Nations Don’t Go Extinct Due to Loss of Material Comforts:
F. C. Comtaose
A Response to Bain Dewitt
The article “Russians Are Not #Ourguys” by Mr. Dewitt has generated a whirlwind of heated response from Counter-Currents readers. In my humble and candid opinion, the article reeks of being a piece of neocon shilling (dotted by some ostensibly decent and rational remarks, admittedly) which reads like it’s straight from the National Review or even The Weekly Standard.
The article does make some valid and reasonable points, albeit of a highly dubious nature. It seems to argue from the viewpoint of advancing and defending the geopolitical interests and economic benefits of the Western nations at large, and the US and UK in particular, in the Middle East, which is a common line of argument of the neocon ideologues over the past twenty years, and the recurring usage of the term “(American) hegemony” deepens that impression. But honestly, can White Nationalism afford that luxury, with our homelands increasingly flooded and swamped by hostile aliens as a result of the same neocon forces at the helm, preaching their tiresome and nation-wrecking agenda of “invade the world, invite the world”? Hasn’t that same clichéd and trite policy been enshrined in and guided American foreign policy, only to repeatedly fail catastrophically, with astronomical costs for America, Britain, and other nations?
The author seems totally blind to those glaring and indisputable facts, ignoring all the dangerous and deleterious ramifications of his propositions while insisting on bolstering and consolidating the Western geostrategic presence in the Middle East as part of its rivalry with Russia, blah, blah, blah. Simply put, he is awfully confused and utterly at a loss about the concepts of “priority” and “proportion” with his flawed and misguided focus on the alleged material interests to be obtained from the Middle East and his adamant critique of the Alt Right. He seems to be cardinally concerned with the oil and gas resources of the Middle East and securing arms sales through “coalition” maintenance under the shining, self-congratulating veneer of “Western hegemony,” believing that economic interests are everything while consigning vital and fundamental racial, cultural, social, and demographic factors to the backburner. In light of this, he is either insincere or incredibly naïve and blinkered (a term he likes to apply to the Alt Right), and his specious and condescending viewpoints are mostly misleading. A few typical examples coupled by my own comments are as follows.
In the fourth paragraph, the author simplistically dismisses the stance of Alt Right supporters of President Trump during his election campaign as an “isolationist agenda,” and that they thought Trump “has betrayed his loyal fans and acquiesced to Israeli influence. I don’t believe he has done any such thing, and now that the last debris of the last Hebrew Hammers has been swept away, I think it is clear that the Alt Right’s hysterics have been totally premature and unjustified . . .” This is a willful disregard of innumerable facts regarding the Jewish forces surrounding Trump, starting from his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who have been exerting considerable influence on his decision-making as amply demonstrated by a series of incidents, ranging from his backtracking on his former “America First” platform to his unwillingness or inability to defend the more nationalist members of his cabinet, such as Steve Bannon. And the so-called sweeping away of the last “Hebrew Hammers” is certainly inconsistent with the facts.
In the fifth paragraph, the author insists on maintaining the façade of the corrupt, old-world system epitomized by today’s US and the West at large – namely, the petrodollar, NATO, arms sales, military adventurism, and so on – by fervently arguing that these are all good things keeping America from collapsing and should be preserved, going so far as to blatantly announce “we are all Anglo-Zionists,” as if it were a badge of honor. Even taking into consideration all the realpolitik and geopolitical factors, such audacious and misguiding arguments for the “status quo” are hardly convincing. My question to the author is, aren’t your propositions what the US political establishment and its allies have been following for decades? Did their actions make the white people of the West in any way better? Has the collective prospect of survival for whites in America or elsewhere in the western world improved? Fear of change (or, in the author’s word, “revolution”) and “conservatives” using pretenses like economic prosperity and securing resources is precisely what has corrupted and atrophied America and led whites to their current state of misery and crisis.
In the sixth and seventh paragraphs, the author mainly employs the economic interests and energy needs of the UK to justify his anti-Russian and pro-Gulf theocracies proposal. While some of his arguments sound reasonable or realistic, they are still inadvisable in a deeper context. First, the so-called coalition partners of the US in the Middle East (i.e., the corrupt, terrorism-exporting, and extortionist Sunni theocracies from Saudi to Qatar) aren’t the only source of energy for the West. There are alternatives, such as American shelf oil in Alaska. And let’s not forget about Iran, which is yearning to improve ties with America and Europe, and which hasn’t been involved in any terrorist attack on the West in decades, but nevertheless remains the most vilified nation on the hit list of the Jew-pandering neocon political establishment and its court media.
Second, as for Russia, it certainly has its own interests, as does any country, but it certainly is not unreasonable or unwilling to negotiate. The author is kindly reminded of the fact that the West has chosen to continuously and obstinately antagonize, exclude, and threaten Russia ever since the rise of Putin with acts of political isolation, economic sanctions, propaganda demonization, and strategic encirclement. If the West changes its attitude and were to sincerely engage with Russia and Iran, it will not only help the Middle East by checking the radical and smug Sunni states, and thus contributing to the overall security and stability of the region, as well as improving Russia’s means of supplying Western Europe with gas on friendlier and stable terms, but it would also help to drive a wedge between Russia and China – the latter being a great adversary of the white race.
It has long been a well-known fact that there is an ingrained historical and geopolitical rivalry and mutual mistrust between Russia and China, as observed by astute scholars such as Dr. Kerry Bolton and this humble writer. Russia, for its part, harbors deep-seated wariness and misgivings toward China, especially the latter’s rapid demographic expansion into Russia’s Far East. It is only the arrogant exclusionism of the West toward Russia that has driven the cash-strapped and resource-rich country into China’s bosom, who is eager to use its bulging wallet to buy advanced military hardware and other technologies from them. In a word, the current alliance between Russia (and, to a lesser extent, Iran) with China is but a temporary and expedient one, and could be made to unravel if the West were to develop the will and wisdom to do so.
In the tenth paragraph, the author almost appears to sympathize with ISIS and castigates Obama for being “played” by Assad. This passage – “thus illustrating that he cared little for the blood and treasure that had been spent in Iraq to secure US-UK stability in years to come” – not only serves to rationalize and whitewash the monstrously wrongheaded Iraq War, but confuses the picture by fabricating a so-called US-UK stability in Iraq which never existed in the first place.
The thirteenth paragraph is a non-starter: “Having shown that the US lacked the will to fight, applying pressure on China to cooperate on trade would be a non-starter. The Chinese Premier was present for the strikes for the specific reason of showing that Trump would no longer allow Russian expansionism and creating a stranglehold on the European gas market.” First, Trump reneged on his campaign promise and refused to apply pressure on China over trade not because America lacked the will to fight in the Middle East, but precisely because it lacks the will to fight China (not in terms of actual warfighting, of course, but to impose essential restrictive measures on it to gradually choke off its predatory trade exports to the US) as a result of the intense pressure from international Jewry and traitorous American corporations hand-in-glove with the Chinese regime, which has been going on for the last thirty years. It is the status quo and the system the author vigorously defends that actually enabled the rise of China in the first place and which continues to fuel that rise, even though the author rightfully decries that rise (notice his confused and contradictory thinking?).
The author’s nonsense then escalates. In the fourteenth paragraph, he went so far to argue that “[a] Syria led by Assad that has defeated ISIS and settled into peace is no friend to the West” simply due to its being a close ally of Russia’s. An image of the Cold War mindset, rising like an ugly phoenix from the ashes, unfolds before my eyes. He then states that millions of Syrians and other refugees who have fled to Europe will not be welcomed back by a victorious Assad, and uses this in opposition to the legitimate Assad government with a straight face. This is highly questionable. First, you can’t know for certain that Assad will refuse to take refugees back incrementally provided that the West is willing to discard its antagonism toward him. Second, if the Syrian chaos persists, whatever else happens it will definitely result in even more uprooted refugees flooding towards Europe – a predictable outcome the author refuses to see. Talk about selective logic!
In the fifteenth paragraph, the author again enlists superficial economic benefits to justify the West’s support for unreasonable and vehemently anti-Western states such as Turkey, whose policies regarding Turks living in other countries resembles that of Israel in the sense it claims a vigorous attachment to and the right of governance over Turks living in Europe, and uses its demographic weapon to persistently intimidate and blackmail European countries. The author’s claim that “the Turks don’t supply the Taliban with IEDs to blow up British soldiers. Russia does,” is such a slanted reproof that it is truly flabbergasting. Even if what the author accused Russia of doing were factually accurate, he failed to explain why the British and American soldiers were there in the first place. To spread democracy and liberty across the globe? To secure the oil interests of the West? To help shore up the position of our dear and irreplaceable ally, Israel? An endless supply of blood and wealth must therefore be squandered there, right? It must be right according to the author.
In the sixteenth paragraph, the author bares his teeth at the American Alt Right with ridicule and name-calling. He defines it as a “malaise” and calls their “America First” ideal an ”unrealistic, principle-first isolationism policy.” The author seems utterly contemptuous of the Alt Right“ and its intellectual leaders as a redneck, lowbrow class of peasantry while regarding himself, and for that matter, the button-pushing Trump, as masterminds of real-world pragmatism and statecraft on a par with (((Henry Kissinger))) and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Bravo!
In the last seven paragraphs, the author’s searing attack on the Alt Right reaches its climax, and unsurprisingly is filled with bogus and spurious accusations. In the seventeenth paragraph, he explains that he wants peace but detests peacenik, and exhorts us to remember that life is a struggle. However, wanting America to become less involved in the Middle East mess, refrain from fighting wars on behalf of Israel, and showing more flexibility toward a non-confrontational and non-threatening Syria and Iran is not a peacenik response, and “life is a struggle” rhetoric still requires us to choose the struggle rightly and wisely, not foolishly and futilely. Then comes his most classically neocon point: “Without Middle Eastern wars on the neocon hitlist, American hegemony is threatened, and our “way of life” – read: First World luxury – is directly threatened.” Whoa, just whoa. “Neocon hitlist,” “American hegemony,” and “First World luxury” – what invaluable and indispensable goals! But isn’t all that materialism and hegemony stuff what has been undermining the health and integrity of the white race and America for the last half a century, at least? Besides which no perceptive minds in the Alt Right camp have solely blamed Jews for the military adventurism which the author advocates. The myopic, venal, and corrupt white elites certainly did as they were bid and contributed to this gigantic folly. Likewise, hardly anyone on the Alt Right actually shed tears for the loss of Syrian lives as a result of the strike. Rather, we only lamented Trump’s spinelessness and lack of foresight, which played right into the hand of the Jews and neocon interventionists, further exacerbating the situation and demonstrating his vulnerability and obsequiousness before bullying Jewry and the military-industrial complex of America.
In the eighteenth paragraph, the author sings the praises of Trump’s decision to teach a lesson to the Russians by attacking Syria and highlights that the cost of the missile strikes is nothing compared to the cost saved by securing a profitable arms deal. Again, one cannot help but ask, is it impossible to check Russia’s aggression by other means? If America moves to alter its antagonistic behavior toward Assad and Iran, can’t America and Britain, with their infinitely more advanced technologies and richer resources, fare better in competition with Russia? It is only when one insists on the current course of antagonizing Syria and Iran in the first place that one is forced to resort to interventionism.
Next, the author’s sudden pounce on North Korea (another member of the shopworn Axis of Evil) likewise smacks of neocon subversion – yet another attempt to topple the government of a sovereign nation to bring it into the globalist new world order, just like what happened to Iraq and Libya previously. He never bothers to mention the fact that the Norks have never attacked America, and have no real intention to attack the US (for all their pugnaciously provocative and incendiary anti-American rhetoric) as long as they are left alone. They will never attack America or South Korea given that they are fully aware that any such aggression means their own instant demise. While fanning alarmism, the author seems insouciant about China, which is the genuine mammoth geostrategic adversary, not merely to America but to white people everywhere in the years to come, given that it stands in lockstep with the largely Jewish political and economic establishment to consistently fatten and empower the latter at the expense of the interests of America and the white middle and working classes in particular.
The nineteenth paragraph is another confusing and untendable passage. While the author has to admit that “[t]he same news agencies that were breathlessly reporting on a Tomahawk strike against a Russian ally a few weeks ago are now trying to revive their Russian Connection narrative,” he then inexplicably remarks that “they are floundering and on the back foot.” The reality of the situation seems not so positive, though, with the liberal political establishment plotting to mount a new round of attacks to compromise, if not derail, the Trump Presidency. The author goes on to praise Trump’s firing of Comey, which of course was the right move, and predicts that those in Camp Clinton are now worrying about their own uncertain fate. Then he suddenly reverts back to claim that the stage was set with the Syria strike, which was a “firm statement,” and that Trump acted “in America’s best interest, not Russia’s.” The last argument is not only unfounded, it’s also a deviation from his preceding statement, as one is left agape as to what is actually his main theme.
In the twenty-second paragraph, the author again denounced and sneered at the leaders of the Alt Right movement, accusing them of “sacrificing America’s interests for ones’ own sensibilities.” Apparently, America’s national interests in the author’s mind do not go deeper or higher than ingratiating with Middle Eastern customers who “buy American products,” attaching huge importance to “deliver[ing] trade deals” with such countries, “winning” (of wasteful and fruitless interventionist wars in the Middle East while doing the bidding of Israel, Turkey, Saudi, and Qatar, and propping up ISIS), and the “great quality of life” for decadent and pampered American consumers.
The last paragraph reads almost like a hagiography written by a starry-eyed Trump devotee. We see the author’s implicit summary of what constitutes “vital national security interest” (which seems to be tantamount to bullying Assad, jettisoning the America First “isolationism,” and adopting Clintonian international meddling). We see the author’s strong and sweeping claim that “the Tomahawk strike flattened the opposition – domestically and internationally,” and his breathlessly exultant conclusion that “Trump has set policy, set leadership, and established dominance with effectively zero cost. The Syria strike was a win, and America is winning again.” Considering the dreadful and dismal reality of America as a whole and the imperative of securing the future existence of white people amidst great difficulties, the last sentence reads almost like sarcasm, though we do know the author is earnest.
I have never truly been a Russophile, and I am ambivalent towards the Russian nation. I admire some of their qualities, such as their perseverance and tenacity, while I detest some traits of theirs, such as habitual bullying, vengefulness, brazenness, and unabashed self-justification. I can’t forgive their shameless unilateral violation of the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty near the end of the Second World War, invading Manchuria from North, brutally slaughtering and pillaging Japanese civilians and occupying a few small – yet indisputably and inherently Japanese – islands north of Hokkaido to this day, an egregious and despicable act of “looting a burning house” that has been conducted without a trace of moral compunction. But in spite of the title of the article and the author’s call to resist Russia’s advances in the Middle East, the focus of this article really is not on Russia or how to counter it but rather on the American establishment and its existing Middle East policy, which serves the agenda of corporate America and Britain. It’s about the status quo: more empire-building, more closed-door power games, more arms and pipeline deals, more corporate profits, more globalist mercantilism, more foreign wars, more depraved material prosperity, more dodging of the ingrained structural problems of the Western countries that were created and are maintained by the ruling plutocracy through the banks and other anti-white institutions, more shilling for Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and more senseless antagonism of Syria, Iran, and Russia. At bottom, no White Nationalist ideal or interest can be identified in the author’s propositions or his glorification of Trump’s “leadership,” “dominance,” and “winning.”
The type of hegemony the author lavishly plays up may sound good on the surface, but in fact it is nothing more than an illusion that is unsustainable for today’s whites, not to mention being morally questionable. It is at best a wistful anachronism and, at worst, a detriment and anathema to White Nationalism. Let me conclude this humble critique by revisiting the principle that underlies White Nationalism in relation to mainstream politics and politicians who are ostensibly, and rudimentarily, sympathetic to our ideas: we should serve as a supervisory force to prod, remind, and alert them, constantly exhorting and admonishing them, but never buying into them with blind loyalty. If we prod them by a foot, they may move an inch in our direction. Although if we uncritically fall for them, they will unfailingly betray us quickly, and by doing so, we also forfeit our own political and social foundations, as well as the core of our vitality as a significant force for change.
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
Obituary for Prof. Roger Pearson, M.Sc. (Econ.), Ph.D., (London): 1927–2023
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
CPAC 2023: The Republican Party is Dying Out
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
Nothing Is True, Everything Is Possible
Trump’s Great Secretary of Defense
Red Flags in Ukraine
“First, the so-called coalition partners of the US in the Middle East (i.e., the corrupt, terrorism-exporting, and extortionist Sunni theocracies from Saudi to Qatar) aren’t the only source of energy for the West. There are alternatives, such as American shelf oil in Alaska.”
This is well said. I think the case against Dewitt’s argument for the Syrian strike lies primarily with debunking the idea that oppressing Syria is the end all be all in world affairs. The Syrian strike will not result in the pipeline Dewitt favors and is not necessarily a step toward it. He claims the strike was necessary to maintain a certain amount of goodwill with oil producing nations which he asserts is crucial to our short term well being. In my opinion the Federal Funds rate is a lot more relevant to discussions of short term economic vitality than the Perto dollar. How can he prove that if the strike did not take place there would be weakened relations and consequently noticeable economic downturn? He cited some obscure weapons contracts the UK has with Saudis that would be potentially be cut off but didn’t provide numbers to demonstrate the extent, if any, there would be economic fallout. Sure a plant might close down, but is that worth going full neo-con?
Even if Dewitt is right, which I doubt he is, maybe letting things get worse is just what those old white pensioners in the UK need to get out and vote for a nationalist party. Then again, if the French didn’t revolt it seems doubtful that gradual economic downturns or upturns will make much of a difference to whites.
Also, the point you made about previous Republican presidents’ plans of securing the petro dollar not working for the white race is very well put. It’s our last chance to do something so why just repeat the follies of before, allegedly for the sake of an alleged short term benefit?
Finally, the multi-ethnic empires in which whites are a majority are not white nations. They are means to an end, and maximum well-being in them should be discarded in favor of the maximum well-being of whites in a future white ethnostate. I fail to see how a Syrian strike gets us any closer.
It is absolutely in our interests that the western aerospace and arms industry collapses and the intelligent white men in it lose their jobs and their means of supporting families.
Riki-Eiki Rei assumes that because I support neocon action A, and neocons are also supporters of “invite the world”, I also support this. A = B = C logical fallacy.
The same “pampered and decadent” American consumers are the same rural whites on the breadline who voted for Trump to revive American manufacturing and secure them a “great quality of life”. And yet when Trump does his best to achieve this by securing the largest ever arms deal with the Saudis to expand the prospects of American manufacturing in one of its last remaining strongholds, he is attacked by alleged members of the alt-right.
If you are for the collapse of “the system”, you are for driving white countries into stateless chaos where the birthrate will plummet even further.
It is a tenet of American foreign policy that a stateless society cannot raise an army or oppose American power projection in a meaningful way. The same doctrine, under the guise of anti-Jewish, anti-diversity sentiment, is being propagated on the alt-right. Whatever ones reasoning, arguing against the state is arguing in favour of destroying what remains of white society. Anti-Americanism is simply shilling for our enemies.
So what immense benefits have we gotten from that endless fiasco in Iraq? Or Afghanistan for that matter? ISIS, streams of refugees, thousands of body bags, and several countries reduced from their relatively peaceful squalor to absolute devastation.
The entire military adventurism business appears to be one giant exercise in distracting the populace from how thoroughly they’re being screwed over and displaced at home.
And now we’re supposed to kowtow to a State that is dedicated to our eradication by demographic replacement by a tide of third world filth, that has openly and clearly submitted to the enemies of its own people and prevents its populace from defending themselves or even criticizing the invaders?
Additionally, your idea of “economics” is essentially that of the U.S. as a giant rogue state and Somalian pirate crew writ large. Instead of spending incredible amounts of money on armaments to bully and coerce the rest of the world, how about cutting the size and budget of the Army by about 90%, and using the surplus money to BUY the things we need from abroad, instead of simply using coercion?
Our army isn’t being used to protect against the actual danger — invasion by alien immigrants who will eradicate our culture and replace it with their own, reducing us to a few hill tribes and ghetto pariahs, or force us to drive them out. It’s being used to kill goat herders on the other side of the world who would have no way to harm us if we didn’t deliberately allow their entry to our countries.
All we really need to defend our country from foreign militaries is a nuclear arsenal, and a small “fire brigade” army to handle the unexpected. Removing the foreigner and guarding the border will restore our prosperity far more than killing some guys in turbans over in Dustbinistan.
Removing kebab and keeping the dollar afloat through power projection are not contradictory goals.
The Syria strike was simply a kinetic action intensification of an ongoing proxy war, which was in turn an intensification of an economic Cold War and stealth plane / missile shield arms race. No one cared when the US was finding ISIS, but when some Tomahawks are fired off at a fraction of the cost, the horror, the horror.
No foreign wars = no arms sales = no dollar stability = no infrastructure renewal or arms development = social collapse, declining white birthrates, alt-right internet network drifts apart, we lose out.
It’s true that there are plenty of Whites who benefit from the military-industrial complex that fuels American industry, and I think that the attacks on your original article were, in some instances, driven by lack of appreciation for nuanced arguments. But it’s pretty difficult to defend the U.S.’s sealing another arms deal with Saudi Arabia. 100 million dollars’ worth of weapons to the Muslim world! One can only imagine what kind of irreversible damage this exchange might ultimately wreak in disarmed Europe!
While some Whites may be making their livelihoods by contributing to this dynamic, I agree with Rei’s point that this economical structure needs to be dismantled, and soon. The economics of American international militarism affords us the freedom of another credit card in our wallet, but the interest payments will be paid demographically.
The trade-off isn’t worth it. A good leader would starve the military-industrial complex of a few hundred billion dollars and pressure a reformation of the American economy.
Correction: 110 billion dollars
>”The same ‘pampered and decadent’ American consumers are the same rural whites on the breadline who voted for Trump to revive American manufacturing and secure them a ‘great quality of life’.”
Your use of “consumers” followed by “rural whites on the breadline,” this snobbish dismissal and quarantining of white Americans, explains the groundswell of whites for Trump. It’s not simply a concern about the fading American Dream for the white middle class, they are angered by being cordoned off by (((mainstream media))), bloated Marxist academia, and transcorps in our own country.
This adoption of bi-costal liberal language by other whites, namely Madam Hillary, is obnoxious. The same goes for the false notion that the destiny of “rural whites” is forever tangled in Faustian bargains like illegal immigrant labor, Zionist foreign policy and…
>”by securing the largest ever arms deal with the Saudis to expand the prospects of American manufacturing in one of its last remaining strongholds, [Trump] is attacked by alleged members of the alt-right.”
The Saudis played a direct role in 9/11. Neocons then used 9/11 to begin toppling the Middle East, on our taxpayer dime. This resulted in a decade+ vacuum, not only of resources and soldiers’ lives, but of priorities and media attention for the white middle class. Your stubborn suggestion that Saudi arms deals and Assad bombings are tied to their wellbeing, that it will trickle down for goy chattel, is b.s. A Hillary/Jeb regime would make the same early plays and same arguments.
The Saudi/Israeli leaders are welcome to touch a wailing wall here for white U.S. veterans and 9/11 victims. Just for starters. Maybe their croc tears will make businesses in white rural America grow 10-feet taller.
It might be in our interest actually, for two reasons.
One: the Western MIC is terribly corrupt, and incredible at producing weapons that cost too much but don’t work. I refer to the F35, the Zumwalt destroyer, the LCS, and the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier. All cost an arm and a leg and are deeply flawed. Defense contractors have become far better at getting money than delivering products. Ultimately, it is in any country’s interest to be able to produce functional weapons that work against a peer opponent. 737s and Cessnas can be used to bomb Afghanistan. So a restructuring might be in order.
Two: Perhaps if intelligent white people were not dependent for their livelihood on a government that wants them dead, they wouldn’t vote for it
The writer , despite his article being for the most part correct and valuable, and apart from his obvious ethnocentric intentions, and his playing on the card of Western fetish for Japanese, seriously underestimates people’s capacities to discern between motives. First of all, the only reason why we are to assume Japanese are friendly towards West and Chinese are not is because Japanese are impotent. When Japan was potent it was sinking Western fleets around Pacific. Second, he seriously doesn’t understand that enmity that comes from healthy competition does not have a capacity to produce hatred and despise as much as enmity that comes from opposed values. Even though West is as far as it can be from original Western values, Western subconscious still recognizes familiar values among Easterners. Third, everything that makes Japan similar to the West today is precisely that which we seek to demolish and overturn. Japan is similar to the West only in deviant things and abnormal living styles defined by agitation and restlessness
West should maintain capacity for self-defense obviously, but there is no reason for Westerners to seek distance from the Chinese of provincial kind, akin to that of an evangelical suburb. Japan rose to great heights borrowing from the West, and West itself could help itself if it borrowed from certain positive aspects of Chinese worldview and mode of being.
“surrounded by enemies who look like you. England is Airstrip #1”
Who are these “enemies”? You mean the Royal Family and the rest of the British ruling elites? Or maybe are you still fighting the IRA?
“If your beef with the russians is that they didn’t honor the Japanese Non-aggression pact, you missed out on 70 years of ongoing events and your arguments are thin.”
That part is not my beef, sir. I just mentioned it as a side point and for the sake of arguing that even though I concede that I do not particularly like Russians for that particular historical wrong among other factors, I am not a Russophobe either, I want to alert them in the potential Chinese menace with honesty and good faith, and I believe Russia should not be made an enemy in the Middle East by the Western neocon forces with ulterior motives but should be viewed and treated as a fair competitor that can be reasoned and negotiated with soberly and rationally.
The 99.999% of my article both in length and in content clearly focuses on refuting the author’s lopsidedly neocon interventionist and materialist viewpoints as I humbly perceived. How could you miss such an obvious thing and still choose to pick that tiny insignificant sentence of mine to find fault with and claimed it was my “beef” of complaint? Your selective and disproportionate remarks simply beggar comprehension and left me aghast.
(Note to Greg: the previous comment entry of mine contains some obvious grammatical errors. I made a few corrections and now post the revised version. Please kindly delete my previous comment as well as this note and let the following one stand. Sorry for my haste, and thank you!)
“If your beef with the russians is that they didn’t honor the Japanese Non-aggression pact, you missed out on 70 years of ongoing events and your arguments are thin.”
That part is not my beef, sir. I just mentioned it as a side point and for the sake of arguing that even though I concede that I do not particularly like Russians for that particular historical wrong among other factors, I am not a Russophobe either, I want to honestly alert them to the potential China Menace in good faith, and I believe Russia should not be made an sheer enemy in the Middle East by the Western neocon forces with ulterior motives but should be viewed and treated as a fair competitor that can be reasoned and negotiated with soberly and rationally.
The 99.999% of my article, both in length and in content, clearly focuses on refuting the author’s lopsidedly neocon interventionist and materialist viewpoints as I humbly perceived. How could you miss such an obvious thing and still choose to pick on that short insignificant detail in my long article to find fault with and claimed it was the “beef” of my argument? Your selective and disproportionate remarks simply beggar comprehension and left me aghast.
I agree with most of the article but your “Russia was mean to the Japanese” thing is silly and triggered my autism. Russia broke its treaty with Japan in order to honor its obligations to its Allies US and Great Britain. The Russian attack arguably pushed Japan to surrender, not the nuclear bomb, thus saving many lives (Japanese included). While taken in isolation, the move looks dubious, taken in the context of the 20th century, it was simply another chapter in mutual Russia/Japan antagonism, where Russia was not always the aggressor. Finally, if you think that the Japanese would not have attacked Russia had they sensed opportunity, you are naive. The Japanese had been thrashed by the Russians twice in the late 30’s and so were not eager for a rematch. Even though Hitler invited them to attack, the Japanese thought that Germany lost the war in ’41 as the Wermacht failed to achieve the objectives of Barbarossa.
From you gentleman’s point of view that Soviet Union should honor its obligations to US and Britain more by launching a full-scale sneak war against Japan unilaterally than its obligations to Japan by maintaining peace as stipulated in the Non-Mutual Aggression Treaty with the latter, you seem to be standing on the side of Allies i.e. Soviet, US, Britain against the Axis nations of Germany, Japan and Italy. Thus obviously and consequently you are also supposed to be in favor of our post-War world of globalism, egalitarianism, materialism, and anti-racialism cemented upon the outcome of the War by the victorious allies. I wonder why you bothered to read my essay or even to come to this site in the first place.
Your take on the Asian-Pacific theater of WWII is also evidently flawed on the very fundamentals. Japan was forced to surrender uniquely and only by the nuclear bombing. Before that, even after US won the battle of Okinawa, the mainland Japan was still a stalwart fortress ready to fight the invading American army teeth and nails to the last breath. In mainland China and Manchuria, the Japanese army of 1 million strong presence was still very hefty and remained largely undefeated and unchallenged in the former. The Kanto Army stationing in Manchuria actually voluntarily lay down their weapons and stopped fighting not because they couldn’t stand a fight with the Soviets but simply because they are ordered to ceasefire very soon after the Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s unconditional surrender, a direct result of the US nuclear bombing.
In addition, Japan was not thrashed technically in the two separate clashes with the Soviets in late 1930s along the Manchurian-Mongolian border regions — the Soviet side actually lost more men — but was deterred and cautioned strategically from further reckless and adventurous military actions against the Soviets, by the combined motorized war-fighting of the Soviets, which was a more advanced warfare than the largely infantry-based Japanese army which also possessed some of its own advantages though.
Of course, this writer also fully understand and acknowledge that Japan’s refusal to enter the Russo-German war on the German side in the most hopeful period from late 1941 to 1944, in spite of the Fuhrer’s sincere wish and strong request, was the single biggest strategic mistake Japan made during WWII, a potentially fate-altering blunder that ought to be blamed equally on the vision-less and inept higher political and military leadership of Japan, the crafty and ruthless communist spies and secret agents of Soviet Union, China and US working in intricate coordination and all taking orders from the Kremlin as well as the perfidious and pestilent fifth-column communist traitors of Japan.
The Soviet Union, or any nation for that matter, is better served by honoring obligations to allies (regardless of how expedient they may be) than by honoring obligations to enemies.
The atomic bomb is not the reason for Japan’s surrender. While highly destructive, it did nothing that conventional bombing could not – level Japanese cities to the ground in a hellish firestorm. The US had no problem obliterating Tokyo with a conventional bomb raid. However, the Red Army overrunning Manchuria and northern islands eliminated all options for the Japanese high command. Diplomatically, Japan had no friends, and every major remaining power was at war with it. There was nowhere to escape therefore surrender was the only option where at least some might live.
Finally, I re-emphasize that the Germans failed in 1941, despite impressive tactical performance they achieved none of their strategic goals – Leningrad and Moscow were not taken, the Soviet state and armed forces continued to function. The Japanese were neither eager to enter another clash with the Soviets who beat them, nor did it look to them like the USSR was on its last legs. Finally, Japan looked to the South Pacific for new conquests since the north seemed closed for now. They may have been mistaken, but that is the reality of geopolitics, especially in war time. Things aren’t always clear. If you call the Japanese short sighted, then you must admit that so was Hitler when he attacked the Soviets. Hitler himself admitted in the fall of ’41 that if he’d known how much strength the Soviets actually had, he would’ have attacked.
Though I wrote: “I wonder why you bothered to read my essay or even to come to this site in the first place”, that is if you actually supported the corrupt and anti-race post-WWII system, an observation that can be reasonably inferred from your alleged justification of the Soviet Union attacking Japan unilaterally for the sake of honoring its obligations to the Allies over those to Japan stipulated in the Soviet-Japanese Joint Agreement of Mutual Non Aggression, which I hope not. And thanks anyway for your very brief mentioning of agreeing with most of my article, a mentioning that is greatly dwarfed by your much more weighted and detailed faulting of my criticism of the Soviets for stabbing Japan in the back dastardly and despicably when she is in her most vulnerable and critical moment in the wake of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing.
I read your essay because I thought DeWitt’s essay was written by a dimwit. Your essay critiques, many times rightly the Dewitt boomer cuck drivel. However, as I’ve stated, your position that Russia was bad because she attacked Japan struck as both wrong and quixotic.
I think I understand your position better now. You appear to be in the “Hitler did nothing wrong” camp. This is a position that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, as Hitler did plenty wrong. His strategic plan was to be realized at the expense of exterminating, disposessing, or enslaving tens of millions of white people. He also got played by the Britis, ultimately losing everything he had built.
You also seem to have a poor understanding of history. And English grammar I’m afraid.
“You appear to be in the “Hitler did nothing wrong” camp. This is a position that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, as Hitler did plenty wrong. His strategic plan was to be realized at the expense of exterminating, disposessing, or enslaving tens of millions of white people. He also got played by the Britis, ultimately losing everything he had built.
You also seem to have a poor understanding of history. And English grammar I’m afraid.”
Wow, concluding I’m in the “Hitler did nothing wrong” camp? What a “sharp perception” you have! That is indeed curious as I barely mentioned the name Hitler except in my last previous entry which predates this comment of yours. How how on earth you know I am in the particular camp as you uttered? That aside, I squarely admit I deeply admire and venerate Adolf Hitler, though I never think he was infallible or impeccable. His strategic mistakes and misjudgments were numerous, mostly on his naive fondness of the British and his personal and stubborn bias against Slavs, which clouded his strategic decision making during the Russo-German War and costed him and his cause disastrously.
While being fully aware of what Hitler had initially in stock for the Slavic Russian population at large, I still root for Germany in that fateful war of unprecedented scale and ferocity. There are two reasons: 1. Even taking into consideration of the unfortunate Slav factor in Hitler’s plan, Hitler and Germany’s victory would still create a far better world for most of the White European people, Western, Central, Southern and Northern Europeans alike, and in a larger sense, the people of European descent throughout the world to survive and thrive, a world politically, economically, culturally, socially and racially far better than the degenerate, debasing, enervating and White-genociding world that we live today that is the direct result of the Allied victory in WWII and directly founded upon their systems and legacies in which the Judaic element occupies a central place.
2. Hitler’s view toward the Slavic people gradually changed in the last year of the war as he increasingly came to grip with the stark reality and started adjusting himself, which of course, was too little too late and insufficient to save his and Germany’s fate. In addition, Hitler did not rule absolutely or single-handed, his close circles also contained more sensible and insightful people on the Slavic issue who positively influenced him on that matter, however incrementally, and nobody can rule out the possibility that Hitler’s successors would not reconcile with the Russian Slavs and treated them more rationally and friendly if Germany had prevailed.
All in all, your searing accusation of Hitler’s views and policies regarding other White nations is seemingly reasonable in principle, but grossly exaggerated and disproportionate and devoid of a more comprehensive and long term factors to the degree of becoming pretty rigid, inflexible and dogmatic, perhaps to suit your hateful anti-Hitler and Hitler-bashing sentiment.
While I refuse to agree with you on that I have a poor understanding of history, thank you for pointing out bluntly that I have a poor understanding of the English grammar. After all, despite all my arduous effort to improve my English, I remain an East Asian racially and have never traveled to or studied in any English-speaking country, and my current English level is just a result of my years of self-education. By the way, I venture to point out frankly that you gentleman as an native English speaker or at least a Westerner, still made quite a few errors with your English writing. In the short 2-line passage I quoted from you on the top of this comment, you made two sloppy spelling mistakes i.e. “disposessing” and “Britis”.
Most of the comments aligned with Bain reveal a blindness of two higher viewpoints, one historical and the other functional.
Historical: History is the unfolding of forces in struggle with one another, primarily traditional and anti-traditional, Aryan and Jewish, spiritual and material. With whom these forces are allied is not a matter of interpretation but objective fact, as intuited by the author, Riki-Eiki. Many of the neocons, including Bain and his supporters, have ideas that can result only from a judaized spirit. In fact, regardless of their professed alliance, their ideas elucidate their concert with the Jewish World-Historical Force.
Functional: Conservatism and Liberalism are largely different expressions of the same Jewish spirit. This is why their most deleterious effects predominate regardless of the administration. Liberalism is the Jewish force which describes a country’s inner destabilization, social decay, and repugnant will-to-equality expressed through victim-complexes, identification with the wretches of the world, and hatred for beauty and life. Conservatism is a nation’s outer geopolitical activity, which seeks destabilization of other countries through neoliberal policy and industrial slaughter (war was once a term denoting the activity of one’s noble spirit) while also appealing to modern insatiable material appetites. Both expressions of the United States’ Jewish spirit–liberal interiority and neoconservative exteriority–reign supreme regardless of the party in power, and both serve the Jews’ Zionist goals; therefore, both must be resisted by a truly right-wing movement.
To rashly pursue these economic and geopolitical strategies as a result of their immediate material benefit is glaringly short-sighted, and, to be frank, indicative of an unforgivable goyish naivete and an ignoble, cowardly pragmatism. You may be gentile by political categorization, but only you chose to be a goyim. Shills need not be conscious servants. Shills can be those who act at the behest of the powers that be without even realizing their every thought and move not only plays into (((their))) hands, but is premeditatedly woven into the fabric of (((their))) grand designs.
Beyond the reality of world-historical forces, there exists the reality of war, and of victory and defeat, best outlined by the one true American Philosopher, Francis Parker Yockey,
“The words defeat and victory thus divide into two sharply and precisely defined sets of meanings: the military and the political. Although the armies in the field may be on the winning side, nevertheless the unit to which they supposedly belong may emerge from the war with less power than it entered upon it. I say supposedly belong for the reason that when a political unit is in the situation where even military victory means political defeat, it is not in political reality an independent unit. [. . .] Thus if any power, despite the fact that it was on the winning side in a military sense, nevertheless emerged with less power, it was in fact fighting for the political victory of another power. In other words it was not actually an independent unit, but was in the service of another unit [. . .] To say that a unit gained a military victory and also suffered a political defeat is only another way of saying that the military opponent was not a real enemy. A real enemy is he whom one can strike down and thereby increase one’s own power” (Imperium 66).
To fully grasp this point, one must first understand the full dimension of this oft overlooked word, power. At its most superficial level, power is the orchestration of the wills of others through diplomacy, violence, etc. Gaining more weapons is thought to bring us more power, but this is only superficially so and results from a material worldview that only regards power as the expression of the acquisition of material means. Yockey states,
“Wars before, after and outside a Culture are unlimited. They are a more pure expression of the barbarian in man, in that they are not highly symbolic. They are spiritual, for everything human is spiritual. The spirit is primary with man, the material is the vehicle of the spiritual development“ (Imperium 62).
Opinions aligned with Bain result from a crypto-material worldview and conceptualize power through the outer control of things. The preeminent form of power is the inward honing of discipline, the steeling of one’s spirit against alien forces. Evola, Codreanu, Hitler, Devi and many others insisted upon this fact. Spirit predominates over matter, but in most of these comments, as well as Bain’s article, matter is evidently the king of action.
Russia is not America’s true enemy and is currently being used as a diversionary straw man for the White Races to busy themselves with as Zionism prepares for the next phases of its global metastasization.
As Riki-Eiki pointed out, many of the dissenting comments proceed from their fatally materialistic outlook. Luka, in a dazzlingly neoconnish attempt to justify economic enmity between the U.S. and Russia, states, “he seriously doesn’t understand that enmity that comes from healthy competition does not have a capacity to produce hatred and despise as much as enmity that comes from opposed values. “
Yockey states, “The capitalistic mentality, engaged in a competition to get rich, quite naturally pictured the animal world also as engaged in an intensive economic contest. Both Malthusianism and Darwinism are thus capitalistic outlooks, in that they place economics in the center of Life, and regard it as the meaning of Life” (Imperium 62).
Why must we be in economic competition with one of our greatest potential allies against world jewry? Is this not merely a diversion from our true enemy? And why does this movement now find expression in capitalistic rather than socialistic terminology? Trump’s election has caused the splintering of the alt-right. One such dangerous trajectory is negligence of divine principles in favor of opinions proceeding from the passions, and the desire for one’s race to become the dead tools of capitalism rather than the living spirit of socialism.
Johnson&Johnson also repeats this mindless mantra of “competition,” not to mention his unabashed ad hominem against the author of this article–which is indicative of his character in itself. He also states, “but for a european its (sic) backs against the wall while being surrounded by enemies who look like you.” Looks like who, exactly? It is clear that Johnson&Johnson suffers from the aforementioned confusion of who America’s real enemy is.
Bain states, “Riki-Eiki Rei assumes that because I support neocon action A, and neocons are also supporters of ‘invite the world’, I also support this. A = B = C logical fallacy.” This is not a logical fallacy in the least bit. Riki-Eiki does not appear to be saying that you espouse an “invite the world policy” simply because some of your views align with neo-con policy, but that the “invite the world policy” is the inevitable consequence and logical conclusion of your views. Your inability to see this yourself elucidates your shortsightedness. Had you been alive during World War II you might have argued that going to war with Germany was in America’s best interests, economically and politically (which in the short-term appears to be true, but only superficially). But this view neglects to recognize that we fought the war on behalf of Judea, and the justification of American interest is merely a pretext for deeper machinations of a hidden foe. Your opinion is plagued likewise. I have no opinion of your intentionality. Intentionality does not weigh on the scale of values when it comes to the preservation of a people. The fact of the matter is that your views, while articulate and revealing of an analytic mind, lack truth, and therefore, if acted upon, will end in disaster.
“There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action”
But you ignored the huge psychological factor of the two atom bombs, which produced an apocalyptic impact unlike the fiercest conventional bombing under which the tenacious Japan could still manage to persist. And the fact that Red Army storming into Manchuria and quickly overwhelmed and overran the Japanese armies there was mainly a result of the direct Imperial Japanese order to have them lay down arms and stop resisting (which itself was decided as a result of the effect of the two atom bombs), ans such an order from the Emperor himself was viewed as absolute and overriding in that era. Japanese had enough number of troops and sufficient storage of food, ammunition, other industrial and military materials and built innumerable fortresses and ramparts and could certainly choose to dig down in solid defense that could prolong the war considerably and bleed the Soviet army badly, perhaps to a standstill. In fact, in certain isolated cases in the Southern Manchu areas, when some Japanese troops chose to fight on in defiance of the order. They successfully repulsed the Soviet onslaught repeatedly and won the precious time for the Japanese civilians in those areas to evacuate to port to be transported back to the Japanese homeland on sea. These brave and honorable soldiers fought on until their civilian fled to safety beyond the Soviet grip, and only then they either escaped or surrendered themselves.
Japan missed the golden opportunity to win the war, that is, if it resolutely entered the war on the German side in late 1941 or 1942, even as late as in 1943, the chance still existed, in a coordinated pincer attack with Germany against the Soviet Union by fully committing its 1 million strong rugged, fearless and battle-hardened Kanto Army in Manchuria to attack the Soviets from the Soviet Siberia westward. Imagine how could the Soviet Union be able to fight a two-front war and fend off two huge and determined armies of Germany on the West and Japan on the East at the same time during its own most difficult and perilous days of late 1941 to 1942 when it barely defended itself against a tactically advantageous Germany army with all its reserved troops used up, mostly drawn from its Far East regions. Soviets was nearly exhausted to the breaking point, and only managed to carry on with gigantic amounts of allied military aids. Had Japan chosen to attack, Soviet Union would most probably had collapsed under the joint weight of Germany and Japan, which would certainly be too much to bear even for the Soviet giant. Japan chose a strategically and irreversibly wrong path by going to the South Pacific and confronting the US there, thus giving the golden excuse to FDR to bring US into war and sealed the fate for both Japan and Germany in four years. Had Japan chosen to go North instead of South, even FDR, devoid of a convincing pretense, would hardly be able to deceive and mobilize the war-weary, isolationist American public into a hot frontal war against either Japan nor Germany, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, US and UK, losing its biggest land power ally, could do nothing against Japan and Germany and would be forced to cease hostility and negotiate and seek terms for peace. Of course, both Germany and Japan had had no desire to go to war with US in the first place if US didn’t provoke them to war.
Also, as a matter of fact, and as I mentioned in my previous comment, Japan went to South in collision with US mainly because the vision-less and inept higher political and military leadership of Japan was manipulated, maneuvered and misled to do so by the crafty and ruthless communist spies and secret agents of Soviet Union, China and US as well as the perfidious and pestilent fifth-column communist traitors of Japan working inside their respective countries in tandem with each other toward the same goal of bringing Japan and US to war, and all taking orders from the Kremlin who was scared to death by the scenario of Japanese cooperation of war effort with Germany and was determined to avert it whatsoever. Let’s also not forget the nefarious role of FDR personally. Japan was forced to launch the desperate preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor after being persistently cornered, prodded and provoked, and its numerous sincere request for peace negotiations rebuffed, by a vicious and duplicitous FDR who was hellbent on provoking Japan into fighting the first shot and using that as a rallying call to goad and drag America into an all-out war with Japan and Germany for the interest of international Judea. Even the cardinal enemy general of Japan during the Pacific War, Douglas MacArthur, who has every reason to be hateful and spiteful of Japan, remarked that Japan “actually had fought a war of self-defense” somewhere around 1953 when he testified at a US Senate subcommittee about the Korean and Far East and situation.
I made a casual revisit to this page that posts my humble article. To my shock and disbelief, the number of comments has been reduced from 22 that I noticed last time to the current 12, and many of my own comments in argument and debate back and forth with another gentleman have disappeared without a trace. How sad and strange!
The arguments of ours were admittedly sharp and clashing, but have contained no sense of malice, or any traces of rudeness and profanity whatsoever. Thus it is totally weird and mind-boggling to delete those comments which I haven’t got to keep in file myself and am thinking about to retrieve from here. But they are all gone now, against commonsense.
Please give me a good reason for the sudden elimination of my comments, Greg or John. I look forward eagerly to reading your prompt and justifiable explanation. Thank you.
I probably banned a user, and his comments and your replies were deleted.
Well. I see. Sorry to hear that, which is a shame. On the other hand, in my honest opinion and also as a humble advice, if some one is banned, it is more sensible to bar him from making comments from the exact time of banning onward than deleting his already posted comments that preceded the banning, unless those comments themselves contain drastically illegal or unjustified contents in infraction of the CC policy. Just my two cents. Thanks for the understanding.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment