- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Nations Don’t Go Extinct Due to Loss of Material Comforts:
A Response to Bain Dewitt


Jared Kushner donned his smartest business casual attire for his visit to American troops in Iraq, while Ivanka wrote his name across the front of his bulletproof vest so that everyone in the changing room would know it was his.

3,285 words

The article “Russians Are Not #Ourguys [2]” 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 [3].

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.