20151125-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr malcolm turnbull re australias national security-etc

8/20/2019 20151125-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re Australias National Security-etc

1/13

1

p1 25-11-2015 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr Malcolm Turnbull 25-11-2015

[email protected] 5

Cc: Bill Shorten [email protected]

Senator George Brandis [email protected]

Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]

Jacqui Lambie [email protected] 0

Re: 20151125-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re Australian national security-etc

Malcolm,

I today published “20151125-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ISSUE -

Billionaire Clive Palmer regarding Port Darwin & the constitution” in which I also referredto the article “Billionaire Clive Palmer calls on Coalition Government to take control of Darwin5Port, raising fears Chinese Government may use it as starting point for secret invasion” “November

23, 2015 2:52pm - CHRISTOPHER WALSH NT News” it was stated: “Chief Minister Adam Gilescalled Mr Palmer’s remarks “anti-Chinese hysteria”.” Has Clive Palmer gone raving mad or is it thathe understand better what really is behind the Chinese Modus Oprandi ?

We know too well that the Australian Government upon its total failure of intelligence rather0

than to make the world a safer place ended up to dispose of President Saddam Hussein and we

now have world terrorism from IS (Islamic State). As such forget about our intelligence services

because they appear to me to lack the intelligence to understand anything.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I gained great respect for the Framers of the Constitution5

(Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the legal principles they

embedded in the constitution. National Defense isn’t to rob ordinary Australians of their

constitutional rights so that any foreign nation can so to say walk in and take over. It is

embedded in the constitution that Australians can bear arms to not only defend themselves but

also defend the community they are residing in as militias.0Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE. Mr. BAKER:

That the military and naval defence of Australia shall be intrusted to federal forces under one command.

Of course that is a sine qua non; and I hope we shall not do this thing by halves. I hope we shall not, as has been done in the UnitedStates, provide for a divided authority over any of our forces, whether those forces consist of a standing army, of citizen troops, of5militia, or of any other description of force whatever.

END QUOTE

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE. Mr. FITZGERALD: 0With regard to the defence of Australia, in what could federation do more practical good than in defence? In what matter can there be a

greater necessity for one headship than in defence? The points which must be defended, which strengthen us in these colonies, are far

distant, and how can we efficiently or economically defend them, except by having a united force-a force which will be under one head,and which will be ready at any point, should our country ever be invaded. Reference was made to a standing army. A standing army!

What a reflection upon the military spirit of young Australia. A standing army we may have merely as an example of what5steadiness, discipline, and obedience can do; but our defence must be the stout arms of our sons-our own sons as a militia,

charged with the duty of defending that land which they ought to love, and inspired by the devotion of those men who may be

paid servants of the Crown, but who never, either in this country or in the old country, turned their back on an enemy, or did

anything but what will redound to the glory of English arms. END QUOTE0

Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)QUOTE. Mr. CUTHBERT:

Now I come to deal with the military and naval defence of Australia, which it is proposed shall be intrusted to federal forces under onecommand. I cordially approve of that proposition, which has met with general acceptance all round-and why? Because we know that the5

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]


2/13

2





colonies recognise that the duty of protect- [start page 289] ing their own shores devolves upon them-that they have erectedfortifications, and that many of the colonies have an efficient permanent corps of artillerymen which has been strengthened by the

volunteers who have come forward in the cause of their country to give their services as militiamen. But we are aware that there is a

weakness all through the design. We are aware that, if any portion of the Australian continent were attacked, while a friendly and brotherly feeling would dictate that we ought to go to the rescue of the place attacked by a hostile foe, we have no power whatever to5order our troops out of our own colony, to go and concentrate their forces with the others. And though we received reports from different

naval and military commanders as to the state of our forces and their efficiency-as to their courage, that was undoubted-we were notsatisfied merely with reports from our own officers; we wanted an independent authority of eminence to give us his candid opinion of the

action we had taken in our endeavour to form an efficient military and naval force. Accordingly, the colonies united, as they have done

on several occasions, always leading towards unity, and applied to the Imperial Government to send an officer to report on our forces.0General Edwards then came here, and furnished us with his report, to the details of which I will not refer. But he pointed ou t,

unmistakably, where our weakness lay. I think it was his report which induced you, Mr. President, to communicate with the premiers of

the other colonies, the result being the conference in Melbourne to which I have already referred. Some hon. gentlemen may think that by placing the whole of our forces under one command we want to raise a large military force which will saddle the country with

expenses that may be deemed unnecessary. But, as I understand the resolution, it has no such meaning. The federal parliament will look5closely into the question of the finances. They will see that it will be expected by all the colonies that due economy shall be observed in

the administration of the funds intrusted to them, and that it will be expected that out of the £8,000,000 of revenue handed over to them

at least £6,000,000 will be available for redistribution among the colonies; and the colonies will look with a very observant eye upon all

that is done by the federal parliament, because they will be interested parties, and they will know that in order to meet the engagementsinto which they have entered it will be necessary for them to husband their resources in every way. In my opinion, the placing of the0naval and military forces under one command will not be attended with much additional expense. We want no large standing army

here. There is no necessity for i t. If we protect our ports as we are doing, and having men, money, and the munitions of war, having menin our artillery forces as well skilled and competent as any to be found in her Majesty's service, and in addition to that, having powerful

and efficient guns of the latest type, we feel that the obligation devolves upon us to have a force sufficient to protect us against invasion.Will hon. members permit me just to make one quotation from a work by a most eminent man, highly skilled in the art of warfare? Major5Clarke, writing on the navy, sets forth the advantages which the colonies reap from remaining part of the empire. He summarises them as

follows:-

Their commerce, -

That is, the commerce of the colonies.

which is their very life, has received, and will receive the protection of the greatest naval power of the world.0

2. The necessary standard of the local defences of their ports is reduced to a minimum.

3. They require to be able to resist a cruiser raid, since a hostile fleet cannot reach them in force, except on condition of defeating and

destroying strong British squadrons.

[start page 290]

These are the words of one who speaks with authority, and who points out exactly the danger we are in. As long as England is mistress5of the seas, as long as we are a dependency of England, we may rely on her support, and so long we may depend upon it no foreign

power, however strong, can set foot on these shores. Since Major Clarke wrote on this subject we must not lose sight of the fact that we

have taken a new departure, and that we recognise that our commerce is the very life of our colonies. We have recognised this, that it isunfair that the mother country should be saddled with the whole expense of defending our commerce on the high seas; and therefore, I

am proud to say, as the result of a conference which took place in London, and to which we sent delegates, that for the first time, I think,0in English history the colonies have entered into a partnership by which they are enabled to have the advantage of the support of whatmay be termed an Australian squadron. Under the British flag we may rest in security, leaving it to the squadron in this part of her

Majesty's dominions to protect our commerce, and taking upon ourselves the duty of defending our shores.

END QUOTE 5

Militia without weapons is useless and as such it is clear that the Framers of the Constitution

implied that citizens have the right to bear arms. While personally I dislike firearms, nevertheless

I was trained in the Royal Dutch armed forces, and served then in NATO, at the then IRON

CURTAIN and well aware that in time of need one may need to shoot an opponent no matter if

he might be your personal friend. In fact while I resided in Germany with a family their sons and0

I openly discussed how, if we were in opposing armies, we would have to shoot each other,regardless of our personal friendship, if it came to a battle.

We had as I recall it Pauline Hanson with her slogans that we would be swamped with Asians.

And now Clive Palmer is on about the same tract. So is it that they are mere ratbags or that they

understand what drives China better than our ever failing national security agencies as they with5

the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Quite frankly I have spent so much time researching and

pursuing constitutional issues that I really lacked the time to research the chine ideology. As such

I never really considered the issue of any motives the Chinese might have, if at all, to conquer the

world.‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military0Commission to top defence officers and generals.

QUOTE

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]


3/13

3





The fact is, our ‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the C hinese

nati on, which, of course, is not limi ted to the land we have now but also includes

the whole world. As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the

Western scholars, humani ty as a whole originated fr om one single mother in

Af ri ca. Therefore no race can claim racial superi ori ty. However, according to the 5

research conducted by most Chi nese scholars, the Chinese are diff erent f rom other

races on earth. We did not ori ginate in A fr ica. I nstead, we originated

independently in the land of China. Therefore, we can ri ghtfu ll y assert that we are

the product of cul tural roots of more than a mill ion years, civil ization and progress

of mor e than ten thousand years, an ancient nati on of f ive thousand years, and a 0

single Chinese entity of two thousand years. Thi s is the Chinese nation that cal ls

itself ‘descendants of Yan and Huang.’

END QUOTE

‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military5Commission to top defence officers and generals. QUOTE

“Comrades, I’m very exci ted today, because the large-scale onl ine sur vey sina.com

that was done for us showed that our next generati on is qui te promi sing and our

Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at 0

women, chi ldren and pri soner s of war,” more than 80 per cent of the respondents

answered in the aff irmative, exceeding by far our expectations. END QUOTE

‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military5Commission to top defence officers and generals. QUOTE

Only countri es like the Uni ted States, Canada and Australi a

have the vast land to serve our need for mass colon ization.

END QUOTE0

The email (quoted below) with this statement I received leave s it beyond doubt that the Chinese

Military is contemplating to take over Australia.And how they plan to do that is as they seek to deal with the United States of America!

5‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military

Commission to top defence officers and generals. QUOTE

I t is indeed brutal to kil l one or two hundred mil li on Americans. But that is the

only path that wil l secure a Chinese centu ry, a centu ry in which the CCP leads the 0

world. We, as revolu tionary humani tarians, do not want deaths, But i f hi story

confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d



4/13

4





have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the li ves of the

Chinese people and the li fe of our Party.

END QUOTE

And the tools:5

‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military

Commission to top defence officers and generals.

QUOTE

Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruth lessness, but if the 0

Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die.

END QUOTE

So we are privatizing water, gas, electricity our ports and then the Chinse merely need to block

access to those facilities and we are so to say DEAD DUCKS.5



We are destined ‘not to be buried by either 0heaven or earth’ no matter how severe the natural, man -made, and national

disasters. This is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason

that the Un ited States remains today is that i t has never seen war on i ts mainl and.

Once its enemies aim at the main land, the enemies would have already reached

Washington before its congress fin ishes debating and authori zes the president to 5

declare war. But for us, we don’t waste time on these trivial things.

END QUOTE

The same can be considered with the Commonwealth of Australia, that is if we didn’t have

Framers of the Constitution who well were a lot smarter than the imbeciles (Excuse the0

complimentary wording as I could not come to a worse set out) we now have in our

governments.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention) 5QUOTE

Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the application ofthe Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.

Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-

That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.0

Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are not likely ever to beinvaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.

Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this clause.

Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is an attack.

Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion follows.5



5/13

5





Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion" covers the ground,

well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion" cover "attack"? Originally, the

amendment I intended to move used both the words "attack" and "invasion."

Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.

Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?5

[start page 692]

Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country wasapproaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.

Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to invade, but to

attack.0

Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose of

attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor?

Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only bound to

protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South Australia was

invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should5have an equal claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the

leader of the Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to theDrafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are booming there will

be no discussion about the meaning of the two words. 0

Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming? I thought

the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.

Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my honorable friend

(Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and "military." Now, an attack would be

naval, while an invasion would be military.5

The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?

Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am content.

The amendment was withdrawn.

END QUOTE0

So we really do not need to worry about it to get sanction for our Defense Force to act in

response as then they do not require a DECLARATION OF WAR as the attack itself constitute a

DECLARATION OF WAR by enemy forces, as we will have our armed forces to defend us.

Well, if we do not count the once serving in the Middle East, the crippled, etc, then perhaps we

might just have a handful, if that, who are capable to oppose an armed force. That is if the5

biological warfare that is contemplated has not already put them out of action. And we had sucha successful gun control that any invading force will thank the past leaders for ensuring they

cannot have any resistance from the militia’s as while they may come threatening with showing

a copy of the constitution that would hardly deter any invading forced, as after all their invasion

in itself will indicate they do not care less about our constitutional rights nor our rights to exist.0

HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-

Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the5Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one

would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a

responsible Minister.

END QUOTE



6/13

6





HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere

with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!

END QUOTE5.

HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTESir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon

asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the0prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never

entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.

END QUOTE

While constitutionally the Governor-General has to publish in the Gazette in advance a5

DECLARATION OF WAR naming the country/countries to which it declares war (something

never eventuated with the unconstitutional armed invasion into Iraq) no such DECLARATION

OF WAR is required when an opposing army attacks or without authority enters Australian

waters. Then the Minister of Defense is entitled to act to repel any foreign invader. But again, we

may lack of any proper defense force because they are wherever but where needed at the time of0

an attack that is unless a foreign nation were to announce long before hand the intention todispose of all Australians by biological warfare and invaded Australia. Unlikely they will do so.

Hence, the real source of defense will be resting with ordinary Australians and well the right to

bear arms is I view encased in the constitution as a legal principle.5

We should nationalized all essential services in the first place. We should rec all our troops and

have them to be a true defense force and not a killing machine to kill innocent women, children

and men because of some “regime change” doctrine and “oil” to benefit the USA.

Where Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission to top defenceofficers and generals as recent as in 2005 indicated to be looking out for Australia in its expansion then0we better be concerned about this.

We need to have from China’s Government undertakings that it is not at all pursuing in any

shape or form the expansion of China into the Commonwealth of Australia, and we need to

ensure we have a defense system that ensures that biological warfare as referred to by ComradeChi Haotian cannot penetrate our water supplies nor can otherwise succeed.5



Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the key to solving all other issues. 0

F ir st, thi s makes it possible for us to have many people migr ate there and even

establi sh another Ch ina under the same leadership of the CCP. Amer ica was

origi nal ly discovered by the ancestors of the yel low race, but Columbus gave credit

to the Whi te race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTI TLED to the

possession of the land! ! ! I t is histori cal destiny that China and Uni ted States wil l 5

come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight. I n the long run,

the relationship of China and the Uni ted States is one of a li fe-and-death struggle.

Of course, ri ght now i t is not the time to openly break up with them yet . END QUOTE

0



7/13

7





As I have set out in other writings Aboriginals entered Australia via different routes through

Asia, and that may mean that the Chinese may consider that “ENTI TLED to the possession of the

land!!! ” and will hold they can eliminate anyone in the Commonwealth of Australia and well

expand their “living space”. This perhaps also explains the change in one child policy, where

they desire to conquer the world.5

It should be clear that Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military

Commission to top defence officers and generals is not some ordinary Chinese, with no

position to cause a danger. He made a statement that I view must be of concern.

The Chinese already are building off shore islands and who is not to say they may do so in0

international waters outside Australian waters as a launching path in time to come for a military

offence?

‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s MilitaryCommission to top defence officers and generals. 5QUOTE

But we must understand that the term ‘living space’ (lebenstraum) is too closely

related to Nazi Germany. The reason we don’t want to discuss this too openly is to

avoid the West ’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn

reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin’s 0

new theory, ‘ Human Rights are just li ving ri ghts ’ we only talk about ‘living’ but

not ‘space’ so as to avoid using the term ‘living space.’ From the perspective of

hi story, the reason that China is faced with the issue of li ving space is because

Western countr ies have developed ahead of Eastern coun tr ies. Western countri es

establi shed colon ies all around the worl d, therefore giving themselves an advantage 5on the issue of l iving space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people

outside of Chi na, so that they can develop outside of Ch ina.

END QUOTE

We should have politicians to so to say stop playing kindergarten games, and grow up and0

become realistic that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in particular

section 18c is utter and sheer nonsense and a danger to our own civilization. Here we have a vice

chairman talking about invading Australia and to implied by this exterminate us all and we have

politicians going mad about preserving section 18C not to offend or insult.

5 Our enemies have the assistance from within where our own politicians become our collaborators

with the enemy and so traitors.

Our constitution included s51(xxvi) to include discrimination against any race, and if china’s

modus operandi is to invade through immigration and then conquer we better get rid of our

current bunch of idiotic politicians and replace them with Australians who are willing to be0

“representative” Members of Parliaments (meaning to truly represent the interest of constituents

and not their foreign masters) and who can from a “responsible” Government.

QUOTE email 25-11-2015 Re China

China speaks5

Gil May

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttps://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=47icbpd0667qthttps://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=47icbpd0667qthttps://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=47icbpd0667qthttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]


8/13

8





Today at 7:59 AM (25-11-2015)

To

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Message body5

The US Pentagon should advise Australia it will no longer be joining defence exercises or using

Darwin Port that our alliances are now in jeopardy. To have a major defence port controlled by acompany with close links to the Chinese government and their military shows just howincompetently stupid out government is. Refer: ‘China Speaks’, December, 2005 by Comrade Chi

Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission to top defence officers and generals. 0

CHINA SPEAKS

The following is the actual text of a speech delivered in December, 2005 by Comrade 5

Chi Haotian – the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commision to top officers

and generals. Keep in mind that China has for many years advocated deceiptful

and covert warfare against its enemies. This is their Modus Operandi. There

should be little question that a “Bird Flu” Pandemic would deeply excite them.

(Don’t forget how they have poisoned thousands of American pets and knowingly 0

placed lead paints on toddler’s toys.)

“Comrades, I’m very excited today, because the large-scale onl ine survey sina.com

that was done for us showed that our next generati on is qui te promising and our

Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at 5

women, chi ldren and p risoners of war,” more than 80 per cent of the respondents

answered in the aff i rmative, exceeding by far our expectations.

Today I’d like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey

among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time, duri ng whi ch I star ted with a discussion of the issue of the thr ee islands[Taiwan, Diaoyu 0

Islands and the Spratley Islands --- Ott] and menti oned that 20 years of the idyl li c

theme of ‘peace and development’ had cometo an end, and concluded that

modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase. I also

menti oned we have a vital stake overseas.

5

The centr al i ssue of this survey appears to be whether one shoul d shoot at



9/13

9





women, chi ldren and prisoners of war, but its real signi fi cance goes far beyond

that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s

atti tude towards war i s: I f these futu re soldi ers do not hesitate to ki l l even noncombatants,

they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in ki ll ing combatants.

Therefor e, the responses to the sur vey questions may refl ect the general atti tude 5

people have towards war……..We wanted to know: If China’s global development

wil l necessi tate massive deaths in enemy countr ies, wi ll our people endorse that

scenari o? Wil l they be for or against it?

The fact is, our ‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese 0

nation, which, of course, is not l imi ted to the land we have now but also includes

the whole world. As everybody knows, accordi ng to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humani ty as a whole originated from one single mother in

Af ri ca. Therefore no race can claim racial superi ori ty. However, according to the

research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are dif ferent from other 5

races on earth. We did not ori ginate in A fr ica. I nstead, we ori ginated

independentl y in the land of Ch ina. Therefore, we can r ightf ul ly assert that we are

the product of cultu ral roots of more than a mi ll ion years, civili zation and progress

of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nati on of f ive thousand years, and a

single Chi nese enti ty of two thousand years. Thi s is the Chinese nati on that cal ls 0

itself ‘descendants of Yan and Huang.’

Duri ng our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas

and the regions along the Pacif ic Rim, and they became I ndians in the Americas

and the East Asian ethni c groups in the South Pacif ic. We all know that on 5

account of our national superi ori ty, dur ing the thr iving and prosperous Tang

Dynasty our civi li zation was at the peak of the world. We were the centr e of the

worl d civil ization, and no other civil ization in the wor ld was comparable to ours.

Later on, because of our complacency, narrow-mindedness, and the self -enclosure

of our own country, we were surpassed by Western civil ization, and the centr e of 0

the worl d shi fted to the West.

I n reviewing history, one may ask: Wi ll the centre of the world civi li zation shift



10/13

10





back to China? Actually, Comrade L iu H uaqing made simi lar points in earl y

1980’s Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the centre of world

civil ization is shi f ting. It shi fted from the East to Western Eur ope and later to the

United States; now i t is shif ting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th

Centur y as the Br iti sh Century and the 20th centur y as the Amer ican Century, then 5

the 21st Centur y wil l be the Chinese Centur y! ! (Wi ld applause fi ll s the

auditorium.)

Our Chi nese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamental ly, our

race is superior to their s. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and

larger l and area. On th is basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essenti al 0

heritages, which are atheism and great un ity. I t was Confucius, the founder of our

Chi nese cultur e, who gave us these heri tages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger abil ity to sur vive than the West. That is why the Chi nese race

has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined ‘not to be buried by either

heaven or earth’ no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national 5

disasters. Th is is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason

that the Uni ted States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainl and.

Once its enemies aim at the mainl and, the enemies would have alr eady reached

Washington before i ts congress fini shes debating and authori zes the president to

declare war. But for us, we don’t waste time on these trivial things. 0

Maybe you have now come to understand why we recentl y decided to further

promulgate atheism. I f we let theology from the West into Chi na and empty us

fr om the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and f ollow God, who wi ll

obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don’t believe Comrade

Hu Jintao is a quali fi ed leader , begin to question his author ity, and want to 5

monitor him, if the religious fol lowers in our society question why we are leading

God in churches, can our Party continue to ru le China??

The f ir st pressing issue facing us is livi ng space. This is the biggest focus of the

revitali zation of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic

li ving resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast major ity of 0

wars in history. Thi s may change in the inf ormation age, but not fundamentall y.

Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany’s back then. In



11/13

11





additi on, economic development i n the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact,

and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short

supply. The envi ronment is severely pol lu ted, especial ly that of soil , water , and air .

Not only our abili ty to sustain and develop our race, but even i ts survival i s gravely

thr eatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then 5

Anybody who has been to Western coun tr ies knows that their l ivi ng space is

much better than our s. They have forests alongside the highways, whi le we hardly

have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with whi te clouds, whi le our

sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for

drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it can’t be drunk without 0

f il tering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a

small residential building; in contrast our streets are always crawli ng with people, and several people have to shar e one room. Many years ago, there was a book

titl ed Yell ow Catastrophes. I t said that, due to our fol lowing the American style of

consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and 5

society would coll apse once our populati on reaches 1.3 bil li on. Now our

population has alr eady exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on impor ts to

sustain our nation. It’s not that we haven’t paid attention to t hi s issue. The

M in istry of Land Resources is special ized in thi s issue.

0

But we must understand that the term ‘living space’ (lebenstraum) is too closely

related to Nazi Germany. The reason we don’t want to discuss this too openly is to

avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn

reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin’s

new theory, ‘Human Rights are just living rights’ we only talk about ‘living’ but 5

not ‘space’ so as to avoid using the term ‘living space.’ From the perspective of

hi story, the reason that China is faced with the issue of li ving space is because

Western countr ies have developed ahead of Eastern coun tr ies. Western countri es

establi shed colon ies all around the worl d, therefore giving themselves an advantage

on the issue of l iving space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people 0

outside of Chi na, so that they can develop outside of Ch ina.



12/13

12





Would the Uni ted States all ow us to go out to gain new living space? F ir st, if

the Uni ted States is fi rm i n blocking us, it i s hard for us to do anything signi fi cant

to Taiwan and some other coun tr ies! Second, even i f we could snatch some land

fr om Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more li ving space can we

get? Very tri vial ! Only countri es like the United States, Canada and Austral ia 5

have the vast land to serve our need for mass coloni zation.

Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the key to solving all other issues.

F ir st, thi s makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even

establi sh another Ch ina under the same leadership of the CCP. Amer ica was 0

origi nal ly discovered by the ancestors of the yel low race, but Columbus gave credit

to the Whi te race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTI TLED to the possession of the land! ! ! I t is histori cal destiny that China and Uni ted States wil l

come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight. I n the long run,

the relationship of China and the Uni ted States is one of a li fe-and-death struggle. 5

Of course, ri ght now i t is not the time to openly break up with them yet . Our

reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology.

We sti l l need Ameri ca. Therefore, we must do everythi ng we can to promote our

relationship with America, learn f rom Ameri ca in all aspects and use America as

an example to reconstruct our country. 0

Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the

Chi nese people there. Only by using non-destructi ve weapons that can k il l many

people wil l we be able to reserve Amer ica f or ourselves. There has been r apid

development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been 5

invented one after another. Of course we have not been i dle; i n the past years we

have seized the opportuni ty to master weapons of th is ki nd. We are capable of

achieving our purpose of ‘cleaning up’ America all of a sudden. When Comrade

Xiaoping was stil l with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to

make the right decision not to develop air craft carr ier groups and focused instead 0

on developing l ethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy

country.



13/13

13





Bi ological weapons are unprecedented in their r uth lessness, but if the

Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. I f the Chinese people are

strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place.

According to the computations of the author of Yell ow Peri l, more than half of the 5

Chinese wil l die, and that f igur e would be more than 800 mil li on people! Just after

the li beration, our yell ow land supported nearl y 500 mill ion people, whi le today the

off icial f igur e of the population is more than 1.3 bil li on. This yell ow land has

reached the limit of i ts capacity. One day, who know how soon it wil l come, the

great collapse wil l occur any time and more than half of the population wi ll have to 0

go.

I t is indeed brutal to ki ll one or two hundred mill ion Americans. But that is the

only path that wil l secure a Chinese centur y, a centur y in which the CCP leads the

worl d. We, as revolutionary humanitar ians, do not want deaths, But i f history 5

confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d

have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the li ves of the

Chi nese people and the li fe of our Party.

The last problem I want to talk about is of f irmly seizing the preparations for 0

mil itary battl e. The centr al commi ttee beli eves, as long as we resolve the Uni ted

States problem at one blow, our domestic problems wil l all be readil y solved.

Therefore, our mi li tary battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is

aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking

air craf t carr iers or satell ites. Marxi sm pointed out that violence is the midwife for 5

the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China’s

century.”

END QUOTE email 25-11-2015 re China

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.0

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®(Our name is our motto! )

20151125-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr malcolm turnbull re australias national security-etc

Documents