The Pickering Post
Tuesday, 11th December 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.


A phone call to friends on the mainland indicates a lack of awareness of any Hong Kong protest and those who are aware appear not to give a damn anyway. 

Attitudes to the so-called “Umbrella Revolution” (umbrellas for deflecting police mace) are much the same on the Island as people go about their business as normal despite having to step over 50,000 youths.

Okay here’s the rub; Beijing wants to put up its own candidates for the 2017 Hong Kong elections, allowing HK residents only a choice from Beijing’s choice. 

Only 25 per cent of HK residents object, they are mainly youngsters and student activists who are not yet integral to the workings of the monetary monolith. The remaining 75 per cent see Beijing’s interference as inevitable and just want to get on with business.

Beijing is resolute and unwavering in its disputes with Taiwan, Tibet and over Japan’s Senkaku Islands, so there’s little chance it will succumb to a few Hong Kong student radicals staging a sit in.

Beijing has scant regard for human rights, it restricts the social media “menace”, manipulates media and deals with Islamic terrorism in a way the West wishes it could. Basically, Beijing does what it bloody well wants. 

In this scuffle it holds all the cards, both legally and pragmatically, for the simple reason that Hong Kong’s sole interest is in money, actually there’s not much else on the island to be interested in. 

China’s economic success is due to treading a fine line between capitalism and communism... it’s just that regular calls for that pesky principle of democracy get in the way sometimes.

And it is the only one of the big four that has wisely ignored the Middle East.

During talks with the Brits in 1982, Deng Xiaoping of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), told Margaret Thatcher, in reference to Hong Kong, that, "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon". 

That was true then and it’s even truer since the 1997 handover. But that’s a solution of last resort for the mainland and it won’t be necessary.

Time is on Beijing’s side and the protesters resolve will soon wane as they tire of sitting their skinny bums on hard asphalt and wander back to uni.

Crowds of 50,000 for China don’t even register on a population scale of 1.4 billion.


US Government Funding Hong Kong Protests -- Tony Cartalucci

Tony Cartalucci explains that the US government is using the National Endowment for Democracy to fund the "student protests" in Hong Kong.

Washington is hoping for another "Tiananmen Square Massacre."


Read more:

Perfectly correct Lauretta ....

Exactly Shotgun even the many cults that have ruined lives of people who joined them were not a threat to the general population, did not disrupt our lives or forced the government to spend millions on anti-terrorism and security as islam. Think of how all this money could be used for the good of ordinary Australians if we didn't have this mop here with us.

Australia: Man refused bail after saying of policeman, “I’m a member of ISIS and next time I see him, I’ll behead him.” Watch Daily Digest&utm_campaign=9c1bac5a45-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffcbf57bbb-9c1bac5a45-123434633

The main thing that every political campaign in the United States demonstrates is that the politicians of all parties, despite their superficial enmities, are really members of one great brotherhood. Their principal, and indeed their sole, object is to collar public office, with all the privileges and profits that go therewith. They achieve this collaring by buying votes with other people's money. No professional politician is ever actually in favor of public economy. It is his implacable enemy, and he knows it. All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man. Minority Report : H.L. Mencken's Notebooks (1956)

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
HL Mencken—Prejudices, Third Series (1922)

Basically right BB—"Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–42). Hong Kong Island was first ceded to the UK in perpetuity, followed by Kowloon Peninsula in 1860 and then the New Territories was put under lease in 1898. It was occupied by Japan during the Pacific War (1941–45), after which the British resumed control until 1997."

From a friend in Hong Kong

Actually, I think this article is wrong on so many points. Shows the danger of trying to look at these kinds of situations from a distance.

Beijing really has a problem with this. The guy in power in China has made a lot of enemies who are waiting to jump on him. He is going back to a more Maoist view of running China, saying that all the economic liberalization and freedom has not worked. But now it looks like his "reforms" and anti-corrpution drives (maybe just a mask for arresting his political enemies) are the problem and not the solution. So they have to keep the economic growth going over there. They are really worried in the mainland about political dissent springing up all over the place and don't want them to know about what is going on in Hong Kong. But day by day it becomes known. If they try to intimidate the locals in Hong Kong it only seems to increase their resolve. If they take drastic measures it will shut down the city and become much more visible in the mainland. Contrary to what is said in the article, the protestors have huge support from the local population. In fact, I haven't spoken to anyone yet who is against the protest. A few people go quiet or worry about consequences - but quite honestly, no one has said "they shouldn't be doing this." And these are really very conservative people - not just students.

As all this unfolds, there is a trial going on in Hong Kong - it developed out of a family feud in one of our biggest property development companies, otherwise the issues would never have surfaced. But they were paying a lot of money to a Government minister in bribes. He was prolifigate. Getting millions, doing nothing, spending the money on women, his "record collection" etc. Out of control. And the others in power must have known about this. It was all cronyism. This has become so much worse since Beijing started to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs. The CEO in HK is really just a Mainland stooge, and now the head of the SFC is too. Locals see their way of life being destroyed slowly and therefore are deeply worried about how Beijing runs the place. They don't want these yes men from Beijing going into the top jobs and then destroying what is one of the cleanest administrations in the world. That's the nub of it.

Normally I like Pickering's stuff, but I'm not so sure he knows what he is talking about here.

Time will tell - I could, of course, be quite wrong! (Sadly, I often am).

Talking about China ,anyone who owns dogs and cats beware of doggy/cat treats because many hundreds of cats and dogs in the US have died due to toxicity in the products .

No bagman, Queensland does not have a senate as Joh Petersen got rid of it so it is strange that Clive who was in the Nationals when this occurred should be loving holding the balance of power in a Senate and using it for his own purposes.

Another good piece Bruce and as vecchio says this is only a recent thing that has happened to Muslim women. You are right when you say it is dictated by the men as a means of control and will only cease when the women stand up for themselves. Then you have the younger generation who think it is very trendy to wear the Burka, hence so many young ones are heading for Muslimhood without realising that once you are in you cannot get out.

I also might add that not one of them has ever threatened my life though many have ruined people's lives.

Actually DJT we have quite a lot.

er.... Wot the Frack are those Blue Dongers the Kids have in the Picture?

With all respects to Tracy Grimshaw but she didn't ask the Muslims in last nights interview with them the questions everyone wants to hear-- such as:. When are you going to fit in with Australian customes and get rid of the stupid Burqa and rag head clothing? Will you adhere to Australian laws or do you prefer Sharia laws. Do you still regard us as infidels because we are not Muslim. Why do you still support young female mutilation and the forced marriage of 12 year olds etc etc. All we got was what a wonderful peace loving group the Muslims were. Actions speak louder than words.

My memory is that Hong Kong Is was British in perpetuity. They then leased Kowloon possibly for 99 years, late still they leased the New Territories. With the expiration of the Kowloon lease came the realization that China would play hard ball on water supply and so handover negotiations were started . It was only after the handover was to become a reality that the Brits actually started the Democracy process,

Off topic. In case any of you are not subscribing to Cory Bernardi, "Weekly Dose of Common Sense" , I strongly recommend taking a subscription. Here is a well connected, educated, Australian who can get things done.

Dear Reader

It’s fascinating to watch the reaction of people when their world view comes crashing down around them. Suddenly they feel very vulnerable because their protective cloak of self-righteous belief no longer masks their failures of logic.

We have seen many examples of it this past week surrounding two key issues that I have been involved in.

The first is my support for removing the words ‘insult’ and ‘offend’ from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). Frankly I find it preposterous that anyone can be taken to court on the basis of having offended or insulted someone else.

This is a direct restriction on our freedom of speech and making these minor modifications to section 18C of the RDA has met with a broad cross section of support. People like Julian Burnside QC and David Marr have joined with conservatives like Andrew Bolt and John Roskam in supporting change.

Indeed, it was a long-standing election commitment from the Coalition to introduce such change. Unfortunately that commitment was abandoned, apparently due to 'community concerns'.

However, I am now one of four senators who have co-sponsored a Bill to amend the RDA to ensure freedom of speech is strengthened in this country.

In doing so, many media commentators have been critical of this ‘rogue liberal’ for daring to advance a logical and principled argument at such a sensitive time. Of course, the sensitive time they refer to is the heightened tension surrounding acts of terror at home and abroad.

On one hand, these commentators say we should never give in to the terrorists but then maintain we shouldn’t pursue important legislative changes designed to strengthen our freedoms because of the acts of a barbaric few.

It’s a similar issue with my security concerns about identity concealing garments being worn within Parliament House. It’s entirely logical that in a time of hightened security alerts we should be able to identify those people who enter one of our most important public buildings.

Once again, I am attacked for the lack of sensitivity in raising this matter ‘at this time’. Incredibly, when I raised it over three years ago I was told it wasn’t the right time then either as there was no security risk attached to people hiding their faces in public.

It makes one wonder why we bother to have all the CCTV cameras if we can’t identify the people they capture!

Which brings me back to these critics' ‘world view’.

These individuals have subscribed to the world of political correctness for such a long time that when the obvious cracks in their theories become public they do whatever they can to protect their position.

I mean, it must be soul destroying to have clung to failed ideals for 30 plus years only to be proved so wrong. How can one then explain away such a lack of foresight?

The answer is that you don’t. Instead, you dismiss your opponents by calling them names and never responding to their reasoned arguments.

In the past week, I have been attacked by commentators like Niki Savva for my ‘unhelpful insensitivity’ and listened to panellists on the Project dismiss legitimate security concerns. Even the diminished figure of Bill Shorten failed to reach his own low standards by resorting to name calling rather than standing up for Australia.

And yet, not a single one of them acknowledged that the reason we are in this mess today is because of their (and others) long-standing denial that there has been a growing problem in our midst.

For too long, too many people like those mentioned above have ignored practices and actions that have undermined our social cohesion and cultural mores in the name of diversity and tolerance. They have steadfastly refused to heed the experience of other Western nations who failed to arrest the changes occurring in their society.

Instead, they have chosen to personally attack the few who dared to break the silence and tell it how it is.

That all came crashing down last week when a plot to behead strangers in the middle of Sydney was exposed by our security agencies. This was shortly followed by an attempt to kill two police officers which left the failed murderer shot dead.

While the barbaric plots were a huge concern to mainstream Australia, a section of our community chose to blame the rest of us for creating this situation. Whilst I don’t agree with their reasoning, I do agree we have made this rod for our own back.

For too long our tolerance and our freedoms have been used to challenge our social mores. Moral relativism has been forced down our throats since the 1970s and has left us vulnerable to subversive elements within.

The product of that thinking was seen last week and no matter how much the proponents try to dismiss their failure by attacking others, the Australian people know better.

They know there is something amiss within our community that too few in the public square dare to discuss. And yet, the danger of not discussing it almost inevitably leads to even greater anger and resentment.

In other lands, such sentiments have resulted in an aggressive and sometimes violent counter reaction all of its own. This is the scenario I hope our country can avoid.

However, it will only occur if we can all commit to having the courage to speak about the facts at hand and the freedom to do so without the pejorative slurs of those whose ideas have helped get us into these problems in the first place.

Our future depends on it.

Until next week

Cory Bernardi

Bruce About twenty years ago I worked in Malaysia & Indonesia & never saw anything less than a full face exposed, no niqabs, no burkas or whatever. The law should mandate full face exposure, the rest of it, who cares!

sorry led the world.