18th January, 2017
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.”
He then proudly tweeted it out :
— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 30, 2016
4. Saying France is the “home of freedom”
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.”
Back to Homepage
1. Tench, W. (1793). Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. (ch. 8). London: Nicol and Sewell.
2. F. M. Bladen (ed.), “Governor King to Sir Joseph Banks. 5 June 1802.”, Historical Records of New South Wales, IV — HUNTER AND KING, p. 783
3. Sutherland, D. (1964). The French Revolution and Empire: The Quest for a Civic Order. (p. 222). Blackwell Publishing.
4. Loomis, S. (1964). Paris in the Terror. (p. 289). Philadelphia; New York: J.B. Lippincott Co.