Below is another Austrian guest-essay, this one from Deep Roots, who comes to us via The Transatlantic Conservative. Here he outlines his suggestions for a Western cultural alternative to the UN and other transnational institutions.
A Western Alliance
by Deep Roots
The following is a concept I’d like to present for discussion, which has been germinating in my mind for some time now: that of a political, military, economic and cultural community of interests among sovereign democratic Western nation states — if possible all democratic Western nations; the Western Alliance.
I’m well aware that such a concept cannot be realized under present political conditions.
UN, EU, NAU-in-the-making, Big Business, Big Bureaucracy, multiculti-mafia, NGO-istan — the whole political and economic establishment consisting of globalists, New World Order and transnational corporations would not like a development that runs against their interests like that. The representatives of global Islamic expansion — who are using multiculturalism as a “computer worm”, releasing their viruses on the Western nations’ hard drives — would dislike this as would the rest of the Third World, which would lose the West as their cash cow, should Westerners get rid of their “white-guilt syndrome” and start looking after their own interests again.
But let’s just imagine what such a “Western Alliance” could be like, continuing on a wider scale what NATO was for the Free World in the years of the Cold War.
A global community maintaining solely the interests of the West global would reduce the UN — this useless inflated and corrupt Third World Promotion Society, which would go broke soon anyway were it not for the dollars, kroner, pounds and euros of exactly those Westerners against whose interests this filthy mess constantly agitates — to the Circus of Pomposity it actually is.
A zone of free trade which actually bestows those economic benefits on the broad populace.
A friendship of Western peoples (i. e. essentially of European origin), preserving their identity and supporting each other in this.
What could something like this look like — following a “reboot” of our societies, after a renaissance of democracy whose development and preservation has cost us so much toil, suffering and sacrifices?
1) Principal structure of the Alliance:
An absolute basic principle would be the unrestricted sovereignty of the member nation states.
– – – – – – – – –
There must not be any supranational instance to interfere with the jurisdiction of the member nations. No “Parliament of the Alliance”, no “Alliance Commission”, no equivalent to the European Court. Any implementation — even later — must be excluded as a matter of principle and furthermore would mean incompatibility with any membership in UN or EU (if still extant outside the Alliance) or any comparable institution as well as in WTO (with which there could eventually exist some economic agreements).
Likewise excluded would be a membership of NATO, should it still exist anyway. For the remainder of NATO, consisting of countries remaining outside the Alliance for the time being, must be assumed to be under the influence of transnationalists or even of Muslim subversion which aims to include their countries of origin (Turkey, anyone?).
At best there could be at best a cautious basic relationship with NATO, one that could be revised at any time.
Only certain terms in the Charter of the Alliance would have influence on national law with respect to the inner constitutions of the member states, in that these terms would be preconditions for the worthiness of a state to join the Alliance. The obligation to observe these terms would come into force with the ratification of the accession treaty:
Democracy, the rule of law — with the exclusion of socialism, due to its tendencies to endanger democracy.
Any further unity or unanimousness that is not possible without a supranational legal instance is not worth sacrificing national self-determination.
Of course the member nations can peek over each other’s shoulders or into each other’s pots to adopt laws worth of imitation into national legislation (unmodified or adapted to domestic circumstances) — which could also be altered anytime according to the countries’ own judgement.
This in turn should lead to a more or less extensive harmonization of legislation within the Alliance, as far as it is useful for economy and transportation.
There would be no “capital” of the Alliance. Everyday affairs among member nations would be handled via their upgraded embassies, more important bilateral questions would be managed in the course of diplomatic visits (delegations of experts, ministerial talks or full-blown state visits), and for matters concerning several nations or the Alliance as a whole there would be regular major conferences in varying capitals.
Within this framework decisions would also be made concerning exterior relations of the Alliance — economic ones as well as those concerning security matters, with each nation bearing only the costs of its own participation as well as a proportional share of the host nation’s extra expenses.
One could call this a “grassroots system among states”.
No payments would be made by member nations to a central regime, as this wouldn’t exist — no net payers or recipients. Each partner nation would continue to administer its own financial affairs within its own in complete sovereignty, being answerable only to its own citizens.
This Western Alliance should not be a prison of peoples like the EU, from which there is no practical escape after joining (or being coerced). However, the partner nations should be able to rely on a certain amount of continuity, and would need the following rules concerning membership:
Membership would only be possible based on a free and secret referendum after its application has been examined by the Alliance as well as its worthiness for joining.
One might also consider the necessity of referenda within the existing member states regarding the acceptance of the new would-be member. This continual voting would naturally become more and more complicated with growing membership and to simplify matters, as no financial or other burdens for the existing members would arise from the accession of a new one A unanimous resolution by a special conference of all members’ governments should suffice.
These governments would represent the interests of their own citizens only (something that cannot be said of the EU’s satrap regimes), fully dependant on them for their re-election.
To avoid cultural incompatibilities there could be a list of desirable potential member nations as an amendment to the Founding Charter of the Alliance; by its referendum each accessing nation would also accept this list. Any expansion of the Alliance to include other countries than these would require referenda in all nations of the Alliance.
Membership would be at first limited to a period of five years after which another referendum would be mandatory. Should a majority not be found for remaining within the Alliance, then membership would expire automatically; otherwise it would become unlimited.
As mentioned before each member state of the Alliance is a free nation and can also leave it again. But to keep a certain reliability and continuity and to allow the other members to adapt to the change, each leaving member would have to give two to three years notice (here a consensus about a reasonable span would have to be agreed upon when founding the Alliance).
To counteract fickle behaviour (member in good times, quick to leave with troubles ahead and re-join soon after the problems are gone) graduated periods of disallowance for the re-accession of a country that has left the Alliance would have to be prescribed.
For example: five years wait after the first withdrawal; if a country were to leave again after this, then it would be seven years; and after a third withdrawal a country would have to wait for ten years before it would be allowed to join again. An “eternal ban” after another exit would not seem proper to me, for the prevalent attitude of a people may change over generations, and one should not punish later generations for the fickleness of the present one.
2) The community of interest which is the Western Alliance comprises the following dimensions:
a) The Political Dimension:
The member nations support each other on the world’s political stage and reject every political initiative — be it from the UN, other transnational organizations, or individual countries — directed against the Alliance or even against one of its members. Apart from diplomatic intervention economic pressure can also be applied in certain cases, and military pressure is also not excluded, if needed.
Furthermore, the members via their embassies provide diplomatic representation of Alliance partners in states where these do not maintain embassies of their own.
b) The Military Dimension:
The Western Alliance is a defence community the will respond to military threats against one or several of its partner nations by massive counter-pressure and rolling back any aggression against one of its members most severely. Even in case of “low intensity conflicts” involving “partisans” or “underground combatants” infiltrating the territory of an Alliance member from neighbouring countries the Alliance will take military action against their country of origin. In this there are no “out of area”-restrictions — the Alliance’s force projection includes the whole world.
And there is also no upper limit to the scale of the applied military force — if an aggressor cannot be defeated by minimal force then total war including nuclear weapons is not off-limits.
The share of smaller members without armed forces of long-range capability could consist in reinforcing their bigger neighbours’ home defence (thus “watching their six” and enabling them to detach a greater portion of their forces to the battlefields).
c) The Economic Dimension:
The Western Alliance is a zone of free trade without any customs or other trade barriers between its members. Nevertheless the legislation of the member states is free to ban the sale of certain products within their territory, be it for reasons of safety, health or environment protection, as long as it is a general ban not directed against one or several other members.
The member states remain free to decide how to arrange their commercial relations to non-members which are friendly or at least neutral towards the Alliance.
The Alliance reserves the right to economic and legal sanctions against non-members conducting dishonest business practices (e.g. China and its continuous disregard of Western firms’ copyrights).
Likewise customs barriers are to be imposed on countries whose authoritarian systems and their corrupt elites force their population to accept wage levels which Western employees cannot be expected to compete with (e.g. the former Soviet Union dumping export prices to gain foreign currency at its population’s expense).
And on hostile countries the Alliance will put trade embargos, thus waging a Cold War on economic level.
d) The Cultural Dimension:
The partner nations of the Western Alliance protect and cherish their own cultural identity.
They reject cultural relativism as well as any “blame whitey” tendencies, and defend their common cultural heritage against outsiders.
3) Who may join the Western Alliance?
At first I’ll insert my explanations concerning the term “Western”:
Of course I’m aware that on a globe like Earth terms such as “west” and “east” (unlike “north” and “south”) are not absolute and that China, for example, is closer to America in the western direction than in the eastern. But if you look at Earth’s land hemisphere, i. e. the part without the Pacific Ocean, then the countries of European-based civilization are located mostly on its “western quadrant”; therefore the term “Western” is by all means proper.
All “Western” countries worthy of accession; that is, all that have an predominantly European ethnic identity or a cultural affinity to the same, insofar as they fulfill the political preconditions mentioned in 1).
Geographically speaking this would mean:
|a)||Europe including Iceland, with the exception of Russia, which does not regard itself as “Western”|
|b)||Israel as well as (if extant in the future) states of the Christian Orient after being liberated from Muslim influence (e. g. Lebanon, “Assyria”, a Coptic “Core Egypt”, a Nestorian state on the Persian Gulf)|
|c)||North America (USA, Canada, the Bahamas, Bermuda)|
|d)||In South America, only the “white” states of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (no indio states)|
|e)||Australia and New Zealand|
|f)||A “white” Namibia and a “White South Africa” after political/territorial separation from black ethnics|
Furthermore, an associated membership or privileged partnership is possible for smaller countries of non-western identity who see themselves and their interests better respected by us than by anyone else, as far as they fulfill the political preconditions and also (first and foremost!) if this is advantageous for the Western Alliance.
It is not impossible that this status can eventually develop towards full membership after some generations — according to the social/cultural development of the country in question.
Examples for this would be the island nations of the Pacific Ocean, Singapore or some states of the Caribbean.
Agreements could be made with important non-western countries like Japan, (South) Korea or Russia for the purpose of restraining Chinese hegemonic ambitions or Islamic expansion.
4) Even a journey of a thousand miles…
…begins with a single step. As mentioned in the introduction, the present political, social, and MSM establishment is strictly opposed to the realization of such a community. But even given genuine democratic governments something like that is only possible if there is a popular will and a mental base for it. To this goal each of us can contribute in some sort of grassroots dimension on private level.
There are many possibilities for this:
- One could take part in cultural meetings, be it as an individual or as a member of a culture club organizing such events.
- One could create personal contacts with people from neighbouring countries.
- On a journey through foreign countries or when encountering visitors one could act according to the motto: “each individual an ambassador of his country”.
And for all this foreign languages are useful — how about refreshing existing skills or beginning to learn a new language, which would come in handy when travelling in one or another country?
Finally one can further consciousness in the sense of this idea during private talks, based on facts and in non-obtrusive manner. For example, one can defend the principle of the nation state and one’s people’s right to democratic self-determination and by refusing the legitimacy of supra-national legislation as well as any burden of guilt in reference to which Third Worlders constantly justify their claims of entitlement.
And if enough of us want it, then maybe someday it will not be merely a dream anymore.
“Car l’alliance d’occident — aujourd’hui,
ca commence avec toi!”
I’ve been thinking about this concept for some time now.
The basic idea first occurred to me when reading Samuel Huntington’s A Clash of Civilizations — especially the part where he describes how the UN develops more and more towards an organization hostile towards the West, being more and more utilized by non-Westerners for enforcing their interests at our expense; how they unite despite their other differences as soon as they can oppose our interests, and how we will have to bid farewell to our notion of being able to enforce our ideas of democracy and human rights worldwide in the future.
I thought to myself: “What the hell are we still doing in this useless outfit? And what would they do without us? How about an inside group oriented solely towards the West’s interests, as an alternative to the UN?”
At first I imagined only some sort of modern version of Tolkien’s “White Council of Rivendell”, a mere forum for us Westerners, where we could communicate about cooperation and standing together against non-Westerners.
Eventually this idea developed towards an outright alliance, influenced by many insights I’ve gained from learning about the EU, transnationalism, Islam, Political Correctness, etc. Our conservative section of the blogosphere was very valuable in this (Fjordman comes to mind!), and without blogs like Politically Incorrect, Acht der Schwerter (both in German) and Gates of Vienna I might not have come this far.
An invitation by the German blogger Eisvogel (who runs “Acht der Schwerter”) to write a guest essay for her blog prompted me to finally write down the concept, and here we are…!
I am well aware that in its present form this can only be a basic preliminary concept, containing lots of things I did not consider, flaws originating in a lack of knowledge or experience on my part.
Therefore I am looking forward to discussing it with you.
Nautically speaking: This is going to be a “shakedown cruise” of S.S. “Atlantica”; one can also compare it with the practice of “angles and dangles” executed by American submarine captains at the beginning of a long underwater patrol, consisting of a series of manoeuvres to reveal anything that is still loose, rattles or makes other noises.
So, dear folks: shake the boat!