Thoughts for The Week by Ron Owen of Owen Guns.

Thoughts For The Week.

“As in nature, politics abhors a power vacuum.”
History has shown that weak, undefended countries are short lived experiences, until filled by a more violent power.
“We have between two and three years to go, before we have a major confrontation with China.”
History through the ages is littered with examples of Australia’s current demise. The pages of history prove to us that when presented with a power vacuum: there will arise a force; a country and Empire which will try to fill that void. History also shows that the force will be sinister. A force that will take away your liberty, your property, your happiness, and ultimately your life. I have seen the modern examples in my own lifetime, in the form of Communism, and have second generation knowledge of the scourge of Fascism in Nazi Germany, Italy, and the Imperial designs of the Japanese empire. Only 1 in a 100 examples are power voids filled by a benign power and China does not have a record of being benign.

Anson Chan, the former chief secretary of Hong Kong, occupied a position of trust unique in history. She was the last head of the Hong Kong civil service under the British and the first under the Chinese. She served four years under each, evidence that both powers trusted her impartiality and professionalism.
“I don’t think Australians understand the sort of country they’re dealing with. Look at the way they are infiltrating, even in Australia,” she said during a visit to Melbourne in 2016. “Australia is a very open society, so it wouldn’t occur to most people the designs of the one-party state. And it wouldn’t have occurred to the people of Hong Kong until we experienced it first-hand. No one should be under any illusions about the objective of the Communist Party leadership: it’s long-term, systematic infiltration of social organisations, media and government. By the time China’s infiltration of Australia is readily apparent, it will be too late.”

We’ve seen the pattern throughout history, with the empires, monarchies and savagery of forces seeking to conquer their known world, Babylonians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Norman, Mongols, the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, National Socialism, Hitler, Japanese Imperialism, Communism, Lenin and now Chinese Communism. They all have to try, as they know that if they fail to take an area someone else will fill the void. Power always seeks the ultimate in power. The opportunists are always rewarded, but not all win, some ultimately fail, but all leave behind them a total devastation, battlefields, personal human losses that in every instance the surviving common folk have to deal with until the next tyrant comes along. If there are any survivors at all.

Our Current Appeaser.
China’s ‘game-changing’ position will ‘reset the world order’, PM Scott Morrison says. China’s increased influence needed to be understood in terms of its rise.
“China in our lifetime has gone from a developing country, one of not great economic size or scale and not a large military, to the second biggest economy in the world with one of the largest militaries,” he said. “So it’s obviously been the game-changing country of our era and our generation. That’s obviously going to reset the world order. “We just need to understand that in its context. They’re a much bigger country than they used to be with much more influence, and that’s just something the system has to absorb and adapt to.”
Asked if the average Australian should be worried about China, he said “worry is not the word”.

Would “Petrified” be more of an honest response?
Is he mentally retarded, or is he a paid traitor for the Chinese like some of our other parliamentarians? Could he really be that blind to Chinese intentions.
Since 1949 China’s policy has been a never-ending pursuit of power, the relentlessly expanding influence and paranoid nature of the Chinese Communist Party invaded Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkestan, India, Vietnam means that it will continue to press outwards unless and until it meets resistance. It would be in Taiwan in a heart beat and is bursting to suppress Hong Kong. It has invaded Philippine’s Territory in the South China Sea and the world has done nothing. It has invaded Australian Antarctic Territory and Australia has not even asked them to leave. At home and abroad, it imposes one control after another until it is satisfied that it has total control. It is an ideology of authoritarianism animated by a psychology of totalitarianism.

The Appeasers are Sedated by this sort of Nonsense.

1. “No China can’t invade Australia.
China cannot break out of the first Island Chain or successfully invade Taiwan with a guarantee of success let alone Australia.”
Answer. The USA is not going to risk losing half its major cities to Chinese Ballistic Missiles to save Australia, South Korea, or Taiwan, or the Philippines. Once the threat of Nuclear War with the USA is removed, or fully cancelled Taiwan will not last a week.

2. “The distances are massive, 9,000km to Sydney, let alone Melbourne, Adelaide and the interior. China’s long supply lines can be easily interdicted by naval and air forces.”
Answer . China no longer has long supply lines it has bases all around us. Besides the South China Sea bases it has these as marked on the map.

3. “The forces required to invade Australia and secure it, are massive. Think of the Germans invading the USSR, Australia has great depth to fall back, hide, and counter attack at our choosing. No nation can successfully hold onto Australia with the deployments of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, perhaps a million.”
Answer . China has over 2 million men in its Army and millions more to call up. The Chinese also have a large well paid fifth column within Australia and subscribe to the creed to “Win Without Fighting”. Similar to Hitler’s strategy with the Appeasers he took the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia without fighting. Once they cut off our oil supplies and military goods our leaders will surrender and fly off to the South of France.

4. “The ADF would not engage in head on battles after a successful invasion, instead hit supply lines, logistics, hit and run tactics, use terrain and local knowledge to our advantage. Prior to the invasion force arriving which will need to traverse tight sea lanes and be visible to anyone who is looking.”
Answer. Amazing that people still see danger coming from the North of Australia, they imagine an enemy would be stupid enough to land in Northern Territory and march down to the southern capitals, when if all of their other ploys failed and they did have to fight they could either fly into the airports that they already own, or land anywhere between Sydney and Melbourne and drive to Canberra, or both. We have nothing to stop them. They have a Navy and Air force and we don’t.

5. “The Jindalee over the Horizon Radar System can track planes and ships in the South China Sea as far as Southern China. A large fleet headed to Australia would be tracked by this system or via satellite. Submarines and Aircraft would be used to either stop this fleet or reduce its effectiveness.”
Answer. More than likely China will take an off shore island like Lord Howe Island and one of the Chesterton Island and once supplied with J20 supersonic jet fighters and lots of missiles before turning off all our imports. From our six Collins Class Submarines we might get one to go to sea, as they are based in Western Australia it might take a fortnight to get to Torres Straits for its suicide run. China has 60 submarines and submarine drones even if we could send one or two destroyers or frigates they would be committing suicide again Chinese battle fleets with plenty of air cover.

6. “China would have limited or no air support. China has 1 Aircraft carrier with 1 locally built carrier soon to join the fleet. The limited numbers of aircraft they carry do not pose a significant threat to Australia’s air force which is also obtaining the F-35 Stealth Fighter. You only need to hit the air craft carrier to take out China’s air cover, then prevent China taking an airport/base as part of its invasion which would leave Chinese troops at the mercy of the Australian Air Force, it would be a slaughter. Australia would lose a number of F-18 Super Hornets to ship based defences, however combined with limited numbers F-35’s, P-8 Poseidon maritime strike planes, let alone the Australian Navy which would first use Collins Class Submarines.”
Answer. The Government stooge who writes the above clap trap has obviously not been informed of the two Chinese airport already here in Western Australia both controlled by Chinese State Corporations Citic and China Southern Airlines. The writer obviosly would not know that off shore Islands unlike aircraft carriers are un-sinkable, that China would not have to bring its carriers into the range of our air force, yet Chinese aircraft could dominate all of the East coast of Australia as the J20 has a range of 1100 miles. The J20 aircraft is considered a good match for the F35 maybe better, but no matter China has a lot more of them and has the factories that produce more when needed.

7. “Tiger attack helicopters would attack and landings and without air cover Chinese invading Ground forces would be decimated and easily repelled by the Australian Army. The US would also quickly resupply Australia with new aircraft, they have plenty of F-18 Super Hornets in the inventory to send us, plus the F-35’s will be rolling of the production line, they would be sent to the Australian air force to replace losses just as they did to Israel in its wars, we could also obtain resupply of smart missiles/bombs and other equipment we would require.”
Answer. Our 22 Tiger attack helicopter might have 12 working, China can draw on 1004, it also has 1500 fighter jets to give it as much air cover as it needs. The F-35s can role off the production line in the USA but Australia will have no means of flying or sailing them into the country. Re-supply of anything will be zero, as all sea way and air ways will be blocked by Chinese missiles or aircraft.

8. For China to successfully have any chance of invading Australia it would need to secure air bases and ports closer to Australia such as in Indonesia or PNG. This build-up of Chinese forces and bases would be seen and known well in advance and preparations would be made for a potential Chinese invasion. Without land based support from aircraft and a much shorter supply line an invasion would fail. Even with this the numbers of troops required to secure Australia’s population and hold the land against counter attack by Australian allies such as the US, Britain, NZ, Japan, Singapore to name a few would be immense and not possible.
Answer. We know about it already in advance anyway, we are surrounded by Chinese air bases and deep water ports. It has been seen, but our Appeasement Governments are too scared to alert Australia and place it on a ready for war footing. Defence problems happen quickly, China has land based support for its aircraft and short distances to its local ports and bases. China’s bases in Antarctica would assist with targeting Chinese missiles to knock out all government infrastructure. China has had much experience in securing civilian populations, it eliminates the none useful and makes slaves of only the ones worth feeding.
Good British, Canadian and American people would want there governments to assist Australia but they would be powerless to assist, China has its bases all in a row, it would control the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the vast resources of the Southern Ocean, China’s southern flank will be secured they might be able to impose trade sanctions on China for a few years, they might stop the World Bank paying China a Billion US dollars every year in aid, but with all the resources from Antarctica, Australia and the South Pacific China will be an unstoppable world power. Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia. Indonesia, Africa and India will be the next ducks in the row.

China will not care about Global Warming, or Save the Whales, they want world domination and nothing will stand in their way. Ron Owen

Thoughts for The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns.

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen.
Ironically, the Australia media are screaming for human rights, they want the Right to Free Speech, not for everyone of course just protection for journalists. They want exemptions to laws that keep government secrets, they want protection from the laws of defamation and discrimination. When myself and many others have been prosecuted and persecuted for speaking out about the laws of discrimination, (suffered an 8 year court case) and I suffered a 4 year case for having in my possession the recipe for manufacturing Black Powder (which is in every good encyclopaedia it has been available for 700 years) the media never came once to our defence. They manufactured stories that made me and others comparable with serial killers.

I'm not saying that they are wrong in demanding the Freedom of Speech, it is a Right of Free people.Even the High Court Australian ‘Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth”case found that the “Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991,[2]” which regulated political advertising during election campaigns, invalid. The High Court found the laws to be invalid, since they contravened an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. Chief Justice Mason expressed the view that the Australian Constitution originally drew its authority from the British Imperial Parliament and although it was not mentioned in the Courts final decision the Bill of Rights of 1689 which is one of the documents that establishes the Rights of the people and the Rights of the British Imperial Parliament was referred to and discussed in the full transcript. Ironical, that the same Bill of Rights that give the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom to Petition the Freedom of Parliamenty Representation that won the case for the Australian media in the Capital Television case is the same Bill of Rights of 1689 that give us all the Right to have ‘Arms suitable for our defence’. (Protestants and Catholics) The Australian Politicians will fly immediately to the Bill of Rights to defend the Rights of Free Speech in Parliament, the Journalists will fly to the section on the Right to Petition, (as without the Right to report its impossible for the public to know a Petition is required, or what it is about, but when law abiding Firearm Owners claim the Right to have ‘Arms suitable for our Defence’, well both Politicians and Media laugh at us and state that the Bill of Rights has no meaning in Australia or anywhere else. Law Abiding Firearm Owners have been swung on the gibbet, hung, drawn, and quartered by the media zombies. Now is the time that the should all be reminded of their hypocrisy.

“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason?For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.”

Sir John Harington (1560–1612)

What does it mean, When we have a society that betrays its country so prosperously, so epidemically that our Chinese funded politicians can not be criticised by our Chinese funded universities nor will the finger be pointed at the Chinese funded media.. They have all been bought and paid for all are ‘Traitors’.

The New Chinese Empire Why would Julia Bishop contribute.

Why would Julie Bishop’s when Minister for Foreign Affairs DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) donated taxpayer funds to support China’s Belt and Road initiative.

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/10/julie-bishops-dfat-donated-taxpayer-funds-to-support-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative.html

or http://www.acbri.org.au/

If she is not being paid by them, is she a secret communist?

We can see why Communists would seek to infiltrate our University’s. Their god like Messiah Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, otherwise known as ‘Lenin’ said,

“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.” Taking the minds of the next generation of teachers, politicians and journalist takes every country into his Communist International, but we do not have a paradise to look forward to.

Lenin’s further quotes explain the forward planning.

“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth…”

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

(Just see the re-action of hate when we expose the “Climate Change” fraud.)

“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”

“The best revolutionary is youth devoid of morals.””A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

“There are no morals in politics there is only expedience.” “A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.” “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

“It matters not if 90% of the Russian people perish so long as 10% bring about a world revolution.”

Like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and despite his more positive reputation among Leftists, Lenin also wished to exterminate the peasant class, even orchestrating famines to do so, in order to force his will on pure Communism. This also proves that Communism, despite the PR, never cared at all for the poor people.

In November 1917, at a meeting of delegates of the committees of poor peasants, Lenin announced a new policy to eliminate Soviet peasants, known as “kulaks”land owning peasants: “If the kulaks remain untouched, if we don’t defeat the freeloaders, the czar and the capitalist will inevitably return.” In July 1918, “Committees of the Poor” were created to represent poor peasants, which played an important role in the struggle against the kulaks, and led the process of redistribution of confiscated lands and inventory, food surpluses from the kulaks.

All kulaks were assigned to one of three categories:

1.Those to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police

2.Those to be sent to Siberia, the North, the Urals or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property

3.Those to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts

An OGPU secret-police functionary, Yefim Yevdokimov (1891–1939), played a major role in organizing and supervising the round-up of peasants and the mass executions.

This was so successful for them that they expanded the goal posts and eliminated any area of society that they felt were against the Communist ideals, Clergy, Cossacks, Intellectuals and professionals, Jews, Business people, including doctors and engineers.

There were numerous reports that Cheka interrogators used torture. At Odessa the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; in Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims’ hands to produce “gloves”; the Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk; the Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Oryol, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in Kiev, Chinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim’s body in an effort to escape.

Executions took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian Civil War. After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver. Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were moved by truck, bound and gagged, to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.

According to Edvard Radzinsky, “it became a common practice to take a husband hostage and wait for his wife to come and purchase his life with her body”. During de-Cossackization, there were massacres, according to historian Robert Gellately, “on an unheard of scale”. The Pyatigorsk Cheka organized a “day of Red Terror” to execute 300 people in one day, and took quotas from each part of town. According to the Chekist Karl Lander [ru], the Cheka in Kislovodsk, “for lack of a better idea”, killed all the patients in the hospital. In October 1920 alone more than 6,000 people were executed. Gellately adds that Communist leaders “sought to justify their ethnic-based massacres by incorporating them into the rubric of the ‘class struggle'”.

“For every idealistic ‘peace-maker,’ willing to renounce his right of self-defense in order to bring-about a ‘weapons-free world,’ there is at least one malignant war-maker, more than anxious to exploit his naivety” Margaret Thatcher

Members of the clergy were subjected to particularly brutal abuse. According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice. Many scholars have estimated these civilian deaths at 20 million conservatively and approaching 100 million. In his foreword to the book, Martin Malia noted “a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million dead people.

So why would Australian Universities corporate with Communist China.

UNSW Professor of Artificial Intelligence Toby Walsh said Australian universities were walking down a dangerous road and should consider carefully who they collaborate with.

“We’ve seen such rapid advances in the last few years, that we do now have to wake up and consider seriously the implications and how the technology that we work on can be misused,” he said. Australian universities have also collaborated with Chinese defence universities.

Researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) have worked on dozens of such studies, including a 2019 study on covert communications with the China’s National University of Defense Technology, which was blacklisted by the US four years ago. The study authors said it could have military applications, including “for a stealth fighter … to be able to hide itself from enemies while communicating with its military bases.”

Is it because Chinese students seem to account for more than 50% of all international students? In 2017, they relied on Chinese student course fees for anywhere from 13% (Adelaide and ANU) to 22-23% (UNSW and Sydney) of their total revenues. Even these figures likely understate their true China exposure, since they generate substantial non-course revenue from Chinese students as well.

Senior Australian security officials have reported that the joint activities between UNSW and Chinese Defence companies are evidence that Beijing is running a global espionage operation through technology companies.Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) analyst Dr Samantha Hoffman has spent months uncovering GTCOM’s global and Australian connections. She said the company’s intent was to support the Chinese Communist Party’s security interests.“Whether it contributes to a state security product or propaganda or military intelligence, all of the data they’re collecting can then be turned into information that supports those objectives,” said Dr Hoffman. “So immediately that raises red flags.”
Professor John Fitzgerald, who served as a chair on DFAT’s (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) Australia-China Council, said Chinese companies were capitalising on Australia’s science and technology expertise.
“Australia’s science and technology priorities are being set by the Chinese Government because we enter into collaborations that have really been designed to support China’s goals, not ours,” he said.“Many universities are very happy to proceed with whatever it is … because of the money and prestige involved.” “There’s a possibility that some of this research will go towards uses which could place Australia at risk.”
IT MUST BE THE MONEY as We Pay Them To BETRAY Us.
In January, Chinese media reported on Haiyun Data’s announcement of a new joint artificial intelligence laboratory with the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS).
UTS associate dean and director of its Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Professor Jie Lu, was pictured holding a signed agreement with Haiyun.
Professor Lu was last month awarded a $3.2 million fellowship from the Australian Research Council for a project to enable artificial intelligence to learn autonomously from data.
The university has confirmed it has a research project with Haiyun Data to develop technology for handwriting recognition.
Former head of the Australian Cyber Security Centre at the Australian Signals Directorate Alastair MacGibbon said universities needed to understand the implications of their international research deals.

Mao Zedong Competed with Stalin For the World Biggest Killer.

Who was the individual in charge of the largest mass murderer in the history of the world? Most people probably assume that the answer is Adolf Hitler, architect of the Holocaust. But more than likely Hitler, Lenin and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong as one would have to split up the USSR mass murder between Lenin and Stalin. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people, just within four years. Easily making it the biggest one off episode of mass murder ever recorded.

Historian Frank Dikötter, author of the important book “Mao’s Great Famine” stated,

“Mao thought that he could catapult his country past its competitors by herding villagers across the country into giant people’s communes. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, everything was collectivised. People had their work, homes, land, belongings and livelihoods taken from them. In collective canteens, food, distributed by the spoonful according to merit, became a weapon used to force people to follow the party’s every dictate. As incentives to work were removed, coercion and violence were used instead to compel famished farmers to perform labour on poorly planned irrigation projects while fields were neglected.”

It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but these record the manner in which many people died: between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction. “When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Xiong Dechang forced his father to bury him alive. The father died of grief a few days later. The case of Wang Ziyou was reported to the central leadership: one of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a ten kilogram stone was dropped on his back and then he was branded with a sizzling tool – punishment for digging up a potato.”

Elderly villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death.

Followed by Millions of Deaths in the Cultural Revolution.
The basic facts of the Great Leap Forward have long been known to scholars. Dikötter’s work is noteworthy for demonstrating that the number of victims may have been even greater than previously thought, and that the mass murder was more clearly intentional on Mao’s part, and included large numbers of victims who were executed or tortured, as opposed to “merely” starved to death. The Great Leap Forward was followed by the Cultural Revolution which was also organised by Chairman Mao again millions died

While the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are well known to experts on communism and Chinese history, they are rarely remembered by ordinary people even within China. When Westerners think of the great evils of world history, they rarely think of this one. An even bigger factor in our relative neglect of the Great Leap Forward is that it is part of the general tendency to downplay crimes committed by communist regimes, as opposed to right-wing authoritarians. Our bought and paid for mainstream media are very reluctant to fully accept that a great evil is within Communist/Socialist movement. The horrendous history of China, the USSR, and their imitators, should have permanently discredited Communist socialism as completely as Fascism socialism as both were socialism all have the same disregard for human life and freedom.

But it has not.

In contrast to the numerous books, movies, museums, and remembrance days dedicated to the Holocaust, we make little effort to recall the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution, or Lenin’ and Stalin purges. When we vow “never again,” we don’t often recall that it should apply to this type of political atrocity, as well as those motivated by anti-Semitism.

I have no wish to diminish the significance of anyone’s loss due to Hitler the impact is on the individual and their families, if these dictators kill more or less millions that the others is not the point of this information, this is to remind us all of what Chinese Communist atrocities are capable of and we have to consider that if they will do this to their own people how generous, or compassionate would they be when Australians are at their disposal?

War not just likely but inevitable.

In 12 of 16 past instances in history in which a rising power has confronted a ruling power, the result has been War and bloodshed. Yet 100 years after World War I we hear it said that “War is inconceivable”, this again offers a sobering reminder of man’s capacity for folly.

In 1914, few could imagine slaughter on a scale that demanded a new category: world war. When war ended four years later, Europe lay in ruins: the Kaiser gone, the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved, the Russian Tsar overthrown by the Bolsheviks, France bled for a generation, and England shorn of its youth and treasure. A millennium in which Europe had been the political centre of the world had come to a crashing halt.

Thucydides’s Trap

In the ancient text “History of the Peloponnesian War”, Thucydides wrote, “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.”

The defining question about global order for this generation is whether China and the United States can escape Thucydides’s Trap.”when one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result”. The Greek historian’s metaphor reminds us of the attendant dangers when a rising power rivals a ruling power, as Athens challenged Sparta in ancient Greece, or as Germany did Britain a 100 years ago. Most such contests have ended badly, often for both nations.

When King Edward VII died in 1910 Attendees at his funeral included two “chief mourners”, Edward’s successor, George V, and his cousin Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm, along with Theodore Roosevelt representing the United States. At one point, Roosevelt (an avid student of naval power and leading champion of the buildup of the U.S. Navy) asked Wilhelm whether he would consider a moratorium in the German-British naval arms race. The Kaiser replied that Germany was unalterably committed to having a powerful navy. But as he went on to explain, war between Germany and Britain was “simply unthinkable, because “I was brought up in England, very largely; I feel myself partly an Englishman. Next to Germany I care more for England than for any other country.” And then with emphasis: “I ADORE ENGLAND!”

The World has Woken Up to A New Balance.
However unimaginable conflict seems, however catastrophic the potential consequences for all actors, however deep the cultural empathy among leaders, even blood relatives, and however economically interdependent states may be, none of those factors is sufficient to prevent war, in 1914 or today in 2020.

The preeminent geo-strategic challenge of this era is not violent Islamic extremists or a resurgent Russia. It is the impact that China’s ascendance will have on the U.S.A. led international order, which has provided unprecedented great-power peace and prosperity for the past 70 years. As Singapore’s late leader, Lee Kuan Yew, observed, “the size of China’s displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance. It is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world.” Everyone knows about the rise of China. Few of us realize its magnitude. Never before in history has a nation risen so far, so fast, on so many dimensions of power. To paraphrase former Czech President Vaclav Havel, “all this has happened so rapidly that we have not yet had time to be astonished.”

DF 41 Dong Feng  East Wind would blow no one any good .

We have seen the USA pull out of Syria and leaving its Allies the Kurds at the mercy of the Turkish Army. The Kurds have lost 10,000 soldiers fighting IS (supported by Turkey) and the USA have not taken that into account. We saw the US government pull out of South Vietnam which allowd the North to take the South and settle the scores with 3 million South Vietnam ese. How can Australia expect the USA to place its mainland cities in jeopardy to protect Australia.

Useful Fools.
Idiots in the Peace and Green movement funded by George Soros and the Chinese government have this notion, that if we do not have a Nuclear deterrent, Nuclear missiles, Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Submarines, Aircraft that can deliver Nuclear warheads, Artillery that can deliver Nuclear warheads, that no other Nuclear endowed government would ever attack us with Nuclear weapons. Worse than that, even more “head in the sand”, most of the brain dead zombies that parade about with flowers in their dirty ‘Dreadlocks’ believe that if we have no Anti Missile Defence, no missiles to stop Nuclear armed Missiles attacking Australia then that’s another reason why an enemy like North Korea or China or any of the other Nuclear armed governments would not attack Australia. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, otherwise known as ‘Lenin’, called the British Peace Movement, “Useful Fools” well ours are well paid fools and are useful to the enemies of our Country. The largest majority do not even know or think that Australia will ever be attacked by anyone. Where else in history has this innocence been rewarded.

No Force Can Stop Us.
On the first of October 2019 in Beijing where Chang’an Avenue, meets Tiananmen Square

Chinese President Xi Jinping looked on as roughly 15,000 troops, 160 aircraft, and 580 pieces of military equipment were paraded for the 70th anniversary of the country’s founding

Mr Xi, who wore the distinctive “Mao suit”, delivered a speech invoking the “Chinese dream” of national rejuvenation, his grand vision of restoring the country to his perceived past glory.

“No force can stop the Chinese people and the Chinese nation forging ahead.”

“There is no force that can shake the foundation of this great nation,” Xi said

“Unity is iron and steel; unity is a source of strength,” Xi said, according to an English-language transcript from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The military parade showcased what’s claimed to be the world’s longest range intercontinental ballistic missile, the DF-41 DF stands for Dongfeng which means in English ‘East Wind’ which should be significant to the United States as that the direction that they would come from. The missile has a reputed range of up to 15,000 kilometres putting both Australia and the United States within striking distance. Analysts say it each missile will be able to carry as many as 10 warheads capable of hitting separate targets. So one missile to Australia and ten major cities get a nuclear warhead worth a few kiloton of devastation.

The DF-26 ballistic missile which are fired from land bases, is made to have the accuracy to strike at the key element of US power projection, the US Navy’s aircraft carriers in the Pacific.

HSU-001 underwater drones were on show for the first time the HSU-001 appears to be similar in size to Boeing’s Echo Seeker design and could be equipped with explosive deapth charges.

The vehicle-mounted DF-17 (Dongfeng) missile was displayed and will be capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional payloads,”the DF-17 missile successfully completed its ballistic flights and reentered the Earth’s atmosphere, using the hypersonic glide vehicle system. It leaves the earths atmosphere strapped to a DF-16 ballistic missile and then breaks away and glides down to its target at 5 times the speed of sound. Currently there is no defence for this missile. China’s military showed off these new hypersonic ballistic nuclear missile believed capable of breaching all existing anti-missile shields deployed by the US and its allies. These longer-range aircraft and missiles seem designed with the U.S. military in mind, analysts say

The parade also included two new supersonic drone, suspected to be the DR-8, which military commentators say could fly at maximum speeds of around 4,100 kilometres per hour. The

DR-8 unmanned aerial vehicle and the Sharp Sword stealth attack drone which can reach as far into the western Pacific as the American territory of Guam. More concerning for the USA is the Sharp Sword, is an attack drone that is not just a UAV but a UCAV: an unmanned combat air vehicle. The aircraft can carry missiles or laser-guided bombs. It is expected to enter service before the end of the year.

The PLA Rocket Force has placed particular emphasis on developing dangerous long-range anti-ship missiles that can keep the U.S. Navy at a safe distance,” the Defence Talk industry publication reported, “so the Sharp Sword’s ability to further extend that range only places enemy ships in all the more peril.”

Pairs or small numbers of J-20s have appeared in previous parades, but the fact the Air Force is ready to fly seven of them is significant and suggests they are ready for combat, according to analysts”A considerable number of units are probably ready to fly the J-20,” Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times.

“If seven J-20s are sent simultaneously into battle, they would have a significant striking capability with their air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons,” Wang told the paper. They would be able to strike enemy targets deep in hostile territory, he said. Designed for enhanced stealth and manoeuverability, the J-20 has the potential to provide China with a variety of previously unavailable air combat options and enhance its capability to project China’s air power.

The H-6N, a new version of China’s long-range strategic bomber, also appeared during parade rehearsals.Other observers noted the bomber had an aerial refueling receptacle. That will enable the aircraft, which was modeled on the Soviet Tu-16 jet bomber, to carry out in-flight refueling.

China’s 70th anniversary parade interestingly included 12 JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) carried on trucks. Though these have reportedly been in active service on board the People’s Liberation Army, Navy’s nuclear-powered Type 094 Jin class ballistic missile submarines, the Chinese government had not displayed any examples publicly before.

The parade featured China’s new lightweight Type 15 tanks with the fully stabilized 105mm rifled gun and an effective firing range of two miles. The tank weighs between 33 and 36 tons, making it more mobile than a standard battle tank, which usually weight about 50 tons.

What is already clear is that China’s military modernization is continuing at a brisk pace and the country is pushing ahead more and more toward closing capability gaps with its largest competitors, namely the United States and in some areas have more firepower.

It certainly appears that unless America has a technological break through its military dominance in the world is on the back foot.

Apathy, on the Greatest Scale Imaginable.

The Ten Year Rule was a British government guideline, first adopted in August 1919, that limited its armed forces to draft their estimates “on the assumption that the British Empire would not be engaged in any great war during the next ten years”.(sometimes called the Pernicious Law.) It was a secret rule introduced into Parliament that stated Britain could count on ten years notice for any major conflict. Accordingly, she need not spend significant funds in the near term on her military. The rule was renewed each year until it found itself in such a weakened state in the mid 1930s against Germany’s re armament. Australia must be running on a Thirty year rule and not expecting to need a defence until at lease 2050 when its 12 useless French submarines will finally be ready. The Chinese parade has shown us the way, we need a large factory producing those HSU-001 underwater drones submarines and

the DR-8 unmanned aerial vehicle and the Sharp Sword stealth attack drones. We need hundreds of them all large ships and slow moving planes are all just targets we cannot afford to lose. The Chinses have looked to oppose the large US aircraft carrier and our opponents will be large Chinese aircraft carriers without those large ships China cannot impose its will o Australia. We have to have a counter threat to their ships and missiles.

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” Albert Einstein

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns. September 2019.

Thoughts For The Week.

Keep Your Powder Dry.

First of all let me put it on the record, I am not anti Chinese, I spent a lot of good times in China during the 1980s and early 1990s. As a student of military history I visited the Great Wall in several places, shot on their rifle ranges,visited military museums and the Terracotta Army in Xi’an. I have long standing friendships that I value with Chinese friends, my only problem with China is that their communist leadership and corrupt political system has taken a path of expansionism and will not turn back from it unless it has a cataclysmic change in leadership. Napoleon Bonaparte said “China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.” and it will take the rest of the world to stop her from shaking the world to death. This week US President Donald Trump has welcomed Prime Minister Scott Morrison to the White House for a historic state visit. Asked whether he was only concerned about trade with China or if he saw the country as a strategic threat, he said: “Obviously China is a threat to the world in a sense because they are building their military faster than anybody and frankly they are using US money.”

China Increasing War Budget.

Scott Morrison, will be having a quiet word with President Trump seeking ‘quid pro quo’ assurances that if Australia joins the USA coalition against Iran, that when the chips are down with China that America will take over China to save Australia. The answer will of course be in the affirmative, but when the chips are down and a US President Trump or worse Biden, or worse Warren has to make a choice of going nuclear to save Australia knowing that China’s nuclear missiles will certainly take out Seattle, Hawaii, San Francisco and Los Angles killing a 100 million Americans to save 20 million Australians. That sacrifice scenario becomes even less likely as even if China and North Korea were wiped out, what would remain of the USA, theoretically the East Coast would not be able to withstand an attack from Russia, so even if Russia did not feel disposed to get involved it would be the last remaining World Power which would then dominate Europe and the World.

Weapons that could be used in the Pacific wipeout war. Notice Australia did not get a mention.

So saving Australia from China by America is highly unlikely, even though America is following the same formula to create a war, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did prior to World War Two. At that time similar to China today, Japans Naval power was beginning to dwarf the USAs Pacific Fleet, Japan needed raw materials and living space from China, President F.D. Roosevelt knew that if Japan succeeded in conquering all of China then it would be an unstoppable super power so he imposed a oil and fuel ban on Japan unless it withdrew from China. Faced with having a few months supply left Japan decided to try to sink the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour and struck south to capture the Burmah Oil and Seria Field ,Borneo Oil, ( Brunei) and the living space, food and resources rich continent of Australia.

Due to Japan not succeeding to win the Battle of the Coral Sea, and suffering huge losses in Burma and the Kokoda Trail Australia remained a large base on the southern flank of Japan which America was able to re-enforce. So if Japan had struck South attacked Australia first, and not attacked the USA at Pearl Harbour, and not tried to take India through Siam, the USA would have stayed isolationist with the Monroe Doctrine and Japan with all its force concentrated in the South would have won Australia.

The Spratley Islands, Chinese Bases are really close to the Brunei oilfields.

Once it consolidated Australia’s resources they could chose who to attack next. We can be assured that present day China will see the move of President Trump to keep applying tariffs denying China from the worlds largest market, like “Déjà Vu”. They well know that manufactured exports are their only profit makers, every other aspect of their economy makes huge losses, housing, food production, (they now have to import food again) Fuel,(oil, gas and coal have to be imported) without their exports, without foreign exchange to pay for imports, without their resources (food, and fuel) the future finishes in bankruptcy and starvation. They are being forced into making a decision, either to withdraw contract, returning to their past position, or to attack and like Germany in WW2 gain Lebensraum (‘living space’) in order to survive.. We can only hope that Scott Morrison is aware of this and is chewing Mr Trumps ear asking him to leave a way out. Even if he gets a promise, I am doubtful if it will ever be honoured as Trump needs to close the Chinese exports off so the United States can re-build its industry, give jobs to the voters to gain re-election.

In my August Bulletin “Thoughts of the Week” to summarise I explained Australia lack of an adequate defence force, our lack of Defence Industries, the scenario of China building an Island base at Long Island, (Chesterfield Islands) and then moving on to Lord Howe Island. The inability and lack of interest for any other nation to move them. (As with the South China Sea Spratley Islands, the USA has not stepped in to throw China off the Islands that the Philippines claims as its territory) The probability that China dominating all of Australia’s sea and air ways would blockade, preventing the importation of fuel, or manufacturing materials, in less then 25 days diesel fuel and petrol would run out, food would not be delivered to the shops, Australia the land of plenty would starve. Australian politicians would surrender, do a deal and fly to the South of France. The Australian population being superfluous to the Chinese requirements would die out.

The only consolation would be the thought that Australia’s left wing unionists, media and greenies would finally find out the reality of Communism, as they would be the first to have their body parts and organs sold off. The Muslim Shari law clerics would soon follow them. The skilled workers who produced things would survive a little longer.

This Bulletin goes out to a mail list with 10,000 subscribers about 20 or 30 complimented me on my efforts to awaken Australia to pending disaster, the rest either did not read my article and just looked at the adverts, or read it and did not accept it. They may think that it is a one sided debate, maybe, but here are a few words from the Chinese perspective.

It is hard to find the Chinese perspective as the Chinese governments suppresses the truth and keeps an unyielding grip of silence on its citizens within and without the nations borders. I was in Beijing at the beginning of June 1989 and then returned a week after the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

I was staying at the Beijing Hotel which was in East Tiananmen, it was amazing to see a million peaceful people at one time in the square. I returned home and within a week there were tank tracks and huge burn marks on the square as though flame throwers had incinerated them. I was shocked how a country could treat its own citizens and amazed at how quickly it was hushed up.

This stranglehold means that, even today, relatively little information is available about the Tiananmen Square massacre. However, British ambassador to China, Sir Alan Donald wrote a secret diplomatic cable around 24 hours after the massacre, which the British Government only declassified in 2017. The cable reveals stunning information previously unknown to most of the world, and most likely, China itself.

According to Donald, at least 10,000 people were killed. One of the Chinese army units was apparently so vicious that the former ambassador described them as “primitives” in his document. The cable provides a hitherto unprecedented look at what really occurred that night and day. Donald’s cable has since found a new home in the U.K. National Archives. The former ambassador was an eye witness to most of it from the rooftop of the Embassy but explained that the details of his report stemmed from personal conversations from a “good friend” in China’s State Council, the government’s cabinet, who spoke to Donald in confidence.

Donald said his source “has previously proved reliable and was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumor,” making his recounting of the events of June 3 and June 4 highly credible.

Donald’s cable to London described the “atrocities” against several thousand pro-democracy protesters as being undertaken by the 27th Army of Shanxi Province. He called this truculent group of soldiers “60 % illiterate” and “primitives.”

According to Donald and his trusted source, however, the local Beijing troops that entered Tiananmen Square prior to the 27th Army were unarmed. The people gave them flowers and expected them to stay and protest with them. This was an initial attempt to disperse the massive group of protesters without violence, as most were students, unarmed, and non-violent.

Unfortunately, this approach rapidly came to an end.
“The 27 Army APCs (armored personnel carriers) opened fire on the crowd before running over them,” Donald wrote in his cable. “APCs ran over troops and civilians at 65kph (40 miles per hour).” He explained that even though the CCP had provided protestors with a warning, even this small amount of leeway was underhanded, a lie, and viciously broken.”

“Students understood they were given one hour to leave square, but after five minutes APCs attacked,” Donald said. “The group of protesters remained steadfast, even in the face of annihilation. Shots rang out, innocents were struck, and people began to die. Nonetheless — there was power in numbers, and solidarity that allowed them to find courage, and thousands joined hands as bullets flew”.

“Students linked arms but were mown down,” wrote Donald. “APCs then ran over the bodies time and time again to make, quote ‘pie’ unquote, and remains collected by bulldozer.”

As if this wasn’t atrocious enough, the government’s criminal and brutal activity that day got even worse. With no regard for the families of these victims, not to mention their identities, what was left of them was disposed of, in an unspeakably callous manner.” Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains,” Donald wrote.

According to Donald, the violent attacks stemmed from a substantial portion of China’s State Council that was afraid of civil war breaking out. The nationwide tides seemed to be turning and those in power would certainly not benefit from a freer populous. Thus, clamping down forcefully on any kind of dissent was vital to their interests. On top of that, the recently declassified cable stated that the 27th Army was called into action that day specifically because of its disregard for anything but orders. The troops were “the most reliable and obedient,” Donald explained. “The 27 Army was ordered to spare no one,” he wrote. “Wounded girl students begged for their lives but were bayoneted. A three-year-old girl was injured, but her mother was shot as she went to her aid, as were six others.”

The diplomat’s sources also told him that “snipers shot many civilians on balconies, street sweepers etc for target practice.” The declassified document also claimed that this excessive force continued even after the first wave of killings were completed. “A 1,000 survivors were told they could escape but were then mown down by specially prepared MG (machine gun) positions,” wrote Donald. “Army ambulances who attempted to give aid were shot up, as was a Sino-Japanese hospital ambulance.”

“With medical crew dead, a wounded driver attempted to ram attackers but was blown to pieces by an anti-tank weapon. “Donald’s declassified cable even claimed that troops killed one of their own officers. ” A 27 Army officer was shot dead by his comrades, apparently because he faltered,” said Donald. “Troops explained they would be shot if they hadn’t shot the officer.”

Of course, Chinese state TV was painting an entirely different picture. Before the army was deployed to wipe out protestors, government television was repeatedly broadcasting the following claims:

“Tonight a serious counter-revolutionary rebellion took place. Thugs frenziedly attacked People’s Liberation Army troops, seizing weapons, erecting barricades, beating soldiers and officers in an attempt to overthrow the government of the People’s Republic of China.”

“For many days, the People’s Liberation Army has exercised restraint and now must resolutely counteract the rebellion. All those who refuse to listen to reason must take full responsibility for their actions and their consequences.”

The Chinese Red Cross estimated the death toll to be around 2,700 people on June 4, 1989. While this is far less conservative than the Chinese Governments preposterous count of 200-300, it’s far lower than Donald’s account, which ended with a stunning figure.

“Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000,” the final sentence of his cable read.

Sir Alan Donald’s now-declassified assessment of the Tiananmen Square massacre and the resulting death toll aligns completely with a confidential U.S. government file reported on in 2014. This document quoted a Chinese military source and said the CCP’s own internal figures estimated the body count to be 10,454 people. Chinese friends of mine at the time told me that over 10,000 were killed and over 10,000 were arrested and they worked for the Chinese Police (Jin Ang Corporation)

General Chi Haotian Defence Minister

Who was responsible for organising this massacre? I have asked and the only answers I have received have named General Chi Haotian as the director of the military’s enforcement of martial law in Beijing to suppress the protests in Tiananmen Square. As at the time he was Chief of Staff he instructed the commanding officers of the Beijing, Shenyang, and Jinan Military Districts to “finalize the name list of every group army division scheduled to advance into Beijing and their exact times of departure and arrival, as well as details regarding primary duties“, according to the “Daily Report” (Meiri yibao) from the Central Military Commission Office, dated 19 May 1989. This military buildup removed the local military force and introduced the external forces who took part in the Beijing massacre, which took place on 3rd and 4th June and led to his promotion to Minister of Defence until 2001.  His perspective on China’s future plans were specified in a his speech, text below

By Chief of General Staff and Vice -Chairman China’s Military Commission Comrade Chi Haotian, December, 2005 to top officers and generals. This is his Modus Operandi.

“Comrades, I’m very excited today, because the large-scale online survey by sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war,” more than 80 per cent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, 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, during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands (Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands) and the (Spratley Islands) and mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of ‘peace and development’ had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non combatants, they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war. We wanted to know: If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries; will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? The fact is, our ‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which, of course, is not limited to the land we have now but also includes the whole world. As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. Therefore, we can rightfully assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself ‘descendants of Yan and Huang.’ During our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas and the regions along the Pacific Rim, and they became Indians in the Americas and the East Asian ethnic groups in the South Pacific. We all know that on account of our national superiority, during the thriving and prosperous Tang Dynasty our civilization was at the peak of the world. We were the centre of the world civilization, and no other civilization in the world 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 civilization, and the centre of the world shifted to the West. In reviewing history, one may ask: Will the centre of the world civilization shift back to China? Actually, Comrade Liu Huaqing made similar points in early 1980’s Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the centre of world civilization is shifting. It shifted from the East to Western Europe and later to the United States; now it is shifting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th Century as the British Century and the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century! (Wild applause fills the auditorium.) Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese 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 disasters. This is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, the enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we don’t waste time on these trivial things. Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don’t believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, begin to question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China??

(Lebensraum (‘living space’) in order to survive.)

The first pressing issue facing us is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany’s back then. In addition, economic development in 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 environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then.  Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while 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 filtering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room. Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. It’s not that we haven’t paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue. 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 not ‘space’ so as to avoid using the term ‘living space.’ From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they can develop outside of China. Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization. Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the key to solving all other issues. First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another China under the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the White race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to the possession of the land! It is historical destiny that China and United States will come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight.

General Chi Haotian left with western visitor.

In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle. Of course, right now it 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 still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country. Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of ‘cleaning up’ America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If 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 Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who know how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths, But if history 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 lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. The last problem I want to talk about is of firmly seizing the preparations for military battle. The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military 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 aircraft carriers or satellites. Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China’s century.”

China’s second aircraft carrier, 3 more to come in the current program.

Comrade Chi Haotian idea’s for limited war strategy is the fait accompli. Such an approach involves an attacker seizing territory before the defender and its patron can react sufficiently and then making sure that the counterattack needed to eject it would be so risky, costly, and aggressive that the United States would balk at mounting it, not least because its allies might see it as unjustified and refuse to support it. Such a war plan, if skillfully carried out in the Coral Sea, could checkmate the United States as it has already succeeded to out bluff the USA in the South China Sea.

So as most of our readers are firearm owners I would suggest we take a notice of Oliver Cromwell’s advice “Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry” as one day soon we are all going to need everything we have.

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen.
———–
Any Inquiries on any products phone 07 54824099 or 07 54825070 or email owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen.

Thoughts For The Week.

I began writing articles focussing on the civilians right to own and use firearms in 1981. Many millions of my words have been published in many formats from the local Gympie Times newspaper, Lock Stock and Barrel magazine and even the New York Times has published two of my letters. Our opponents, which we have no shortage of, accuse me of being a single- topic writer, a single- topic thinker, and a single- topic constituent, but it isn’t true.

This ‘Right’ ‘for ‘subjects’ may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions allowed by law’ (Bill of Rights 1689) which is similar to the USA Bill of Rights, but is our Bill of Rights which the Monarch swears to uphold at their Coronation and it is also established in Queensland Law in ‘Imperial Acts Application Act 1984' Schedule 1 (Imperial enactments continued in force). For this is the corner stone, the key principle for all of our other rights and our constitutional system of government. Without the right of the citizens to own firearms, total power is in the hands of government. Force is the ultimate source of all authority, and as night follows day, not long after the citizens are deprived of their force, tyrannical governments can easily remove all other rights. All those old enough can remember the freedoms we have already lost, which have followed the gradual disarmament policies of our media driven duopoly. We only have to look at the Hong Kong hero’s, to appreciate the disdain that tyrannical governments view the rights of disarmed people. Those heroic protesters with the umbrellas will be all listed and taken away in the night one at a time like the young students of Tiananmen Square, well the ones that survived the flame thrower, machine guns and tanks that cleared the Square on that infamous night. Once the people are defenceless gradualism takes them into slavery, the weight of the chains only increase in time.

The rights to own and use firearms protects the right to travel throughout your own country without having to show your papers, the right to petition your Monarch, or the government and to do that you have to have the right to freedom of speech and the freedom to communicate the issues that you wish to petition on. The right to own firearms protects the right to own property and to acquire and dispose of it to your benefit. The right to own firearms guarantees that we have a fair electoral system and ‘Habeas corpus’ a justice system where we cannot be locked away without trial. Firearms in the hands of the public guarantee our rights under the Magna Carta,  the rights to have a trial by jury of your peers, the right to defend your property, your family and your life.

Internal and External Security, The Main Reasons to Live in a Community
In the 1970’s how many of those rights listed above have been blemished or removed because we gave the lunatics the keys to the asylum and called it Parliament.  Our present set of lunatics proclaim the righteousness of democracy and chant “power to the people” in one voice while simultaneously demanding the loss of the common citizenry’s access to the means of force which is the highest tier of hypocracy.

Like Pavlov’s dogs the bell rings and as a pack they bark “who needs to die in your life before you will support disarmament” which is the consolidation of power in the hands of a small elite, namely those who bark for it. The only suitable reply is “how many defenceless law abiding Australians need to be robbed, raped and murdered in their own homes before you support their right to own property and defend their own lives”.

The Gun Control politicians hate this principle and will do belly swamis over broken glass rather than answer that point in public. They hate everyone who brings it to their attention, they hate it because it exposes them, when they believe that they can get away with it they will feign to support us, when they believe they are going to be quoted, and dismissed from the party they will vote at their parties call and suffer any indignities and electoral losses.

This point is an x-ray machine into the mind of any politician. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician, or political philosophy, can be put.   If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man or woman, walking into a Gun Shop and paying cash for any rifle, shotgun or handgun and leaving with it, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If your politician isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent walking out of the shop without asking anybody’s permission, he is one of the problems, no matter what else he claims. His attitude toward your ownership and use of firearms conveys his real attitude about you. If he doesn’t trust you, then why should you trust him? If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

In 98% of the world as soon as the public are disarmed, the criminal element, knowing that the police can never supervise the whole community, begin to target the defenceless.

If your politician makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend the Commonwealth Constitution remind him that his oath covers an older and higher law of the our land, the Bill of Rights of 1689, if he cannot support this with deeds you can never trust him to walk down to the corner shop and bring back your change.

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil like “Populist” “Constitutionalist”, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

These are all important principles. These are the principles that inspired me to research and investigate firearm legislation as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician, or political philosophy is really made of.

They all will lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun — but what does that have to do with you? Your taxes pay for the Police, Trial, Jury and Jail. Why should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the tyrannical notion of group punishment when you studied communism and socialism. If there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? This is about you, and your family, that is the point of being in a community, safety from harm.

It makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue – health care, international trade, all you have to do is use this x-ray machine, ask them how hard will they work to return your firearm ownership rights back to you? This has the clarity and truth of a steel bell ringing to expose their empty words and find out how politicians really feel about you. That, of course, is why they hate being asked and that is why I am accused of being a single topic writer, thinker, and voter, but it isn’t true, is it?

Defenceless
Since the early 1990s I have also been decried for ‘worrying and crying wolf’ for warning about the deplorable state of our external Defence and Defence Industries. We naturally first think of Internal Defence and firearm ownership but even though the media and politicians ‘poo hoo’ the concept, firearm ownership in the hands of civilians is crucial to our defence, besides training our young people to hunt and shoot, it creates a civil industry that can support a defence industry when needed and ultimately makes genocide impossible for a conquering power. Defence against external threat is also more relevant now than at any time since 1942 and that time we had 20 times the defence industry that we have in 2019.

Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is quoted

“To invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle.”

The referenced “letter” to Ryoichi Saskakawa is claimed to be in the extensive personal files of Gordon W. Prange, the personal historian for Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

In Christian News published on 4 February 2002 the following:-
“In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defence Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other. Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander’s face as he frankly answered the question. ‘You are right,‘ he told the Americans. ‘We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.”

It is simple reality, if this was not the case any invading force would not firstly disarm the local civilian population, yet even the Romans took care of that point.

Why is it more relevant now to Australia?
Our present day lunatics within the hot air of Canberra’s house of ill repute refuse to acknowledge the threats from our northern neighbours. For many years Australia’s political harum-scarum have actively sought to engage China in the belief that Chinese economic integration with the world would eventually lead to the liberalisation of China’s political system. But as Xi Jinping’s first five years in office have made clear, that optimism was misplaced. A more affluent China has become more authoritarian, more nationalistic, and increasingly intent on changing the international environment to one it perceives better reflects its own interests. The USA has sought to soft peddle, encouraging China to pacify North Korea, meanwhile Beijing’s has made a chess move with a massive military expansion in the Indo-Pacific region.

Demand Defence
If China gets away with moving ballistic long range missile’s a 1000 miles nearer to resource rich defenceless Australia, we won’t have to wait long for its next move. Oil in Brunei, Sarawak, Borneo, or another hop further south into another inhabited island.

Islands are cheaper then aircraft carriers and have the additional benefit of being harder to sink
Since the early 1990s when writing in Lock, Stock and Barrel (see, http://www.owenguns.com/lock-stock-and-barrel-magazine/
I have been a lone voice, so regular that friends told me ‘the record has stuck’, but it is a subject I have been very passionate about and at last even one Liberal politician Andrew Hastie MP has awoken from Liberal Rip van winkle sleep and alerted us to the northern threats. Of course he has suffered a small dose of the ‘slings and arrow of outrage’ for his trouble but he will get used to that.

The USA Has To Accept It Cannot Be A Force In Asia
It would be great if it was, but the one thing that is certain, is that everything is in a state of change. Asia has changed and the USA has changed.

Then we have Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University, Hugh White (a former senior official in the Department of Defence) who has written a book “How to Defend Australia”, which sets out the tough choices facing Australia. He astutely warns, that America may not chose to defend Australia against China or Indonesia.

It urges Australians to consider the risks emerging in the region and how to prepare for a very different future. “There is still a deep reluctance among political leaders of both sides of politics to really acknowledge the seriousness of the situation,” Prof White said

He hopes to spark a rethink of Australia’s defence policy, recognising that things have changed and that America’s dominance in East Asia will likely diminish in the future and leave Australia to defend itself. “A lot argue that we would be mad to abandon the US alliance and I agree but what if they abandon us?” his book says.
‘How To Defend Australia’. states. AMERICA WILL LIKELY DESERT US!
“Neither side of politics is taking China’s challenge seriously and even if they do, they are saying we should cling more tightly to the US.”My argument is I don’t think US support is a durable solution,” he said. “I think it’s likely the US will eventually withdraw from Asia, which is why I’m sceptical of (US Secretary of State) Mike Pompeo saying the US will push back”. Despite the strong words, Prof White said “the US was not doing anything to push back”. “We need to think about how Australia can stand up for itself in an Asia that is not dominated by America.”
China has put a massive amount of money into its air and naval forces and now has nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Soon nuclear powered aircraft carriers. China has many more long range nuclear weapons that threaten American cities than North Korea.
Professor White says,“In a new Cold War, Americans would have to ask whether saving Taiwan from China — and preserving US leadership in Asia — would be worth losing Los Angeles and Seattle,”

To save Australia from China would the US President sacrifice Los Angeles and Seattle, or Hawaii or San Francisco?” America’s own security does not depend on preventing China from dominating East Asia. Why then would America accept the costs and risks of trying to do that?” Never think that Australia is not a nuclear target, or that placing ballistic missiles in Australia will increase our importance as a target as one of the USA’s major all-important listening communication centre’s is at Pine Gap. We have been a target for 50 years.

THE THREATS ARE REAL?
If there’s one easy way to understand Australia’s vulnerability, you only have to look at its neighbours the threat is not just about China.  Australia has gotten used to being one of the biggest economies in the region. In the 1980s Australia had the second-biggest economy in Asia, after Japan. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was bigger than China’s. The story is different today with GDP now being only 5 per cent of China’s and less than 50% of Indonesia’s. (Yet we still give them Australian Aid??) By 2050, it has been estimated Australia’s economy will rank well behind those of all major Southeast Asian nations. India is expected to become the world’s second-biggest economy, while Indonesia will probably become the fourth-biggest economy and will have the weight to become one of Asia’s great powers. Indonesia has always been seen as a potential strategic risk for Australia because of its size and proximity, and this will only increase as it becomes more powerful. “Australia has never had to deal with a neighbour more powerful than itself, and it will take some getting used to,” says Prof White.

Prof White correctly believes Australia’s first two objectives are to deny our immediate maritime and air approaches to potential enemies. Indonesia is the only country in Australia’s immediate neighbourhood capable of being a valuable ally but also a serious adversary.

South Pacific Island Hop Skip and Jump
Even if Indonesia was an ally, China more than likely hop around it and park one of its aircraft carriers next to Long Island 19°53’S 158°19’E, 10 nm NW of Loop Islet, it is the largest of the Chesterfield Islands, in the Coral Sea and is 1400m to 1800 m, ideal for a military air strip.

Some might have read about the Battle of the Coral Sea in World War Two, a Japanese Aircraft Carrier fleet on its way to invade Port Moresby and Australia lost one of its carriers and most of its aircraft to a US and Australian fleet so Japan withdrew. The area is strategically very important as it dominates the Torres Straights and the eastern sea board of Australia.

As the Chesterfield Islands belong to France and France does not have the will or the resources to declare war on China and fight it in the South Pacific, nor for that matter is Australia. So with the 792 fighter aircraft available to the China Navy at present, and building more at an ever increasing rate and having the Shenyang J-31 range of 1200 klm China would dominate the Coral Sea.

The next stop for a Chinese Aircraft carrier, (by next year China will have three of them, there is five in the current program, the last one keeping up with the Americans will be nuclear powered) will be Lord Howe island 31° 33' 15? S, 159° 5' 6? E , in the Tasman Sea 320 miles from mainland Australia. There is an air strip in situ, so China would control the whole eastern seaboard of Australia. Lord Howe island is technically a part of NSW, outside Australia’s territorial waters.

If we could get 3 of our 6 Australian made Collins Submarines to work, they would take a few weeks and a re fuel before they arrived on the scene.  The 30 or so other ships of the Australian Navy, (if they can find the crews) some not much larger then “Daddy’s Yacht” would not be a deterrent and it is doubtful that the Australian Navy would try a suicidal attack, with the Chinese Navy having 2000 ships including 70 nuclear submarines.
About that time, Australian politicians will be trying to organise refineries for Oil and Shale Oil and put its mind to converting coal into petroleum, but it will be too late, from the very first day oil tankers coming to mainland Australia would be stopped, and re routed so in 28 day time this would cause Australia to put up the white flag and surrender and China would win Australia without firing a shot in anger. Of course all air flights into Australia would be suspended after the Chinese shot the first one down. No one could afford the insurance premiums.

Australia has to use its Natural Resources or Lose Them
China has the capability to take Australia, to utilise its natural resources, Australia will not utilise them, as its government is anti nuclear and anti coal, anti mining and anti industry so there would be a moral argument by the Chinese that Australian do not deserve to have the resources at their disposal.

Total control of China Smh article

World Sleepwalking to WAR
Former Australian Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie warns the world is sleepwalking towards war. Admiral Barrie’s concerns were echoed by strategic analyst Greg Copley, the president of the Washington based International Strategic Studies Association. Mr Copley said not enough attention- had been paid to developing a strategic industrial base in this country and Australians should feel “outraged to the point of revolution” that it cost three times more to build a submarine in Adelaide than in Japan or Europe. Australia has long relied on America to protect it, including through its policy of extended nuclear deterrence (NED), which says the US will retaliate against another country that attacked one of its allies.
This policy was a good deterrent when America had superior firepower but in recent years China has put a massive amount of money into its air and naval forces and now has nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. This means the US no longer has a military advantage, and any war would also be fought in the Western Pacific, close to China’s shores and giving it a strategic advantage.

What Does Australia Need To Defend ITSELF?
First it needs a free country that is worth fighting and sacrificing for, that is culturally cohesive. It needs to train everyone to appreciate that the nation comes first, not what’s in it for me, money or promotion. We need to rapidly begin manufacturing firearms and weapons of war here, we need to produce the infrastructure in materials and skills to manufacture every part here in Australia as parts will never be available in an emergency either the supply lines will be breached, or the country we intend to procure them will be busy with its war.  An example of this is with the 84mm Carl Gustaff recoil less rifle, Sweden did not agree with Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War so would not supply parts or ammunition. When you want it most, you need to have it on hand.

It will be many years before Australia can compete with large ships, or state of the art fighter planes or nuclear submarines. We had that manufacturing ability before with Mirage Jets and Jindivik missiles, but our lunatic politicians sold us out, our national interest in recreation has given us special abilities which can be turned into a national deterrent.

Iran is leading the way, on May 16, 2019, U.S. officials cited reports that Iran had installed missiles on civilian motorboats IRAN IRGCN asymmetric military fast attach power-missile boats and both civil and military shipping within inshore waters and the great Barrier Reef is exceptionally vulnerable to mines, cruise missiles and fast boat attacks because its shallow straits force large ships to squeeze through predictable lines of transit. Australia has many thousands of boating enthusiasts who are experienced in navigation and local conditions they have to be mobilised into a ready reserve. The Iranians bought a British Bladerunner 51 speed boat from South Africa. Photos reveal these have been armed with a multiple-rocket-launcher system and a heavy anti-aircraft machinegun on the prow. The Seraj can reportedly attain speeds of 55 to 72 knots. The sleek, domestically-designed Zolfaghar  has a maximum speed of 70 knots and mounts an integrated radar and two launch canisters for Nasr-1 cruise missiles on its stern. Based on the Chinese C704 missile, the Nasr-1 has a range of 22 miles, and can use infrared, radar or television guidance. The small and affordable boats have low radar signatures, which combined with speed, would significantly reduce their target’s reaction time. Australia could produce these and importantly, their sheer numbers could overwhelm the expensive defensive systems on board Chinese warships.

We cannot afford to wait till 2040 for 12 over priced conventional submarines we need hundreds of them now. Iran has 32 midget submarines and media reported that the Nasr-1 missile was launched by a Ghadir-class mini-submarine Iranian media said the missile was an upgraded version of the Nasr-1 missile the country had showcased in 2008. It was then described as an anti-vessel missile with a range of 35 kilometers (or 22 miles).

Real Australian Made Submarines
An Australian inventor Ron Allum completely rethought the design of submersible vehicles, from how they launch and travel through water to what they’re made of. He designed a new material called “Isofloat” capable of withstanding the 16,500psi pressure at the depths of the Mariana Trench. And in addition to rigging lights and high-definition cameras to the vehicle for James Cameron, Ron equipped the sub with scientific research equipment to take valuable samples from the sea. Then on 26th March 2012, James Cameron reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep, the deepest part of the Mariana Trench. The maximum depth recorded during this record-setting dive was 10,908 metres (35,787 ft). So here in Australia we do have the technology to make small highly technical submarines better than Iran. We just have to get into manufacturing them until we have 500 or so.

Japan was making Midget submarines to defend the homeland right to the end of WW2 1945 when this photo was taken.

To defend Australia firstly we need to deny our enemies the use of our territorial waters by sinking lots of their ships. We desperately need anti ballistic missiles for air defence, but even if China or North Korea wipes out our population centres they cannot control us unless they put men on the ground and to do that they need ships to off load men and materials. Secondly, we need drones thousands of them flown by our very competitive X box flying simulators, who spend their recreational hours glued to the screens. They could be trained to fly drones and even if they are unarmed, if we have enough of them they can fly into jet engine air intakes, taking a jet fighter out of the fight.

Large ships like HMAS Canberra are useless for defence, just another thing that needs defending.

If all the above fails we need a land based deterrent, the same one that deterred the Japanese from ever contemplating invading the USA in 1941. We need a return to the 1903 Defence Act, the section that made every branch of the National Rifle Association a contingent of the militia, with the Club Captain the CO with the power to call out and direct. Every man or women on joining had to take the Oath of Allegiance and was a member of the Defence Force until 1997 when John Howard introduced his un informed Gun laws. For many years the Defence Department had reduced the resources and budget to these clubs so there was hardly a whimper when it was changed, but the Commonwealth Rifle Ranges had supplied thousands of shooters to the services in Two World Wars and Korea and Vietnam. Their range facilities were used as training and base areas for troops and they could have done much more if called to do so. Already we have 2 million licenced shooters and 6 million registered firearms, already that is the largest threat to any invader, we have to reinforce what we are good at. If a practical rifle competition is created with some small resources such as uniform ammunition, range facilities, and a little prize incentive, millions of law abiding shooter would become involved. If the Defence department then supplied a machine gun, anti tank rocket launcher, and a mortar to each club and began interclub competitions, like the Queens Prize then the competitive energy of these people would be directed towards defence and supplying them would create a defence industry. Many thousands of these young people who purchase their own firearms, their own two way radio’s their own four wheel drives, their own quads who go out every weekend to reduce our nations feral pig population know the ground and are already experienced in many of the skills of ground warfare can be motivated to form an essential part of our nations defence. They just need encouragement instead of the government derision they have experienced since 1996.

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen.

Any Inquiries on any products phone 07 54824099 or 07 54825070 or email owenguns@spiderweb.com.au