By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Silent Invasion: The Great University Double Standard By James Reed
It is the gold standard now, that Trump, according to American universities, and even our pathetic ones in Australia, is a dictator. Yet these universities are not only silent about the ultra-authoritarianism of China, the universities celebrate it. They do so because they court Chinese money, in the form of students, who will become migrants to the West, moving into the elite power structure, and ultimately cementing power for mother China:
Then there is the money universities borrow for their little building projects, most of which comes from China. The great irony in this form of colonialism is that the free speech that the academics and socialist cub students trade on to do as they do, does not exist in China. They would never get away with an attack on the Chinese nation as they do nations of the West in China, and I admire China for its strength in controlling the cancer of nation-eroding political correctness. However, while not being “anti-Chinese,” this does not mean that we should be oblivious to the China threat. I have written before about a brilliant book by Clive Hamilton, Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia, (Hardie Grant Books, Richmond, 2018), a book which has some trouble seeing the light of day. Probably, the university presses would not touch it.
Yet, even by a man of the Left, Silent Invasion is a magnificent work of journalism, exposing the entire edifice of Chines influence in Australia. Hamilton was first interested in Chinese power when in 2008 he observed a pro-Tibet protest at Parliament House Canberra be overrun by thousands of Chinese students, with the authorities doing nothing about it. Then he became aware of a wealthy Chinese businessmen in 2016, with links to the Chinese Communist party, becoming the largest donors to both the Labor and Liberal Parties. Thus, in 341 pages, he details the full story behind this. Silent Invasion, really does live up to its name and depicts an invasion, one where Australia’s elites have allowed it all to occur, “Dyeing Australia red,” as chapter 1 of the book puts it. There is a collision between Australia’s democracy and China’s drive for world domination.
Hamilton says that even though Australia may have sacrificed some of its independence with its alliance with the United States, the US “has never threatened to take away our freedom.” (p. xi) “The United States never has had the kind of economic leverage over Australia that China has, nor made threats to damage us if we did not toe its line. It hasn’t endangered our democratic system of elected governments, and its government has never used money to buy off our politicians. The United States hasn’t attempted to erode the rule of law. Nor has it attempted to mobilise a diaspora to oppose Australian policy. The United States government has never shut down dissenting views in Australia, even ones harshly critical of the USA. Can we imagine a United States government using our laws to frighten publishers into dropping a book criticising it?” The book, is of course, Hamilton’s own book which faced the same sort of censorship he sees coming from Chinese economic imperialism.
Silent Invasion details most aspects of the Chinese takeover of Australia, including farm buy ups, the buying of the pollies and so on. I will not summarise all of this because we have covered this before. While all of this is good, the book coming from the left contains the expected political correctness. Thus, page 40, Hamilton discusses “Chinese Hansonism,” where the soft nationalism of Hanson is given the shock/horror treatment, as “few [Chinese] would vote for her” (p. 40). Hello, isn’t she a senator, so maybe a sizable number did vote for her? And, the Chinese who empathise with her are hardly unreasonable, appealing to deep aspect of the human psyche, that the Left deny for globalist reasons. After all, why ultimately should “we” be concerned about all that China is doing in his book, unless it was to preserve out identity and place? The critique makes no real sense outside of that, for why not be ruled by Chinese elites? What does it matter, if identity and culture don’t count?
Naturally, as a book from the Left, there is no discussion of the tough questions arising about the massive Chinese immigration which has occurred. If Hamilton has problems with Chinese Hansonism, then that topic will not be addressed. Indeed, the words “immigration” and “migration” do not occur in the index. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a most important book, with an important message. Australian elites have been neurotically obsessed with the economy and profits over core democratic values, and this has enabled the Communist Party of China to exert the influence that it has. It has silenced most of its critics, who have been either bought off or told to lay off, because it might be bad for business. He thus sees the “subservience and self-interest of our elites” as the main reason why China has been able to do what it has done to Australia. (p. 277)
Hamilton suggests that Australia needs to move beyond economic dependency upon China and to avoid its economic bullying by forging stronger trade links with other nations, especially those with a democratic framework. He says India, but Europe should be on the list, including the UK, and the United States (which he does mention p. 278). Hamilton accepts the possibility of a war between China and the United states, with civil strife breaking out in Australia, given that there are now over one million people of Chinese “heritage” (race), “This could create ongoing and potentially severe civil strife, unrest that would be orchestrated by the Chinese embassy in Canberra.” (p. 280) He does not explore this further, but it is clear that even if the embassy was closed down, there could be enormous damage done to Australia, given strategic positions held by Chinese (and this is not saying all Chinese by any measure),but Chinese loyal to the Communist Party, now in key infrastructure positions:
Hamilton estimates that 20 to 30 percent of mainland Han Chinese in Australia would be loyal to the Communist Party. It is worth noting here that the Australian Army, 2014-2015 figures was 43, 667 personnel, so 300,000 people is a lot. Were all those brave academic writing their books about immigration, multiculturalism and Asianisation, looking forward to this? I hope that they are around when the chickens come home to roost/roast in the future. It is likely in my opinion, given that almost all Han Chinese believe that Tibet and Taiwan belong to China (p. 281), that the figure is higher, as many Chinese would fall into line. I have seen this on the streets of Melbourne, where some nice Chinese girls gently protesting against China in Tibet, were met by male Chinese bullies.
When I challenged the bullies, they were threatening to me, so I went to get the police, who did nothing. The girls disappeared from the protest. This will create a problem for the Australian state that it has never before encountered, but that was what Asianisation was all about from the beginning. It is likely then that in an all-out US China war, Australia would be destroyed by undermining. But, at least, we embraced Asianisation before our inevitable fall. After all, Eric Butler told you us so in his brilliant 1989 lecture, “The Planned surrender of Australia,” which I remember like yesterday:
Oh, I am sending my copy of this book to Pauline Hanson’s office.