Always on the Wrong Side:
F. C. Comtaose
US-Chinese Foreign Policy, 1844 to the Present—Part One
Part 1 of 2 (Part 2 here)
It is unquestionably true that today’s China has grown into a major geopolitical, economic, and military rival of America, with both an active ambition and an increasing capacity to challenge, threaten, and eventually dethrone America on the global stage in the coming decades if globalization, through which China has demonstrably been the foremost beneficiary, continues unabated. Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, China’s dramatic and meteoric rise in the past three decades was mainly enabled by the Jewish and gentile globalist plutocrats among the Western elites, and also fueled by a misguided and wrongheaded image of China in the minds of Western people shaped by misinformation or ignorance. China has ruthlessly and unsparingly exploited this situation to its own advantage to achieve its present powerful position.
In the future, if White Nationalism prevails in the West, a White Nationalist state, having a sound grip on the Chinese question, will disengage itself from China comprehensively, thus denying it of its predatory trade practices and preventing it from overwhelming the West, provided it’s not too late. In order to expedite this imperative, it is necessary to comb through the history of American foreign policy towards China in order to identify various grave mistakes, draw important lessons, and help people perceive what went wrong that grew into today’s abysmal situation so that an accurate historical picture can be formed to guide the West’s response to the Chinese menace.
Late Nineteenth Century to Early 1900s
The first landmark deal between America and China was a trade agreement signed between China’s Manchurian dynasty and the US government in July 1844 in the Wangxia village of Macao, which followed the Treaty of Nanking with the British Empire in August 1842 and helped established the first American bridgehead in China for trade and missionary work. From that agreement until the early twentieth century, America, along with other imperial Western powers such as Britain and France, garnered enormous commercial benefits from this relationship, while also helping to modernize a politically and economically backward China through the introduction of Western educational practices, science, and technology. Prior to this time, China had remained a half-feudal, half-colonized country, mired in severe poverty and internal turmoil on the whole, but now began slowly reforming and biding its time until it could avenge itself, simmering with resentment and vengefulness.
It ought to be kept in mind that China undoubtedly had a vast potential in terms of its population. Once it was equipped with Western technologies and developed a nationalist core, China was well on the way toward posing a major challenge to the Western powers. Then, at the turn of the century, the bloody Boxers’ Rebellion erupted, and many civilians, both Western and Chinese, were brutally slaughtered by a combined force of the barbaric Boxers and the Chinese Imperial Army. The rebellion was finally put down following a an attack on Beijing by a combined expeditionary force of eight colonial powers. Following this, the Treaty of Beijing was signed in September 1901 between China and Britain, America, Japan, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, and Austro-Hungary, stipulating heavy Chinese indemnities.
In the wake of the Treaty, harboring legitimate concerns about the potential danger from China, the various Western powers seriously considered carving China up into separate states so as to prevent a potentially unified and modernized China from exacting revenge on them. This was admittedly a ruthless but geopolitically astute and prescient preventive approach if we look at the insufferable arrogance and impudence of China today. However, a universal agreement on China failed to be reached because America, and America alone, expressed adamant opposition, instead counter-proposing its own doctrine of “open door and equal benefits” (门户开放、利益均沾) to guarantee equal commercial rights all over China, a proposal that resembled today’s globalist free-market mantra and reflected America’s selfish motives.
America reckoned that maintaining a holistic and undivided Chinese market would facilitate its trade with China without having to deal with the other powers, and that it would also help to foster good relations with the Chinese. And indeed, America aided China indirectly by setting up schools and by supporting Chinese students to study in the US. This strategy of winning Chinese hearts and minds with the goal of establishing a long-term US-Chinese relationship was also consistent with the nature of the post-Cold War relationship between the two countries. Here we see that a profit-oriented, mercantile American policy based on greed, but devoid of racial or geopolitical foresight, had paved the way for China’s potential rise. Fast forward to today: a gargantuan and powerful China is running rampant in the world, polluting the Earth, plundering global resources, encroaching on the living space of the Western peoples, stealing their jobs, and swaggering around making lurid military threats.
All of these perilous signs, with potentially disastrous results for the West, grew from the bitter seeds planted by America over a century ago.
1900s to 1945
From the 1900s through the 1930s, until the outbreak of the Second World War, the infusion of America’s money and technologies (and to a lesser degree, those of other Western powers) through both official and clandestine dealings made it huge profits in China while likewise aiding China’s incremental rise. This eventually led to the strategically disastrous Communist triumph in China in 1949. Tens of thousands of starry-eyed American businessmen and missionaries poured into China, blinded by a vast and untapped market and seemingly endless opportunities offered by its huge population. They opened factories and firms, set up schools and hospitals, and preached a race-blind and humanitarian doctrine of Christianity to the Chinese masses, just like what Westerners had been doing in Africa and elsewhere in the world, in total disregard for historical and racial realities and with the aim of converting an alien and ruthlessly selfish nation into a Westernized and civilized one.
The only difference here is that while the Chinese were collectively as amoral, uncivilized, and ungrateful as, if not more so, as other Third Worlders, they happened to possess a high IQ, an ineradicable mental complex of Chinese supremacy, and a ruthless ambition for achieving future dominance, all tactfully hidden beneath a shiny veneer of unctuous diplomatic noise and feigned friendliness. At that time, few Westerners in China possessed a thorough knowledge of the country, and therefore lacked the intellectual courage and candor to cut through the fog and get to the core of the Chinese national character. One exception was an American diplomat named Ralph Townsend, who had resided in China for years at the US consulates in Shanghai and Amoy, who authored an insightful and brutally honest book on the Chinese in 1933. The book exposed a starkly different China from the rosy-colored picture being painted by liberal American missionaries and venal businessmen, and it examined the innate vices and dangers of the Chinese nationality in a meticulous and gripping fashion. The book is still available on Amazon and other bookselling outlets online, and anyone with an interest in understanding the Chinese is strongly advised to read this invaluable book.
With the looming Chinese-Japanese conflict, the Jewish- and Communist-infested Roosevelt administration in the US was desperate to goad Japan into a military conflict with America in order to smash nationalist Japan as a challenger to America’s oligarchic business interests in the region. At the same time, the US-Japanese war was to be used as a “backdoor” strategy to drag America into the war against National Socialist Germany. It is noteworthy that the infamous Pearl Harbor attack that triggered the Pacific War was in fact a Roosevelt stratagem aimed at forcing Japan to fire the first shot. Despite Japan’s repeated peace overtures and its heavy concessions to the US, the Hull Note, named after US Secretary of State Cordell Hull, was issued to Japan as an ultimatum with the explicit purpose of compelling Japan into desperate military action against the US by making impossible demands, in line with both Roosevelt and Stalin’s intent. And indeed, it was the straw that broke the Japanese camel’s back.
It must also be noted that Franklin Roosevelt’s maternal grandfather, Warren Delano, arguably the largest opium dealer in American history, had had extensive business interests in the Chinese mainland and Manchuria. And indeed, his criminal interests in China were badly hurt by Japan’s position there, which quite conceivably also contributed to FDR’s willful hostility toward Japan and his persistent push for war, amply demonstrated by the anti-Japanese propaganda he fostered, as well as the unilateral sanctions and asset-freezing against Japan that succeeded in igniting and prolonging the war, leading to millions of casualties on both sides, and eventually handing China over to Communism on a silver platter. The Pacific War was a premeditated move by FDR and his cohorts, and was seen as a defensive war by Japan, even in the eyes of Japan’s former enemies once the wartime animosity subsided and coolheadedness returned.
Ralph Townsend’s book likewise contained some first-hand analysis of the situation in China in 1933, particularly Japan’s seizure of Manchuria in 1931, unlike anything you’ve read before. There was also another anti-war American, a brave adventurer-turned-journalist named Frederic Vincent Williams, who also wrote a book giving his honest assessment of the Japanese-Chinese conflict and his incisive analysis of the dangers posed by Chinese Communism and the follies of American policy vis-à-vis both China and Japan. For their courageous and defiant stance against FDR’s policies, both Townsend and Williams were tried at the “sedition” show-trials of FDR’s wartime kangaroo court and were sentenced to several years’ imprisonment.
1946 to 1949
While it may be debatable whether the US-led war against Japan was carried out for “international justice” and to “defend China against the Japanese aggression,” a closer study of history will show this claim to be dubious at best and fallacious at worst. American aid and assistance to the Communist Chinese forces at the expense of its own ally in the nationalist Chinese regime was nothing short of perfidious, as it led directly to the Communist takeover of mainland China in 1949 and gave birth to the Chinese bully that is today threatening to annex democratic Taiwan by brute force and intimidating its neighboring states from India to Japan, not to mention provoking and harming America at every turn. The Communist victory in China was a monumental event in world history with an incalculably negative legacy which persists today, amply demonstrating the sheer folly of America’s foreign policy with China.
While the overly generous concessions FDR made to Stalin regarding Eastern Europe at Yalta are well-known to Westerners, those in the Far East are much less-known, even among the educated. FDR allowed the Soviets to have Manchuria after Japan’s defeat, leading to a million Japanese soldiers being deported to Siberia for hard labor, and what’s more, most of the industrial infrastructure and stockpiles of weapons that were surrendered by Japan were transferred by the Soviets to Mao’s forces, giving the otherwise poorly-equipped and backward bandit army a considerable advantage in its war with the nationalist army of Chiang Kai-shek.
In the ensuing civil war, the actions of the US government, regardless of its apparent stance, were inexplicably stupid and self-defeating. It provided substantial assistance, both materially and morally, to the Maoist side while constantly betraying and backstabbing its ostensible nationalist allies, reneging on promised military aid and constantly pressuring the latter to engage in “peace talks” with the Communists, even when the nationalist forces were only a few steps away from decisively annihilating the Communists. These commie-placators included such names as Harry Truman, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and John Leighton Stuart, with Marshall playing an especially nefarious role by interfering with and micromanaging Chiang’s forces and bullying him into negotiating and compromising with Mao. The American ambassador to China, Stuart, the narcissist dreamer, was reluctant to leave even after the Communist forces sacked the capital Nanking, and was finally forced flee, tail between his legs, after being mocked and humiliated in Mao’s lampoon, “Farewell to Leighton Stuart.” The only notable figure on the American side who maintained a sober view of China from early on and mustered some resistance to the establishment’s policies was General Albert Wedemeyer, whose stern warning about the peril of the Communists however fell largely on deaf ears.
While it is understandable that Americans have always approached their foreign policy with a missionary faith, this often manifests as an unprincipled, mind-addling compassion and universal love in the form of indiscriminate tolerance and trust, often directed toward the wrong objects, as in the Chinese Civil War. Leftist and egalitarian values and ideas obviously played a formative role in generating and enabling such compassion and abuse of tolerance. The result was that America failed to correctly discern which was the lesser of the two evils during the most critical moment in contemporary Asian history.
After the outbreak of the Korean War and the long-overdue, and yet incomplete, “Red purge” back in the US, “who lost China?” became a hotly-debated topic in American politics. But it was already too late. China had indeed been lost through the combination of an incompetent nationalist Chinese regime and a naïve and unreliable American establishment. All the major offshoots from this, from the 1949 founding of Red China to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and today’s menacing China, are all poisonous flowers growing out of the wicked seeds America planted in the 1940s. Call it karma.
1950s to 2010s
From the 1950s until the mid-1960s, as a result of the Korean War (in which China was the cardinal enemy of the US) and the rise of an anti-Communist atmosphere in the US and the West generally (too little, too late), the US had kept a vigilant distance from Red China, cutting off all relations and assisting nationalist Taiwan, albeit inadequately and half-heartedly. But the plutocratic Western elites from the Rothschilds to the Rockefellers never stopped ogling Red China through secret channels that they maintained with both it and those in the US government who harbored similar aims.
Some important changes took place which slowly gave rise to a more open and conciliatory US attitude toward China, and which led to the ominous thawing of their bilateral relations. The important changes were, first, the Soviet Union’s transformation from an international Communist regime to a Slavic nationalist one; second, the rapid deterioration and final breakup of Soviet-Chinese relations; and third, the intensification of the US-Soviet rivalry on the world stage. As soon as the early 1960s, the signs of a Chinese-Soviet estrangement were already there as manifested both in China’s internal politics and the 1962 border war between China and India, the latter having been a major ally of the Soviet Union. Then, in 1969, China and the Soviet Union fought a border war of their own along the disputed border between the Soviet far east and China’s northeast, which heralded the irreversible dissolution of the alliance between the two Red giants.
From then on, even in official Chinese propaganda, the Soviet Union was depicted in such terms as “revisionist” and “socialist-imperialist” and began to stand on a par with the old enemy, “imperialist America,” as the two avowed archenemies of the Chinese people. And it was exactly from that time on, due to the combined effect of the aforementioned factors, that the US and Red China began to approach each other under the table as the US went into action to feed the fledgling Chinese dragon in order to alleviate the threat from a full-grown Russian bear.
A revealing anecdote is that during the height of Soviet-Chinese tensions, sometime around the early 1970s, the Soviet Union seriously contemplated carrying out nuclear strikes on China. This information was seized by American intelligence, and the US government informed China about it through pre-established secret channels, forcing the Soviets to abort their plan. It has also been alleged that China’s nuclear program in the early 1960s was clandestinely aided by Israel and its agents in the US. All the mutual maneuverings between the US and China culminated in the premeditated and meticulously-designed visit of President Nixon to China in 1972, which led to the formal establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations in 1979 and the subsequent honeymoon years of exponential trade growth, continuing all the way to today’s “Chimerica,” the celebrated paradigm of globalization and interdependence.
The late Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening up” policy ushered in a torrential flow of Western capital and technological investment from the US, Europe, and Japan into China, which has continued uninterrupted to this day with only minor glitches or fluctuations. Such non-stop injections of fresh capital and up-to-date technological know-how have fattened China and tremendously boosted the growth of its strength and competency; the treachery of Bill Clinton, prompted by his own corrupt relationship with China plus his cabinet members’ incessant promotion of better relations with the country, enabled China’s accession to the World Trade Organization and opened up a path for China to prey on America and other Western countries with predatory trade practices under the protection of the essentially anti-white global free trade scheme.
Such a futile policy of “engaging with” (read: selling out to) China began during the Papa Bush administration, was pushed to new heights during the Clinton administration, and was inherited and carried on by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. It has always been based on wishful thinking at best, and has brought nothing but harm to America. And while President Trump used to talk tough on China, as George W. Bush once did, his expectation that he can rely on China to help with the North Korean nuclear crisis is utterly misplaced. Such involvement would only give China new leverage and compromise America’s security even further, considering China’s wicked craftiness and North Korea’s consistent willingness to talk to the US directly.
All in all, in only three decades, China has grown from a poor agrarian state, a “mild and friendly” giant panda, to an enormous, fire-spitting, muscle-flexing dragon breathing down the neck of not only its neighboring countries but also of the US and Japan, thanks to generous subsidies from the West in general and America in particular. Having amassed astronomical levels of wealth through its nasty trade deal with America, built a formidable military, acquired huge amounts of American debt, and used bribery and theft to plunder American assets and high technology through multifaceted espionage activities in the guise of “economic” or “academic” exchange, China is now poised to do what it has long aspired to do: achieve world domination, displace and dismantle America, and dispossess and subjugate the white race.
 The book is titled Ways that are Dark: The Truth about China, which is available on Amazon. As a side note, it has also been translated into Japanese with a new Preface penned by Willis Carto. Those who can read Japanese may have an interest in taking a look.
 Douglas MacArthur, the supreme US commander in the fight against Japan during the Pacific War and an avowed enemy of Japan, testified to the US Senate in May 1951, shortly after his dismissal by President Truman in the midst of the Korean War. When referring to Japan during and after the war, he explicitly stated: “. . . Their purpose, therefore, in going to war was largely dictated by security.” The famous geostrategist George Kennan made a similar remark on a separate occasion, which I paraphrase as follows: “America had defeated and expelled Japan from the Chinese mainland, Manchuria, and Korea, and seemingly fulfilled her goals, only to see herself now burdened, on Japan’s behalf, with all the problems and responsibilities of this region that Japan had faced and dealt with in the last half-century.”
 The book’s English original seems to have been lost, but fortunately a Japanese translation titled 中国の戦争宣伝の内幕－日中戦争の真実 (The Inside Story of China’s War Propaganda and the Truth of the Japanese-Chinese War) is still available online from Japanese Amazon, and those who can read Japanese might be interested.
 Albert C. Wedemeyer was sent to China in late 1944, as the successor to Joseph Stilwell, as the Chief of Staff of the Allied forces and as commander of American forces in China. Unlike his predecessor, the acerbic and aloof Stilwell, who had irreparably damaged his relationship with Chiang, Wedemeyer was calm, affable, and judicious in his words and actions. While being critical of the corruption and ineptitude of the nationalist Chinese government, he rightly outlined the immeasurable danger posed by the Communist menace in China and called for the US to continue to strengthen its support for the nationalists in his report to the US government.
 In a manuscript dictated by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in 1951 titled America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall, McCarthy exposed and denounced the perfidies of Marshall and Dean Acheson and their disastrous consequences for China, and he boldly declared: “America made Communist China!” Also notable is a manuscript by Cornell Simpson from 1966 entitled The Death of James Forrestal, which scrutinized the ostensible suicide of the first US Secretary of Defense and concluded that it was highly dubious, besides uncovering hidden historical facts, including the pro-Chinese Communist activities of George Marshall and other members of the US political and military establishment.
 Dr. Kerry Bolton’s provocative and contentious book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy discusses the Soviet Union’s move away from its former Marxist doctrines the late Stalinist period onwards, and contrasts the resurgent nationalism of the post-war Soviet Union, which was rooted in Russian soil and history, with the cosmopolitan globalism of the anti-Stalin factions within the Soviet establishment and their followers in the West. He has also written some other essays on similar themes here at Counter-Currents.
 In his masterfully written and highly-acclaimed book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, Michael Collins Piper disclosed that China’s program for nuclear weapons development received clandestine support and assistance from Israel, and President Kennedy had decided to launch an attack on the Chinese nuclear facilities shortly before he was assassinated by dark forces associated with the Tribe.
 The massacre of student protesters by the Chinese government in 1989 caused a temporary freeze in the US-Chinese relationship. But soon afterwards, George H. W. Bush sent his special envoy, Brent Scowcroft, to secretly meet with Deng in Beijing, and before long bilateral trade and other exchanges were reinstated. It is noteworthy that Papa Bush’s unique background drew him close to the Chinese inner political circles from early on. In the late 1970s, Bush had been stationed in Beijing with his wife as a CIA overseas director, and that experience might have endeared him to the Chinese and vice versa, with secret deals between the Bush family and the Chinese leadership having been rumored, which also explains why the two terms of his son’s Presidency were said to be the “golden eight years for China’s development” (according to official Chinese sources).
Why The Prisoner Still Matters
Obituary for Prof. Roger Pearson, M.Sc. (Econ.), Ph.D., (London): 1927–2023
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 525 On Capitalism, Socialism, & the Ethnostate
The Elite Are Those Who Refuse to Lie
Lipton Matthews Interviews Beau Albrecht about MLK
Whittaker Chambers: The Quaker Who Exposed Communism in the US, Part 2
Whittaker Chambers: The Quaker Who Exposed Communism in the US, Part 1
All you have said is true, however I would like to point something out. Why, didn’t Japan attack China instead of America? China is just outside the back door! Japan should have taken over the whole region: Korea, Vietnam, China, et. al. All the natural resources that Japan could ever need were there. China would have been been no match for Japan! That is the one thing that has always puzzled me about WWII.
Japan was at war with China during the period, controlling a large chunk of Chinese territory in addition to Korea. Japan’s colonization was the root of the issues between them and the us. The Japs were seen as weak foes and were used by the us regime, baiting them to attack to bring the us into the war in an era when the vast majority of Americans were against any involvement.
Japan didn’t attack Pearl Harbor to conquer the US. It attacked the US pacific fleet to neutralize any interference of the US in its planned conquest of China and South East Asia. Of course that was naive. It would provoke exactly what they tried to prevent.
Hello Riki-Eiki, I replied to your comments on another article, “South Korea:
Ungrateful Client, Unreliable Ally” by Morris V. de Camp.
My comment: https://counter-currents.com/2017/10/south-korea-ungrateful-client/#comment-1394121
I didn’t get a reply to my question yet, if you could recommend further reading about Korean history, in particular South Korean history, from the perspectives of that article and your comments. I am quite interested to dig deeper into this.
Thank you Mr. Shaldemus for your kind words and praise inquiry, and sorry for replying you late for my recent busy work and life chores. First, I highly appreciate your insightful and incisive observations from your personal experiences with South Korea. As you put: ” much of the anti-Japanese (and some anti-American) Korean nationalist propaganda to be over-lachrymose, narcissistic, and a bit mean-spirited.” This remarks I believe encapsulate some major negative aspects of the inherent national traits of the Koreans in general and South Koreans in particular (perhaps even more glaring and stRiki-Eiking in the South than in the North).
It would my pleasure and honor to be able to provide you with some reference resources pertaining to the South Korean history and national characteristics. But as you might have known, I haven’t lived in a Western society, in spite of my relatively competent and workable English, and I indeed haven’t read or known much about books or other information on the history of South Korea printed in English. If what you want are the materials in English, I’m afraid that I cannot offer much help honestly speaking. In that regard, I think the well-learnt commentator of Chinese descent “Chinese Maiden” who seems to be living in US now and have made some constructive and informative comments on the comment section of the previous post where you raised your question to me will be in a better position to chime in and supply some good stuff to you.
On the other hand, if you can read Japanese, then I will be able to gladly introduce some “juicy stuff” of critical examination and analysis of South Korean history and national disposition etc. to you, which is a quite hot topic in the circles of today’s Japanese nationalist publications and features abundant good and mind-opening works from Japanese, and rightist Chinese, Taiwanese, and even Western nationalist writers who write and publish their books in Japanese. So if the latter fits your case, please let me know and I’ll lead you to some sound and relevant stuff in which you will probably feel interested.
Some remarks :
1) “…The first landmark deal between America and China was a trade agreement signed between China’s Manchurian dynasty and the US government in July 1844 in the Wangxia village of Macao, which followed the Treaty of Nanking with the British Empire in August 1842 and helped established the first American bridgehead in China for trade and missionary work…”
You fail to mention that the Treaty of Nanking was the conclusion of the outrageous First Opium War (1839-1842), which forced opium addiction on the Chinese people and humiliated them beyond measure. Small wonder the Chinese resented Western powers with their subsequent trade and missionary “bridgeheads” into their country.
2) “…In the wake of the Treaty, harboring legitimate concerns about the potential danger from China, the various Western powers seriously considered carving China up into separate states so as to prevent a potentially unified and modernized China from exacting revenge on them. This was admittedly a ruthless but geopolitically astute and prescient preventive approach if we look at the insufferable arrogance and impudence of China today…”
China has been a unified empire most of its history and in times of its division unification has always been its ideal. A reawakening China would surely reunite itself.
3) “…Fast forward to today : a gargantuan and powerful China is running rampant in the world, polluting the Earth… (only their own earth).., plundering global resources… (they duly pay for it, that’s called “buying”).., encroaching on the living space of the Western peoples… (if you mean immigration, allowing that is the West’s own fault).., stealing their jobs…(same), and swaggering around making lurid military threats…(like what ?)…”
4) The major blunder (or crime) of the US was to support the Chinese Communists above the Nationalists during the war against Japan. Nearly all “threats” from China follow from that. If the US had helped the Nationalists win, then China would have become like Taiwan : modern, prosperous, democratic, friendly to the West and perhaps Christian to boot. Besides, the Korean war wouldn’t have happened either.
5) “…All in all, in only three decades, China has grown from a poor agrarian state, a “mild and friendly” giant panda, to an enormous, fire-spitting, muscle-flexing dragon breathing down the neck of not only its neighboring countries but also of the US and Japan…”
I call this “literary paranoia”.
“… China is now poised to do what it has long aspired to do: achieve world domination, displace and dismantle America, and dispossess and subjugate the white race…”
That is paranoid projection. I see no signs of the Chinese trying to achieve “world domination”, let alone “dispossessing and subjugating the white race”.
The US under Trump is behaving far more irresponsibly than China and its partner Russia in the present crises. The Chinese have always been an agrarian country with also mercantile talents. Their only “imperialism” will be of the mercantile kind, such as they are practicing now in Africa. I see no signs of them conquering Africa either.
It ought to be mentioned that the Opium Wars were Jewish wars. They were as much about Jewish interests as the recent Iraq wars were.
Mr. Ryckaert, thanks for your meticulous and candid questioning of some points in my essay. Sorry for my belated response. I’ve been quite busy recently and finally got some free time this weekend. Now please allow me to respectfully scrutinize and counter-comment on all your five major points one by one.
1) I honestly couldn’t see your point here in questioning me about the nature of the Sino-British Nanking Treaty that shortly predated the Sino-US Treaty. I certainly know the outrageous nature of the previous one and have known it for decades including the sinister Jewish role in the opium business of the British empire vis-à-vis China in 19the century, but chose not to elaborate on it simply because it was not directly relevant to my central topic of discussion i.e. the US foreign relationship with China. I agreed with you that the Chinese had good reasons to resent the Western powers with the latter’s trade and missionary “bridgeheads” into China, but again the Chinese resentment was not the focus of my essay. The Western inroads into China accompanied by trade, education and technologies were what benefited China actually and substantially, and while being emotionally resentful of all these, the Chinese knew well how to exploit them to their own advantage, which were the ones I exactly intended to highlight and examine in my article.
2) Regarding the Chinese infatuation with “unification” or “unified empire” throughout the history, please note that A, longing to unite one’s ancestral land (in China’s case, the land occupied by Han Chinese which traditionally only accounted for roughly half of China’s land mass today) into one unified state is one thing, to “unite” lands that were ethnically, culturally and historically not necessarily inherent parts of Han China such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, Taiwan etc. through brute force of military conquest or corrosive population invasion is quite another. Besides, a “reunified” China, however much China desires, is a very bad idea to the West and the White race considering the undeniable and peculiar mentality of arch-rivalry that China holds vis-à-vis the West. Since I wrote my essay from the perspective of preserving and guarding the interest of the West and the White race, rather than of the Chinese, your proposed argument from China’s perspective simply doesn’t cross with mine.
3) How can you claim that China now is only polluting their own earth? Aren’t the shameless and unrestrainedly selfish Chinese practices of rampantly polluting air and water, of excessive fishing, poaching, massive deforesting and mining, combined with continuously exporting their human waves plus their crude, defected and occasionally poisoned foodstuff and other consumption goods to the Western markets serious matters of global scale and consequence that impact hugely and negatively on the Western people and their living space? And, yes, allowing the Chinese immigration is the West’s fault, but deliberately and purposely plotting and encouraging such an immigration to the West with a latent purpose of infiltrating the western societies as China’s Fifth Column and acting against the western nations when called upon is an indubitably nefarious, inimical and iniquitous behavior on the part of China itself. In addition, if you want concrete examples about China’s hostile military moves, there are numerous. Just look at China’s constant military maneuverings of muscle-flexing, saber-rattling and blustering in its Western land borders, in East China Sea and South China Sea, against a number of lesser foreign countries including India, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines. It is also increasingly taking on US frontally and has stalked, threatened, disrupted or intercepted American Navy vessels and airplanes on multiple occasions around open waters in South China Sea besides constant and incessant hacking, sabotaging and thieving of US military secrets.
4) The fourth point of yours I almost completely agree with, except still harboring some doubts as to the bright, pink-colored and (overly)-optimistic scenario you portrayed as a result of China’s imagined democratization that supposedly would have begotten prosperity, freedom, peace and friendliness. In my candid and forthright opinion, while the internal misfortune (to Chinese masses) of today’s China mainly comes from its Communist totalitarian dictatorship, the external danger and menace (to the West, White race and Japan) of today’s China hinges on its Great Chinese Supremacy, expansionism and jingoism, which exists separately and inveterately and can be detached from China’s Communism.
5) You called my warning to the Western White people on China “literary paranoia” or “paranoid projection” because you thought you have not seen any signs of China’s attempt for “world domination”, let alone “dispossessing and subjugating the White race”. I think here lies our biggest difference in perception of the Chinese question. I agree with you that Trump is a tremendous letdown, an even more zealous shill for Israel, and perhaps a hazard for future international conflicts in some shithole places where no vital US national interest is at stake. I deeply and woefully lament the current situation that the US and its western allies move unabatedly toward the direction of further alienating and antagonizing the Russian nation of the same White race and pushing it into the bosom of China, which could have very profound and tragic consequences for the White racial family and play into the hands of China. Finally, even if we swallow your point and limit China’s ambitions and talents on the “mercantile” domain only as you remarked, that “enormous mercantile imperialism” is still highly dangerous to the health and wellbeing of the White people in a long run, not to mention the actually real and immense Chinese political and cultural ambitions behind the curtain. Remember, the “Oriental Jews” didn’t get its name for nothing. Now I intend to make no more effort to persuade you, and only want to say that for all your denial, I have indeed perceived those signs which are simmering and palpable, and let’s wait to let the facts bear it out and teach us if you or I was correct in our current views.
Both this article and the book it references condemn the Chinese national character as sadistic and dishonest while apologizing and justifying Japanese imperialism. Of course, the Japanese were just as if not more sadistic as the Chinese during this time. Also, whatever the sins of the Chinese, being “uncivilized” (in the sense of failing to develop literacy and high culture) is not one of them.
Given the author’s similar condemnation of Koreans in the comment thread of a different article, and praise of Japanese efforts in Korea, I am frankly suspicious of the author’s agenda in seemingly attacking every East Asian nationality except the Japanese.
Both this article and the book it references condemn the Chinese national character as sadistic and dishonest
You could visit the animal rights sites. Its not so much that the Chinese eat dogs its how they kill them. And lots of the dogs and cats that suffer such hell are stolen from other Chinese.
My health food store doesn’t sell Chinese supplements because they can’t be verified for quality.
And yes we have problems with cheats and animal abusers in the West but in China it seems to be part of the culture.
You do seem to have a particularly strong and harsh criticism of my stance and that of the early 20th century pro-Japanese American White nationalists. In response to your accusations and others of similar style, I want to say that although it has long been my idiosyncratic writing style of using intense, passionate, or seemingly emotive or subjective words, which admittedly invited some doubts, displeasure from readers and ruffled a few feathers, my writings have nevertheless been based on recorded, provable and objective historical facts, while your accusations per se appear largely unfounded, simplistic and sweeping without factual backing. Now the following are some of my point by point refutation to your accusations.
The so-called “Japanese imperialism” is a trite and shopworn cliché and also must be reviewed in a historical and comparative context. The historical era of late 19th century and the first half of 20th century was actually a time of power politics and universal imperialism when the world was ruled by big powers and jungle law characterized as “the fittest survive”. Most western countries were imperialist at that time and practiced imperialism. Since Japan had chosen to evolve along the requirement of the time to strengthen itself and avoid becoming a colony itself of other western powers, it adopted a guiding policy of “exiting the Asia and entering the Europe” aka. “脱亜入欧” (bidding farewell to the traditional East Asian power structure dictated by Chinese supremacy and Confucius values and emulating the West in thought and practice to safeguard national independence, sovereignty and ensure robust self-development) and decided to model itself on other western powers. Seriously and fairly speaking, it is unreasonable to blame things, weal or woe, on Japan for doing what it reckoned it must do in that particular historical time and situation.
Also Japan’s war with China was directed or prompted by a full array of complex factors including, among many others, the cutthroat internal political struggles of China and the Chinese and Soviet communist conspiracies for a “holy war” of international communism that pits imperial powers against each other and have the Jewish-communism reap a fisherman’s harvest, and that Japan was repeatedly and deliberately provoked by the Chinese side. In addition, at the height of the Japanese power and the war from late 1930s to 1945, Japan was allied to the National Socialist Germany, not merely for geopolitical benefits or imperialist ambitions as you might think, but more for shared ideals and values. The Japanese economy in that period partook of a strongly nationalist tint and borrowed heavily from the social credit economic theory of the English economist C. H. Douglas, which had patent similarities with the early national socialist German economic theorists like Gottfried Feder. In one word, Japan of that time as a whole was just as imperialist as England, France and Italy while taking on an increasingly nationalist outlook and substance during the years of war. I honestly don’t see anything particularly dishonorable or damnable about Japan then, and if anything, the axis nations of Japan, Germany and Italy were a more favorable, organic and healthier bloc than the allies of US, Britain and Soviet Union.
As to your blanket accusation that the Japanese were just as much if not more sadistic as the Chinese during that time, I’m afraid you have read too much political propaganda on the victor’s side full of distortions, exaggerations and half-truths that masqueraded as historical facts, in total disregard of the pertinent and telling examples I’ve raised in this essay of mine. For one, you seemed to have never come to a full grasp of the willful and purposeful systematic campaign of provocation and vilification of the Chinese side over Japan with ulterior motives for enlarging, protracting and deepening the original containable Japanese-Chinese conflicts of 1930s to the advantage of the Chinese communists aided and coordinated by Soviet and American communist forces. For another, the infamous Bataan Death March had lots of dubious yarn and was already proved to contain many incredible exaggerations. For yet another, to raise a single anecdote, Japan basically treated surrendering allied soldiers and pilots with humane dignity perhaps with only minor exceptions at the final desperate and difficult days of the War (even in the last stage of the war when the US bomber squadrons firebombed Japanese cities, dead bodies of US pilots from the bombers shot down over the Japanese sky were properly buried and entombed by the Japanese side), while the US side habitually and gleefully slaughtered the Japanese war captives in cold blood and made souvenirs out of the skulls and thigh bones of the dead Japanese soldiers, all well documented and photographed historical truths. In fact, the famed White nationalist sympathizer and revisionist historian Tom Goodrich who penned the great work Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany is currently writing a new book on allied brutalities on Japanese soldiers and civilians during and after the Pacific War and is presumably near the end of his writing. Expect it to be published in a near future to uncover lots of hidden historical truths and debunking lots of ugly lies on the allied side.
When I remarked on the “uncivilized” side of the Chinese, of course I did not refer to the capacity of developing admittedly glorious high culture in the ancient Chinese civilization. But mind you that being “civilized” is more than that. In an earnest sense, even China today cannot be called civilized, if you look at their callous and guiltless slaughter of animals, as pointed out by another perceptual commentator, their bullying and deception against each other on a daily basis, and their brutal and unconscionable cleansing and persecutions of ethnic minorities from Tibetans to Mongols and Eastern Turks whose ancestral lands the Chinese had annexed with brute force. Out of literally thousands of proofs of China’s being uncivilized, here I give just one piece of revealing knowledge to you: Even at a time as late as late 1950s to early 1960s, during the gigantic manmade famine that resulted from Mao’s willfully failed agricultural policy and swept across the entire China, literally hundreds of thousands of Chinese practiced cannibalism out of dire hunger either by eating starved dead corpses or killing and eating each other. Some even killed their own children to cook and eat. Again, during China’s Cultural Revolution launched by Mao that started in mid 1960s and lasted for a decade, tens of thousands of Chinese again ate human flesh, hearts and livers, albeit not out of hunger this time, but with an active willingness fueled and driven by a collective and morbid insanity of “hatred for class enemies” or “expression of loyalty to the ‘red sun’ and ‘greatest helmsman’ (Mao)”. I frankly don’t think a nation that has behaved collectively like that in this late modern stage of human-societal development can be called “civilized” by you or anyone in that matter simply for having had a shining ancient civilization.
At last, in regard to your broad-brushed questioning of my deploring of the Koreans in a previous comment thread and my praises of the sedulous Japanese ruling efforts in Korea that lasted till 1945, they were all supported by historical truths and factual records as put forward numerously in that long comment of mine, which even received heartfelt agreement from an enlightened and honest Chinese intellectual in the comment section, who are supposed to hate and detest Japan if we follow your logic. And in light of that, your subsequent suspicion that I have an “agenda”, or perhaps an “axe to grind”, to put it more bluntly myself, against every East Asian nationality except the Japanese constitutes such a jaw-dropping accusation as to make me speechless. Yes, if you insists saying so, considering the fact that East Asia is mainly composed of the three nations i.e. Chinese, Korean and Japanese, you were correct that I am indeed rightfully opposed to the two of them for sound and tenable reasons. But please understand at the same time that there are many more nations of Southeast Asia and South Asia from Vietnam to Indonesia to India etc., and I’m against none of them and haven’t attacked any.
This is an excellent history.
It is amazing how there seems to be a pro-China sentiment among the Nationalist Right. China wants to assume the role as the leader of globalization, and Xi said recently at Davos that China was willing and able. The New Silk Road expands China’s influence through Europe, Asia and Africa. It is the consolidation and expansion of globalization, not an opposition or alternative. It is being funded by Western-based oligarchs, including those associated with think tanks such as the Brookings Institute. If China assumes the leadership of globalization from the USA, it means nothing in substance for the oligarchs who do not have loyalty to any state other than the one that best pushes its agenda, which is now China.
For example, the Chinese occupation of Tibet (another nation betrayed by the USA) has allowed the exploitation of Tibet’s resources for the benefit of global corporations.
China has always seen itself as the center of the world, to which foreigners are subject, whether under the emperors with a heavenly mandate no less , Mao (with his abortive effort to become leader of world communism) and the present leadership, all reflecting different manifestations of the same outlook.
Globalization is still globalization whether under US or Chinese auspices, and the same oligarchs are still running the show, as indicated by those involved with the New Silk Road Finance Corporation for example. Where was the idea of BRIC first floated? – Goldman Sachs.
Excuse me if I am not enthused about Chinese hegemony replacing American. Both are global pathogens. New Zealand has long kow-towed to China and in the process has become deindustrialized, with economic distortions.
Once again, well done Mr Rei for an insightful and important article.
Thank you very much, Dr. Bolton, for your kind words of praise and encouragement to me, to which I was deeply humbled and honored. Furthermore, I believe your comment trenchantly discerns and highlights the very significant ramifications of China’s current surge and maneuverings on the international stage spot-on, and your analysis grasps and encapsulates the crux of the Chinese Question i.e. China’s being a powerful and ruthless agent of globalization and acting symbiotically with the corrupt, anti-national, and race-blind western oligarchs.
This, in addition to China’s own innate supremacist hyper-nationalism that regards the White race with implacable hostility and a burning sense of rivalry, inevitably poses a huge existential danger to the Western civilization and White racial survival in a long run, by which every White nationalist should be rightfully alarmed and behooves himself to understand the question soberly and unequivocally without any illusion.
“Always on the Wrong Side”
If the US were only “on the wrong side” on the Asien theater, with a little cynism we could say “let’s see if Chinese world domination becomes real”. According to Mr. Rei, in Asia the US fought for Chinese supremacy and against American interests.
What is sure is that the US was “on the wrong side” on the European theater.
The European wars were fought for explicit Jewish interests. The Jews themselves (Weizmann) boasted about drawing the US into WWI (Balfour declaration) and WWII. If only the US would have stayed out of these wars – without taking sides – the exulted “Greatest Generation” would not have genocided their own race.
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