Thursday, February 22, 2018

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: The Emergence of Indonesia’s Ocean Policy – Analys...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: The Emergence of Indonesia’s Ocean Policy – Analys...:   Indonesia finally has a comprehensive Ocean Policy to steer all government agencies towards a single, unified direction: to realise...

The Emergence of Indonesia’s Ocean Policy – Analysis


 

Indonesia finally has a comprehensive Ocean Policy to steer all government agencies towards a single, unified direction: to realise the Global Maritime Fulcrum (GMF) vision of President Joko Widodo to be a strong maritime nation.

The Indonesian equivalent for the word “Motherland” is “Tanah Air” or literally “Land-Water”. This signifies that the islands and waters comprising the Nusantara – the Indonesian archipelago — make up one unified and inseparable entity. Starting from the Djuanda Declaration of 1957 which enunciated Indonesia’s “Wawasan Nusantara” or Archipelagic Outlook, Indonesia took a leading role in the international acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 which recognises Indonesia’s status as an archipelagic state.

Nevertheless, throughout most of the New Order period (1966-1998) the Indonesian government paid scant attention to the country’s maritime development. The priorities of the Suharto government were predominantly land-based and focused on the densely populated islands in the western part of Indonesia. While the limited financial resources to develop a strong navy and other maritime capacity was a major constraint, the real impediment to the realisation of Wawasan Nusantara was the army’s then stranglehold on politics.

Streamlining Indonesian Ocean Law


The call for greater attention to Indonesia’s maritime domain had started during the New Order period, but it only found traction after the fall of President Suharto in 1998. Successive Indonesian governments since the onset of reformasi have begun to give more attention to Indonesia’s archipelagic nature with its specific weaknesses and potentials.

Strengthening the Indonesian navy, ensuring better control over Indonesia’s outermost islands, finalising maritime boundaries, improving law enforcement at sea to ensure the security and safety of navigation, husbanding the country’s rich marine resources and improving sea transportation to reduce the isolation of the eastern islands have all become national priorities

 

One of the problems faced by Indonesia over its maritime domain was that for a long time there was no single comprehensive ocean regulation. There were over a dozen laws which gave different ministries and agencies particular responsibilities at sea. Development activities were scattered over various central government ministries and agencies to the different levels of regional administrations without a clear roadmap, leading to disappointing results and inefficiency.

Institutional competitions were particular hazards to law enforcement at sea. The seriousness of the situation led to increasing calls for a more integrated policy on managing Indonesia’s seas.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono established a consultative body, the “Dewan Kelautan Indonesia” (Indonesian Maritime Council), in 2007 to help formulate a general policy on ocean affairs. President Yudhoyono signed the seminal Law Number 32 of 2014 on Ocean Affairs on 17 October 2014, just a few days before he stepped down. The move brought together salient elements scattered in different legislations pertaining to the management and development of Indonesia’s maritime domain under one law.

Law Number 32/2014 became the legal basis for the establishment of the “Badan Keamanan Laut” (Maritime Security Board), a full-fledged agency responsible for ensuring security, safety and law enforcement at sea with a stronger mandate than the coordinating agency for security at sea “BAKORKAMLA” that it replaced.

Indonesia as a “Global Maritime Fulcrum”

While all the post-1998 presidents had given greater attention towards Indonesia’s maritime domain, it is President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) who has elevated maritime-related affairs to a national priority. Strengthening Indonesia’s maritime identity was one of the campaign pledges put forward by President Jokowi, which he followed up with the plan to make Indonesia a “Global Maritime Fulcrum” (GMF) soon after being sworn in as president on 20 October 2014.

Jokowi created the new Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs, which coordinates the Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Fishery, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources as well as the Ministry of Tourism, reflecting its economic thrust.

On 20 February 2017 Jokowi signed Presidential Decree Number 16 of 2017 concerning Indonesian Ocean Policy (IOP) which will be the primary reference point for all programmes and activities related to Indonesia’s maritime domain. The goal of the IOP is to realise the GMF Vision of “Indonesia as a sovereign, advanced, independent, strong maritime nation that is able to provide positive contribution for peace and security in the region as well as to the world”.

The roadmap of the IOP highlights seven policy pillars: Marine and Human Resources Development; Maritime Security, Law Enforcement and Safety at Sea; Ocean Governance and Institutions; Development of Maritime Economy; Ocean Space Management and Marine Protection; Maritime Culture; and Maritime Diplomacy. Each of the policy pillars is further broken down into policies/strategies, altogether totalling 76 policies/strategies.

The first Plan of Action is for the period 2016-2019 which highlights five priority clusters: Maritime Boundary, Ocean Space and Maritime Diplomacy; Maritime Industry and Sea Connectivity; Services and Industry of Marine Natural Resources and Marine Environment Management; Maritime Defence and Security; and Maritime Culture.

The implementation of the IOP is carried out by the ministries and non-ministerial government agencies according to their respective roles and functions under the supervision of the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs.

Indonesia as Promoter of World Peace

It can be seen that the IOP is primarily domestically-oriented as most of the policy pillars and strategies are aimed at strengthening the protection and management of the Indonesian archipelago, and maximising the economic potentials that its maritime domain has to offer as part of Indonesia’s overall economic development. The external dimensions of the IOP are limited to maritime diplomacy and to defence and security.

Nevertheless, the GMF vision also underlines Indonesia’s view of itself as an international promoter of peace. One of the IOP programmes on defence and security is to enhance Indonesia’s participation in regional and international cooperation on maritime defence and security. On maritime diplomacy the IOP explicitly states that Indonesia must play a leadership role in various maritime cooperation and initiatives at the regional and multilateral levels.

The IOP, moreover, also states that the GMF vision should take into account of, and be synergised with, the various regional initiatives as long as they are in line with Indonesia’s national interests and can make positive contributions to peace.

*Dewi Fortuna Anwar is Distinguished Visiting Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. A Research Professor at the Centre for Political Studies-Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), she straddles the world of academia, political activism and government, having also served previously in the State Secretariat during the Habibie Presidency and subsequently in senior advisory positions to two Indonesian vice-presidents

 

Monday, February 19, 2018

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Indonesia’s military craves more power

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Indonesia’s military craves more power: Indonesia’s military craves more power To the consternation of pro-democracy activists and those with grim memories of ex-president S...

Indonesia’s military craves more power


Indonesia’s military craves more power

To the consternation of pro-democracy activists and those with grim memories of ex-president Suharto’s authoritarian rule, Joko Widodo’s government continues to mull over legislation that would give the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) a wider counterterrorism role.

It is not clear yet what changes will be made to the 2003 Anti-Terrorism Law, but in a letter to Parliament last month new armed forces chief Air Chief Marshal Hadi Tjahjanto rang alarm bells by proposing that terrorism should be changed from a law enforcement to an officially defined state security issue.

That, and the contention that terrorism is also a threat to territorial integrity, would place it squarely within the domain of the military, which lost its internal security role when democratic reforms made it solely responsible for external defense in 1999.

 “The question is whether it is desirable to give the military the authority to take the initiative without reference to the police,” says Sidney Jones, director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, a think tank. “It opens a wedge where the dangers will outweigh the benefits that would come from specifying its roles in the law.”

Previous versions of the draft legislation have allowed Indonesia’s capable special forces units to spearhead the response in cases of ship or aircraft hijacks, mass hostage-taking and multiple simultaneous terrorist threats.

“The law only provides for prohibited acts carrying criminal liability for the perpetrators (and) is only applicable after terrorism acts have been carried out,” said in his letter to the parliamentary committee working on the draft.

To deal effectively and efficiently with terrorism, Tjahjanto wrote, the strategy of “proactive law enforcement” should be applied where terrorists are lawfully apprehended in the planning stages of an operation before they can inflict death and destruction.

Maritime Coordinating Minister Luhut Panjaitan, a former commander of the army special forces’ (Kopassus) elite Detachment 81 counterterrorism unit, told Asia Times that Indonesia is merely seeking to model itself along the lines of many Western countries.

He points in particular to the involvement of the British Special Air Service in the dramatic 1980 Iranian Embassy operation as an example of the army being called in when the police were not thought to be up to the task.

Panjaitan says the government wants to create a crisis center at the presidential palace, separate from the existing National Anti-Terrorism Agency (BNPT), which would make decisions on threat levels and whether to involve the military in any given situation.

“All we want to do is create the right balance,” says the retired four-star general, who also acts as Widodo’s chief political adviser. “We want to establish an equilibrium for the roles of the police and the military.”

Panjaitan rules out formalizing a specific anti-terrorism role for the military’s nationwide territorial structure. But he says the retired non-commissioned officers who form the village-level layer, known as babinsa, could still act as “eyes and ears” of the counterterrorism apparatus.

Former president Susilo Bambang Yiudhoyono was furious when he learned that the militants responsible for the 2009 bombing of Jakarta’s J.W. Marriott Hotel had been living in a village in Java for four years without anyone reporting their presence.

Security experts estimate 80% of anti-terrorism efforts focus on intelligence, 15% on investigation and only 5% on what they call “door-kicking,” though the tactical capabilities involved in that task are crucial.

On that score, there is a significant difference in capabilities between Detachment 81 and its police counterpart, Detachment 88, which was created in the wake of the devastating 2002 Bali bombing and has still performed remarkably well with limited training.

Those limitations became obvious during a joint exercise at a supposed terrorist-held hotel in central Jakarta, where two police commandoes found themselves stuck upside down as they rappelled down the front of the building – in stark contrast to the fast-roping ability of the Kopassus operators.

US instructors and other well-placed sources say that like other specialized units, Detachment 88 has perishable skills which require constant training – something that hasn’t been achieved up to now because of a continual turnover of manpower.

This lack of continuity, they say, means the unit has yet to learn the teamwork and expertise needed to take down a building occupied by terrorists, one of the main reasons why the paramilitary force has often been accused of shooting first and asking questions later.

Kopassus appears to have maintained its skill level, despite the 17-year embargo the US imposed on military contacts between the two countries over the bloody events in East Timor in 1991 and later during the then Indonesian territory’s vote for independence in 1999.

While Kopassus has vastly improved its human rights record, it will take more time to relax the so-called Leahy Law, named after Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, which still forbids the Indonesians from engaging in combat training with US special forces.

US Defence Secretary James Mattis promised to re-explore the issue during a visit to Jakarta in late January, where he was treated to a bizarre display of Kopassus soldiers breaking concrete blocks with their heads and drinking the blood of snakes they had killed.

Ironically, when then US President Barrack Obama visited Indonesia for the 2011 East Asia Summit, Kopassus and army regulars occupied the two inner rings of the security cordon at Bali airport, leaving the police outside on the perimeter.

The amended anti-terrorism law aims at bolstering the policy and coordination powers of the BNPT, a 100-strong counterterrorism agency staffed by police and military officers which has proved largely ineffectual since it was established by the Yudhoyono administration in 2010.

Critics say there is no guarantee that giving it more staff and a larger budget will make it any more effective, particularly in the disengagement and de-radicalization of terrorist convicts.

Recidivism within five years of an arrest is surprisingly low, certainly below 10%, but researchers say that has little to do with government programs and more to do with pressure from wives, the birth of a new child or other family circumstances.

On the other hand, the Correction Department’s failure to keep convicted militants in isolation and away from the general prison population has led to further terrorist recruitment from among common criminals.

To rectify that shortcoming, the government is building a new maximum security facility on the prison island of Nusakambangan, off Java’s southern coast, which will eventually hold 240 of the country’s convicted terrorists and other high-risk prisoners.

It is modeled after Louisiana’s Pollock federal penitentiary in the US, with one notable exception: it will be surrounded by a moat, which presents potential water-soaked escapees with an additional hazard when negotiating an electrified perimeter fence.

Much will depend, however, on whether the supposedly specially trained guards will make a difference, particularly in preventing the prisoners from using mobile phones, as they have been able to do by paying off wardens in other jails.

The 210-square-kilometer Nusakambangan is already home to seven prisons, including Pasir Putih, which along with Cirebon and Garut in other parts of mainland West Java is one of three facilities currently designated for terrorist convicts.

The island houses up to 1,500 prisoners, including about 60 criminals who face death by firing squad at one of two sites set aside for executions; it was where Bali bombers Imam Samudra, 38, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, 47, and Al Ghufron, 48, were put to death in 2008.

Now on trial in Jakarta, radical cleric Aman Abdurrahman, 46, could suffer the same fate if he is found guilty of masterminding from behind bars the January 14, 2016, bomb and gun attack in the center of Jakarta which left four militants and four civilians dead.

It was that incident, inspired by the now-faltering Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), that prompted calls for strengthening BNPT’s ability to coordinate the 36 different ministries and agencies involved in trying to rein in violent jihadism

By John McBeth Jakarta, February 19, 2018 2:18 PM (UTC+8)

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: TRIBALISM IS KILLING MULTICULTURALISM

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: TRIBALISM IS KILLING MULTICULTURALISM:   The word “Multiculturalism” may be a recent innovation in the English language. The concept however goes back a long way. Multicult...

TRIBALISM IS KILLING MULTICULTURALISM


 

The word “Multiculturalism” may be a recent innovation in the English language. The concept however goes back a long way. Multiculturalism is in fact just a rebranded form of tribalism. For most of human existence, tribalism has been the default human condition. We are tribal by nature. If you have any doubts about that fact, then go to an English soccer match, that’s a lesson in anthropology you won’t forget in a hurry.

Despite its enduring persistence, tribalism is an extremely poor way to organise a society. Tribal societies rarely rise above the most meagre level of existence. 

Tribalism is inherently destructive and inefficient. An inordinate amount of effort is expended on offence and defence. This leaves few resources available for productive enterprise like producing food and shelter. Unfortunately, in a tribal system, every tribe must play the tribal game or suffer the consequences.

The tribal game consists of looking out solely for the interests of the tribe. In the tribal game, there are only two rules.

Rule 1) There are no rules

Rule 2) See rule one

In effect, tribalism is the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed is the order of the day. The tribe must jealously guard its territory and seek if possible to extend it. That can only be done through physical conflict because neighbouring tribes are unlikely to give up territory without a fight.

In recent times, academics have imagined that tribal, and especially pre-civilised, people lived a peaceful, idyllic existence until white people showed up.

 

There is no evidence for this viewpoint. In fact, if we look more closely, a very different picture emerges. Many skeletons excavated from times before civilisation show unmistakable signs of human inflicted fatal injuries. 

Skulls with axe wounds, arrow heads lodged in skeletons and similar damage allows us to estimate the levels of fatal conflict. These are probably underestimated as they ignore other injuries which are not visible on skeletal remains.

Even so, the numbers are shocking and paint a bleak picture of tribal existence. Tribal warfare rarely involves large scale battles of the kind nation states engage in. However, the lower level skirmishes carried out over a much longer time frame had devastating results on tribal populations, including women and children.

 

The chances of being involved in a kill or be killed situation is vanishingly small for a citizen of a modern Western nation state. Even WW1, which was one of our bloodiest conflicts had a relatively low body count. The flu pandemic which followed wiped out more people than the war itself.

In contrast, tribal conflicts can easily wipe out 30% or more of an entire tribal population.

That is not to say that tribes are in a constant state of conflict. They can in fact enjoy long periods of relative peace. Unfortunately, tribalism demands that such periods are used to increase populations in readiness for inevitable conflict. The inevitability of the conflict is caused by the exploding populations and the demands these put on scarce resources. Unfortunately, tribes which don’t play this game will be wiped out. Darwin’s theories apply to societies even more than they do to individuals.

 

This isn’t to say that tribal people are inferior in any sense. For most of human history, our ancestors were tribal. It is simply a destructive system. Witness the Ethiopian famine of the early ‘80s which was met with Western aid, spearheaded by Sir Bob “send the F@#king money” Geldof and his Live Aid concerts.

At the time of that famine, there were 40 million hungry people in Ethiopia. By 2010 that number had doubled. Today, there is famine once more and yet the population is projected to double again within 20 or 30 years. How is that possible? Only through Western Aid is the obvious answer. Unfortunately, Western aid will eventually be either overwhelmed or withdrawn. When that happens, Ethiopian tribes will fight and kill each other for whatever food remains just as you or I would in that situation. The largest tribe will likely win that fight. That is how tribalism has worked for most of human history.

 

The amazing thing is not the perpetuation of tribalism. It is the fact that we managed to break out of that cycle and create the Nation State.

A nation state is like a “supersized tribe.” It holds a fixed territory with agreed borders. Violence is monopolised by the state whose job it is to coordinate protection of both the borders and the citizens within.

This system is not without disadvantages. The large distances between the rulers and their citizens can lead to episodes of extreme indifference or worse, by ruling classes.

This dynamic creates a constant struggle between rulers and ruled. In the Western world, and especially in the Anglosphere however, we have a strong foundation of institutions such as English Common Law, the Rule of Law and Democracy. These philosophical and legal foundations give citizens protection from rogue governments and have underpinned a society which previous humans could only dream about.

The size of a Nation State means that localised droughts or catastrophes can be dealt with through shared resources. The savage drought in Eastern Australia in the 2000s never caused the starvation we commonly see in African droughts.

 

The Rule of Law allows for large scale enterprises which produce an abundance of foods and other consumer goods. The lack of tribal competition removes the need for rapid population increases and our technology gives us a means to effortlessly control our numbers.

Steadily declining populations reduce environmental strains and provide ever increasing abundance for future generations. We live in societies which provide a standard of living which earlier humans could only dream about.

That is not to say that tribal life is without redeeming features. Many of our recreational activities revolve around things which tribal people take for granted. However, the disadvantages are monumental. 

 

Imagine an awkward childbirth in a tent, when the medical establishment consists of a bloke with a stick with some feathers on it. Or how about neighbours who will set fire to your hut in the middle of the night and then butcher you and your family when you come running out. Sorry, but I’ll take apartment living every time.

Unfortunately, the Western Nation State is now under serious threat from tribalism. The decision to import vast numbers of tribal people into Western Nations is undermining our very foundations.

What is often conveniently ignored, and now virtually illegal to mention in many Western Nations, is that the European Nation States were founded as Supersized tribes with a shared ethnic, cultural and religious foundation. Patriotism is Tribalism writ large. “Ask not what your country can do for you,” demanded Kennedy, “ask what you can do for your country.”

 

Yet the word “country,” was the wrong word. The word he should have used was “countrymen.” As with “King and Country,” it was not land which people made sacrifices for, it was for their countrymen.

Like it or not, people identify with their own ethnic kind. We view them as extended family. Whenever they have the chance, people have a tendency to self-segregate. That doesn’t mean that we are all closet Nazis. It is simply human nature to feel more comfortable among people of “your own kind.”

Neither is that an exclusively “white” phenomenon.

In fact, from personal experience, I would suggest that white people are among the most inclusive and tolerant of others. This could be in part a cultural issue since the Nation State encourages “universalism” and shuns the kind of tribal affiliations found elsewhere.

 

It is natural therefore, for Westerners to try to assimilate people into their society and accommodate them as part of the nation. Our Government is mandated to treat all people as individuals and bestow on them the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. We assume that all people will react as we do and embrace the nation in its entirety.

What people never considered (or were too polite to mention), was that the people we were bringing in, may not have the same outlook as we do. Unfortunately, when people with a tribal culture are inserted into a universalist society, the tribalists have a huge advantage. 

By working together to advance shared benefits, tribalists gain inordinate power and influence.

It is like collaborating in a card game. As Warren Buffet pointed out, “if you are playing cards and you can’t figure out who the Patsy is, then it is you.”

Nowhere is this as obvious as in politics. Westerners tend to vote in part for their own benefit and in part for their perception of who will best serve the interests of the nation as a whole.

Tribalists on the other hand will vote exclusively for members of the tribe. Since votes are often split quite evenly, the solidarity of the ethnic vote means that political parties have to pander to ethnic interests whenever the ethnic vote becomes significant.

 

Muslims in London are far short of a majority. Indigenous white Britons still outnumber them by more than two to one. Yet tribally voting Muslims have ensured that London now has a Muslim Lord Mayor.

The entrenched involvement of indigenous peoples in the political process has slowed this trend down to some extent, however, things will change soon, and politicians know it.

That is why they pander incessantly to minority tribal interests. They assume that the universalist majority can be taken for granted. The Left knows that many whites will vote for more spending on schools and hospitals. The Right knows that many whites will vote for lower taxes and a business-friendly environment.

Only the tribal vote needs to be bought and paid for. This largesse can take many forms. Sometimes it may be direct financial benefits in the form of “community aid” or grants for community organisations.

Tribalists are not silly. They understand graft and corruption intimately. When the government scratches ethnic backs, you can bet that a portion of this aid will be recycled into the politician’s campaign funds.

 

As costly as this may be, it is not the most destructive part of the relationship. Tribalists think tribally. Their main concern is power and numbers. All tribalists see the majority as the biggest threat, and the one to be taken down.

The White majority have the numbers, the power and the resources that the tribalists covet. No matter how much they hate each other, tribalists are happy to work together to achieve their aims.

Each tribal group sees the majority as the main obstacle to achieving their goal. Thus, we have a coalition of tribal groups whose long term goal is to cripple the power of the White majority at all costs. They seek to do this primarily through government. While whites historically have been concerned with restricting government power, most ethnic groups are more concerned with monopolising that power to their own ends.

Thus, we have issues such as the removal of Freedom of Speech. This right was won through great bloodshed by Westerners. It has been taken from us by a coalition of ethnic groups. These groups argued that White Australians might inflict a Holocaust on ethnic minorities if we were allowed to express our opinions without government permission.

 

This argument is so ridiculous on so many levels that it should never have been even considered. Yet thanks to the power of the various ethnic and religious lobbies, our hard-won Freedom of Speech was taken from us with barely a whimper.

The campaign of the white majority to get it back, which was led by then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott was steamrolled by the ethnic coalition. Abbott was subsequently removed from power and replaced by a candidate rather more sympathetic to ethnic minority interests.

Immigration of course, is the ultimate “sacred cow” of the tribalists. They play a numbers game, so any politician attempting to reduce immigration is hounded down as “literally Hitler.” Witness the hatred and vitriol directed at Trump. Yet all he has proposed is to remove illegal migrants and restrict the immigration of people from countries which are hotbeds of terror and anti-American hatred.

Every imaginable attack has been launched at Trump and his “deplorable” supporters and for what? For trying to keep out known murderers and terrorists?

 

Trump may not be perfect, and to call him unconventional would be an understatement. Yet his opponents were a crook and a communist who sailed along on a sea of media adoration. Even his own party hated him. I think that most of the Republican establishment would prefer Che Guevara as President.

There lies our immediate problem. Our politicians, with a few notable exceptions, have been captured by ethnic interests and are now working in lucrative and high prestige jobs with the primary purpose of hamstringing the power of indigenous white majorities. In my opinion, that would make them the most treasonous, treacherous leaders of any human society in the history of ever.

In England, the Labour party is now brazenly excluding white men from decision making conferences and charging them extra for events based solely on their race (while simultaneously arguing that “race doesn’t exist).

“Human Rights” bodies are formed that actively discriminate against whites as they did in the Queensland university case. When regular Pickering Post contributor, Paul Zanetti brought a real complaint of hate speech against white males however, the HRC treated him like something they had just stepped in.

 

 

In a recent trip to a UK hospital, I took a photo of a noticeboard having a poster encouraging “black” workers to join the union which has a “Black Members Organisation.”

Can you imagine the uproar if a union had a “White Members Organisation?” There are too many instances of anti-white racism to mention and I’m sure you are aware of many of them. If you aren’t, then you really need to get out more.

Australia is still behind the UK by around 20 years but we are rapidly playing catch up. We are reaching a tipping point where we risk turning our cohesive, homogenous nation into a divisive, beggar thy neighbour tribal slime hole.

If that happens, whites will not be the only losers. While ethnic leaders have their snouts deep in the multicultural trough, their constituents are often the ones to suffer. Refugees, who fled conflicts in their homelands are seeing their children return to die in Jihad.

Muslim girls can face FGM, honour killings and forced marriages. Jewish leaders fight for Third World immigration while ordinary Jews face serious threats in communities which were once safe and welcoming. Many ethnic minorities live in ghettos plagued by crime and corruption thanks to ethnic lobby groups and the corrupt politicians who pander to them.

So, the question is, what can we do about it? Well, we could take the Swedish option and do nothing. This is the easy option for us, but our kids and grandkids will pay a terrible price. Already, young white males in the UK are finding themselves on the bottom of the heap and locked out of an increasing number of opportunities.

This situation will deteriorate rapidly as every other ethnic group fights for its own benefit while white people refuse to fight for theirs.

The alternative is to really push back as if your future and your family depend on it. We have to accept that our political class does not have our interests at heart. We need to stop voting as if we live in a homogenous nation state. We no longer have that luxury. 

 

Like many of you, I have to express disappointment, though not surprise, that One Nation are a bunch of incompetent, arrogant and ineffective fools.

Unfortunately, while Pauline may not be Donald Trump, PHON is the only political party which has any claim to represent the interests of traditional Australians.

If we were to vote for One Nation en-masse, the other parties would soon get the message. Whilst we could be subjected to (hopefully just) one term of poor leadership, others would soon come forward with stronger credentials and capabilities.

Secondly, we need to recognise and understand that what we are facing is ethnic warfare, even though it is mostly playing out in a non-violent form at present.

We need to fight against this ferociously. We have to watch like hawks and pay attention to what is being said. We need to force our enemies to define their terms.

 

Don’t allow racism against white people to be called “reverse racism.” It is just racism. Demand a definition. Don’t allow discrimination against white people to be called “positive discrimination.” It is plain old discrimination.

Challenge people whenever possible. Share articles like this one on Facebook and with friends and family. Most of all, share them with politicians and make your views clear in no uncertain terms.

We can turn things around. We’ve been in worse pickles and lived to tell the tale. All it will take is drive and courage. In my experience Australians have these quantities in spades,

…don’t let me down.

 

Harry Richardson

Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled',