Armageddon for the Pax- Anglo-American hegemony: Ukraine and the South China Sea, a potential theatre of conflict for America and Allies.

The United Nations decision delivered today, the 12th July, 2016, dismissing the Chinese historical sovereignty claims to the South China Sea territorial waters has had an expected response by the Chinese government. The Chinese government and its military will simply ignore the United Nations resolution. In so doing, a gesture made by a rogue nation like North Korea might have been ignored by most regional and global geo-political interests such an outlandish claim to almost the entire South China Sea expanse would be considered simply as a political military posturing to be paid lip service by the global community considered only as a storm in a tea cup by any other military and political power apart from the fact that the bold claims to the territorial waters is being made by a superpower imposing their mass and size within the region. For the Chinese the South China Sea area is yet another Tibet. The Tibetan precedent means that the Chinese regional and global presence within the South China Sea, can not simply be dismissed by the Asian region, and certainly, it can not be ignored by the United Nations, and, of course, by the Americans and their regional allies.

Whilst veteran Americans service men and women, may still be licking their wounds from the global War on Terror (GWOT) now being morphed into an asymmetrical conflict without a border, or a battle front. Nor is such a conflict centred within a particularised theatre of war within geographic territory within the Middle East per se, like within the Tora Bora Mountains, within Afghanistan, or Fallujah, in Iraq. Instead, the global war on terror is what it is, in an asymmetrical global war context whereby acts of terror is the present day modern day war zones of asymmetrical theatre of conflict which has brought the conflict directly into the civilian community. Asymmetrical conflict and terrorism aims to disrupt the unsuspecting population to violent acts of terror, and transform innocent civilians and other valued assets as collateral damaged victims of a perpetual global war on terror. The global war on terror, therefore, has moved the conventional war zone away from a traditional warzone and an actual theatre of war changing the entire mindset of warcraft into the twenty first century. In a conventional conflict setting, making war was simply a designated conflict zone, which would be clearly mapped out on a map and whereby a tactical approach to battle is, thereby, strategically planned, and tacitcally executed, by military personnel, using various military assets. Such assets may also include undeclared warzones even amongst allied territories such as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) making an incursion into NATO member ally, like Turkey or Pakistan. In such a changed environment of modern global war strategies, and tactics, the predictability of modern day warfare is no longer determined by the traditional conventional rules of engagement.

Even the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq has drawn out unprecedented lessons of warcraft, lessons from over a decade or so of military engagement by a battle hardened nation who have deployed some two million servicemen into active duty in the Middle East for Operation Enduring freedom, Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn, and the drawing down operations aimed at securing sustainable peace within the region, now deemed to be a futile attempt since the subsequent rise of ISIL and IS.

Subsequently, weary Nation on a constant war footing acting as the global policeman on his watch will be under tremendous stress in trying to maintain the Anglo-American hegemonic stability through the United Nations platform. Evenso, America has recovered not only from the paroxysms post 911 and the ensuing conflicts in the Middle East and their occupation of a region churning out the next generation of anti-West terrorist cells, the problem was the terrorist cells suddenly morphed into homegrown terrorist cells within Western Societies and communities themselves, transposing and morphing the war on terror straight back home to domestic criminality activity by local radicalised socially and racially profiled local citizens.

The past half decade has been a trying period domestically, not only militarily, but, economically, for the American people, and it seems that only as recently as the past two years the Americans have recovered economically from half a decade long recession, the American economy has slightly recovered nearing the end of the Obama administration. The Obama legacy, at least, from an economic performance context, has been an economic astute recovery from the 2008 recession period, in which the Obama administration had to inherit the economic shock of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) inherited from the previous administration.

However, the legacy of over a decade of war has left an indelible adverse affect upon the nation's psychy, like the potentiality of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) upon the two million or so Veteran servicemen and women, have added certain social and community stresses in Stateside American society.

The 2016 Federal election campaign has seen an acute rise in race hate violence committed not by the lower rung of American redneck society, but, by the officers of the law themselves like some hive minded behvioural patterned conditioning with numerous accounts of black men being killed by trigger happy white police officers in America. Coinciding with this hate meme, has been the general shift to rightwing political leanings of American society, particularly, in response to the Islamic Jihadist acts of terrorism, not only domestically, in America, but, throughout the globe. It is not that terrorism has only become a recent occurance in the past decade or so since September 11, 2001, but, rather, with the digital age the transparency of the information age and the rapidity of instant messaging over the social media in particular has become a double edged sword for the information age. People are informed instantaneously. A police office shoots a black man and the victim's spouse video tapes the shooting livestreaming from her mobile phone and the globe is instantly informed of the incident. No one has time to embellish and to redact or delete sensitve material. In such an example of instant communication the world is more aware of events in an instant. Global terrorism has become livestreamed which makes it more powerful than reading the headline news from the daily tabloids paper which is old news for about six hours ago before publishing.

Uncertainty continues for the free world with a shoot from the hip twitter making instant political quibs from a Republican Presumptive candidate has stirred many people in this short message texting form of politicking, which affects not only American society, but, a global audience feeling uncomfortable knowing that only 180 million eligible voters, in America, would decide whom to vote into the Oval office the most powerful human being on the planet.

The British Brixet has brought about new uncertainties within the European Union in a time when collective solidarity in response to the Ukranian crisis has gathered the military leaders within the European Union, and the Schengen membership, within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), on a clear and present danger war footing with their traditional former Communist world foe Russia. In various and possible theatres of engagement, within Europe, we could identify the various potential hotzones within the Black Sea, Crimea, to South Eastern Ukraine, within the Donbass region. As well as, the potential likelihood of skirmishes within Georgia, and within the Muslim region within Chechnya, which would give Russia and their allies, within the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) member nations, some grief.

What will, potentially, be the new world order, is the nascent perpetual rise of a new economic bloc between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, known collectively as BRICS. Brazil will be hosting the Rio Olympics, and, there has been a successful psywarfare campaign to undermine the Rio Olympics with the Zika virus scare, which has deterred many athletes and tourists from participating in the 2016 games. Also, the political instability and the social upheavals with an ambitious desire to host the games whilst being ill prepared economically and financially to build the infrastructural development leading to obvious shortcomings before the Rio games, and, added to the physical problems the human resources problems which include the humiliating fiscal mismanagement of unpaid police officers and security personnel, exacerbated with perpetual street marches, and protests. Such a precursor build up for the Rio games has become a anti-climatic deterrence for the Rio games much to the chagrine of the host nation, and, more particularly, as a member of the BRICS fraternity.

Another BRICS member nation, also having a regional crisis, is China, with the recent decision made by the United Nations delivered over the South China Sea artificial island making, and in response to the Philippine government's grievance plight to the United Nations to rule on the rights of the Chinese to take possession of thousands of Exclusive Economic Zone territories simply with the construction of articial islands in previously considered international waters, has been considered as an outrage by regional neighbours livid at the reality of being denied access to the maritime spheres of influence within the South China Sea. As a consequence of this action by the Chinese the Philipines had taken their plight to the UN, the aim of which was to detract and discourage the Chinese from asserting their sovereign influence within the South China Sea, and, in so doing, encroaching upon the exclusive economic zones of other regional sovereign nations such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines and other proximity regional nations, being stood over by China.

Military presence

China, whilst not a member of the CSTO, will, militarily, stand alone in their own regional presence within the South China Sea area.

From a military standpoint, the context of a military brinkmanship has presented the region with a heightened sense of tension which has brought about some added concern over the likely ramification being felt globally. Whereas, the Global war on terror is considered to be an asymmetrical conflict of religious ideas, traditions and a clash of cultures, the regional conflict over the South China Sea, is a traditional theatre of war in a conventional military context. Unlike, the Middle East conflict whereby the level of military engagements is basically conventional small arms Urban Operations (UO) firefights with aerial, artillery and armoury tactical and mechanised support, the conflict was a lopsided affair with a first grade military superpower with a coalition of the willing members on the one hand versus, a third rate substandard military enemy with a primary small arms weaponry of AK47, RPGs and a mounted 50 cal. in most instances with no air protection apart from an RPG or a Shoulder launched SAM, and hidden IEDs. Overall, the Middle Eastern regional conflict over the past decade or so, has been fought on a small arms conventional Urban terrain operation against an enemy armed only with small arms.

However, the prospect of having to engage a superpower enemy on two fronts is an even more daunting task for America to have to face. With A Ukrainian conflict in Europe and having to face the ominous might of the Russian war machine is intimidating to say the least for the Americans and their Allies.

Meanwhile, in South East Asia, facing the Chinese in a direct fist to cuff is another matter entirely. America will receive more than just a bleeding nose with a scrap with the Chinese. If some two million Americans are suffering from PTSD from the decade or so of the GWOT in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Chinese Challenge is entirely an elevated theatre of conflict that will be considered more challenging and demoralising to any Coalition of the Willing elements being led by the United States.

Previous American conflicts with other nations and terrorist movements, since world war two, will be pale in comparison to a conflict between the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) member nations, led by Russia, over the Donbass and the Crimean region. As well as, having to prevent the Chinese from completely taking over the entire South China Sea, and America leading the charge by a regional military Alliance led by the US naval force element, is, overall, at least, is probably biting more than NATO, and, any South East Asian military alliance, can chew.

Added to this woe of having to face the Russians in the Donbass region right at their backyard is like playing sport at someone homeground. The homeground advantage will always favour the locals.

Likewise, in the South China Sea, America's allies within the region will be more effective within their own Exclusive Economic Zones, however, they will be hard pressed to police the South China Seas with the heavy traffic of Chinese, and Russian, Submersibles, intermingled with NATO and regional Naval assets, the likelihood of a conventional mutually assured destruction seems a certainty.

What would be a likely outcome from such an armageddon conflict?

A new world order will arise and with it the Pax-Anglo-Americana hegemony will be diminished irreparably. The post 1945 Anglo-American hegemony and even the United Nations itself will probably morph into something less Anglo-American. With Brixet, the British would have relied almost completely upon the Commonwealth of Nations members for their Anglocentric support which under the present geo-political climate is only peripheral in impact upon the BRICS membership.

India, being the only Commonwealth Nation member and as a member of BRICS, which has a neutral stance in any potential conflict in which both sides on the conflict will probably will not trust India and their role and subsequently Indian will sit on the sidelines and watch the play unfold.

In the next few months as the tension will either escalate with whatever nation will try to remove the Chinese artificial islands from the South China Sea, they must be prepared to have a real military skirmish. Such a skirmish will have a serious repercussions throughout the globe not only from a military context but through an ecnomic context as well. In such a brazen disregard of the United Nations decision by China the world will be on the brink of a real Armageddon.



Tim Tufuga
12th July, 2016.

Brexit Referenda and the impact on Military and Security Cooperation within Europe.

Brexit Referenda and the impact on Military and Security Cooperation within Europe. By Tim Tufuga June 27th, 2016.


The immediate result of the Brexit has been an economic and political fallout which has sent shudders down the spine of the European and global markets. The paroxysms of the sudden exit strategy whilst not entirely unexpected was not necessarily a certainty. Militarily, however the Brexit decision has been a godsend for the Russians, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

What has been certain with the exit strategy has been the sudden realisation of the change of attitude by most conservative and reactionary societies such as the United Kingdom with the acutely anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism attitude, and a rise of neo-fascist, ultra right wing, reactionary attitudes by the British people.

In a global context, this has come as a bit of a surprise, bearing in mind, the general acceptance, within a progressively dynamic digital age, of globalisation and liberalisation attitudes towards most things cosmopolitanism and multicultural. Instead, the reaction from the British people, has been counter-intuitive, and regressive.

What seems infantile, in many respects, was the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) ideological narrative, for a British economic Autarky. An autarky that would also rely upon a British past that had long ago disappeared since world war two. Such a decision by the British to exit the European Union and harping back to its past grandeur of British Imperial interdependence is considered as pre-Orwellian and regressive. The British Empire, up until world war two, was self sustaining, and flourishing, with half a millennium of the Pax Britannia, which now, with the Brexit decision, incredulously, has now being revisited with the hastened exit from the European Union. Alas, such delusions were realised by the British voters who had decided to exit the European Union and with it came with them the delusional expectations for a more prosperous utilitarian future. Such a utilitarian future would be dependent upon traditional trading partners with Commonwealth nations.
However, aside from the Orwellian perspective, the Brexit decision has been considered by the Continental Europeans, and no doubt, by the rest of the Western World, to be a Hobbesian decision and the European Union Leviathan has one less partner within the European family fold. What is even more precarious is the domino effect and affect of the Brexit spreading to Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands.

The Pax Britannia and the British Commonwealth Autarky.

The economic vision of an independent United Kingdom would be based upon a unilateral trade free cooperation with unilateral trading partners within Continental European.. More importantly, as far as Australia and New Zealand is concerned, at the same time, securing their Commonwealth member sovereign national ties with traditional Anglo-Celtic colonies, with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Military and Security.

Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Organization for the security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

In the meantime, militarily, whilst the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is unaffected by the decision, the psychological impact for NATO, has been immense, with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member nations, frothing at the bit, at viewing the potential fragmentation of the European Union (EU). With the apparent British standoffish attitude, as a fallout with Brexit decision which has impacted on military and security co-operation with NATO and OSCE partners.With Brexit, this has created a psychological wedge between NATO and the Organization for the Security and Co-operation (OSCE) members within Europe, and elsewhere.

The Russian response to the Brexit decision has been overwhelmingly positive, however, this is based purely on a divide and conquer perspective, rather than for a global military, national, and global, security perspective. The impact on regional stability within the European continent, whilst this may not impact directly upon the military exercises within Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia, with respective NATO forces conducting military exercises with NATO partners, the CSTO have welcomed Brexit for its divisive influence within NATO and the OSCE.



Tim Tufuga
27th June, 2016.



References:

1.Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, http://www.osce.org/states
2.North Atlantic Treaty Organzation, http://www.nato.int/
3.Collective Security Treaty Organization, http://odkb-csto.org/

Brixet and the impact on Australian multiculturalism and Republicanism. By Tim Tufuga 8th June, 2016.

Brixet and the psychological impact on multiculturalism and Republicanism.

When the British people decide to exit the European union, it will be forty three years since the British had joined the European Economic Community (EEC). During the economic paroxysms in the early 1970s Britain was facing a daunting reality of losing its economic ties with their traditional colonial markets from Commonwealth nations, particularly within the Agriproduce trade with Australia and New Zealand, which had moved from a globalist context of British imperial trade routes to domestic and regional trade partnerships within geo-political proximity. This geo-political economic essential lifeline was felt globally by all sovereign economies which made sense from a regional pragmatic and realpolitical perspective which would undermine the traditional imperial and colonial gains of the previous two centuries of colonial expansion by the British in particular.

The British empire where the sun never sets had diminished with the dynamic forces of political and economic tectonic ructions which would shatter and fragment the British hegemony by the nascent forces vying to undermine the established world order of the the day. No doubt the British had overstretched their Imperial grandeur imaginations, like the Romans before them and they could not possibly remain the perpetual hegemonic ruler of a vast Empire into perpetuity.

In 1942, the Japanese emphatically destroyed the British imperial conceit once and forever, when the Japanese imperial forces had unceremoniously and violently ousted the British from Singapore. The triumphant Japanese imperial force then would consider such a feat in parity with the humiliation of the Russian Naval power, in 1904, when Russia was defeated by the Japanese. In 1942, with the fall of Singapore, signified the humiliation of the British military power once and forever and the British military presence would never again rise again in Asia and in the South Pacific. In their stead, a nascent American hegemonic influence would prevent the complete decolonisation of Oceania. The Pax Americana remains the pervading influence world over since 1945.

Ten Pound Poms and Chiefly Administration’s One Million Britons Policy.
Meanwhile, the British have had to consolidate their diminished hegemonic influence with kowtowing to former colonial citizens with opening doors to former subjects migrant numbers returning with their former colonial Masters to Their former Master’s home as services rendered reward and relocation for past imperial loyalties. The Blackmails burden had come full circle with de-colonisation in 1945. Migration numbers increased into Europe and flowed into Britain. The White man’s burden then included multiculturalism.

In the meantime, the last bastion vestiges for British colonial influences would paradoxically include former penal settlements within the Antipodes. Australia remained a jewel in the British crown along with Canada and New Zealand. The British had sought to keep Australia British after world war two by opening their immigration doors with ten pound passage fares for Poms to migrate to Australia in an attempt to “Populate or Perish” policy. The Australian Labor Government under Ben Chiefly would promote the One Million Britain immigration target policy into Australia which would include a ten pound inducement. The outcome was only a few hundred thousands of mostly commonplace British people would accept the offer to migrate to Australia. Since the one million Poms policy became government policy and the target fell well short. Government had then reluctantly had to extend the immigration quota to include Eastern Europeans, which would include Italian, and Greek migrants and other European ethnicities were to accepted into the migration quota, which would fill in the quota gap allocated for Anglo-Celtic migrant numbers. The ten pound Poms were insufficient in meeting the immigration quota for the then Australian population needs. The policy was, of course, a subtle institutionalised a White Australia policy revisited. The Asian horde image since the war against the Imperial Japanese had created an acute xenophobia against Asians which still remains entrenched within most Australians until recently.

Some half century or so after world war two, the legacy of the one million Britons policy which had, initially, aimed to create a white Australia, paradoxically, and inadvertently instead, created a diverse, and vibrant, multicultural Australia, which is the modern Australian society of today.

Anglo-Celtic elements of culture pervades and is entrenched within almost every aspect of Australian society. Australia is very much a British municipality region all but the geographical relocation next to London City.

The Westminster system of government and obviously the Australian Politicians generally are predominately Anglo-Celtic, and European, persons. Clearly, as Australian and New Zealand societies are legacies of British colonial expansion and this legacy reflects the successfulness of the British in colonising the Antipodes.

For a member of a ethnic minority group, including an Indigenous person, this omnipresence of all things British, has been considered a complete cultural assimilation within every aspects of their lives. It is considered as a mainstreaming totalitarianism of sorts for some groups including migrant refugees held in detention Centres.

For Multicultural Australia, except for the way people from diverse ethnic backgrounds may look, their distinguishable physical features, the colour and shade of their skin, or the languages spoken, their religious practices, their unique dress, or when and how they interact and communicate within their cultural gatherings, which would make them either targets for racial profiling by the mainstream of society. Multiculturalism for the mainstream person, however, is more like taking a stroll down a mall full of restaurants and eateries and sensing the sights and smells of multicultural foods, and viewing people from diverse ethnicities congregating, and may be endeavouring to impress customers for their business, so they could sit in their restaurant and sample their cultural signature dishes. Or, to watch and listen to them perform on stage. Outside of these restaurants, sporting events, and entertainment exhibition displays, multiculturalism is meant to disappear and to assimilate into the Anglo-Celtic mainstream society. Government policies ignores the particularities of multiculturalism until the negative aspects of multiculturalism ignorance leads to social diseases like entrenched intergenerational welfarism, institutionalised unemployment, due to racial discrimination against employing minorities, particularly those perceived to be non-compliant to the Australian way of life and are therefore considered and perceived as trying to take Australian jobs from White Australians, since most Multicultural persons from Australian society are also naturalised and or Australian born Australian citizens. However, due to the obvious racial discrimination by many mainstream Anglo-Celtic employers, some ethnic minorities are still not regarded as AUSTRALIANS per se.

Paradoxically, what remains certain is the Anglo Celtic cultural conceit with keeping Australian official institutions as Anglo-Celtic influenced (Westminster traditions), as much as possible. Official government institutions and the three branches of power within government, remain firmly institutional bastions for British Imperial spheres of influence. Anything outside of this influence would be simply be dismissed and considered as being sourced from seditious Plebians and multicultural rabble rousers enjoining the Australian republican movement en masse.

The Australian and New Zealand military, Intelligence agencies, and the Law enforcement officers, remain predominately white Anglo-Celtic recruits, who become less of Australian or New Zealand citizens, and would assume and reinforce their British Subjectivity persona, with having to swear their Imperial allegiances to the British Monarch. Ethnic Minorities, and mostly, Irish Australians in particular, recruited into the military, intelligence and law enforcement services, must also pledge their allegiances to the British crown as well.
Australian Republicans, therefore, are institutionally disdainfully regarded by official government service. In response to the institutionalised disdain for Republicans is the exclusions from office, ironically, from citizenship rights, like rights to employment by government services. The only Republicans not included in this institutionalised black list are already established social elites, which would include the present Australian Prime Minister, a former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.

The Islamic Jihadist the weapon of war against multiculturalism.

Anti-immigration has been used to justify the reasons for strong anti-multiculturalism sentiments amongst many mainstream Anglo-celtic Australians. Throughout Australian history, the Anglo-Celtic mainstream has viewed multiculturalism as kin with externalised threats to the Australian way of life. This way of life is British and is acutely Anglocentric in definition. Inspite the insipid legacy of Australia’s penal settlement colonial past, present day Australians are not coy in resorting to overt institutionalised draconian policies in punishing undesirable migrants and in particular undesirable illegal migrants, particularly if arriving by a leaking boat without correct documentations.

In general, the penal mentality legacy attitude, by most descendants of Anglo-Celtic penal Australians, has influenced the draconian attitudes toward migrant groups, which may be reflected in the treatment of boat people in detention centres, and, the xenophobic attitudes towards newly arrivals into Australia.

The draconian xenophobic attitudes has been helped by the global war on terror, thanks to Islamic Jihadists assisting the xenophobic Anglo-Celtic Australians with their justifying “Told-You-So” attitudes for the anti-multicultural attitudes.

The “I-told-you-so” type attitude has been the typical neo-conservative reactionary mindset which would be sourced from the strong anti-multicultural sentiments throughout Europe, North America, South East Asian communities, and elsewhere, which has typified the right wing mindset world over. It is a well reasoned argument for the established neo-conservative view of the world.

for the usual, and the newly arrived groups of Australian residents and citizens who are ethnically considered as marginalised ethnic groups within Australian society. The newly arrivals within the past decade, or so, include the Somalians, Hazaris from Afghanistan, and the Sudanese, mingling into the community alongside the not so new but more established and the usual ethnically marginalised ethnic groups from the the Asian, Polynesians, enjoining the old Australians, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander people, as the original marginalised ethnic group within Australian society.

Often, the European and Middle Eastern groups, are more in numbers and are able to blend in with the Anglo-Celtic majority more so than the Africans, Aboriginals and Polynesians, within South East Queensland. However, with the recent Global war on terror and the Jihadist terrorist narrative, the Middle Eastern Semitic ethnic groups have been thrust into the usual suspect basket along with the Pacific Islanders, Aborigines and Africans. Otherwise, Semitic ethnic groups would be more accepted than Asians, Polynesians, and the indigenous people of Australia.

Class conflict seems subsumed by the pervading visualised ethnic-cultural and religious divide that establishes, firmly, the ‘them versus us’, which separates groups of people, including institutions like schools, religious establishments, and even the military and law enforcement agencies, which has typified the multicultural diverse communities within liberal democracies such as Australia, New Zealand, America and Britain.

Pluralism and competing ethnic groups vying for limited power resources compete in unequal competition which leads to the oft tenuous reality of cultural anxieties between multicultural groups clashing in search of employment, housing, educational opportunities, and quality of life expectations. Often, in the digital age, these conflicts manifest themselves in everyday interpersonal conduct and communication, indirectly through social media influences, and attitudinal zeitgeists which would be the faddish flavour of that particular time and era. From such social attitudes leads to social norms, sanctions, mores, conventions, and cultural elements which opens doors or shuts them for any particularly targeted group of types of individuals at that particular juncture in time. The denial of opportunities and discrimination based upon a certain ethnicity, religious creed, sexual persuasion and gender will be the usual targets by a dominant group at any particular time.
Brixet:

Brixet: The pervading winds of change are in the air.

Brixet in Britain will mark the return of the White Man's burden with their insistence of leaving the 'open door' policies of the European Union and the 'open door' policy on migration inflows from France and the Continent into Britain has been associated with Britain's inclusion into the EEC, since 1973.

Paradoxically, in the South Pacific, Brixet, will serve as a catalyst for Republican ANZAC's, as well. In that, this is great news for Australia and New Zealand Republicans, because with Brixet, although, the British will want to hold steadfast with the Commonwealth nations, will influence the Republicans to urge Australia and New Zealand to reaffirm the same Brixet attitude against the Brits themselves by wanting to exit the Australian, and for that matter, the New Zealand, monarchical allegiance from the British monarchy as well.

Whilst, practically speaking, strengthening the economic lifeline with their regional partners within the Asian economic bloc. APEC becomes more essentially important for Australia's wealth development and as an essential economic lifeline.

Brixet, becomes a watershed for attitudinal changes within the South Pacific for the seemingly ineluctable transition towards an Australian republic. Paradoxically, the catalyst may come from the ethnic anxieties with multicultural groups becoming more convinced that ethnic oppression is associated with the present Anglo-Celtic institutional taskmasters oppressing the purportedly institutionally social pariah groups or individuals, like the indigenous cultures of Australia, and the ethnic minority groups within Australian and New Zealand society in general.

Meanwhile, at street level, multiculturalism within Australia and New Zealand becomes a watershed for institutional changes from a bifurcated Black versus White New Zealand and Australian society. Instead, a pluralistic Australian and New Zealand society becomes the realpolitical stasis with separate ethnic and multinational entities competing within a liberal democracy for power resources.

A Black and White Australia, as advocates from the Aboriginal and Anglo-Celtic majority Australian community, is not the realpolitical truth, it is an exaggerated social myth when 98% of the mainstream is pitted against a 2% Black indigenous population. A black versus white Australia is a ludicrous Australian social myth.

In reality, it is not a Black versus white Australia, or 98% of Australia versus 2% Australia, it is competing ethnic and multinational corporate groups vying and competing with each other which is the reality of a liberal democracy such as Australia and New Zealand.

Comparatively speaking, a bifurcated New Zealand social division between a Maori and Pakeha New Zealand in percentage terms is a 75:15 ration which is far from a bi-cultural reality in a bifurcated power conflict. Maori indigenous groups and Aboriginal ethnic groups ignore the reality of a multicultural society when they assume that it is a black versus white conflictual world.

Meanwhile, the present crisis point with multiculturalism is the changing of the cultural and physical landscape of established progressive society. Dynamic changes with newly arrival groups which are very few in number but have a significant impact on xenophobic communities feeling threatened with systemic and dynamic changes to their established communities. The paroxysms from such a conflict of cultural conservatism with social changes with an influx of ethnically new groups has created the obvious cultural clashes.

The global war on terror had ignited an acute xenophobia from right wing conservative reactionary groups endeavouring to preserve and conserve their established power base. They would consider the new threat as eroding their power resources. Universal welfarism, for example, has been taken away due to an increase of population and the established groups are having to diffuse their citizenry democratic rights and privileges to the newly arrival groups. Universal health benefits, universal rights to education, to employment opportunities have been taken away with cheaper de-unionised, ethnically diverse workforce take away jobs for white Anglo-Celtic Australians and New Zealanders.

Nowadays, Multiculturalism, according to the Enoch Powell and the conservative British right wing, mode of thinking, has become synonymous, not with cosmopolitan ethnic restaurants, tourism, and cultural performances, but, with lowly paid second class citizens and now, more threateningly, with religious threats from Jihadists, and even to the extent with the association with the criminally perverseness of rapists, and criminal terrorists, adding fuel to the reactionary responses of a xenophobic hysterical Europe, and British society.

Domestically, in Australia, the Anglo-Celtic majority have simply transplanted this localised British mentality within Britain to local politics. Xenophobic groups become transplanted Brits and would want to Brixet Australia from China and South East Asia if they could unplug Australia from the South Pacific moorings and move Australia next door to Ireland in the Atlantic Ocean. Unfortunately, Australia is geo-politically located in South East Asia and in the South Pacific. It is part of Oceania, despite the fact that the vast majority of Australians are, ethnically, Caucasians and Europeans, they live in the South Pacific region and are included as part of the South Pacific region. Australia is actually a member of the Pacific Forum despite the insipidness associated with the vast majority if Australians disliking the fact that the are geographically located in Oceania and not next door to Britain.
Overall, the Australian official institutions remain the established attitude of the British Empire of old.

However, the pervading attitude of most xenophobic Anglo-Celtic Australians are sourced from the steadfastly Anglophiles and Constitutional Monarchists. It seems ironic that on the opposite of the globe the most staunchly Eurocentric and Anglocentric mindsets can be sourced from the Colonials still holding on to the Apron strings with England. The British Ancien Regime remains reluctant to accept their waning into the imperial history like the Spaniards, Dutch, Portugese, French and Germans, and, further back, to the Ancient Romans, or the wanna-be Imperialists within the ninteenth and Twentieth century from Napoleon, Kaiser, Hitler and Hirohito, the British, have lasted for only a couple of centuries, but, they have had the greatest impact worldover with the Pax Anglo-Americana with the United Nations headquarters firmly established in American soil, in New York City.

Evenso, after 1942, however, the British Imperial regime still have endeavoured to hold steadfastly to their waning empire within the Antipodes and with the expectations for a Brixet from the European Union, the same old British paternalistic conceit remains stoic till the end.

With Brixet, the British conservatives would hope to rekindle this past Imperial glory, which is very nostalgic and yet very shortsighted, particularly, in light of the lessons of all Imperial hegemonic powers throughout history, which would reveal to any astute Historian today an imminent future in which the British Empire will well and truly fall into history in the proverbial wax and wane of Empires. There is no need for a Nostradamus, nor having to read into the tea leaves, in foretelling an ineluctable transition of an Australian Republic. It is the institutions of today who will be remembered as being seditious and treasonous in the future.



Tim Tufuga
8th June, 2016.
Former Australian Republican Movement
(Queensland Councillor for ARM 2012)

Source:

1. Remembering the Fall of Singapore, Australian War Memorial, https://www.awm.gov.au/talks-speeches/1942-fall-of-singapore/

2 United Kingdom European Union membership referenda 23rd June, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

3. On this Day, BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2459000/2459167.stm

The Royal Australian Air force's expected JSF35 combat formation will emulate the strike capabilities of the 34th USAF Fighter Squadron combat formations. By Tim Tufuga.

Courtesy of DefenseTalk.com


The Lightening Two Joint Strike Fighter 35 34th Fighter Squadron from the Hill Airforce in Utah, United States, have been fully operational since September, 2015.



The 34th Fighter Squadron based at the Hill AF base, with a three fighter units are expected to have a 78 strength JSF35 fleet, have been fully operational since Sept. 2015.

Presently, they are conducting 4 ship battle formation tactics, as initial combat training for their initial combat deployment.

My guess, more likely, they are expected to be deployed to the Middle East. Battle formations include stealth infiltration into hostile terrain with effective Electronic Warfare capability to undermine surface to air defense systems in which other non stealth fighter squadrons are unable to penetrate with effective EW capabilities.

The four ship formation combat wing formation is the standard battle formation (1) for the JSF35 combat formation in which I suppose ought to be emulated by the RAAF particularly here at the Amberley AF, right here, in Brisbane, within the next half decade.

Once established in Australia, the strike capability of the Australian military will be elevated to most effective military capabilty within the South East Asian region worthy even to repel any regional aggression from any superpower force.

Tim Tufuga

6th June, 2016.

Source: Defense Talk.com. http://www.defencetalk.com/us-air-force-f-35s-form-up-for-combat-training-67443/

Hillary Clinton FULL Speech On National Security. Trump ‘temperamentally...

Memorial Day Samoans KIA from the Global War on Terror. Including One Kiwi Digger. By Tim Tufuga 30th May, 2016

Samoan Patriots facebook.

May 30th, 2016 marks Memorial Day in the USA. In the recent Global war on terror 23 Samoans were killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

SSG Tiai (KIA) from the 100Bn, 442nd US Army. "Go for Broke".(Source: Lafaele Fa'atamali'i facebook)

Herein, are their names and dates in which they were killed in action. The highest ranked Killed in action Samoan military casualty was Lt. Colonel Max Galeai from the 2nd Bn, 3rd Marines, from the 3rd Marines Division, Hawaii. Whom was killed by a suicide bomber.

Source: Samoan Patriots facebook

1st Lt. Jason Togi was not added on this list as he was KIA in 2013, bringing up this tally to 23 KIA.
1st Lt Jason Togi. Source: Military Times.

Only one Soldier Pvt Kirifi Mila was a Samoan killed in Afghanistan whilst serving in the New Zealand Army within the Infantry Corp.

Pvt. Kirifi Mila RNZIF.


Over 2,000 Samoans served in the Global War on Terror. 2,000 Samoan military servicemen who had seen action in the global war on terror, out of a global population of less than 500,000 Samoans, this represents the largest percentage of military servicemen per head of population who have served in the global war on terror compared to any other race on the planet.
Of this 2,000 Samoans 23 were KIA making the Samoans as having the highest casualty rate of any race in the recent global war on terror.

Tim Tufuga
30th May, 2016.

Source:

1. Military Times. http://thefallen.militarytimes.com/army-1st-lt-jason-togi/6568500

2. Samoan Patriots, https://www.facebook.com/SamoanPatriot/?fref=ts

3. Military Times. http://thefallen.origin-domain.sightlmg.com/marine-lt-col-max-a-galeai/3608696

4 lions Full Movie: Understanding homegrown radicalisation. By Tim Tufuga

https://youtu.be/xtQMzUTB3iI (copy and paste)

In this black humour satire of what would otherwise be best described as an ordinary project-dwelling Boofheads, would seek a religious higher calling, through Jihadism. Although, this appears to be extreme black humour it does illustrate the seemingly atypical racial profile of the purported foreign source of radicalised Jihadism violence, purportedly sourced from an influx of foreign fighters into Western societies. Although, this movie was released as far back as 2010, the recent Boston Marathon, the Paris and Brussels, attacks seem to have drawn relevant comparisons to the British Black comedy movie and may even be considered as prophetic.

Understanding radicalisation of the culturally and ethnically estranged minorities, as in this instance, Middle Eastern, African and Indian minorities, within European and most Western Societies. The reverse would be countered and exacerbated by the ultra-reactionary Nationalist movements and political organisations from the mainstream societies. In short, the crux would be the dichotomised and often adversarial relationship between Multiculturalism and Assimilationist homogenisation elements from the mainstream of society.

In the New World, such as the Americas, and South Pacific (Oceania) outside of this Eurocentric problem, in the Americas and Oceania, the indigenous cultures are clearly marginalised by the majority colonialization cultures, including the power sapping influences from the pluralistic pursuit for limited power resources from multicultural groups, and subsequently, the First Nations peoples from the Americas and the South Pacific, would represent the third dimension in the three tiered sources of social anxieties within most Western cultures today.

In the meantime, in the Four Lions movie, above we see a caricature example of localised British Boofhead locals suddenly radicalised by a nascent religious epiphany which would manifest their pepped up subcultural oppressed rage and would feel compelled to put into action, in violence, this rage.

Tim Tufuga
10th May, 2016.

Source:

Four Lions, 2010, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lions