The Australian government has urgently commissioned its most important defence review since World War 2. Two key geopolitical developments have in the last year undermined two of the three pillars of Australia’s defence.
Firstly, the development of hypersonic missiles renders much of Australia’s naval fleet obsolete, potentially catastrophic given the importance of defending Australia’s air-sea gap.
Secondly, American power is crumbling as the nation tears itself apart, just as Russia and China are drawn into a close alliance in reaction to America’s economic sanctions against Russia. This too is potentially catastrophic given Australia’s reliance on a great and powerful friend.
The third and most crucial pillar is never discussed – simply put – why we fight. This was undermined decades ago by mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Regarding the first two pillars, initial reports suggest Defence’s analysis is bang on:
For more than three decades, Australia’s military has focused on what the reviewers termed “lower-level threats”, such as terrorism and conflicts in the Middle East.
Code for “Francis Fukuyama is retarded”.
But the Defence Strategic Review spells out that the world has changed, with China amassing the greatest military build-up of any nation since World War II, and that Australia is not equipped to face it alone.
Code for “we cannot rely on the Americans”.
Modern military technologies have given more countries the power to reach out and strike further than they could before. And the review says the proliferation of long-range precision strike weapons has “radically reduced” Australia’s natural geographic advantage.
Code for “if America’s aircraft carriers are obsolete, so is our navy”.
In addition, Defence’s long-held assumption that Australia would have about a decade to prepare for conflict on its shores can no longer be relied upon.
Code for “it looks like war against both China and Russia could happen really soon”.
While the review maintains that the risk of invasion is at present a “remote possibility”, of greater concern are threats of military force and coercion that do not require invasion, including against Australia’s trade and supply routes.
Australia only has a few weeks’ supply of fuel if shipping lines are cut.
The review determined the rise of the “missile age” had removed the “comfort of distance” for Australia.
The situation is so urgent that Defence is openly telling the government to drop the “climate change is the greatest security threat of our time” rhetoric and let it focus on the upcoming war against China:
One of Defence’s key roles in recent years has been assisting in natural disaster responses, first during the Black Summer bushfires, then during the pandemic, particularly in aged care, and in the last year during floods in NSW and Queensland — as well as assisting in a number of humanitarian operations overseas.
But the Defence Strategic Review says that is straining Defence’s resources, putting Australia’s military at risk of being “overwhelmed” and undermining its primary objective of defending Australia.
This is sensible, belatedly. China was underestimated and America’s petrodollar dominance was overestimated. In focusing on Middle East “terrorism”, the development of missile technology was overlooked. You can find some excellent analysis of whether or not the exodus from America’s system of financial control of the world economy and the rise of a geopolitical rival will lead to WW3 at Unz Review.
Fundamentally this comes down to one point:
This is why we have to talk about race.
Why did military analysts overestimate America’s continued economic, cultural, military and geopolitical dominance? Because it was assumed that mass immigration and diversity was its strength rather than its Achilles Heel, an indication of America’s full spectrum dominance that everybody wanted to live there, so it would just grow and grow and become more powerful. The same assumption was made on a smaller scale here in Australia.
They forgot about White men, the people whose blood, sweat and tears elevated our nations to global predominance.
Very quickly after 9/11 we started asking the question (ignorant of the actual culprit):
If we’re at war with terrorism, why are we importing the terrorists?
This demand was sidelined, so we transitioned to asking simply:
Why are you replacing us?
For this we are now labelled the terrorists.
I don’t know if this was the primary objective of the War on Terror from the outset or if they just made it up as they went. Essentially, ordinary White men who just want our country back are now the number one terror threat (apparently) to the globohomo system.
However, this Hegelian dialectic of the War on Terror coalescing with woke, antiwhite Cultural Marxism has resulted in the creation of countries which nobody will fight for. They probably thought they could overcome this dilemma with drones, missiles and AI but they have been outplayed.
What happens if the S really HTF? Who is going to fight for Australia? True believers in multicultural, civic nationalism assumed that migrants came here because they wanted to be Australian.
Remember the supposed “dogwhistle” from the noughties? They came here because they were “economic migrants”. It’s a real thing. Since the lockdowns, many migrants have made plans to return home at the first sign of domestic or international crisis.
As for the two million Chinese on our soil, the government (maybe) assumes that they will patriotically fight for Australia. They won’t:
Wang provides a window into the thinking of the youth of modern China. “Our religion is ourself and our government,” he says.
He adds that China is returning to its rightful place.
“For most of the last 3000 years, we have been the most prosperous and easily No 1 but over the past 200 years we have slipped back,” he says.
“Rising means poor to rich but coming back is to restore what has been.”
Even if we could intern them all like we did to the Japanese in WW2, political correctness would likely mandate putting many White men in Centres for National Resilience, ie concentration camps.
About the only people I can see with anything to fight for are biracial people. And aboriginals. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m a White man, but I just don’t see how anybody can have any kind of passion for a multicultural system where every council in the land is promoting drag queen story hour.
So, why do we fight?
Historically, men have been prepared to fight, to endure hardship and torture, and to die for their nation precisely because their nation was their extended family. A family that looked like them, possessed a common history, culture, and crucially, a common ancestor.
Now our country hates us, is actively marginalising us and replacing us. The American military is losing recruits because the American government has similarly marginalised White men, and Australia’s military will have the same problem. The assumption that so-called “new Australians” will fight for this country in a time of crisis is simply wrong. For this reason, the West’s security was fundamentally undermined the moment our borders were opened to mass replacement immigration.
As for White men who just want our country back, assuming we can avoid the Centres for National Resilience, what do we do? We should not be under any illusion that Russia or China are coming to save us, however globohomo is getting weaker. Our governments are about to get a lot more problems. Big problems. This means they will have less resources to throw at us.
There may be more wriggle room, so keep doing what we’re doing. Tribe and train.