Freedom For Australia From The New World Order Demands The Defeat Of America In Iraq

Dr. Jim Saleam
22 November 2003

What should Australians, who hold to a patriotic love of their country, do and think, about the invasion and occupation of Iraq? And what of the new war of national liberation being fought in Iraq against the American-led 'coalition' forces? Australian soldiers might yet be killed by people who pronounce us as invaders of their homeland. And are we not invaders? There might indeed be terrorism on our native soil courtesy of local-born and migrant Islamist militants, truly unassimilable people who see Australia's participation in the attack on a Moslem country, a sign from God of our moral evil. What if the deaths of Australian soldiers and civilians encourages some of our people to consider participation in the war to be proper and correct - and to demand blood vengeance? Can the growing band of war-skeptics then easily manage to both honour our troops, but oppose the ongoing war?

As the war rolls on (it never stopped after the promulgation of victory, seven months ago), the American superpower, the policeman-state of the New World Order, says that the road to its new order of social liberalism, full-blooded capitalism and continuous 'progress', runs through Iraq. The issues run deep because these are the 'values' which are killing our country. Australia is neither dying of the contamination of Moslem fanatics nor Iraqi patriots. It is our 'ally' who peddles these false values. We who put Australia first, are being forced to think the hard thoughts that come with war:

Which side are we on?
Is the real Australian interest served by an American victory?
What is true patriotism in these circumstances?

The Background To War.

It is now obvious, to all but a dwindling number of Australians who refuse to see (or who officially deny) the truth, that the war adventure into Iraq was justified upon - a lie. There were no 'weapons of mass destruction' to be divested from the mad, bad, dictator, and what is more, that fact was reasonably known before hand. The war was, to use the recent word of one of its architects, Richard Perle, 'illegal' (even if the matter of illegal wars seldom ever disturbs the world's statesmen). Australia's participation in the war was therefore illegal, an intriguing matter of real significance if the Australian opposition to the on-going participation of our 'state' in the crime against Iraq, was to technically breach certain sections (sabotage, sedition, aiding the enemy) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

It is becoming clearer by the day, that there was another agenda operating in the American regime, a set of objectives which drove it into the war, pulling the Australian 'ally' dutifully behind it. The publication of documents such as The National Security Policy Of The United States Of America and the assorted briefings of "The Project For An American Century" are as open as Mein Kampf was in another era. We can see that this war in Iraq is a vile, criminal war, designed to seize the oil resources of the region, to bolster the position of the Zionist bandit entity called 'Israel' against the Palestinian people and other Arabs, and to position the American superpower strategically in a way it can intervene wheresoever it pleases, against 'enemies' as they are proclaimed. These are high stakes.

There is now an insurgency in Iraq. Its' existence was - at first - denied. The Washington propaganda spin was that "Saddam loyalists", a few "Shiite Islamic radicals and foreign fighters" and the no-good "Al-Qaeda", were the only ones being uncooperative in the extension of democratic freedom to the people of Iraq. That line has now gone by the wayside. It is reasonably the case that Saddam Hussein planned for the guerilla war now engulfing Iraq. Not that all the guerilla forces adhere to the leadership of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, the party of Saddam's revolution.. They don't. However, the Ba'athists fill the vanguard role and now fight, not so much for themselves, but for the national cause.

Possibly, Saddam was not, is not, a profound thinker. That does not mean that he did not read military theory - and could not assimilate guerilla-warfare theory. When the coalition army appeared in Iraq, he dispersed his regular forces, sending the useless bulk home, while concealing others in deep cover. His first-phase war was fought by the Fedayeen militias (which included many foreign fighters) and the those militias under the control of the Ba'ath. They were joined by his Republican Guard divisions. Resist they did, hoping for the intervention of the Arab world, the Moslem world - which never came. And so, the fall-back plan. After the Occupation, the Resistance, a protracted guerilla war to harry the invader, pending his final expulsion from Iraq.

The Resistance.

It is the case that the Resistance forces are growing by the day. It is very doubtful they can be defeated. The bluster of George Bush that a few "thugs and terrorists" are not going to drive the American-led coalition out of Iraq, is violent rhetoric, but shallow. The "thugs and terrorists" cut the oil pipelines, kill the collaborators, kill American and other troops and destroy military equipment, damage the infrastructure of the country, assassinate local and foreign officials of all types, rendering Iraq simply ungovernable and submitting the USA to a financial drain of astounding proportions. This achievement is the very grist of a guerilla war.

The Resistance wins if the New World Order armies and their collaborators cannot win. That is the brutal rule of guerilla warfare. The Ba'athists, the Shiite militias, the nationalists of all sorts, are united in their opposition to an invader. They have supporters, resources and safe-havens, buried right in the ranks of the people. They are, per Mao's dictum, the "fish that swims in the sea of the people". And more. Iraq borders countries from whence resources can be acquired for the continuation of the struggle, and like in Vietnam the imperialist invader risks attacking these places just to cut off supplies. If the imperial vision extends, as it does, to invading these countries too, the temptation to broaden the war might become overwhelming. The New World Order men yearn to go for broke and seize the hour. However, it can just as easily be, that rather than one smoking ruin in armed resistance, there could yet several more! The war program of the new empire offers significant possibilities; it sets out to institute change. But war is the locomotive of history; it speeds up all processes of growth - and dissolution. It is also like the tiger: he who rides it, cannot dismount. War locks the system into processes. The New World Order system is gambling on victory in Iraq, and having unleashed war must follow things through. Against it, is an enemy who has also assessed possibilities.

The theory of irregular warfare was understood in Iraq. Saddam's 'psychology' allowed its easy dissemination. This is a man often compared to Hitler, albeit by the Zionist propagandists and for their own reasons. But, what did Hitler do which provides any guidance here? He mobilised the nation totally, ultimately levied a great militia, the People's Army, and because his enemies demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender, he replied with Total War. Saddam is compared to Stalin. But what did Stalin do which provides illumination here? He was prepared to sacrifice territory and lives in the short-term to secure final victory and because his enemy demanded a war of annihilation, he replied in pure kind. Saddam has quoted Mao and Lin Piao. But what did they do which gives a line of approach here? They were the theorists of people's war, of protracted national and guerilla war against enemies stronger in resources, their arguments and models of struggle already employed in one war which humbled the American Empire. Saddam can read! Faced with a harsh enemy, he adopted the politics of harsh models. It is no wonder too, he drew the Black Hawk Down lesson of the Somali war, viewing the cult film and encouraging his commanders to make every Iraqi city another Moghadishu. Indeed!

The Resistance shows that modern technology, for all its impressive strength, is not the decisive thing in human conflict. The determination to fight and die, to wage war without cessation, to wage it to undermine the resolve of the enemy, are the decisive factors. We are in for a long war, a bloody war. The question is: are we Australian patriots prepared to take advantage of this fact? Our patriotic aim is to secure the independence of Australia from the New World Order regime. We know that Australia exists in the international environment in which it does. We know that, in an odd sort of way, the Iraqi national liberation forces are fighting against the same enemy we must challenge for the freedom of our land.

We who put Australia first in our sentiments are not world-improvers. We are not concerned with the particular beliefs of the insurgents. We are not concerned whether one or the other faction conforms to some arbitrarily chosen construct we might use to perceive the world. Iraq is not our business. Whomsover comes out on top when America is defeated is a matter for Iraqis and it can be decided by ballots, or bullets, or both in combination.

In whatever manner we Australians conquer independence and freedom for ourselves, is equally our business. Many Australians talk of our sovereignty, but the intervention of our state in this Iraq war demonstrated we had no independence. If we demand independence, it is against America that the demand is made, and against the New World Order, that it must be secured.

The New World Order Dictatorship Over Australia

We Australians are having our nation's territory and resources negotiated out from under us. We are invaded by foreign capital, by contract labour, and by alien immigration. We are being re-colonised. We find ourselves deprived of our national identity by a system that desires the disappearance of our nationality from the Continent. We are an occupied country and have been occupied for a long time. The formation of a 'market' of consumers, people with no identity and no purposes beyond the gratification of their wants and needs makes for easy government. The system that governs here may appear benign, to those who have never thought of questioning it, but this observation is based upon the mere surface appearance of our state. It is more a vicious class regime which seeks to reduce Australia to an economic production unit of the global economy, cowed by secret policemen and restrictive legislation.

The New World Order system has the full loyalty of the political caste and the rich. It has the support of the liberally minded and all those who benefit from it. It is a system which has grown stronger over the years. In the full psychosis of its anti-terrorism crusade, it has the machinery at its disposal for the violent suppression of any Australian movement of nationalism.

It is a thought-crime in Australia to question the sanctity of the liberal order. We cannot question the Zionist role in the war at hand, for that is said to be "anti-semitism". We cannot question our lack of identity, for that is supposedly, "racism". We cannot question the virtue of economic globalisation, as that is "protectionism" and "isolationism". We cannot ask for a greater say in what goes on, as that is "populism". The swear words of the regime mask its authoritarian passion. The new liberalism is not about freedom of expression, but about the economic freedom of the New World Order forces to do as they please in re-ordering Australia. If their view is the only permissable view, then we have no freedom. We are thought-criminals if we think in other terms. Only fools believe the system's lie that it represents a vision of freedom. The question must be: freedom for whom?

The hypocrisy of the New World Order system is amazing to behold. Just a few days after the Twin Towers attack in September 2001, the American President declared his war on terror, his declaration of war without end against chosen targets (soon to have included Iraq) and in the name of the tired values of "tolerance", "pluralism", "freedom" and "democracy". As if the Washington regime encapsulates any virtues! Its CIA murders at will and deals in drugs. Its leaders are so far integrated with the military-industrial complex, that they have institutionalised corruption itself. The regime wages war on the weak, invades countries, assassinates political figures, overthrows governments, plunders resources and exploits the labour of the developing world. It destroys the heritage of all peoples with its open borders doctrine. It is a zero in terms of human cultural achievement, a beast in the belly of the traditional Western Civilization, something that has distorted the true potential of the European civilization for sixty years. Its weapons make it a dangerous beast, but the perception has emerged that it needs to be killed, disposed of, in the interests of all who now suffer its presense. In its old age, it now seeks to universalise itself, ending history, making any challenge to it impossible, through extending the boundaries of the New World Order to embrace as many as can be embraced - and to do so by war.

The Australian supporters of the faked-up 'war on terror' which has led to the invasion of Iraq, essentially rise or fall with the Washington gangsters. They shall be held to account. Neither they, nor their secret policemen, propagandists and military men, should be permitted to escape the ultimate settling of accounts. For the moment, they pose as statemen and professionals at war. They are in the driver's seat, but the clouds are ominous for them. It does not mean that this war in Iraq will cause their system to collapse; however, it does mean that this system has placed itself on the ride to ultimate oblivion. It calls upon all those who call themselves nationalists and patriots to struggle harder and more consistently, for it is now possible to win!

What If 'We' Were To Be Defeated?

Let us suppose that the American armies suffer, over the coming few years, a rate of loss which drains their treasury, depletes, even if just a little, their military capability. Let us suppose the war impacts upon Australian (sic) prestige and consumes the budget-surplus.

Let us assume too that fewer and fewer people believe in the stated objectives of the war in Iraq and the 'war on terror'. All the while the Moslem fanatics continue bomb and maim, just as the Zionist murderers in Palestine almost in tandem, escalate their crusade against a people without a country. The war drags on and cannot be ended. Or that the war in Iraq ends, but the centre of operations just transfers somewhere else?

What does that mean for Australia? If the American military-political system gets weaker, the possibility arises for Australia to exit the New World Order. If the Australian state power suffers, it is no longer unassailable.

The idea that the Australian political order can be challenged at this point of time and removed in some easy manner - is wishful thinking. Some erstwhile patriotic parties and associations chatter away about 'representing people' or 'being an alternative voice' and so on. It is all meaningless nonsense which does not address the nature of the state power in Australia. The state is the representative of the dominant economic classes and these 'Australians' do not intend to relinquish political power to the people. We do not mean parliamentary power here, but actual power, state power. This power they defend in grim refrain.

Are we not ready to think that a defeat for the Australian state in Iraq, in the 'war on terror', means the beginning of Australian independence? Of course, that means largely in practise - the defeat of the American military in Iraq and elsewhere. Are we not beginning to see that the Australian state is not our state? We do not command it. It is an alien entity, a 'thing' which bestrides our Continent. We owe it no loyalty and should pay it no compliment other than an implaccable hatred. It is our jailer and we are its prisoners and like the old colonial state, it rests upon the prop of foreign force.

How many Australians of patriotic disposition moan and groan about the direction of their country but have yet to imagine how to free themselves of this condition? Australians have no great reputation for thinking in hyper-political terms, in discerning ways and means of securing grand results. John Curtin did, when he realised that to survive in a war, Australia needed firm resolve and other allies. Times have changed. Is there a new John Curtin amongst us who will perceive that to guarantee our national future in these deadly days, we must plan on the grief of our master?

If This Be Treason….

So wrote the great poet Ian Mudie of a band of Australians who, in an earlier time when the country faced Japanese invasion and imperial abandonment, spoke up for putting Australia's interest first. What happened? They were accused by crusty conservatives in the military and intelligence communities, of being - traitors! It might be the same thing today. Speak up for Australia first, not America first, nor Israel first, and one could be accused of treason.

Traitor!? Traitor to what? To commit a type of treason against the New World Order system in Australia is a patriotic duty! We are not the traitors! Rather, it is the gaggle of Australian politicians who pander to, and govern for, the American/Zionist war condominium who are the traitors. For them, we question the borderless world of the market future and destroy the dream and the profit; for us, they murder the national identity and ethos and cannot even acknowledge their sin. The dichotomy of position is absolute. There can be no compromise. The significant thing is that these traitors do not even perceive they are traitors. They have lived so long as the allies of others they cannot imagine an identity of their own. They were the Empire men of yesteryear, the anti-communist Cold War warriors of former decades, and now they are the executive directors of Australia Inc., the local office of the New World Order. They manage Australia as a unit of the new empire of globalist capital. They have no country and hate us for the presumption of claiming 'their' real estate as our land.

So, the definition of treason is in the mind of him who conceives the charge! To rescue the nation, we must think the thoughts of defeat! Let the New World Order occupation of Iraq fail, let the costs skyrocket out of control, let the Australian government become destabilised in war. Let Australia become isolated, let the secret policemen grow jittery, let the country become divided and fearful. Let the fight to return our troops from foreign adventures gather pace.

The independence of Australia cannot be won by gentle negotiation and parlour politics. It will be seized in crisis, not in a glorious declaration of independence, but by a sombre resolution to act.

It would be a laugh worthy of Henry Lawson, if the long march to the promulgation of the Southern Nation went via Baghdad - and owed more strategically to a Ba'athist Arab gunman or Moslem fundamentalist car-bomber, all of us in a peculiar mutual loathing, than to our own proactive fighters. Whatever the pathway, generations unborn will praise us for applying the rule: America's misfortune is Australia's opportunity!

Home: Australian Independence