cassell. pp. 114-116.
5. (2007, July 11). When women set Russia ablaze. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/when-women-set-russia-ablaze
6. Trudell, M. (2017, May 24). The Women of 1917. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/women-workers-strike-russian-revolution-bolshevik-party-feminism
7. Frencia, C., Gaido, D. (2017, March 8). The Socialist Origins of International Women’s Day. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/international-womens-day-clara-zetkin-working-class-socialist
8. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20110313064904/http://www.mmf2010.info/our-action/le-8-mars-2013-journee-internationale-des-femmes-a-la-recherche-de-la-memoire-perdue
9. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/iwd/iwdarchives.html
All Australians, regardless of our feelings about Donald Trump’s personal behaviour, must recognise that he is President of our great and longtime friend, ally, and security guarantor, the United States’ of America, and was chosen for that office by 63 million of its people.
We must always remember that during World War II Australia was vulnerable to Japanese invasion. Although our defence forces fought with great skill and bravery, we simply didn’t have a large enough population (only 7 million at the time) to guarantee a successful defence of our sparsely populated homeland continent against the relatively gargantuan Japanese Empire of 70 million people. And who came to our aid? As Australia’s ambassador to the United States said in a May 2017 interview on an American news network:
“There are 150,000 dead American soldiers buried in the sand between Australia and Japan, and that’s an inter-generational legacy that we won’t let go of.”
The American people elected Trump. These are the same people who sacrificed 150,000 men so that the Australian continent wouldn’t become an Imperial Japanese internment camp. And they continue to guarantee our security under the ANZUS treaty. That is why we should never accept a Prime Minister who unnecessarily antagonises and connives against a duly elected American President. And Turnbull repeatedly does exactly that, for example:
Turnbull ratified the Paris Climate Accord within hours of Trump’s election win as a slap in the face to Trump, who had campaigned strongly against it.
Turnbull announced, just 5 days after Trump’s election win, that he was going to force Trump into a lose-lose situation by insisting upon a resettlement deal for ‘refugees’ done with Obama that contradicted Trump’s policy platform.
Turnbull mocked Trump, and pushed the idea that Trump was corrupt, with his little stand-up comedy routine at Canberra’s ‘Midwinter Ball’.
After Trump announced the US’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, Turnbull antagonised Trump by announcing that he would welcome Communist China joining the treaty instead.
Turnbull praised, and posted selfies with, the obscene anti-Trump fanatic, Cher.
The Turnbull Government actually triggered the Trump-Russia witch-hunt by Obama’s FBI
…and much more, as I will now document in greater detail.
Turnbull snubs Trump on trip to the US
Turnbull’s anti-Trump activities begin on the 19th of January 2016, during a Prime Ministerial trip to Washington DC. Donald Trump was then the front-running candidate for the Republican Party Presidential nomination, yet Turnbull chose to snub both him and the second-running Republican candidate Ted Cruz (a strong conservative).
Turnbull had conversations with the front-runner for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, as well as the highest-placed Republican he could possibly stomach, Marco Rubio, but “attempted no contact” with Trump or Cruz.
Turnbull media ally Laurie Oakes, reporting on Turnbull’s US trip, wrote:
“…no one close to either [Trump or Cruz] was invited to an Australian embassy dinner for Republican officials to meet the Australian leader. That is despite the fact that experts Turnbull spoke to in Washington advised him that, on current evidence, one of those men, rather than Rubio or any of the other “establishment” Republican candidates, would be Hillary Clinton’s opponent at the end of the year…
The truth is that [Turnbull] dreads the thought of either Trump, nuttily Right-wing and populist, or Cruz, darling of Tea Party extremists, becoming president of the US…he would prefer, although he can hardly say so publicly, to see Clinton and the Democrats win…when asked late last year what kind of president Trump would make, Turnbull laughed but declined to comment.”
In July 2016 the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), under then US President Barack Obama, opened an “investigation” into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
Why did this happen? Because of the Turnbull Government.
In May 2016 the Turnbull Government’s High Commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer, was at the Kensington Wine Rooms in London. There he met George Papadopoulos, a 28-year-old, unpaid, minnow working for the Trump campaign’s foreign policy advisory panel. It is claimed that Papadopolous told Downer that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Within 48 hours Downer sent an official cable to the Turnbull Government. Then, according to media reports:
“Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their [Obama administration]… counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”
After discussions with the Obama administration, the Turnbull Government actually went so far as to break with standard diplomatic protocol so that High Commissioner Downer could be formally interviewed by the FBI about his meeting with Papadopoulos.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Turnbull Government’s handling of this was also a breach of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence sharing arrangements between Australia, the United States and three other countries. All information is supposed to be co-ordinated via intelligence agencies to prevent political manipulation. This was flouted in the Papadopoulos case. Australia’s intelligence agencies, if they received the Papadopoulos information at all, did not feel it was necessary to alert the FBI because the official FBI documents that launched the investigation contain no foreign intelligence whatsoever.
It was the information from the Turnbull Government that triggered the opening of an investigation by eager anti-Trump forces within the then Obama-controlled FBI.
Turnbull’s horror at Trump election win
On US election night in early November 2016, immediately after Trump’s victory speech, Turnbull called a press conference in Canberra. Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt said the following about that press conference:
“When Trump won the election Malcolm Turnbull acted like it was a disaster. He called a press conference telling us not to panic. Turnbull seemed appalled and totally unprepared for Trump.”
First thing the following morning Turnbull ratified the Paris Climate Accord to slap Trump (who had campaigned strongly against it) in the face as publicly and obviously as he possibly could. He couldn’t even wait one day. He then walked into parliament and, again contradicting Trump, gave praise to Barack Obama:
“We have had a very good relationship with the current administration…President Obama has served the world well…”
That is not the opinion of the Liberal Party’s grand elder, John Howard, whose government is seen as the gold standard for modern Coalition governments.
Howard has severely criticised Barack Obama for his contribution to global affairs over a long period of time. In 2007 Howard said an Obama election victory would be a victory for Al Qaeda (proven prescient). In 2014 he said Obama was complacent about the terrorist threat. In 2015 he rebuked Obama for “wading into domestic political differences on climate change” during the 2014 G20 Summit in Brisbane. In 2017 Howard said:
“…the decline in America’s influence in the world during the Obama administration was very marked, to say the least, and I think we are still paying a very heavy price in relation to places such as the Ukraine and Crimea and the Middle East. I’ve never forgotten President Obama’s West Point commencement speech of 2014 in which he virtually, at the very least, inferred that the administration regarded the ‘Islamic’ terrorist threat as “in retreat”, and yet, within a very short period of time we had IS bursting out of Syria and parts of Iraq.”
Trump has, of course, repudiated, and sought to overturn, Obama’s legacy with regard to global affairs, and has said Obama is perhaps the worst US President in history.
Refugee deal: Turnbull attempts to check-mate Trump
On the 13th of November 2016, just 5 days after Trump’s election victory, Turnbull decided he would play a game of chicken with our security guarantor, and put Trump in a lose-lose situation. He publicly announced a deal with lame-duck President Obama to assess and resettle asylum seekers still held in Australia’s offshore refugee processing centres in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru.
It should be noted that the deal only obliged the US to go through the process of assessment for between 1,250 and 2,000 people on Nauru and PNG’s Manus Island. It did not oblige the US to actually take anyone, but only to act in good faith. The deal, therefore, seems designed purely to damage Trump politically because, even if he had ultimately decided not to accept a single person, he would still initially be forced to publicly acknowledge the deal’s existence.
It is claimed by Turnbull that this deal was agreed to all the way back in January 2016 and had a “long run-up” but that claim is dubious, and the deal appears to have only been signed after Trump’s election win, which was achieved, in no short measure, by his policies and rhetoric on restricting immigration.
According to reports the deal hadn’t yet been finalised even days after the 13th of November announcement. A report in The Australian newspaper on the 16th of November said:
“The Prime Minister and Mr Obama are planning to meet at the APEC forum in Lima to discuss progress on the agreement for the US to take asylum-seekers…Mr Obama is attending the APEC meeting this weekend for his last major summit before the inauguration of Mr Trump on January 20, setting up a chance for Australia to cement the resettlement arrangement before the transition to a new administration.”
So it appears the deal was deliberately contrived by Barack Obama and Turnbull, two ideological fellow-travellers, to put Trump in a lose-lose situation and destabilise him as he was trying to settle into the presidency. Given the Obama administration’s surveillance and espionage efforts against the Trump campaign, we know Obama is certainly capable of such things.
In an appearance on Sky News [2nd Feb, 2017], editor of The Spectator magazine, Rowan Dean, explained the situation:
“…they finalised this deal with Obama which was so obviously going to completely put Donald Trump in an impossible position, because Obama and Turnbull stitched up this deal after Donald Trump had been elected and after he had made it very clear that he was going to ban immigration from…certain middle eastern countries…Donald Trump has got no choice other than to either disappoint his base, the people who voted for him, or to disappoint Australia. He’s been put in the impossible position and it’s all Malcolm Turnbull’s doing, and this idea that somehow this reflects poorly on Donald Trump is a complete nonsense…the polls in America show that Americans, I think its two-to-one in one poll, 50-50 in another poll, certainly the support is there for the actions and so by forcing Trump into this position, which Turnbull and Bishop have done, they’re basically saying to at least half, possibly two-thirds of the American population, we’re going to play these games with you.”
Here Rowan Dean correctly identifies one of the ultimate intended targets of Turnbull’s anti-Trump offensive, namely the conservative-voting American public. These are the same types of Americans who, in great numbers, join and support the US military that has been, and still is, so crucial to protecting Australia. And yet our Prime Minister wants to antagonise them. Think about that.
The deal threatens US national security
Consider the following scenario. What if the US accepts some of our refugees, and one of them turns out to be a terrorist who commits a major atrocity inside the US? What will the American people think when they study the background of this terrorist, who murdered their countrymen, and find out that he was only allowed in their country because of arm-twisting by an Australian Prime Minister?
Terrorists have been known to pose as humanitarian cases to infiltrate western countries, and there are numerous cases of asylum seekers, supposed refugees, and their children, involved in terrorist activities.
Examples from Australia include:
The 2009 case of Saney Aweys (‘refugee’ from Somalia) who, with others, planned to murder 500 Australian Defence Force personnel at Holsworthy army barracks.
The 2013 case of Mohammad Ali Baryalei (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan) who traveled from Sydney to Syria to fight for ‘Islamic State’.
The September 2014 case of Abdul Numan Haider (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan) who brutally stabbed two police officers in Melbourne.
The December 2014 case of Man Haron Monis (‘refugee’ from Iran) who took several hostages at the Lindt Cafe in Sydney’s CBD, killing two.
The June 2017 case of Yacqub Khayre (‘refugee’ from Somalia/Kenya) who murdered a receptionist and took a woman hostage at an apartment block in Brighton, Melbourne.
Some examples from other countries include:
The April 2013 case of the Tsarnaev brothers (asylum grantees from Russia) who carried out the Boston Bombing in the United States.
The July 2016 case of Riaz Khan Ahmadzai (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan/Pakistan) who attacked people with an axe on a train in Germany.
The September 2016 case of Ahmad Khan Rahimi (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan) who bombed a charity run for U.S. military personnel in New Jersey, in addition to other targets.
The November 2016 case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan (‘refugee’ from Somalia) who drove his car into a crowd and stabbed people at Ohio State University in the United States.
The May 2017 case of Salman Ramadan Abedi (‘refugee’ parents from Libya) who suicide-bombed a concert in Manchester, U.K..
The September 2017 case of Ahmed Hassan (‘refugee’ from Iraq) who bombed a packed rush-hour train in London.
Even if the refugees accepted by the US are not subsequently involved in terrorism, there is still massive public relations damage caused to Australia because the deal is seen to be a threat by the American people. It has been publicly criticised on that score by media commentators and members of the Trump administration. Trump’s then Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, said at a press conference, in response to questioning by an Australian journalist:
“The President is unbelievably disappointed in the previous administration’s deal that was made…and the threat to national security it put the United States under.”
By February 2018 the US had already accepted well over 100 people from both Papua New Guinea and Nauru including many Afghans and Pakistanis.
The deal threatens Australia’s national security as well
Not only does this deal threaten our national security by hurting our relationship with the American people, it also threatens it by encouraging the people smugglers. Indonesia’s senior police commissioner for human, child and sex trafficking acknowledged this saying the deal will be a “breath of fresh air for people-smugglers”. Similarly, The Australian newspaper’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, said:
“…it gives people-smugglers a magnificent new version of the old product they have always been selling, an immigration outcome in a first-world country…The US deal represented a kind of capitulation from Canberra. It suggests that the old tactic of outwaiting the Australian government is effective eventually.
The other problem with the deal was that it used up way too much of Australia’s strategic capital with Washington for an issue of no real strategic significance. It is certainly a bad way to start things off with the new administration.”
Restarting the unauthorised boat arrivals via the people smuggling trade will mean a loss of control over the content of our immigration intake, and increases the risk of terrorists gaining entry. It also costs a fortune, and will exacerbate the massive debt and deficit problem.
Perhaps the best evidence that this deal threatens Australia’s border protection and national security is that it is supported by the Labor Party, but it’s not the only Turnbull Government policy in this area that is backed by Labor. The government is now saying it is favourable towards the offer from left-wing New Zealand Labour Party Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, to resettle people in New Zealand, a country with whom, of course, we have free movement arrangements.
The people smugglers have already been stimulated into action by these policies. In May 2018 a large boat carrying 131 Sri Lankans was intercepted by Malaysian authorities on its way to Australia. The operation was the biggest and most sophisticated of its kind in a very long time. The government tried to blame this on Labor, but Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt made the obvious point:
“This government has been in power…it’s the actions of this government that make the difference, and those actions include making a deal with the United States that has got, now, more than 100 people off Manus Island…and Nauru to America. So…I think it’s the government’s actions rather than Labor’s talk that would’ve made the difference.”
Why did Turnbull make this deal?
Turnbull certainly didn’t make this deal to gain votes because the voters who would support asylum seekers going to a first-world country, and thus stimulating the people smuggling business, are all of the far left, and they will not vote Liberal under any circumstances. Swinging voters are conservative on this issue, which is why Labor are always forced to act like they will maintain border protection before an election.
No doubt some will contend that Turnbull made the deal because of the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court’s April 2016 ruling that asylum seekers in that country must not be forcibly detained, and must be allowed to roam around. But given that the deal the Australian government struck with Papua New Guinea in 2013 allowed for resettlement of refugees in that country anyway, allowing them the freedom to move around the country isn’t much of an issue.
Did he do it out of sympathy for the people on Manus and Nauru? Firstly, the moral obligation to refugees is to provide them safety and security, not a first-world migration outcome with lavish welfare benefits. Genuine refugees would be happy with safety, which is exactly what these people have available to them. Secondly, as I will detail later, Turnbull’s deal doesn’t require the US to take s single person. Thirdly, if you think Malcolm Turnbull truly cares about the plight of the downtrodden, you need to wake yourself up by reading the rest of our material here at StopTurnbull.com.
So if Turnbull didn’t do this deal with Obama for political gain, out of necessity, or out of sympathy, then why did he do it? The obvious answer is that he did it to attack someone he perceived to be a powerful ideological enemy, Donald Trump, whilst simultaneously serving the borderless agenda of the leftist-globalists.
Turnbull actually wants to destroy the Howard-Abbott ‘Pacific Solution’ because the policy is a sin against the globalist ideology, and treaty regime, of the UN elites, as they so often remind us. As StopTurnbull.com has documented, Turnbull personal views are, and have always been, opposed to effective border protection. He has repeatedly undermined the ‘Pacific Solution’ by calling it “harsh” and “cruel”, and only maintained the strong policy of Tony Abbott for as long as he did due to backbench pressure.
Turnbull’s taunts Trump over TPP
On the 23rd of January 2017 Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States as a signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a supranational trade and regulatory treaty originally entered into by 12 countries. Turnbull immediately and publicly antagonised Trump by proposing that Communist China (obviously the US’s primary strategic competitor in the Asia-Pacific region) replace the United States.
The infamous phone call
The Turnbull-Trump phone call took place at about 9am Canberra time on the 29th of January, 2017. Just a day earlier Trump had signed an executive order placing heavy restrictions on immigration from several countries from which terrorists tend to originate.
If you read the leaked transcript of the phone call it was clear Trump wasn’t going to take an aggressive posture against Turnbull with regard to the deal, no doubt due to his high regard for Australia and his being misinformed that this deal was somehow good for Australia.
Given this deal was a mere executive agreement, Trump had the absolute legal right to scrap it, and tell Turnbull to get stuffed. He also had a democracy-based argument for doing so considering the deal was struck after his election win on a platform of implementing strong new border protection and national security policies. Yet he didn’t go on the front foot against Turnbull. Instead, despite his justifiable irritation, he bent over backwards to do what he thought was needed to accommodate a close friend in Australia. Turnbull took advantage of this, hijacking the good name of Australia for his nefarious scheme.
Trump actually gave Turnbull the opportunity to present any back-down as a favour to him, a favour that he was willing to repay many times over to Australia’s benefit. It was easy to see that Trump is the kind of person who, if you make a good first impression with him, or do a favour for him in a tough situation, he remembers it for the rest of his life. He even stated this publicly just one day before the Turnbull phone call, at his press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May:
“I can often tell how I get along with somebody very early and I believe we’re going to have a fantastic relationship.”
That statement is ominous for Australia if Turnbull remains Prime Minister.
Embellished and distorted leaks to the Washington Post
The phone call was meant to be private, but a few days after it happened the Washington Post (a left-wing, establishment US newspaper) published an attack piece on Trump that contained a few supposed quotes from the phone call, apparently leaked by US officials. But the full transcript of the phone call, released 6 months later, reveals that most of these quotes were deliberately embellished and/or distorted to make Trump look crazy, crude and foolish, or they were outright fakes.
I will now list all the so-called quotes published in the initial Washington Post attack piece [2nd Feb, 2017] and explain how they compare to the later released transcript:
“This was the worst call by far“ – Embellished – The Washington Post reported that Trump mentioned other world leaders he had called that day, and said “this was the worse call by far”. That is false. Trump did mention the other world leaders but never said “by far” or anything similar. Furthermore, he didn’t even use the word “worst”. He simply said that it was his “most unpleasant call” for that day.
“This is the worst deal ever“ – Embellished – Trump uses a few different pejoratives to describe the deal, but nothing in the transcript even comes close to suggesting Trump was of the opinion that this was the worst deal “ever”. This was clearly concocted to make Trump look crude and childish.
“going to get killed“ – Real – Trump did say “I am going to get killed on this thing…I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week”.
“next Boston bombers“ – Distorted – The Washington Post reported that Trump “accused Australia” of seeking to export the next Boston Bombers. Trump did mention the Boston Bombers (who had entered the US as asylum seekers) but only in the context of inquiring about the refugees’ backgrounds. He didn’t accuse Australia of anything.
“I don’t want these people“ – Distorted – This appears nowhere in the transcript. There are sentences that could be considered to have similar meaning, but this sentence doesn’t appear.
“my intention“ – Fake – The Washington Post reported that Trump only told Turnbull that it his “intention” to honour the agreement, to leave himself room to back out of the deal. That is false. The transcript shows that Trump clearly and unambiguously agreed to go through with the deal, and never used the phrase “my intention” anywhere.
“extreme vetting“ – Real – Trump said “vet them very closely” when referring directly to the Australian refugees, but did also use the phrase “extreme vetting” in a broader policy context.
There were other deceitful claims in the article.
Firstly, the Washington Post claimed that Trump “repeatedly misstated the number of refugees called for in the agreement as 2,000 rather than 1,250”. This claim is false. The agreement calls for a maximum intake of between 1,250 and 2,000, as Turnbull explicitly states in the phone call:
“The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose – 1,250 to 2,000.”
Secondly, the article claimed that Trump “boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win” in the phone call. If you read what Trump said about the electoral college vote in the transcript, it can’t possibly be described as boasting when read in context. Here is exactly what Trump said:
“Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this.”
As you can see, it is actually the opposite to boasting, because Trump was suggesting that he was not personally responsible for his election win, and was only able to navigate what seemed to be an impossible electoral college pathway to victory because people were sick of bad Democrat policies, like this refugee deal. In other words, Trump was saying that people were voting against the Democrats, rather than in favour of him.
Who was the original leaker?
Some have theorised that Trump himself authorised the leaks to the Washington Post to show his voters that he is serious about border security. This is nonsensical for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the Washington Post has been an avowed enemy of Trump from the beginning of his candidacy. It could not be trusted to present the story in a way that helped Trump, and indeed it didn’t. At the time of the phone call Trump had just, about a week before, been sworn into the presidency and, given the extraordinary street riots, impeachment talk, and media coverage questioning his mental fitness, he needed to present a reassuring public image of stability and sanity to quiet things down and settle in. That is not what he got from the Washington Post article which allowed the media to further build their strawman of Trump as a security risk and an international embarrassment.
Secondly, prior to the phone call the deal had already been taken for granted as going ahead by Trump, because he included a special provision in his executive order [section 5(e)], signed the day before, to exempt the deal from the new immigration restrictions. Trump again confirmed that the deal would go ahead in his phone call with Turnbull, but simply made a completely reasonable last-ditch attempt to persuade Turnbull to withdraw the deal as a favour. Given the deal was definitely going ahead, it was not in Trump’s political interests, with regard to his voter constituency, for the then low profile refugee deal to blow-up and become more publicly known.
Thirdly, the author of the Washington Post article, Greg Miller, has denied the leak came from Trump. In an interview on Sky News [2nd Feb, 2017], Miller strongly suggested the leak didn’t come from Trump, saying:
“I wouldn’t go so far as to assume that this was…a leak that was orchestrated by Trump himself…that would be mistaken….I would caution you away from concluding that this is a plant from this white house to exploit this conversation for political gain. I’m not sure that they’re quite that calculating.”
Is there any chance that Trump’s opponents within the bureaucracy leaked it? The problem with that theory is that transcripts of these conversations are only provided to a very small group of people from a President’s trusted inner circle. As John Bolton said in a February 2017 interview with Breitbart News (over a year before he was appointed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor):
“I’ve seen transcripts of Presidential calls with foreign leaders, and they’re distributed to a very small circle of people. Very small circle of people…”
It is my view that the original leak, with the embellished quotes, came from Turnbull himself. He probably delivered it to the Washington Post via ideologically-friendly contacts within the US bureaucracy, which at that time would’ve still been saturated with Obama appointments. This allowed the Washington Post article to state that the source of the leaks was “senior U.S. officials”, thus naturally resulting in the reader assuming that the origin of the leak was the US government itself.
The leak actually appears to have been part of Turnbull and Obama’s plan from the beginning. Having put Trump in a lose-lose political situation, they wanted to prevent him keeping the matter low profile and diplomatic in the public sphere. Instead, they wanted to maximise the damage by making public as much explicit, direct-from-Trump material as possible. The phone call offered the opportunity because Trump would be talking frankly, under the impression that it was a private conversation.
It is important to note that Turnbull is the one who raised the issue as his number one priority in the phone call, which was their very first formal contact. He didn’t have to raise such a controversial matter within the first few minutes of their very first formal phone call, especially since Trump had already essentially agreed to go forward with the deal before the call by putting the exemption in his executive order. Discussions about the deal could’ve been had at lower levels of authority in order to protect the personal relationship between the leaders of important allies. It seems Turnbull insisted on bringing it up because he needed material directly from Trump that he could leak and cause a stir with, as per the plan. Statements from others in the Trump administration wouldn’t generate the media and public interest necessary to do political damage to Trump.
Leaks of this sort also hurt Trump in that they make world leaders, and other people, less likely to confide in him privately with important information.
Turnbull’s bogus defence: “I’m standing up for Australia”
When the Washington Post article came out, and the matter blew up in the media, Turnbull had the following exchange with a journalist:
Journalist: “Prime Minister…I think the Australian public would be interested in your relationship with our most important partner. Did [Trump] hang up the phone to you earlier than you expected?”
Turnbull: I’m not going to comment on these reports of a conversation. Australians know me very well. I always stand up for Australia in every forum.
His claim that “I always stand up for Australia”, apart from implicitly bolstering the Washington Post article, would actually strike anyone who knows him very well as blatantly absurd. Turnbull has made it his business to repeatedly attack Australia, right down to its very origin.
He has called the colonisation of Australia an “invasion“, praised an aborigine who is recorded as having murdered at least one unarmed settler, and has effectively said that all non-aboriginal people in Australia are unjust occupiers.
In 1988 the country celebrated 200 years since the arrival of the First Fleet. Turnbull called it a “year of shame”.1 That was the same year he became a director of AusFlag, an organisation dedicated to getting rid of the Australian flag and supporting an ugly, pagan replacement.2 Indeed, hanging in his Parliament House office is an artwork titled “Majority Rule“, which shows an ‘aboriginal flag’ flying over Old Parliament House, with no Australian flag in sight.
Turnbull has also attacked federation, calling our Australian Constitution “a woefully undemocratic document”; “a drab and misleading document”; and a “tortured piece of late-Victorian prose” that is full of “ill-conceived anachronisms”.3 He said our founding fathers “fell into error” when writing it.
He has mocked that great pillar of Australian culture that we call ‘mateship‘, and opposed its inclusion in the constitution. He has repeatedly disrespected Australian Defence Force personnel by ignoring or abolishing various services and commemorations, and by defending the ABC amidst their attack on Navy personnel.
He has undermined national security. He has attacked our border protection regime, calling it “harsh” and “cruel”, and has implemented policies that stimulate people-smugglers. He has delayed crucial military hardware purchases, used them to pork-barrel marginal electorates, and used suppliers that are compromised by data leaks.
He has undermined national unity by promoting a pernicious doctrine of multiculturalism, saying we should assimilate to the new immigrants rather than they to us. He says it’s a good thing, for example, that 600,000 people in Australia speak Chinese as their primary language, adding that “China is part of Australia”. This is thinly-disguised neo-colonisation and balkanisation designed to break Australia apart so that we are no longer a distinct, united, sovereign nation.
His republican push is a front for effectively abolishing the Australia we have known and loved, and founding a new “Australia” on a leftist-“progressive” philosophical basis, with himself as founding father. He wants to pull Australia out by the roots, graft on some mutant branches, and re-plant it in his own noxious soil. He even publicly admits in his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic that the new republic is designed to “define our nationhood”.4
As Tony Abbott once wrote:
“…many republicans don’t want to celebrate our identity ― but to change it ― and the dump-the-Queen-change-the-flag push is just the latest expression of the “black armband” view of Australian history, that we are an illegitimate nation redeemable only by up-rooting our past.”5
So, clearly, Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t “stand up for Australia”. Instead, he laboriously chips away at its every pillar. He wants the Australia we love to be demolished, and is cunningly pursuing that outcome as Prime Minister.
The Mid-winter Ball and other insults
On the 14th of June 2017, at the Canberra Press Gallery’s Mid-Winter Ball, Turnbull made a well-rehearsed speech that viciously mocked Donald Trump, and suggested he was corrupt. The mocking involved an impression of Trump boasting about his poll numbers, including a joke about rigging opinion polls with the help of a “Russian guy”.
Although Turnbull claims that he didn’t intend for the comedy routine to be made public (journalists attending vow not to report on the event), he would’ve known it would leak, and that was his intention from the beginning. In fact, my suspicion is that he recorded and leaked it himself, via a proxy, to ensure everything went as intended. The recipient of the leak, Channel 9’s Laurie Oakes (who didn’t attend the Ball), is a Turnbull ally and could be relied upon to put the video and the story out in exactly the way Turnbull wanted.
Turnbull made it publicly clear before the Ball that his speech was pre-planned. A tweet posted by his office said “Final touches to the @Midwinter_Ball speech” with a photo of him and his wife in front of a computer. This tweet suggests that this attack on Trump wasn’t an off-the-cuff gag after a few too many drinks.
This blatant attack proves that Turnbull’s approach with Trump has never been to tread carefully in order to serve the national interest of Australia, as Turnbull’s left-wing media allies claim. Turnbull has sought to maintain the superficial appearance of public diplomacy toward Trump, whilst taking every opportunity to antagonise him. He is more than willing to hurt Australia if he can hurt Trump in the process.
In March 2018 Turnbull attended the Sydney Mardi Gras, as he does almost every year. There he met pop-star Cher, a notorious Trump-hater who has posted (literally) thousands of anti-Trump tweets. Cher has publicly stated the following opinions of Donald Trump:
Turnbull’s ministers have followed his lead on Trump. For instance, on the 12th of April 2018 Trump indicated his willingness to re-join the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the condition that changes were made so that it wasn’t ripping off American workers. Turnbull’s trade minister, Steve Ciobo, immediately came out saying it won’t happen.
Turnbull’s ministers have also launched explicit personal attacks on Trump. Josh Frydenberg twice called Trump a “dropkick“, although he later recanted; Christopher Pyne called Trump “terrifying“; and Julie Bishop, when asked about Trump’s comment “you’re in such great shape” to the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, slyly retorted with: “It’s a rather interesting comment to make. I wonder if she could say the same of him.”
Bishop though made no such rebuke of Emmanuel Macron when he called Malcolm Turnbull’s wife “delicious“.
Trump clearly places a high value on good personal relationships, and so all of the aforementioned insults would have profound meaning to him. He rightly feels that virtually every country in the world, even allies, are looking to take advantage of the United States whenever they can. Because of Turnbull’s actions, Trump has been forced to put Australia in that category, saying at one press conference:
“We’re negotiating properly with countries, even countries that are allies. A lot of people taking advantage of us, a lot of countries taking advantage of us, really terribly taking advantage of us, we had one instance in Australia, I have a lot of respect for Australia, I love Australia as a country, but we had a problem where, for whatever reason, President Obama said that they were going to take probably well over 1,000 illegal immigrants who were in prisons, and they were going to bring them and take them into this country and I just said ‘Why?..Why are we doing this? What’s the purpose?’. So we’ll see what happens but…previous administration does something you have to respect that…We have some wonderful allies and we’re going to keep it that way, but we have to be treated fairly also.”
That statement is an utter disaster for Australia, and one that would’ve previously been unthinkable. Because of Turnbull’s conniving, the American people – our dear friends who saved our beloved continent from Imperial Japanese occupation in World War 2 – now think Australians are taking advantage of them. Such is the gravity of Turnbull provocations, we are even singled out on that score. This international public relations calamity is alone justification for Turnbull’s immediate expulsion from the Prime Ministership.
Trump bent over backwards to honour the Turnbull-Obama refugee deal because he thought it was a good thing for the Australian people, who he has previously praised. For example, this tweet from 2011:
Australia is a beautiful country with terrific people who love America.
He has too much on his plate (peace on the Korean peninsula, for example) to study this matter in depth, and realise this was a deal done by a left-wing Australian Prime Minister and a left-wing American President that was not only bad for America, but also bad for Australia, and was deliberately designed to damage him politically.
Although Trump has shown great restraint, and has not sought retaliation for Turnbull’s hostile actions, a couple of things indicate that he won’t be doing anymore special favours for Australia. The public relations facade, that the relationship is fine and there is no lasting damage, is wrong. Firstly there is the lack of a US Ambassador to Australia since Trump took office. In February 2018 Trump announced that Admiral Harry Harris would be the new ambassador but Harris was subsequently re-directed to South Korea. There is also the fact that, although Australia has received an exemption from Trump’s steel tariffs, we will nevertheless have import quotas imposed on us, which means we won’t be able to substantially increase steel exports to the United States.
Had Turnbull’s approach to Trump been co-operative, rather than combative, Australia could’ve gained massively, whilst at the same time helping a close friend and ridding ourselves of a bad deal. To Turnbull though, Australia’s national interest is irrelevant. He cares only about furthering leftist-globalist ideology and, of course, himself.
Fake opinion polling is a useful tool in covert and clandestine operations, and can be used in a variety of scenarios for a variety of purposes. It can be used, for example: to provide cover for election fraud; to sway the votes of parliamentarians; and to manipulate true public opinion.
Polling can be faked outright, or, as is more often the case, subtly manipulated via seemingly minor changes in methods and formulas. David Moore, a former executive of major US polling company Gallup, said in his book The Superpollsters:
“The views that people express in polls are very much influenced by the polling process itself…Slight differences…can have profound consequences.” 1
The ‘sampling’ process & the 2016 US Presidential election
One area of polling where differences can have profound consequences is the ‘sampling’ process. ‘Sampling’ is an attempt to overcome the impracticality of polling an entire electorate made up of millions of people. Instead, a relatively tiny subset of people are chosen who are supposed to be representative of the whole. The process by which this subset is chosen is called ‘sampling’, and it can be deliberately manipulated to produce particular results.
During the 2016 US Presidential election, opinion polling from establishment polling companies consistently pointed to a Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party) victory, but some people studying the data in detail pointed out that registered Democrats were being “oversampled”, meaning too many registered Democrats were included in the polls relative to their prevalence in the entire electorate.
After the election, veteran pollster John Zogby was asked why most of the polls were wrong, and said “They were oversampling Democrats…”.
There is direct evidence that this sort of “oversampling” is deliberate.
In October 2016 Wikileaks released private emails from Democratic Party operatives discussing how they manipulate polls by “oversampling” demographics more likely to vote Democrat.
It should be noted that ideological/political operatives are often involved in polling companies, for instance, Hillary Clinton’s chief political strategist for her 2008 campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination was Mark Penn, the founder of ‘Penn Schoen Berland’, a international polling company.
In one of the aforementioned emails released by Wikileaks, a Democratic Party operative is writing to two of his colleagues saying:
“Hey, when can we meet? I also want to get your…folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.”
Attached to that email was a 37-page guide containing specific instructions on how to oversample to achieve desired results.
One of the polling companies accused of oversampling Democrats was YouGov, an international polling company based in the UK. In the lead up to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election they conducted weekly opinion polls on voter intentions, every one of which had Hillary Clinton winning comfortably. Political commentator Bill Mitchell, one of very few who predicted Trump’s election victory, says, for instance, a YouGov poll taken in August 2016 had a sample that over-represented registered Democrats by around 16%.
The significance of YouGov’s activities will become apparent as you read further.
Polling fraud also happens in Australia
In October 2017 The Australian newspaper reported that fake polling was being circulated about the federal electorate of New England in the days before the High Court decision on New England MP Barnaby Joyce’s eligibility to sit in parliament. The polling was bad for Joyce, and was apparently meant to pressure him into not re-contesting the seat in a by-election if found ineligible. Joyce though, did re-contest when he was found ineligble and won the seat in a massive landslide.
In August 2013 Clive Palmer was interviewed by Emma Alberici on the ABC’s Lateline program and the following exchange took place regarding his activities during his time as Campaign Director for the National Party in QLD:
Palmer: When I was a former party director there were polling companies that I used to give large donations to, and they’d write the results for them.
Alberici: Are you saying the polling’s rigged?
Palmer: Well, of course the polling’s rigged in Australia.
We even had an blatant public attempt at polling fraud recently, with Waleed Aly, a host of Channel 10’s The Project, using the program to encourage his Labor and Green-voting audience to lie to pollsters to prevent Turnbull losing his 30th Newspoll in a row.
Even when honestly undertaken, the political opinion polling carried out by companies like Galaxy Research, Essential Media, Reachtel, and Ipsos, is often presented as having far greater weight than it deserves by agenda-driven media outlets. Up-ticks and down-ticks can be used by the media to create public hysteria, and build political momentum. Polls can thus feed back into themselves and become self-fulfilling, as in the ‘bandwagon effect’.
The public release of polls can also be timed by the agenda-driven media outlets who commission them, in order to achieve a particular desired political effect. Sky News host Paul Murray highlighted an example of this in December 2017.
Turnbull’s Poll Problem: The YouGov Solution?
Malcolm Turnbull cunningly used poll hysteria to launch his putsch against Tony Abbott, citing Abbott’s 30 consecutive two-party preferred Newspoll losses. But by the end of 2016 Turnbull himself had lost his 6th Newspoll in a row. As his losing streak continued, commentators began recalling the polling benchmark he established to attack Tony Abbott, saying his position would be untenable if he replicated it.
The pressure was now well and truly on. It was estimated that, if he continued his Newspoll losing streak he would reach the 30 milestone at some point in early 2018.
What to do? What to do?
In December 2017 came the announcement that YouGov, the aforementioned international polling company, had purchased Galaxy Research, the company that runs Newspoll.
YouGov had only been in Australia for a short time at that point. In fact they seem to have started operations in Australia only a couple of months after Turnbull’s ascension to the Prime Ministership in 2015. In late June 2017, just as Turnbull was approaching his 15th consecutive Newspoll loss, YouGov started running an opinion poll, under the YouGov brand, on the federal voting intentions of Australians. That poll was notorious among experienced poll watchers for its outlier status, heavily favouring the Coalition above all other polls (see graph below). Veteran polling analyst William Bowe, author of the Poll Bludger blog, even refused to put YouGov’s two-party preferred numbers in his post headings, which is his normal practice for other polls, preferring instead to post them amidst disclaimers. Bowe called the YouGov poll “very unusual“, “highly unorthodox“, and “out on a limb”. According to Bowe YouGov are “weighting heavily by past vote” and their samples don’t have enough respondents from the youngest age group.
Below i’ve drawn a graph showing all of YouGov’s two-party preferred polling results for their original YouGov-branded poll, which ran bi-weekly from late June 2017 until mid-December 2017. For comparison, on the same graph i’ve plotted the two-party preferred results from 4 other major opinion polling companies, including Newspoll results prior to December, when it was announced that Newspoll had been acquired by YouGov.
With these uniquely eccentric results, and no brand name recognition in Australia, YouGov was not taken seriously by anyone of any influence. It was still all about Newspoll, Newspoll, and Newspoll. That was the brand name with the excellent reputation that politicians, especially Liberals, took very seriously. Indeed, that’s why Turnbull had cited it in the first place.
When YouGov announced that they had acquired Newspoll, in December 2017, they even casually stated that it was indeed about buying Newspoll’s reputation, but applying YouGov’s “operating model”:
“With YouGov’s operating model and panel, and Galaxy’s reputation and foothold, the combined business will be in a strong position…”
What wasn’t announced in December 2017 though was that the methodology for calculating Newspoll’s two-party preferred numbers was radically changed at this very time. It was only months later, on the 30th of April 2018, that any change was publicly acknowledged by YouGov. The change apparently involves an increased preference flow from One Nation to the Coalition based on the results of the WA and Queensland state elections but, as polling analyst William Bowe said:
“…the exact split of One Nation preferences being used by Newspoll remains a trade secret.”
According to the 30th of April newspaper article that first revealed the methodology change, the last 8 Newspoll results, at that point, had been conducted using it. That would mean the first Newspoll using the new methodology would be the one released on the 4th of December, which saw the Coalition up-tick from 45 to 47 in the two-party preferred measure.
Below i’ve drawn a graph of Newspoll results before and after the methodology change and, as you can see, the change coincided with the beginning of an upward trend for the Coalition.
The “coincidences” don’t stop there.
Lately, whenever Turnbull is under pressure over policy or leadership there seems to be an up-tick in Newspoll just in time to pacify the backbench, many of whom are money-grubbers and careerists who are happy to sell out the values of Menzies if they think their seat is safe.
There are also down-ticks, but only when Turnbull’s leadership is looking secure.
In early April Turnbull’s leadership was under serious pressure as he was about to lose his 30th consecutive Newspoll, thus failing his own standard. Although this did indeed eventuate, there was a convenient up-tick from 47 to 48, which took the wind out of the sails of any challenge. Turnbull could use a “trajectory” argument to protect his leadership through this dangerous phase. When the next Newspoll up-ticked to 49, the whole 30-in-a-row issue went quiet. These up-ticks had come at the perfect time for Turnbull.
The Newspoll remained on 49 until the 28th of May, when it went down to 48 just a few days after the date for a series of by-elections was announced. The knowledge of an upcoming election tends to temporarily quell internal party divisions.
The Newspoll stayed at 48 for a while, but in late June Turnbull came under serious pressure over his “National Energy Guarantee” policy. A large segment of the Liberal backbench were pressuring him to get approval from the party-room before finalising a deal with Labor state premiers at the next Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in August. The Newspoll published on the 2nd of July provided a much needed up-tick for Turnbull.
If Turnbull comes under more pressure over the “National Energy Guarantee” (which is just an emissions trading scheme with better public relations) Newspoll might even produce a 50-50 result.
At this point there might be some ardent coincidence theorists who have a few questions:
If a politician were committing polling fraud, why would they allow their numbers to down-tick at all?
A strategic drop can be useful, because it can help remove suspicion and make polls look more realistic. If the key issue is maintaining the Liberal leadership, and the poll drop happens at a time when that leadership is safe due to other factors, then it isn’t a risk.
But the 30 straight losses actually eventuated. Wouldn’t stopping that be the whole point?
The answer here is essentially the same as the question above. The point of the enterprise would not be to prevent 30 Newspoll losses in a row. It would instead be to save his leadership so he can continue implementing his policies. Had Turnbull not reached 30, suspicions would have been raised about the new ownership and the methodology changes. Indeed, the ownership and methodology changes did trigger some commentary along those lines. In January 2018 Sky News host Paul Murray said:
“There was one poll that, all the way through last year was the best news for the government…It is this poll. The YouGov poll…that throughout most of 2017 had the government either level or in front…This would otherwise be known as an outlier. But, it’s not an outlier anymore because of this news that alot of people missed towards the end of the year. YouGov…they now own Newspoll. So it’ll be fascinating to see…Has the methodology changed? I don’t know, but there’s certainly a new owner in town and they’ve been far more favourable to team blue than team red. The Prime Minister will be desperately hoping for a change.”
Some people on social media were suspicious but the ABC’s Barrie Cassidy said “conspiracy theorists” should consider the possibility that the new methodology is an improvement.
Had Turnbull not reached 30, there would have been even greater scrutiny on Newspoll’s ownership and methodology changes. Newspoll might no longer have been widely trusted, and up-ticks would not have triggered endorphin release in the brains of Liberal backbenchers.
The important thing for Turnbull was that, even as he hit 30 Newspoll losses in a row, there was no serious threat to his leadership, and that’s because there was an up-tick after the 3 previous Newspolls had the government seemingly stagnant on 47. Newspoll’s undamaged reputation meant the up-tick was taken seriously, thus it pacified the backbench and eliminated the possibility of building momentum for a leadership change.
The next Newspoll was also a loss for Turnbull, and had him breaking Tony Abbott’s record. But again, because he up-ticked to 49 all the talk was positive for him. He was now within “striking distance” and so forth.
Anyone claiming this is all just a coincidence should keep in mind just how many simultaneous coincidences they’re proposing. They’re saying that YouGov just happened to enter the already bloated Australian polling market a couple of months after Turnbull’s ascension, and they just happened to start an outlier poll favouring the Coalition as Turnbull hit the halfway point to his 30-in-a-row Newspoll benchmark, and they just happened to acquire Newspoll when nobody was taking much notice of the YouGov-branded poll, and at this very time there just happened to be a change to the methodology for calculating the very poll result Turnbull was interested in, and that change just happened to benefit Turnbull, and recent up-ticks in Newspoll just happened to occur exactly when Turnbull needed them to secure his leadership and push his policies through the backbench.
For those confident in this coincidence theory, please contact me. I have some ocean-front property to sell you in Alice Springs.
1. Citing Mao Zedong’s Communist China as a model to emulate
Mao Zedong was the founder and dictator of Communist China from 1949 until his death in 1976. Professor Frank Dikötter, a specialist in Chinese History at the University of Hong Kong, recently estimated that under Mao’s reign a minimum of 45 million Chinese people (mostly rural peasants) were murdered by the Communist regime, the greatest mass murder in world history. People were variously starved to death, beaten to death, or worked to death as slave labourers. Countless people were also tortured to death via unspeakably cruel and perverted methods, including burying them alive in human excrement.
Nevertheless, Malcolm Turnbull saw fit to approvingly cite Mao’s China in an interview with Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Hartcher [26th Oct, 2015]:
“Most profoundly, [Turnbull] wants to change the culture; the culture of government, the culture of politics, the culture of business. Even the way Australia presents itself to the world. He cites the founder of modern China, Mao Zedong, in a famous declaration attributed to him in the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 when he said: “The Chinese people have stood up!” And Turnbull adapts it for Australia: “Modern China is built upon an assertion of national sovereignty. And that is why we say to China, ‘The Australian people stand up!”‘ repeating it in Mandarin.”
2. Supporting Syria power-sharing deal with ISIS terrorists
In November 2015, Turnbull said the right approach in Syria is a peacefully negotiated power-sharing deal involving compromise between the various warring factions (which include barbarians like ISIS).
“Where Syria in an ideal world would end up.. is with a regime or a form of government that involved power sharing between the various groups,”— Malcolm Turnbull
This was considered so ridiculous that even Labor’s left-faction leader, Anthony Albanese, opposed it. The following is an excerpt from an interview on Channel 10’s The Bolt Report:
ANDREW BOLT: “Listen, this week, Malcolm Turnbull suggested a ceasefire and a power-sharing deal in Syria that could involve supporters of the Islamic State. Can you see such a peace plan working?”
ANTHONY ALBANESE: “Well, look, absolutely not and it’s an extraordinary thing for Malcolm Turnbull to leave open, such an option. But, again, it’s typical of Malcolm Turnbull. He doesn’t know when to stop talking and make a clear statement. Clearly these people who want to destroy Western civilisation and return to barbarism have no role to play in any civilised arrangements going forward. These people need to be wiped out because what they seek to do is to wipe us and our way of life out. It’s that simple, and Malcolm Turnbull needs to be very clear in his language about that”
3. Saying non-aboriginal Australians are foreigners
Turnbull has made a series of comments implying that European colonisation of Australia was immoral, and that non-aboriginal Australians, even if born and raised in Australia, are foreign invaders who can’t legitimately own any of the land.
For instance, in March of 2016 Turnbull gave a speech at Western Sydney University praising violent resistance to European colonisation of Australia. In particular, he praised an aboriginal man who is recorded as having murdered at least one settler (allegedly many more), and engaged in a long and violent campaign against others:
“Now we acknowledge the Darug people, upon whose lands we meet and we honour their elders past and present. And we especially honour the courageous resistance of the Bidjigal man, Pemulwuy, originally from Botany Bay district, who led the resistance against British settlers right across the Sydney Basin, especially here in what we now call Western Sydney.”
The following is an account of the murder of British gamekeeper John McIntyre in December, 1790:
“About one o’clock, the sergeant was awakened by a rustling noise in the bushes near him, and supposing it to proceed from a kangaroo, called to his comrades, who instantly jumped up. On looking about more narrowly, they saw two natives with spears in their hands, creeping towards them, and three others a little farther behind. As this naturally created alarm, McIntyre said, “don’t be afraid, I know them,” and immediately laying down his gun, stepped forward, and spoke to them in their own language. The Indians, finding they were discovered, kept slowly retreating, and McIntyre accompanied them about a hundred yards, talking familiarly all the while. One of them now jumped on a fallen tree and, without giving the least warning of his intention, launched his spear at McIntyre and lodged it in his left side. The person who committed this wanton act was described as a young man with a speck or blemish on his left eye. That he had been lately among us was evident from his being newly shaved.” 1
McIntyre subsequently died of his injuries, and a group of aborigines identified Pemulwuy as the murderer.1
Pemulwuy went on to wage a campaign of violence, robbery and property destruction, including the alleged murder of another man, and the wounding of several more. When he was finally killed, a group of aborigines brought his severed head to NSW Governor Philip Gidley King, saying he “had been the cause of all that had happened”.2
Furthermore, at a June 2016 press conference Turnbull said that the colonisation of Australia could fairly be described as an “invasion” and that Australia “was, is, and always will be, aboriginal land”.
Bill Shorten had previously refused to say that he personally thought colonisation was an invasion, merely saying he understood why people of aboriginal descent felt that way.
Turnbull continued in this vein on the 30th of August 2016 when, at the opening of federal Parliament, he gave a speech at the “Welcome to Country” ceremony, telling people of aboriginal descent:
“You honour us as you welcome us, the Members of the 45th Parliament to your Country. Yanggu gulanyin ngalawiri, dhunayi, Ngunawal dhawra. Wanggarralijinyin mariny bulan bugarabang.”
On the 13th of November 2015, a series of co-ordinated Muhammedan terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, France, resulting in the deaths of 130 victims.
Turnbull, who was in Europe at the time, had a predictably weak response to the attacks saying we should respond by singing together, and that “freedom stands up for itself”. He added that there was no need to raise the terror alert level.
Another very telling point Turnbull made though, went completely under the radar. He called Paris, France the “home of freedom”:
“Yet again we have seen a shocking terrorist attack in Paris. Paris, France, the home of freedom has been assaulted by terrorists determined to attack and suppress freedom, not just in France, but throughout the world…”
Note that France is one of the highest taxing nations in the world. As of 2014, taxes in France amounted to 47.9% of GDP, the third highest in the world behind Denmark and Belgium. The country takes a lowly 75th place on the Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, behind numerous former communist countries.
Turnbull’s “home of freedom” is probably a reference to the French Revolution, which was an orgy of sickening atrocities carried out by violent left-wing radicals, particularly against Christians.
During the ‘Reign of Terror’ period of 1793-94, the Revolutionary governing committee in Paris ordered a genocide in the Vendée region of France. The military general in charge of the massacre, Louis Marie Turreau, specifically inquired about “the fate of the women and children I will encounter in rebel territory” and the governing committee responded saying “eliminate the brigands to the last man, there is your duty…”.3 Tens of thousands of men, women and children were subsequently massacred, and their farms and villages burnt to the ground.
In the city of Nantes, there were mass executions of men, women and children via drowning. The victims would be stripped naked, tied up and forced onto boats specially constructed to be towed out to the middle of the river Loire and then sunk. The Revolutionary in charge of the massacre, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, called this process “the national bathtub”.4
Contrary to Turnbull, Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, said London, England was the “ancient home of freedom“, and called the National Library’s purchase of an original 1297 issue of the Magna Carta, which he authorised and funded from the Prime Minister’s Department, “the most important [purchase] yet made by an Australian library“.
5. Saying the US is “stronger than ever” under Obama
US President Barack Obama is a leftist who has, for eight years, presided over a country with high unemployment, falling living standards, rampant illegal immigration, a foreign policy that supports Muhammedan terrorists, and a national debt that has increased by over 9 trillion dollars, to a total of $20 trillion.
Furthermore, Obama has used the taxation bureaucracy to selectively and unfairly target conservative and Christian groups in the United States, an outrageous abuse of executive power.
Nevertheless, Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia’s so-called “conservative” Coalition, feels the need to offer Obama the highest praise on every possible occasion.
For instance, during a trip to Washington, D.C., in January 2016, Turnbull said that the United States’, under Obama’s leadership, is “stronger than ever”.
In November 2016 there was another episode of fawning adulation during the APEC summit in Peru, with Turnbull mourning over the soon-to-be end of the Obama presidency:
“It is great moment and a sad moment to have our last meeting in your capacity as President of the United States…I want thank you for the leadership you have shown for your country and the world over eight years.
Thank you for the leadership and the friendship you have shown…The relationship will get stronger than ever but it has been immeasurably strengthened under your leadership and we thank you for it.”
6. Praising Muhammedan Caliphates as “open societies”
In recent years, leftist pseudo-academics have begun promoting myths about Muhammedan civilisation to serve their contemporary political agenda. Leftist politicians, like Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama, have peddled these arguments to wear down popular resistance to Muhammedan mass immigration.
For instance, in March of 2016 Turnbull visited the taxpayer-funded “Islamic Museum of Australia” and made the following remarks:
“…the museum tells the story with which I’m familiar of the great heights of Islam in Spain and indeed in the Ottoman Empire, when the successful, the really successful, artistically brilliant, brilliant in every respect in terms of medicine, in terms of literature, I’m thinking of the Abbasid Caliphate, I’m thinking of the Umayyads in Spain. They were brilliant in large part because they were open societies.”
To refer to the Ottoman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Umayyad Caliphate of Spain as “open societies” that were “brilliant in every respect” is either ignorance or deliberate deception.
Take the Umayyad Caliphate in Spain (aka. ‘Al-Andalus’) for instance.
According to primary sources like the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, the Muhammedan conquest of Spain by the Umayyad governor Musa bin Nusayr in the early eighth century, involved destroying whole cities, starving populations, “butchering youths and infants“, and taking women as sex slaves. The central motivating factor for the invasion was their Muhammedan religion.
The invading Muhammedan armies generally gave the Visigothic Christian cities two options. If they resisted the Muhammedan takeover then all the men would be executed, the young women thrown into harems to be raped for the rest of their lives, and everyone else made slaves. If they submitted without resisting they would be allowed to continue living in a subjugated state of humiliation called ‘dhimmitude’. This included economically crippling taxation, land confiscation, social and legal inferiority, and severe restrictions on Christian religious practice. The punishment for defying the laws of dhimmitude was death, and the execution method of choice was crucifixion, as prescribed in the Qur’an.
According to Associate Professor Darío Fernández-Morera, author of the new book ‘The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise‘, if you compare the condition of Christians in Al-Andalus to the condition of blacks in the American South under ‘Jim Crow’ laws, the blacks were living under “infinitely better” conditions. Yet leftists will decry ‘Jim Crow’ laws but exalt Al-Andalus as a cosmopolitan, multicultural paradise.
According to Prof. Fernández-Morera, and his assessment of the primary sources, most Visigothic Churches were either demolished or converted to Mosques by the Umayyads, who appropriated Roman-Visigothic architectural styles (eg. the ‘horseshoe arch’). Only buildings that were architecturally and aesthetically inferior were allowed to be used as Churches. Building new Churches was banned, and it was illegal to repair decaying ones. Indeed, any public act or display of Christian worship was banned, and Christians were forced to wear special identifying clothing (a method later utilised by the Nazis).
Legally, Muhammedan men were able to marry Christian women but not vica versa. And Muhammedan men were not subject to the death penalty for murdering Christians, but Christians were for murdering Muhammedans, even in self defence. Attempts to convert Muhammedans were punished with death. Indeed, anything negative uttered against the Qur’an, Muhammad or any aspect of Muhammedanism was punished with death. No Christian could have authority over any Muhammedan, and Christians were forced to make gestures of subservience whenever a Muhammedan entered the room.
Slavery in Al-Andalus was rampant. Cordoba, the capital city of Al-Andalus, was a hub for the Mediterranean slave trade. Arabs showed a particular prejudice against black sub-Saharan Africans, who they enslaved in large numbers. In the 12th century Al-Maydani, famous for his Proverbs, wrote, “the African black, when hungry, steals; and when sated, he fornicates.” The 14th century traveling Muhammedan scholar Ibn Battuta claimed that blacks were stupid, ignorant, cowardly, and infantile.
Muhammedan women were under all the standard Muhammedan restrictions we see today in a country like Saudi Arabia. They were restricted to the home for most of the day, subject to female genital mutilation, banned from formal schooling, and mandated to wear full body coverings. Muhammedan law in Spain allowed for a man to have up to four wives and as many sex slaves as he could deal with. The sex slaves were usually Christian women purchased in slave markets or captured in war.
Other prominent historians of Muhammedan Spain agree. The late Richard A. Fletcher, a former history Professor at the University of York, and author of the 1992 book ‘Moorish Spain’, said:
“Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.”
The pre-eminent historian of Al-Andalus, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, observed:
“The Muslim Andalusian state appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.”
Conditions in the Abbasid Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire were of a similar nature.
7. Saying multiculturalism will combat terrorism
On the 23rd of March 2016 Turnbull gave a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, in which he made the following statement:
“Australia…is better placed than many of our European counterparts in dealing with the threat of terrorism because of the strength of our intelligence and security agencies, our secure borders and our successful multicultural society…”
Of course, the evidence suggests that multiculturalism is a cause of terrorism, not a solution.
Muhammedan terrorist attacks have increased as multiculturalism has became a more prominent component of government policy in European countries. Our multicultural experiment imports and exalts other cultures whilst denigrating our own, fostering exactly the disintegration, separatism and supremacism that can lead to terrorism.
This was an analysis shared by Poland’s Interior Minister following the terror attacks in Nice, France last year. Even the ‘progressive’ former British Prime Minister David Cameron said that:
“Many people born in Britain have little attachment to the country and that makes them vulnerable to radicalization.”
In her 2006 book ‘Londonistan’, British journalist Melanie Phillips wrote:
“British society presented a moral and philosophical vacuum that was ripe for colonization by predatory Islamism…The British education system simply ceased transmitting either the values or the story of the nation to successive generations, delivering instead the message that truth was an illusion and that the nation and its values were whatever anyone wanted them to be.”
In September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull, then Communications Minister, launched a coup d’état against Tony Abbott for the Prime Ministership. He justified the overthrow based on a long series of poor Newspoll results.
In October 2016 Newspoll revealed that Turnbull is now less popular than Tony Abbott was when the coup was launched, and in December 2016 Turnbull lost his sixth Newspoll in a row.
Showing extraordinary gumption, Turnbull now conveniently claims that the polls aren’t accurate, and therefore don’t matter:
“It’s a corny thing to say but the only poll that matters is on polling day and I have to say that in recent times the opinion polls have not proved a great indication of what finally happens,”
Note that if Turnbull’s new standard is that “the only poll that matters is on polling day” then he would have to conclude that Tony Abbott is a superior politician, because Tony Abbott won the 2013 election in a landslide, whereas Turnbull scraped over the line in 2016, saved by the National Party.
2. Whether politicians should intervene in the ABC & SBS
In an radio interview on the 29th of January 2014, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded to the ABC’s attacks on Royal Australian Navy personnel, and its left-wing bias more generally, saying:
“…a lot of people feel at the moment that the ABC instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s… you shouldn’t leap to be critical of your own country and you certainly ought to be prepared to give the Australian Navy and its hardworking personnel the benefit of the doubt.”
Turnbull, despite being a cabinet minister and subject to cabinet solidarity, responded the following day via the Sydney Morning Herald, contradicting his leader:
“What’s the alternative? The [ABC] editor-in-chief becomes the Prime Minister? Politicians, whether Prime Ministers or Communications Ministers, will often be unhappy with the ABC … but you can’t tell them what to write.”
Well it seems that politicians can, in fact, tell government-owned broadcasters what to do, and there have since been at least two examples of Malcolm Turnbull doing exactly that.
The first occurred on ANZAC Day in April of 2015. An SBS reporter named Scott McIntyre posted a series ‘tweets’ attacking the ANZACs as war criminals, and crudely stereotyping those who mark the day. After pressure from Liberal MPs Turnbull – then Communications Minister and thus the minister responsible for both SBS and the ABC – publicly criticised the remarks, and made a late night phone call to SBS Managing Director Michael Ebeid. The reporter was sacked the following morning (26th April).
The second occurred in June 2015, following an episode of the ABC’s Q&A program in which a Muhammedan terrorist sympathiser (and former terror suspect) named Zaky Mallah was given a national platform. Turnbull phoned ABC Managing Director Mark Scott and Chairman Jim Spigelman to complain. Turnbull said the broadcaster had made a “very grave error of judgment”.
3. Whether he is a “libertarian”
In November 2010, speaking on a panel at the Woollahra Festival, Turnbull said:
“I use a lot of online media. The one I use the most is Twitter. I like that because it’s very immediate, and quite anarchic, and that appeals to me. I’m a libertarian after all.”
Just two years later though, in an interview with GQ magazine, he flip-flops saying:
“When you boil it down to your gut political philosophy — and all political parties will frustrate and disappoint from time to time — I wouldn’t say I’m a libertarian, I’m not one of those people, I’m not an anarchist…”
4. Whether terrorists are weak
In November of 2015 Turnbull said the Muhammedan terrorists are weak:
“By most measures, however, ISIL is in a fundamentally weak position. We must not be fooled by its hype. Its ideology is archaic, but its use of the Internet is very modern. ISIL has many more smartphones than guns, more twitter accounts than fighters. It does not command broad-based legitimacy even in those areas under its direct control.”
The very next month the Turnbull Government floated cancelling the ANZAC Day ceremony at Lone Pine, for fear of a terrorist attack. They went through with the cancellation in February 2016. A compromise proposal was later agreed upon after a wave of criticism from the public and the Returned Services League (RSL).
5. Whether Malcolm Fraser was a good Prime Minister
In Turnbull’s 1988 book The Spycatcher Trial, he praises former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam as a “living legend” and “much-loved elder statesman” who “…compares so favourably to his drab successor, the Liberal Malcolm Fraser…”1. Turnbull thought Fraser was “the personification of conservatism”2, and despised him.
Following the death of Fraser in March 2015, Turnbull changed his tune, praising him as a “remarkable progressive liberal”.
It was only when Turnbull got to know Fraser in the lead up to the republic referendum in 1999, that he realised Fraser was, in fact, an ideological fellow traveler, and thus changed his view.
6. Whether Australia should be giving border control advice to other countries
In October 2015 Tony Abbott delivered the ‘Second Annual Margaret Thatcther Lecture’ at Guildhall in London. He warned that European countries were making a “catastrophic error” in allowing massive migratory inflows, and that Australia’s successful border security policies should be studied. He said people who passed through many countries before seeking asylum were not genuine refugees, but rather were economic migrants.
Turnbull briefed the media against Abbott prior to his November 2015 meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is the prime facilitator of the massive migratory waves into Europe. At a press conference after the meeting Turnbull was questioned about Abbott’s prescriptions, and offered this rebuke:
“We had a very good discussion but I have no intention or desire to give advice on these matters to the German Chancellor. Each country faces very different circumstances, not least of which are geographic. I think this is a matter for the German Government as it is for the Australian Government to manage these challenges in their own way.”
Turnbull stunningly reversed his position after the March 2016 Muhammedan terrorist bombings in Brussels, Belgium, saying:
“I can assure Australians that our security system, our border protection, our domestic security arrangements, are much stronger than they are in Europe where regrettably they allowed security to slip… That weakness in European security is not unrelated to the problems they’ve been having in recent times.”
The Belgian Ambassador was offended:
7. Whether the republic is a ‘generational issue’
On the 18th of March 1992, Malcolm Turnbull gave a speech at the Canberra Press Club and said the following:
“My impression is that support for the monarchy, amongst thinking Australians, is almost entirely a generational issue. I think there are very few Australians, who think about the issue, who are under the age of 50, who do not support the republic.”
In May 2000 Turnbull presented a “republican certificate” to Mr Allen Joseph McKay, who had just turned 100 years old. McKay, a staunch republican since the 1930s, turned down the customary congratulatory telegram from the Queen and instead requested one from Malcolm Turnbull, who had just led the republican movement to defeat at the 1999 referendum. Turnbull said:
“It’s great, and it gives the lie to the suggestion that older Australians support the status quo.” 3
On the 14th of September 2015, Malcolm Turnbull publicly launched his challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott with a press conference.
His major points, including justifications for the coup and promises for his own Prime Ministership, were:
Explain issues & foster understanding in electorate
Respect the people’s intelligence
No more slogans
Abbott lost 30 Newspolls in a row
Freedom, free enterprise & individual initiative
Traditional cabinet government
End to policy on the run
End ‘captain’s calls’ & be consultative
In this article I will explain how every one of these has been contradicted by the Turnbull Government.
1. Economic leadership
Gross federal government debt is now over 450 billion dollars and getting higher. The 2015-16 budget deficit was 39.6 billion dollars, which was 4.5 billion dollars higher than that planned by Tony Abbott.
Furthermore, over the current term the Turnbull Government plans to increase gross debt by $152 billion. Gross debt will therefore rise from 28.6% of GDP to 31.4%, and the taxpayer will be paying 1.5 billion dollars in monthly interest, much of it to foreign creditors.
2. Explain issues & foster understanding in electorate
The 2016 federal election saw the Liberal Party losing many votes as a result of misunderstandings about Medicare. Malcolm Turnbull was unable to explain to significant swathes of the electorate that the Coalition was not privatising Medicare, as the Labor Party was suggesting. Instead of blaming this failure on his own inability to explain the Coalition’s policies, he scapegoated Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget and a Labor SMS campaign.
Many votes were also lost based on Turnbull’s “innovation agenda”, and its accompanying campaign rhetoric (“agile”, “nimble” etc). Turnbull claimed that this “innovation agenda” would create jobs and improve the economy, but people didn’t buy it, and instead panicked about job security.
3. Respect people’s intelligence
At an October 2015 meeting of the NSW Liberal Party State Council, Turnbull got up, in front of television cameras, and stated that the Liberal Party was “not run by factions”. Such a blatant falsehood was this that it triggered a loud and mocking laughter among the crowd and, no doubt, from anyone even mildly knowledgeable about the notorious factionalism of the NSW Liberal Party.
4. No more slogans
In a March 2016 interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW Turnbull explicitly acknowledged the need for slogans, contradicting his leadership challenge speech.
Neil Mitchell (3AW): “Another thing you promised was no slogans. Will there be no slogans in this election campaign?”
Turnbull: “Well, I’m generally criticised for talking at too much length, so I think, I think quite a few of my critics would prefer if there was a little bit, if just a few slogans would sneak in, rather than the lengthy explanations, yeah.”
Turnbull then proceeded to embrace several slogans, including the infamous “continuity and change“, as well as “jobs and growth”, which he used at least 152 times during the election campaign alone.
One of Turnbull’s slogans that long pre-dates his Prime Ministership is “We are the most successful multicultural nation in the world”. He used this at least 17 times during the election campaign.
Another of Turnbull’s slogans that pre-dates his Prime Ministership is the “exciting time” slogan, which he appears to have started using after the failed February 2015 leadership coup. In fact, this slogan was used in the very same leadership challenge speech that Turnbull used to criticise slogans, and their use by Tony Abbott.
5. Abbott Lost 30 Newspolls in a row
Turnbull stated that Tony Abbott’s 30 consecutive Newspoll losses were grounds for his overthrow, but Turnbull himself has now clearly lost 6 consecutive Newspolls, and his personal ratings are lower than Tony Abbott’s were as Prime Minister.
Turnbull though has now said that he won’t be held to his own benchmark, and claims that polling is not accurate.
Turnbull has proposed increasing taxes on superannuation to such a level that the Coalition’s superannuation policy has been considered less liberal than Labor’s.
On freedom of speech, Turnbull has stubbornly refused to back changes to section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act, despite repeated petitions from the public and Liberal backbenchers. The current Act outlaws ‘offending’ and ‘insulting’, and has resulted in several ridiculous and oppressive court cases.
On industrial relations, the Turnbull Government has caved to achieve a purely symbolic, political victory on the revival of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The Australian newspaper’s economics commentator, Dr. Judith Sloan, says:
“The amendments to the ABCC bill are so bad that we would be better off without it. The concessions are so anti-competitive and onerous that any net benefits that might have been secured are now in the parliamentary waste paper bin.”
7. Traditional cabinet government
In March 2016 it was reported that Turnbull was excluding his own Treasurer, Scott Morrison, from important decisions on the budget and election timing, causing the Treasurer embarrassment in media interviews.
The Australian newspaper’s Political Editor, Dennis Shanahan, wrote:
“No matter what Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison say, this is the quickest souring of a fresh partnership between prime minister and treasurer since at least World War II — before then hardly matters now.”
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are supposed to be the two most prominent ministers of the government, far exceeding all other ministers. A good working relationship between Treasurer and Prime Minister is more important for a properly functioning government than any other ministerial relationship.
Soon after this episode it is revealed that Turnbull has a secret inner circle of confidants that excludes many cabinet ministers, but includes his wife Lucy.
8. End to policy on the run
In October 2015 Turnbull suddenly floated the idea of an increase to the GST. He sent Treasurer Scott Morrison out to argue the case for it, but soon ruled it out completely, pulling the rug out from under his Treasurer.
And then there was Turnbull’s proposal for state-based income taxes floated on the 30th of March 2016, and scrapped two days later.
9. End ‘captain’s calls’ & be consultative
In April 2016, Turnbull made a decision to rule out a Royal Commission into the banking sector without consulting the party room. He was criticised by Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch, who is usually a Turnbull supporter. Entsch called it a “captain’s call”.
10. Open government
Turnbull’s first act after overthrowing Tony Abbott for the Liberal leadership, was forging a secret agreement with the National Party. An updated version of that secret agreement was signed after the 2016 federal election.
In office, he has not changed the practice of previous Prime Ministers in denying the media access to his official diary, despite repeated FOI requests. The Information Commissioner recently ruled against Turnbull on the matter.
Turnbull has also continued the practice of governments keeping reports secret until a time that is convenient for them. For instance, the completed review of the census debacle was handed to Turnbull on the 14th of October 2016, but was kept secret for over a month, and quietly released with little media attention.
The Turnbull Government has also had two secret carbon taxes. One of these has been in operation since July 2016, and another one, planned for the future, was recently outed by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg.
1. Saying the Liberal Party is not run by factions
At an October 2015 meeting of the NSW Liberal Party State Council, Turnbull said the Liberal Party is “not run by factions”. This triggered a mocking laughter among the crowd because the NSW Liberal Party is notoriously factionalised.
In the introduction to former Liberal Senator Peter Baume’s 2015 book ‘A Dissident Liberal‘, it says the following:
“The Liberal Party has always sought to deny the existence of factions within the party because it is a key point of differentiation from the ALP…However, by the mid-1980s, groupings within the Liberal Party, both nationally and within some state branches, started to form that went beyond personality cliques…
At the NSW level, Baume was a member of the inner circle of the powerful faction known prosaically at the time as the Liberal Forum Group (‘the Group’), which coalesced into a political force in New South Wales in 1984. Baume was also a founding member of the Liberal Forum at the federal level…The Federal Liberal Forum, originally a clandestine group within the broad church of the larger Liberal Party, was officially formed in February 1985 and was irreverently named by its members the ‘Black Hand’.”
2. Saying he supported John Howard’s border protection policies
In a March 2016 interview on 3AW, Turnbull said:
“When I was Opposition Leader, before Tony became leader, I strongly opposed Rudd’s dismantling of the Howard policy. So whether it is Howard as leader of the Liberal Party, Abbott, or Turnbull, we’ve had the same policy on border protection. So this is not something that was invented by Tony Abbott, this has been a continuum.”
This is not true. Turnbull, as Opposition Leader in 2008-09, weakened the Coalition’s border protection rhetoric and refused to clarify whether the Howard policies would be re-introduced under a Turnbull Government. Turnbull was explicitly and publicly criticised as having “gone soft” on the issue by the then Liberal backbencher, Bronwyn Bishop.
Furthermore, in October 2009 Turnbull rebuked Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey, who warned that terrorists could be entering the country disguised as refugees. Tuckey was later proven correct, with Muhammedan “refugees” involved in several terrorist attacks and planned attacks.
3. Saying he is a Catholic
After years of openly barracking for Labor, and financially supporting them, Turnbull changed tactics in late 2000, and started seeking Liberal pre-selection. This was his only means of becoming Prime Minister. It was inconceivable that he could win Labor pre-selection in a House of Representatives seat as a millionaire carpetbagger from blue-ribbon Liberal territory.
Turnbull feigned remorse over his previous anti-Liberal and anti-Howard comments1, but this wasn’t enough to secure pre-selection in the seat of Wentworth for the 2001 federal election. After failing to sabotage the campaign of the chosen Wentworth Liberal candidate,2,3,4 he took the deception up a notch.
He quit his position at Goldman Sachs, became deputy party treasurer, sucked up to John Howard, made donations to the party, and began acting like a social conservative, giving speeches on family values and declining birth rates. He then took it up another notch in claiming to have converted to Catholicism.5
Having safely secured the leadership in 2008, Turnbull openly pushed abortion and homosexuality, both of which are dogmatically condemned by the Catholic Church.
On abortion, Canon Law 1398 states that those who procure (i.e. obtain, persuade or cause) completed abortions are automatically excommunicated. On homosexuality, the Catechism clearly states that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law“. It adds that “Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
Public words or actions that knowingly tolerate sin (or merely give that appearance), and hence tempt others to sin, are themselves a sin. This sin is called ‘scandal‘, and the Catechism states that it is a grave offence.
Jesus Christ himself was recorded in chapter 18 of the Book of Matthew commenting on the grave nature of causing scandal, especially to children, saying:
“…he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
4. Saying Senate voting reform was not on the agenda under Tony Abbott
In an interview on the ABC’s 7.30 program in March of 2016, Turnbull was asked how his government was different from that of Tony Abbott. He responded:
“Firstly, we dealt with Senate voting reform. That was not on the agenda and it’s done. It’s been voted in and done.”
“False. My plan was to do it as the last measure the current parliament considered.”
Abbott’s claim was confirmed by senior frontbenchers on both sides of the House, and the matter was publicly reported in 2015.
5. Saying he’s a legal traditionalist
On the 4th of February 2016, during Question Time in the House of Representatives, Labor MP Terri Butler asked Turnbull whether he would scrap the non-binding homosexual “marriage” plebiscite and allow a free vote in parliament, as he had argued for (in defiance of cabinet solidarity) before the coup d’état against Tony Abbott.
Turnbull said the plebiscite was Coalition policy, but he personally supported a free vote in parliament. Of the plebiscite, he said:
“It is a new approach. It has not been a practice in the Australian political system other than in constitutional referendums…It is certainly not the approach that I favoured at the outset. I am a traditionalist. This was a case of democratic innovation. The innovator was out innovated! There you go!”
Firstly, non-binding plebiscites are not a novelty in Australia, as Turnbull asserts. In 1916 and 1917, during World War I, there were two non-binding plebiscites on conscription. There was also a non-binding plebiscite in 1977, to determine a national song to be played on non-regal occasions.
Furthermore, plebiscites are covered under section 7A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as a service the Australian Electoral Commission can provide.
Secondly, according to his record, Turnbull is most certainly not a legislative traditionalist. For instance, he was a vigorous supporter of the infamous leftist-‘progressive’ High Court judge Lionel Murphy (former Whitlam-Labor Attorney-General), who notoriously tried to legislate from the bench, bypassing parliament.
In his biography of Turnbull titled ‘Born to Rule’, journalist Paddy Manning writes:
“Turnbull commended Murphy for “dragging our law into the 20th century”, being willing to throw precedent out the window in reinterpreting the Australian Constitution…”6
In October 2002 the then soon-to-be High Court Justice and future Royal Commissioner, Dyson Heydon, commented on Lionel Murphy’s approach to law, saying:
“…he treated judicial work as an act of uncontrolled personal will, and sneered at the doctrine of precedent…”
Furthermore, Turnbull has repeatedly attacked the Australian Constitution, calling it, or parts of it, variously a “total failure”7, “woefully undemocratic”7, “ill-conceived”7, “anachronistic”7, “drab and misleading“, “frustrating“, and an “error” on the part of the founding fathers.
7. Saying he and his clique didn’t undermine Brendan Nelson
In an interview on Channel 9’s A Current Affair program immediately after his overthrow of Brendan Nelson on the 16th of September 2008, Turnbull was asked the following question by host Tracy Grimshaw:
“…you and your supporters have been the key destabilisers of Brendan Nelson these past 10 months haven’t you?”
“That is completely untrue. That is absolutely untrue.”
On the other hand, former Treasurer Peter Costello said:
“Turnbull’s supporters were ruthless in tearing down Nelson. Weakened by this campaign and suffering poor polls, Nelson called another ballot. Turnbull won by four votes. In total, only three votes moved. It was an ominous sign. He got there, but not by building support among his colleagues.”
8. Saying the indigenous procurement policy was his
On the 17th November 2016 Turnbull gave a speech to a meeting of the Business Council of Australia. In that speech he lies, saying that the Coalition’s indigenous procurement policy was a “great initiative of my government”. That policy was actually initiated under Tony Abbott, and had been launched on the 1st of July 2015, over two months before Turnbull’s coup against Abbott.
9. Saying that his immigration policy is based on economic need
On the 11th of December 2017 Turnbull appeared on the ABC’s Q&A program and was asked why he was allowing approximately 200,000 people per year to permanently immigrate to Australia. His answer was as follows:
“Our immigration program is overwhelmingly skills-based, so it is driven by the demands in our economy. So, as you have more demand for people with the skills that we need in our economy then you’ll get more immigration…”
Immigration expert Dr Bob Birrell, President of the Australian Population Research Institute, has written a 17-page study that contradicts Turnbull. In an appearance on Sky News, Birrell said:
“What’s happened with the skilled program is that over the past 6 years it’s been radically changed. Six years ago one of the criterion was that you had to have an occupation that was in short supply in Australia. That rule has now been abolished. There is no requirement anymore that you have to have scarce skills to be selected in the skilled migration program.”
10. Saying he started OzEmail
On the 16th of September, 2010, a letter was published in The Australian newspaper from Sean Howard, the founder and visionary of OzEmail, clarifying Turnbull’s role in the success of the company:
“I do wish Malcolm Turnbull would stop claiming, as he did on the ABC yesterday, that “I’ve been involved in the internet since 1994 when we started OzEmail”. The corporate entity which ran OzEmail changed in 1994 when Trevor Kennedy and Turnbull invested in it, but OzEmail itself began two years earlier, in 1992…Malcolm initially passed on the opportunity, but on Kennedy’s second approach he decided to invest in what was by then already Australia’s largest ISP. OzEmail’s rapid growth was the reason the business needed Kennedy and Turnbull’s investment capital of $500,000 each.”
25th October, 2016Conservatives are in danger of being lulled into a state of complacency, given the current state of affairs in Canberra.
Following the federal election in July, in which heavy losses were incurred upon the Liberal Party, Turnbull would appear to be ‘on the leash’.
But don’t be deceived.
We still have the clandestine carbon dioxide tax organised by the Turnbullites. We are still making no substantial progress on debt and deficit. And we still have Turnbull obstinately refusing to rule out a parliamentary vote on homosexual pseudo-marriage, and saying he is willing to negotiate.
The latter indicates that Turnbull is scheming, behind-the-scenes, for a free parliamentary vote on the marriage issue. This is a vote he knows he could win given the parliamentary numbers are now more favourable. What though, might such a scheme look like?
We ought to recall his first run as Liberal leader in 2008-09, in which he connived with the then Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to steamroll backbench conservatives, and pass an economy-crippling Emissions Trading Scheme. Indeed, not only did he want the legislation passed, he pushed hard to get it done before the global conference in Copenhagen, so the Australian people could be exploited to serve the interests of securing a global treaty.
Could Turnbull again be scheming with Labor in such a manner?
One possibility could be a proposal to prevent a credit rating downgrade, such that Labor agrees to pass ‘substantial’ budget savings measures through the Senate in exchange for a free parliamentary vote on so-called “gay marriage”. This deal would be heavily promoted among Turnbull’s ideological allies in the leftist media who would frame it in such a way as to demonise conservatives.
If conservative backbenchers oppose the deal they will be presented as pathologically obsessive about the supposedly “inconsequential” social issues, to the point of being hindrances to the “more practical” and urgent matter of budget repair and economic reform. Should conservatives succeed in stifling the deal, they will then be blamed for any subsequent downgrade in Australia’s credit rating, and for the resulting debt spiral.
On the other hand, Turnbull and Shorten would be made to look like heroes, achieving productive compromise in a difficult parliament.
Such a scenario has been made possible by the foolish tactic employed by many conservatives, over many years, of presenting the marriage issue as a “third order” issue that should be put at the back of the line. The truth is that marriage is a civilisational bedrock of equal or greater importance than any other issue, and that truth has been undermined by the aforementioned tactic.
Schemes such as that I have described above must be anticipated and pre-emptively eradicated, before they see the light of day. Turnbull though, sagging in the polls, unlikely to win the next election, and desperate to leave a lasting legacy that will ensure everlasting popularity among his ideological brethren, may be willing to martyr his leadership over the issue, and go out in a blaze of leftist glory.