This seminar paper is directed to discussing Australia’s common law heritage, that is, the heritage of court law and the values associated with it – essentially those of Western Christian civilization – only indirectly, but still relevantly. It should be no news to readers of League publications that our Western Christian heritage is under attack from various directions, but all of these attacks come from a common centralist globalist philosophical stance. The attackers may not form a completely homogenous group, but they are united by a common interest, the creation of a global society with a one world government, in some shape or form. The details vary among the global elites, and on how this is best achieved, the elites also differ.
Banker James Paul Warburg (1896-1969), famously said “We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” As a money man, he was primarily interested in economic integration and producing global governance from that. But another school of thought, from Clement Attlee (1883-1967) to George Soros and the likes of Angela Merkel, see the mass movement of people essential to this agenda. Thus, Clement Attlee, who was to become Prime Minister of Britain, said in the British House of Commons in 1939: “I do not believe much in the limited idea of an international police force which is to be merely a sort of super-force over a large number of national armies, navies and air forces. We believe that it is necessary to get rid of all national armies and air forces and to substitute an international police force for it. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary cast considerable scorn, some of it quite unjustified, on this idea of an international police force. Those statements were based on their conception that an international police force would only be something to hold in terror over a number of armed national states. I do not think you can succeed by that method. You have to go the whole way.”
And go the whole way he did, when after winning a landslide election after the Second World War, the Attlee Labour government introduced the British Nationality Act of 1948, which offered residency to all in Britain’s former empire. In the same year of 1948, the ship Empire Windrush brought in the first non-white immigrants from the West Indies, the beginnings of a never ending migrant flow. Later in this talk, we will see where that led to. First, however, a brief discussion of the philosophy behind the policy of globalism or cosmopolitanism is in order.
The Philosophical Foundations of Globalism
Globalism has been a philosophy which has a long tradition, stretching back to ancient Greece and Rome. The cynic Diogenes, in the fourth century BCE proclaimed that he was a “citizen of the world.” Globalists have always embraced the cosmopolitan ideal that there are no races, peoples or traditions, but the human race and the brotherhood of man. It has drawn some inspiration from some passages of the Bible, arguably misinterpreted, because the globalist utopian collectivist dream of one big happy raceless, placeless civil society of man, is quite contrary to the realistic Christian tradition that views man as touched by original sin. But it was primarily during the Enlightenment that the globalist cosmopolitan idea received its main boost, this time from the likes of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who argued in his book Perpetual Peace; A Philosophical Sketch (1795), that a global society was necessary to eliminate war. Thus, in 1849 the French poet Victor Hugo (1802-1855), would excitedly proclaim: “A day will come when all nations on our continent will form a European brotherhood…. A day will come when we shall see…the United States of America and the United States of Europe face to face, reaching out to each other across the seas.” Today there are variants of this argument, such as, it is necessary to eliminate races to eliminate racism, starting, of course, with the white race. Canadian writer Clare Ellis, in her paper, “Ideological and Geopolitical Origins of the EU, Part I: Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-Europa,” (Eurocaanadian.ca, 28 February, 2015), has given us some background on this, as a way of understanding the present immigration invasion of Europe:
“Pan-Europa began as an early twentieth century socialist European integration model that was developed by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi and based on the ideologies of Cosmopolitanism, Perpetual Peace, and World Federation. Kalergi sought to unite Europe in perpetual peace by replacing ethno-national European identities with a common European cultural identity. This non-ethnic based European Union was envisioned as the first step toward the eventual unification of humanity under a World Federation in perpetual peace.”
“Kalergi claimed that for the full materialisation of a united and prosperous Europe the joint colonization and exploitation of the resources and land of the African colonies would be required, which would lead to the creation of Eurafrica, a large geopolitical bloc that had the Mediterranean Sea as its central axis and would encompass (and Europeanise) nations in the African and Muslim world south of the Mediterranean. Kalergi's Pan-European project was funded and supported by wealthy bankers, politicians, and cultural forces on both sides of the Atlantic, yet it also met with opposition from authoritarian nationalism in the 1930s and 40s.”
All of this is primitive compared to the machinations of financial raider George Soros, whose leaked emails show that he really is a conspirator. But don’t take my word for it; here is what a mainstream journalist Jennifer Oriel, writing in The Australian of 22 August 2016 said: “The files show that Soros has established a transnational network that pressures governments to adopt high immigration targets and porous border policies that could pose a challenge to legitimate state sovereignty. His Open Society Foundations target individuals who criticise Islamism and seek to influence the outcome of national elections by undermining Right-leaning politicians.”
She goes on to state exactly what their aim is: “Soros-affiliated organisations follow a well-worn political and rhetorical strategy updated for the digital age. Like the socialists and communists of old, they attack liberal democracy by delegitimising the classically liberal values of individualism, free speech, logical argument and public reason. They attack democratic states by advocating a porous border policy, reframing illegal immigrants as refugees and degrading critics of totalitarian tendencies such as Islamism in orchestrated campaigns of PC censorship. Documents uncovered by Soros leaks reveal a pattern of funding for programs that prosecute porous borders, mass immigration into the West nations from Islamist regions, and overt campaigns against dissenters.”
Much the same has been said by Caroline Glick, in her 22 August article in the Jerusalem Post.com, “Our World: Soros’ Campaign of Global Chaos”:
“The first thing that we see is the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s philanthropic project. No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts. No policy area is left untouched. On the surface, the vast number of groups and people he supports seem unrelated. After all, what does climate change have to do with illegal African immigration to Israel? What does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Greek immigration policies? But the fact is that Soros-backed projects share basic common attributes.
They all work to weaken the ability of national and local authorities in Western democracies to uphold the laws and values of their nations and communities. They all work to hinder free markets, whether those markets are financial, ideological, political or scientific. They do so in the name of democracy, human rights, economic, racial and sexual justice and other lofty terms.
In other words, their goal is to subvert Western democracies and make it impossible for governments to maintain order or for societies to retain their unique identities and values.
Black Lives Matter, which has received $650,000 from Soros-controlled groups over the past year, is a classic example of these efforts. Until recently, the police were universally admired in the US as the domestic equivalent of the military. Black LivesMatter emerged as a social force bent on politicizing support for police.
Its central contention is that in the US, police are not a force for good, enabling society to function by maintaining law and order. Rather, police are a tool of white repression of blacks.
Law enforcement in predominantly African American communities is under assault as inherently racist.
Black Lives Matter agitation, which has been accused of inspiring the murders of police in several US cities, has brought about two responses from rank and file police. First, they have been demoralized, as they find themselves criminalized for trying to keep their cities safe from criminals.
Second, their willingness to use force in situations that demand the use of force has diminished. Fear of criminal charges on the one hand, and public condemnation as “racists” on the other causes police to prefer inaction even when situations require that they act.
The demoralization and intimidation of police is very likely to cause a steep increase in violent crimes.
Then there are Soros’s actions on behalf of illegal immigration. From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants.
Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders.
In Israel as well, Soros opposes government efforts to end the flow of illegal immigration from Africa through the border with Egypt.
The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities.”
Soros thus seems to be a completely consistent globalist, attacking even Israel’s policies of self-protection. It is clear that Africa has the potential due to its massive increase in population, and projected increases over the 21st century to completely swamp Israel and Europe with no effort at all. According to the Generation 2030 Africa report by UNICEF (August, 2014), Africa’s population is set to double from 1.2 billion to 2.4 billion between 2015 and 2050, reaching 4.2 billion by 2100, so that, as the report puts it “the future of humanity is increasingly African.” By the turn of this century four out of 10 of the world’s people will be African. There will be 1.1 billion children under 18 in Africa by 2100, almost half of the world population of children. Given this young demographic, the population of Africans into the 22nd century will likely to be even greater than the 21st century projections. What this will be is uncertain, depending upon a range of factors, including whether or not global ecological collapse occurs, but a guess is that most of the world will be of African descent, given open borders and miscegenation, as the globalist propose. The West, Israel, Japan, and maybe even China, may ethnically disappear. This topic is not often discussed because the agenda of the globalists at present is the elimination of the white race, beginning with Nordics (Northern Europeans), but at some point they will need to think longer term. What will be done in their program once the world is African? Will this be the time to move to the transhuman agenda, where the human organism itself is replaced by super-computers? I joke not; consult books on transhumanism such as Hans Moravec, Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, (1998) and Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines, (1999), for a glimpse of what the globalist IT futurists are hoping for. The ultimate end of globalism will be “cosmicpolitanism,” where life itself becomes redundant, as super-IT beings leave a polluted earth to take off for the stars. And then what?
The Kantian ideal has been behind many aspects of globalism, such as United Nations’ treaties and conventions which have directly challenged our common law and cultural heritage of freedom. The most obvious example is the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (7 March, 1966, entered into force on 12 March, 1969). This convention was one, but not the only, force behind the undermining and abandonment of the White Australia Policy, and the creation of an Asian society in Australia (more later on this). The convention was the direct source for the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the notorious section 18 C. This Act has gone so far beyond the original convention, that some lawyers, even on the Left, now think that the Act is unconstitutional, being inconsistent with the conventions that spawned it. Yet the multicult elites, as we have seen from the recent debates covered in League publications, maintain that this section is needed to keep non-ethnic Australia in line. Under Julia Gillard, anti-discrimination legislation was to be put into one unified package, with an enlargement of protected groups, and a reversal of the normal common law burden of proof. Although this was defeated at the time, the Labor party has never abandoned this idea, and when back in power, will be trying to force this tyranny through again. Many of the key supporters are still in parliament, although Gillard has fallen.
Apart from cultural tyranny, globalism has spread through economic globalisation. Here numerous treaties, conventions, free trade agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), and organisations, such as the World Trade Organization, have helped promote the relatively free flow of capital, finance and goods and services in a globally connected economy. There has been much written in opposition to this, especially in relation to the threat posed by the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) and Agenda 21, the UN plan for “sustainable development,” using the environment as a mechanism for undermining national sovereignty and the institution of private property. Some of the major threats to our common heritage of law and freedom can be well illustrated by brief mention of the TPP, noting that although both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump oppose it, at least if their statements can be trusted, Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama hope to ram it into law before the outcome of the US presidential election.
The TPP is basically a constitution for big business to further plunder the world, with nothing to hold them accountable. The treaty was negotiated by the world’s multinational corporations in secret over the past five years, and it was only leaks which alerted those concerned with freedom about what the capitalist superclass had in store for the rest of humanity. Australia cannot change even a word of the draft, no matter what the Australian parliament thinks. Now there is contempt for democracy and the rule of law for you! And worse, the Investor State Dispute Settlement clause removes Australian sovereignty and replaces the High Court of Australia with a tribunal which makes binding and completely ad hoc judgments binding on Australia. Concerns have been raised by unions about workers’ rights and by environmental groups about an erosion of all environmental protection laws. Unions have rightly argued that the TPP would allow a “temporary” entry for foreign workers with no requirement for labour market testing.
To his credit Senator Nick Xenophon pointed out in criticism of the TPP that over a decade of bilateral free trade deals have led to a raw deal for Australia, such as; (1) Singapore, signed in 2003, a $ 8.9 billion trade deficit, growing at 15 percent a year; (2) Thailand, signed in 2005, a $ 7.8 billion trade deficit growing at 14 percent a year; (3) Chile, signed in 2009, a $ 954 million trade deficit growing at 15 percent per year; (4) United States, signed in 2005, a $ 22 billion trade deficit, growing at 4 percent a year.
The Productivity Commission Research Report, Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements (November, 2010), concluded that free trade agreements have been ineffective and have not been of benefit to Australia. As well, an article published in The Australian, 24 August, 2016, “Free Trade Mythology,” by eight distinguished orthodox economists, stated that “Australia alone has suffered trade losses the annual equivalent of the current price of around 18 Japanese, German, Swedish or French submarines through this (AUSFTA) deal.” This team quotes research by economist Shiro Armstrong, at the Australian National University, using the framework of the Productivity Commission, which has shown that “the data shows that Australia and the United States… are worse off than they would have been without the agreement…the agreement was responsible for reducing – or diverting – $ 53.1 billion of trade with the rest of the world.”
Outside of orthodox economics, globalisation of the economy as seen in Australia’s forced experiment with market liberalization, privatization and economic globalization, has not only led to these deficits, but also to increasing social inequality, high unemployment, especially among the young and a rise in social and environmental problems. As with immigration, it is the elites who prosper at the expense of the ordinary people. The issue of the mass movements of people – an essential aspect of globalization will concern me for the rest of this paper because, due to the tyrannical culture of political correctness, and a well-founded terror of laws such as section 18 C, there is a chilling effect in public discourse about this topic. But immigration mistakes, unlike economic ones, are extremely hard to undo, once made.
Immigration and Racial Displacement
Bill Clinton, proclaiming the supposed virtues of globalisation said in July 2007: “The modern world is obviously full of opportunity…With open borders, easy travel, easy immigration, you see these things happening all over the world. We are increasingly bound together. And with more than a trillion dollars crossing national borders every year, even if we repealed all the trade agreements in the world, you couldn’t stop a lot of this globalization and mobility.” With this would come, for the West, a global sense of responsibility for the entire world, especially in caring even more for the entire Third World.
Usually support for open borders immigration is wrapped up in economic benefit rhetoric, such as that migrants will increase tax revenue, or do the work locals will not do, or will keep the population young. Examples of recent articles along these lines are “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders –
Completely,” by Alex Tabarrok, The Atlantic.com, October 10, 2015; Debora MacKenzie, “On the Road Again,” New Scientist 9 April, 2016; Heather Horn, “Can the Welfare State Survive the Refugee Crisis?” The Atlantic.com. 18 February 2016. The article by Horn quotes immigration economist George Borjas as saying that immigrants come in and work and pay taxes, although there are costs. Indeed, there are, and although Borjas is pro-immigration, in his recent book, We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative, (W. W. Norton, New York, 2016), he shows that the economic impact of immigrants upon the US economy is relatively small, being only $ US 8 billion per year, with considerable costs. These costs are skewed towards unskilled, uneducated workers, so many minorities have lost jobs because of competition with migrants, namely blacks vs Hispanics. Big business and those employing cheap labour have benefitted, with a transfer of $ US 160 billion each year from workers to employers and the users of migrant labour. From 1980 to 2000, the wages of US workers who had not completed school, were reduced by 5 percent. Borjas found in the case of refugees from Cuba in the 1980s, Russian migrants to Israel in the 1990s, Algerian nationals to France in 1962 and refugees to Europe after the breakup of Yugoslavia, caused adverse effects on labour market opportunities for locals.
George Soros, who in a 16 October 2016 article in Germany’s Die Welt, is betting “one billion US dollars to a crash,” in another article, still argued that the West should take an unlimited number of refugees, even in this climate of economic uncertainty, to counter “xenophobic, nationalist movements,” by creating a “welcoming environment.” So deal with fears of immigrant swamping by really swamping them! He also advances all of the standard economic arguments in the mass migration tool kit, such as the benefits of young migrants in populations that are ageing (working to pay pensions), and employment benefits. However, a Breitbart.com article of 6 October, 2016, takes these claims apart.
Non-European migrants have more than double the unemployment rates of Europeans. In the Netherlands, 65 percent of non-European migrants who arrived during the 1990s are still on welfare. Figures from the Ministry of Employment, Denmark, according to Breitbart 17 March 2016, indicate that 84 percent of welfare recipients are of “non-Western origin.” One third of all cash paid on welfare benefits goes to non-Western migrants in Denmark. Breitbart also cites Dr. Joseph Chamie, director of research at the Center for Migration Studies, who sees the mass importation of migrants as a Ponzi scheme, an unsustainable system, that only gives short-term profits to capitalists: “When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families – and more men, women and children on public assistance.”
An article by James Slack in the Daily Mail.co.uk, 17 May 2016, says that based on figures from the official Labour Force Survey, the cost of immigration to the UK each year is 17 billion pounds, which is the gap between the amount that migrants pay in taxes and consume in public services. Out of that 15 billion pounds is non-EU migrants, including Muslim refugees. The cost of 17 billion pounds does not include housing, welfare, other welfare payments, the cost of any public services and health care.
That is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of population growth for Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald.com.au, 22 February 2016, cites research by economist Jane O’Sullivan, that our population is increasing by around 400,000 people per year, with a cost of $ 500,000 per person, giving crushing cost of $ 200 billion per year. The costs are infrastructural, with migration literally grinding Australia to pieces. That figure does not include welfare costs. Big business does not need to worry about this, but scoops off the cream in profits from increased competition from housing and resources, while people put up with congested roads and live the life of sardines in a tin.
There are other costs from immigration, even more worrying if that is possible. These costs relate to the decline in social capital and social cohesion seen in the creation of multiracial societies and resulting ethnic conflict. This is a very large field, and I will focus my discussion on specific examples, but for the record I will reference some general academic papers, since all we hear about there is how wonderful multiculturalism/multiracialism is, never about the costs. Most of these papers are from pro-immigration academics who are noting a problem. Some papers, which give arguments for various parts of this thesis are (1) R. D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century,” Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 30, 2007; A. Leigh, “Diversity, Trust and Redistribution,” Dialogue, vol. 25, 2006; E. Healy, “Ethnic Diversity and Social cohesion in Melbourne,” People and Place, vol. 15, 2007; P. Thisted Dinesen and K. Mannemar Sonderskov, “Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: Evidence from the Micro-Context,” American Sociological Review, (2015); R. Rummel, “Is Collective Violence Correlated with Social Pluralism?” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 34, 1997. An excellent all-round discussion with further references is Frank Salter (ed.), Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism (2005), and a less complex one is given by John Derbyshire in chapter 2 “Diversity: Nothing to Celebrate,” in We are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism (2009), which should be required reading for Australian conservatives and Freedom Movement types, who think that economic tinkering is going to solve the crisis of Western civilisation.
Vital for consideration in this context is the demographic displacement of white people right across the West. To begin, white populations – and “white” is broadly defined – are declining right across the United States. There are various figures given in newspapers and books for the “magic” multicult moment when the US melting pot, melts, with figures now being about 27 years. Non-Hispanic whites may become a minority sooner, even if Donald Trump becomes president and deports illegal Hispanics and builds his wall, solely because of below net reproduction rate of non-Hispanic whites and the high birth rate of Hispanics. This is likely to lead to parts of southern America becoming Mexican territory –a movement known as Reconquista.
This is not integration because the minority is now the majority, and it is well known that once a critical mass is reached ethnics in a population do not integrate. When they are the majority it is they who call the shots and decide what the culture will be. Along these lines, Thomas Chittum in his book Civil War Two (1997) predicted that America would split apart due to a vast ethno-racial war. Least one thinks that only the unrespectable Right think like that, leading black scholar Thomas Sowell published a piece in National Review.com, 24 October 2013, saying that a race war, albeit a one-sided one, had already begun, largely of blacks versus whites. Recent events, such as the riots and police shootings confirm this view. But, this is only early days yet, hence the title of his paper, “Early Skirmishes in a Race War.”
Some articles state that Britain will be majority non-white by 2066, but others say that this will be sooner, in about 28 years’ time, or roughly the same time as the US. White ethnic Britons are already a racial minority in London. Required reading here for Freedom Movement folk who need to be brought up to speed on the race issue, is Ben Judah, This is London: Life and Death in the World City (2016). It is a depressing read because it shows the future of the world city. For example, 55 percent of London’s population is not British white. In 40 years the percentage of white British people in London has gone from 86 percent to 45 percent and of these majority “minorities” 600,000 of them are in London illegally. The number of Africans alone would fill a city the size of Sheffield. The future is even less whites, as 57 percent of births are to migrant mothers. The new London is full of crime and violence, Judah documents; a gun is fired on average every six hours. Ninety-six (96) percent of London’s prostitutes are migrants. He states that most violence is from competing immigrant groups.
Germany’s demographic fate has already been sealed according to Professor Adorjan Kovacs from the Goethe-Universitat at Frankfurt, published in The European Magazine. The claim that taking in a few million migrants is insignificant is wrong because it does not consider demographic factors, such as that the migrants are young, between 20 and 35 years of age, and mostly male, and this male predominance is also backed by UNHRC statistics. At present there are only 11.5 million Germans in this age group, but immigrants are already 3.5 million. As most of the migrants are men, there will be a push for marriage to white Germans, and the Left and the German government are already promoting this. See for example the German government website “My Body in Words and Images,” using Google images, for a shock, if we can still be shocked at this late stage of the game. But family reunion, and bringing in brides and families, will be the major demographic engine. Consequently, Germany will be a non-white country within one generation, completing the post war program of demographic elimination of the Germanic people. Writing about this problem, and others, Frank Salter entitles his essay, “Germany’s Jeopardy; Could the Immigration Influx “End European Civilization?” (Eurocanadian.com, 15 January 2016). The title of Anthony Browne’s article of 4 September 2000, “Last Days of a White World,” (The Guardian.com), is indeed accurate.
Already there are no-go zones across Europe where police fear to tread, especially in Paris. In Sweden paramedics need to use body armour to enter their nation’s Muslim no-go zones. Trump was roasted by the British press for saying that such no-go zones existed in Britain, but according to the Express.co.uk, 12 December 2015, police interviewed in hotspots in London and Birmingham have confirmed this and are concerned about Islamic State/ISIS attacks, so much so that they don’t wear police uniforms in patrol cars, which are presumably unmarked. One interviewed officer said that police had to ask Muslim leaders for permission to send patrols into their enclaves, and another officer in west London said: “Islamification has and is occurring. You have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working.”
While there is debate about this, Australia at its present rate of immigration is set to double its population by at least 2075, or on the high projection of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, even by 2058, depending about assumptions made about fertility and immigration. Asian-born residents in Australia have doubled in the past decade reaching 2.01 million in mid-2010, if you can believe the official statistics. They have made up a third of Australia’s population growth. Australia’s so-called “non-discriminatory” (meaning, discriminating against whites), immigration intake for many years has taken in a majority of non-whites, as part of a program of Asianisation, what has been called the “Yellow Australia Program,” and to show the world how truly sorry we are for having had the White Australia policy – even though the immigration policies of most Asian countries, such as China, now, is even stricter than what Australia had in the past. Nevertheless, the political class have associated immigration with “being part of Asia”: witness the title of a standard article about Asianisation by Chris Bowen, “Immigration Paves Our Way into the Asian Century,” The Australian, 9 March, 2012. If “we” become Asian by immigration, then Asians will trade with us. Please trade with us; we will be good! It is at that level of stupidity. One could just as easily argue by the same logic, that formally dissolving Australia and becoming official Chinese territory would achieve the same end easier, and “we” could see the current political class, including Bowen, completely replaced by the Chinese Communist Party, for what that is worth. If they want Asianisation, then why not this and get it over with quick? In the end, Australia will ultimately fall into becoming a part of China, and this is something the local elites should be called out about, because it is the logical conclusion of the Asianisation of Australia project. Asianisation will thus end “Australian” multiculturalism, bringing in a new Sino-homogeneous society for the 22nd century.
If this happens, what was all the sacrifices to create Australia, all the deaths and men who have worked themselves to death, for?
Globalization is clearly a threat to the rule of law, our common heritage and the survival of Western civilization. So, what can be done? There is obviously no easy one-line answer to this, because the attack by the globalists is on many fronts and here only a small part of the total picture has been looked at. There is also the gender agenda, technology issues, manhood, feminism and many more horrors. These issues, generally, are discussed each week in League publications, although writers are often exasperated about what to do given the viciousness of the attacks and the depth of the problems. It requires organization and people actually doing something; not just a few activists, but millions of people mobilizing. But evil triumphs because good men and women do nothing, and nothing is easier than sitting back and doing nothing, and hoping that somebody else will make the hard sacrifices, while it is business as usual, day after day. Meanwhile the enemy works relentlessly 24/7 to bring our world undone.
One thing is clear: whites really do need to organize for survival because there is unquestionable evidence that they are facing an existential threat. The “ostrich factor,” of burying one’s head in the sand against our foe will not work because the neck and body of society is still vulnerable. So, resistance it must be, or perish. This will mean working with others, even if underground, to combat the assaults against our people, which will be difficult to do for many reasons, most importantly that whites have been deracinated and have lost ethnic identity. They may accept that, say, American blacks have a right to group together, but because whites have been immersed for so long in cosmopolitanism and universalism, this is something that they find hard to do, especially if Christians. Yet many American blacks who are Christians have no problem with protecting their interests, and I think, good for them. So why shouldn’t Northern European whites, who are genuine minorities now, do the same? And larger social groups, such as Anglo-Australians, white Australians and the British people, whom the League undertakes to defend, according to its Objectives statement? It does not imply any hatred for other people to want to see one’s own kind survive, and at present you can even say this under section 18C, because it does not mention any other group at all. In fact, denying our right to exist is racist!
In a paper “White Alert: Organize or suffer the Consequences,” Occidental Observer.net, 13 August 2016, Mark Westerman speculates about the non-white future:
“Some people claim that things will get better when Whites become one minority among others. But a society without a demographic and cultural majority will incline toward instability. The end of the White majority in the U.S. will create a social and cultural void, one mostly likely filled with an ethnic and racial free-for-all as all the minorities contend with one another for position and power. In this situation the White minority will face even more displacement if it continues to yield its interests.
What might be the final outcome of our present course? Along with the substantial loss of our political and economic power, it most likely will bring an eclipse of the Western values that are the ancestral legacy of Whites, such values as rule of law, civic duties, fair play—and even kindness to animals. As our numbers, influence, and culture wane, so too will our morale. It could end in the demoralization Jean Raspail depicted in The Camp of the Saints, when White women simply refused to bear White children because of despair and self-loathing.
But the scenario could be even worse, with respect to our physical safety. The lop-sided incidence of interracial violence already points in this direction. And if present trends continue, many of us could face danger from a government increasingly dominated by the radical left. Politically-correct leftists today display all the loathing toward “Whiteness” that their ideological antecedents in Russia and China once directed against “class enemies.” If our PC people today ever achieve the same power as those revolutionaries, would they be capable of the same atrocities?”
This is a grim situation indeed. But as James Burnham says in Suicide of the West, (John Day, New York, 1964), “Disputes among groups, classes and nations can and should be settled by free discussion, negotiation and compromise when – but only when – the disputes range within some common framework of shared ideas and interests. When the disputes arise out of a clash of basic interests and an opposition of basic ideas, as is from time to time inevitably the case, then they cannot be settled by negotiation and compromise but must be resolved by power, coercion and, sometimes, war.” (at p. 130)
The League hopes that this is not true, and however grim and dark the times may be, there will still be time for reason and faith to prevent man from plunging down the path of barbarism. But, the hour for solutions, negotiation and compromise, is getting late and the time for getting the political nose to the grindstone, is now.
Finally, although I have not discussed this issue explicitly, but others today have, the battles we face are also spiritual as well as physical and metaphysical. It is appropriate to conclude with some uplifting words, those from Ephesians 6: 10-13: “Finally, let the mighty strength of the Lord make you strong. Put on all the armor that God gives, so you can defend yourself against the devil’s tricks. We are not fighting against humans. We are fighting against forces and authorities and against rulers of darkness and powers in the spiritual world. So put on all the armor that God gives. Then when that evil day comes, you will be able to defend yourself. And when the battle is over, you will still be standing firm.