Skip to content

Chinese and White Nationalists Should Work Together

From Interstellar to Biological Imperialism

The movie Interstellar (2014) skilfully revives the cultural optimism of the American 1960s and the radical expansionist drive that characterized American science generally and NASA in particular. Perhaps not merely incidentally, the space journey appears as a metaphor for the Western mind-set. Throughout the whole film I have observed a typically white racial worldview that manifested itself in both simple and complex ways. Many would say that the central theme of Interstellar is father-daughter relationship, and I would not disagree, but I also picked up many implicit racialist messages.

If it were only one thing that could be interpreted from a racial angle, I would call any racialist analysis of this film ‘a projection of racialist values onto a film where there are no such values.’ However, the ‘expand or die’ mind-set which was a recurring Western imperialist theme throughout the film eventually convinced me that I might have to interpret Interstellar as a film distinctly colored by Western ‘expand or die’ imperialism with an implicit racialist undertone.

Even though I expect Christopher Nolan to forcefully deny the racial angle, I do believe there is solid evidence to suppose that ‘humanity’ is synonymous to ‘Western man’ in the world of Nolan’s Interstellar. It is a film that deals with the philosophical theme of the survival of Western man.

After a brief analysis of the recurring themes in Interstellar from a racial angle, it should become clear that the end of humanity is intricately related to the usage of humanity as a synonym of Western man — this conjures up the fact that the decline of the West and the decline of humanity are one and the same. Western civilisation as a product of Western man cannot survive without its host, because the worldview that created this civilisation has a firm basis in racial biology. As determined by the biology of race, a worldview is not merely a cultural matter. It is, however, a racially specific biological force that is intricately related to the creative drive of any human race. Therefore, any opposition to a highly civilized race such as characterized by the white race will be to the detriment of those haters who, blinded by their tactless hate, act against themselves and their descendants.

Since the opposition to noble blood is futile, all the opposition to the white race will be to the detriment of anti-whites; this fact is not a curse but a law of nature. The principle of noble blood is unalterable. As the champions of a self-defeating ideology exert all their power, money, and energy to bring destruction upon the white race, their zeal will be like no zeal, for even if the march of a civilized people is temporarily halted by ideological distractions, it will eventually grow impatient, rearrange its ranks, prepare for departure, and march on as if its mortal enemies were nothing greater than ants. The decline of the white race will continue until a critical point has been reached that will reinvigorate not only its will to live but also its will to thrive. Thus, the decline is only an intermission in the continuity of the legacy of European imperialism which is the manifestation of a noble mind.

From Imperialism to Red China

As we’re speaking of imperialism, Red China and its territorial claims come to mind. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now the world’s number one economy (Arends, 2014), but its diplomatic relations with the rest of the world are just as bad as ever. The Communist Party of China (CPC) doesn’t have an impressive plan that will significantly improve its international relations for the better anytime in the near or far future, from a diplomatic point of view. It is believed that the PRC as a superpower will show more soft power (Zhou, 2014), but the political reality is that the PRC will become increasingly aggressive (Glaser, 2011). As a testimony to this trend toward more political aggression by the PRC, the relations with Russia have recently worsened.

The Russians now recognize China as an unreliable political power (Novikova, 2014). The uneasy relations of China with the international community (Zhou, 2014) might at any time culminate in a catastrophic war in which China will find itself isolated and therefore fighting against the whole world. Thus, the political strategy and ideology of the CPC are not good for China as a superpower and have an extremely isolating effect. Communism — even with significant reforms such as in the case of the CPC — is part of the problem. The propaganda machine of the CPC sells communism to us as ‘patriotic’ or ‘nationalistic’ (Chen, 2014), but if it were so ‘patriotic’ or ‘nationalistic,’ then it wouldn’t be part of the problem (Oiwan, 2014).

The reunification of China is a major theme in Chinese communist propaganda. This theme is officially called the One-China Policy, and it is to be remembered that the independence of Taiwan has always been an issue of major concern in relation to this policy. Article 2 of the Anti-Secession Law in the PRC says:

There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included. Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the “Taiwan independence” secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means.

It is said that the independence of Taiwan is a deep wound in our ‘national pride.’ Chinese communists have oftentimes claimed that they are willing to pay a high price for the reunification of China. This simply implies that they are willing to wage a war over the independence of Taiwan. The propaganda for a ‘unified China’ is all over the place in the PRC. The military aggression that is implied in this major theme of Chinese communist propaganda is a huge testimony to the reality of Chinese communist aggression. The biggest myth in Red China today is that there is basically only one Chinese identity. This results in the denial of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic differences. I believe that this myth will eventually culminate in Western-style denial of race differences.

I can understand the myth from the perspective of the One-China Policy. The existence of the PRC seems to depend heavily (if not entirely) on this myth and, therefore, I believe Red China could possibly collapse into different nation-states when people stop believing in this myth. It might also explain the remarkable fierceness of anti-secession laws in China. As the CPC has its own interest in the propagation of a single Chinese identity, it is opposed to the assertion of traditional Chinese regional identities (notice the plural). The communist opposition to tradition in general seems to go hand in hand with opposition to traditional regional identities. It is an undeniable fact that the communists have destroyed much of China’s own heritage. Despite communist efforts, there is a strong rise in Chinese regional identities today.

Mao said:

Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but also must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the “patriotism” of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the “patriotism” of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better…. For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China’s case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, “Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors.” For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defense of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism. (Mao, 1938: 196).

The communists have historically never had the best interests of the German and Japanese peoples at heart. The CPC today has a thoroughly anti-Japanese stance, and it portrays Japan as a puppet of the West. Chinese communist propagandists use historical events such as the Nanjing Massacre as an excuse for their anti-Japanese rhetoric. The anti-Japanese argument from the Nanjing Massacre is definitely one of the most tired old tools of Chinese communist propaganda. I have been wrongly interpreted as anti-China and anti-Chinese, but nothing could be further from the truth. I love my own people dearly, and I honour my genetic heritage. I’m not against Japan, and I believe that despite our historical infighting, we East Asians should rise above that and work together for the assertion and protection of our genetic interests. Confucius says ‘Because Po-yi and Shu-ch’i never remembered old wickedness they made few enemies.’ Moreover, ‘patriotic communist’ is a contradiction, because patriots and communists aren’t the same. I’m not a communist, but a patriot.

I’ve often heard the argument that the CPC or PRC isn’t really communist anymore, but I think that this is just deliberate obfuscation that serves the Chinese communist agenda. The reforms of the CPC don’t prove that they aren’t really communist, but the reforms actually support the idea that they’re communist. One has to look at it another way. This or that policy might not be strictly communist, but the CPC generally falls into the communist spectrum even when it does not support every point of traditional communism or Soviet communism. It’s still a variant of communism. Therefore, I call it Chinese communism to make sure it’s clear that we’re dealing with one specific variant of communism which might have its own peculiarities in respect to other variants of communism. I don’t care whether this or that idea isn’t strictly communist, I only care about the fact that the ideas of the CPC generally fall into the communist spectrum, and therefore the CPC is communist.

A Christian China?

China is projected to become the largest Christian country by 2030 (Blumberg, 2014; Philips, 2014, Apr. 19; Philips, 2014, Apr. 25). I don’t have anything against Christianity, but it wouldn’t please me if China’s own religious heritage were marginalized by a foreign religion. China has its own traditions, and we’ve already had enough negative foreign influences over the past century. This is not to say that it’s the fault of the West, but it implies that China should be more careful in its adoption of foreign influences. Lack of modernization is maladaptive, but too much modernization is dangerous.

There has to be a balance of tradition and progress. Since China lost sight of balance, it brought destruction upon itself. Exaggerating the importance of balance is a mistake of the past, but on the other hand we shouldn’t be too quick to conclude that balance is necessarily an irrelevant concept. Sometimes it’s the right thing to seek balance, sometimes it’s the right thing to seek extremes, but what China (and by extension the West) needs to do right now is to seek reconciliation with its past and move forward, confident of its traditions and heritage without seeing it as something that is necessarily an obstacle to the achievement of progress as the highest ideal.

Whither East Asian Nationalism and Western Nationalism?

Asians who team up with Hispanics, Blacks, or Jews against whites are dangerously deluded. Whites aren’t gullible, but it takes longer to trigger their ethnocentric instincts. Reality is, they’re just holding back at the moment. When whites do finally wake up, Asians shouldn’t be on the side of anti-whites. Whites are really nice altruistic people. But when a nice altruistic man becomes really mad, no one wants to be the person who made him mad and pushed him too far. I have experienced that whites are exceptionally friendly, civilized, and reasonable people, and I mean it when I say that. Recently a white told me that I shouldn’t be on the side of whites because they have anti-Asian sentiments. I don’t find anti-Asian sentiments offensive. A wise man once said: ‘It’s a fool’s act to be offended when offence isn’t intentional. It’s an even greater fool’s act to be offended when offence is intentional.’ I know there are some whites who are anti-Asian, but I will keep on trying to unite with those whites even if they keep on slapping down my outstretched hand.

On the Self-Determination of the Chinese People

It should come as no surprise that I believe that nationalism is anti-communist by definition, because nationalism is in the best interests of the people, and communism has always proved itself to be antagonistic towards these interests even though it makes many empty Utopian promises, and therefore nationalism is opposed to communism by default. The only salvation and liberation of China will be a Chinese nationalist uprising. The self-determination of the Chinese people must be respected, and if different Chinese groups want to assert their regional identities, the larger Chinese population should not be opposed to their aspirations of self-determination.

I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of Cantonese people seceding from the modern-day China. It would only be a process that is more historically honest. China has always been divided into different regions which were loosely tied together by a vague concept of loyalty to the Emperor. I would like to return to an Imperial China where we can all be ourselves; where communism will not be forced down our throats and where we can assert our traditional regional identities without being opposed to perhaps a larger imperial system which will protect our interests. The self-determination of the Chinese people is denied by the CPC. If the Taiwanese want to be a separate nation-state from China, then let them be. It’s not against our interests to allow different regional groups to rule themselves. It’s, in fact, deeply anti-Asian to force these groups to live under the flag of one nation-state that cannot guarantee the protection of their traditional regional identities and their regional interests.

The traditional peoples of China are the victims of the same communist propaganda themes as the HK (Hong Kong) people. The communists aren’t the victims, but we’re the victims of communism. That’s the only ‘Great Humiliation’ that the Chinese people are suffering from today; that’s the real shame and guilt that we feel. The conflict isn’t really about HK people vs. mainlanders, but it’s actually about the (traditional) Chinese vs. the communists. The essential problem is that the communists are anti-Asian or anti-Chinese. They want to destroy our traditional ‘diversity’ and replace it with a modern communist monoculture which is supposed to be ‘Chinese’ in essence; this extreme level of homogeneity can only be achieved by means of even more communist-approved destruction of Chinese heritage. The Cantonese won’t be Cantonese anymore, the Koreans traditionally living in China won’t be Koreans anymore, the Uighurs traditionally living in China won’t be Uighurs anymore, etc. The destructive force of communism and its legacy are the greatest problems of China today.

Don’t believe the communists when they say they’ve changed their ways. It’s just a lie that is meant to confuse you; it is designed to keep you from seeing things clearly. Liberating China from communism and its destructive One-China Policy is really pro-Asian and patriotic. Soon after its necessary liberation, I expect that China will have better diplomatic relations with its neighbours, and this is really important from a pro-Asian perspective. My only concern is that the Chinese people shouldn’t be seduced by democracy; they should support the rise of a new monarchy. China falling apart into numerous absolute monarchies would be fine with me as long as these states are founded on pro-Asian principles. I would be happy to see the different traditional peoples of China go their own way again; we have tried a ‘Great Unified China’ for long enough now, so it’s about time to try its opposite. I believe that the strength of Europe lay in its division. Therefore, a ‘Great Unified Europe’ as proposed by EU advocates and others would always end in disaster.

Returning to the traditional diversity of China doesn’t necessarily mean returning to the inter-state wars of the Warring States Period (476-221 BC), but we can take the good of that period, i.e. the monarchism and the autonomy of the states, while leaving out the bad, i.e. the excessive warlordism. The Chinese were quite creative in that period — it is even called the ‘golden age of Chinese thought’ — so a return to a disunified China might not be such a bad idea. It appears that the flow of thought currents slows down significantly or even completely in ‘Great Unified Countries,’ because there is no healthy inter-state or inter-regional competition anymore. Moreover, I think that inter-state wars can also positively contribute to a quicker flow of thought currents. Peace can lull people asleep and be a real innovation killer. This does not mean we need to return to incessant wars, but a war every now and then wouldn’t hurt that much from a long-term historical perspective; it might even be positive. Furthermore, I can also imagine a system in which all regional monarchies would be united by loyalty to the Chinese emperor like in ancient times; this system could act as a larger pro-Asian system which checks the different states.

However, such a check could easily be abused, and the system would probably devolve quickly back into a ‘Great Unified China.’ I think other means of cooperation should be sought, such as a special pro-Asian alliance between all states of the sinosphere. This alliance should definitely not be racially exclusive, because that would isolate Asians from the rest of the world. Racial exclusion in diplomacy isn’t necessarily the best move for any race; I would argue it’s even a huge mistake. When I say pro-Asian, I assume that people understand that basic principle. It’s anti-Asian to isolate East Asians from the rest of the world; self-isolation could cause major global conflicts. We have to be international-minded in order to prevent such conflicts, and I should emphasize that liberals don’t have a monopoly on the prevention of global wars, because it’s just common sense that global wars should be prevented. If any good lesson were drawn from the Second World War — which was basically an unfortunate civil war between whites in Europe, and East Asians in Asia — then it’s the lesson that global wars should be prevented. A Third World War would almost certainly involve East Asians and whites, so it’s deeply anti-Asian for East Asians and deeply anti-white for whites to be passive about global wars. Edmund Burke, who is generally viewed as the founder of conservatism, rightly pointed out: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Xi Jinping

An American conservative political commentator recently wrote:

Xi Jinping is another [nationalistic strong man]. Staking a claim to all the islands in the South and East China seas, moving masses of Han Chinese into Tibet and Uighur lands to swamp native peoples, purging old comrades for corruption, Xi is the strongest leader China has seen in decades. He sits astride what may now be the world’s largest economy and is asserting his own Monroe Doctrine. Hong Kong’s democracy protests were tolerated until Xi tired of them. Then they were swept off the streets.” (Buchanan, 2014)

The theme of asserting China’s interests is perceived as nationalistic, but that isn’t necessarily the case. The way Xi Jinping does it is self-isolating, and it seems no one really takes notice of the fact that this doesn’t significantly improve China’s diplomatic relations. In fact, it would make sense if China tones down a bit on assertion of interests because, as I see it, its main interests now lie in building up a good relationship with its neighbors — some internationalism is a necessity — but the opposite is happening. The CPC wants more and more and more, and when one wants too much, things might not end well at all. I think the CPC is playing a dangerous game, and they can’t keep it up forever. At some point, there will be an escalation down the road. They’re just asking for it.

Xi Jinping is not a nationalist. He is just a communist; he has asserted the supremacy of the CPC various times. He basically believes that any meaningful economic reform has to take place within the one-party system. This is a typically communist belief. Furthermore, it’s quite logical that one is perceived as ‘the strongest leader China has seen in decades’ when the economy is booming. If someone is popular, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is strong or competent. The common people have a tendency to project the success of a country on its leadership (that is to say, they are wont to equate the former with the latter), but this doesn’t necessarily have to be true because a country might be successful despite its incompetent and weak leadership.

The conflict between Hong Kong and the mainland is a complex issue and I have my own views on this, but I hope that I’m reasonable. It doesn’t matter whether Chinese nationalists agree with me on every point, but it matters that we are free to speak our minds. I perceive myself as a diplomat or mediator. A pro-Asian nationalist might feel torn between loyalty to HK or the mainland, but this doesn’t have to be. He or she can get beyond this dilemma of torn loyalty; it’s difficult to be reasonable in such a sentimental conflict, but it’s — in my humble opinion — utterly necessary for a nationalist to be reasonable. I’m trying to think independent from communist biases — I really hope no delusional communistic ideas influence me — and I think that the attempt at independent thought is the first step in the right direction.

I also think it’s essential to take communist propaganda with a grain of salt; those who take communistic propaganda at face value will be duped by communism which is one of the deadliest of ideologies. Furthermore, I honestly think that the independence of HK would be best for HK people, because they will be totally free to defend their own interests and to look out for themselves. HK people have their own identity, and I don’t believe the ‘Greater Chinese Communist Identity’ should be imposed on them. Neither do I believe it should be imposed on any of the mainland Chinese. If one rule applies to the HK people, then it also applies to the mainland Chinese.

I’m absolutely neutral in the conflict between HK and the mainland, even when my views will anger and infuriate many a communist. I really don’t perceive myself as anything other than a diplomat or mediator, because I don’t believe that I am pro-HK or pro-mainland; I am just pro-Asian. I understand that mainlanders who still take the communist propaganda at face value want to claim HK as their own, feeling justified by the One-China Policy and so on; it can surely feel good to claim a neighbour’s property and prosperity as one’s own. However, as nationalists we have to acknowledge reality, and we have to shake off the delusions. It is vital to acknowledge that the HK people have their own traditional identity and their own unique history which is separate from that of the mainland.

Therefore, it doesn’t make any sense for the mainland to make a territorial claim on HK, even when one acknowledges that the mainland exerted influence over HK in the distant past long before the West took control of it and started shaping its separate history and identity. Rome also doesn’t make any territorial claims on Britain just because it had once been under Roman influence or control. Frankly, I believe that even if it were desirable from this or that perspective, re-integrating Hong Kong with the mainland isn’t worth the trouble, since it requires violence, oppression, and genocide through mass immigration from the mainland. None of those acts are nationalistic in my opinion, but to the contrary. I do not only find the idea of swamping related Asian populations for the sake of communist expansion morally corrupt, but I find it even more indignant to call such a perverted act ‘patriotic’ or to insinuate that it proves ‘patriotism.’

The identity of HK is not interchangeable, and it’s wrong to assume that HK people would or even should just tolerate their traditional identity being existentially threatened, systematically marginalized, and eventually annihilated. Likewise, all other traditional Chinese shouldn’t tolerate this being done to their identities as well. If it’s totally legitimate for HK people to defend their traditional identity against the single homogeneous Chinese identity imposed and propagated by the communists, then it’s also legitimate for us mainland people to stand up for our traditional identities. I believe it’s entirely legitimate for HK people to defend their interests; it’s entirely legitimate for them to defend their heritage; and it’s entirely legitimate for them to oppose mainland invasion. Since people are indoctrinated with communism in the mainland, a mainland Chinese might think that these beliefs are proof that I’m anti-Chinese, but quite the opposite is true.

The Chinese communist elite thinks of the Chinese people as nothing more than a bag of chips which can be moved around — hence we are being used as such in their genocidal scams (i.e. swamping other peoples), oppressing our own, making propaganda for them to our own, etc. We are supposed to self-censor and censor each other for the sake of this elite. Westerners are supposed to do the same thing for the sake of their hostile elite.

I believe that the Cantonese-speaking region of China can be compared to the Catalan-speaking region of Spain; that it’s legitimate for both to secede, and I would consider it deeply anti-Asian and anti-white if these Asians and whites were denied their right to self-determination — which I consider to be a universal value/right that is entirely supported by the concept of ethnonationalism. I think that the ‘unification of the Chinese people’ has proved to be a disaster for traditional Chinese heritage, and I think the same is true for the traditional heritage of Spain. Secession is good for the traditional peoples. I support Catalan independence, but I’m not anti-Spain.

Ethnic minorities in China
Ethnic minorities in China

I think that any nationalist should consider the best interests of the different traditional peoples living in his country — living in our own nation-states based on our own ethnicity, identity, culture, language, etc. is the most realistic ‘Utopian’ world we can aspire to. That world won’t be perfect, but it will be a lot better than the one we’re living in today. We surely can’t ever achieve the Utopian societies that are proposed by ‘progressive’ ideologies.

Those hypothetical societies are purely based on grand fantastical ideas (if not outright delusions), and they will never have a place in reality; those ideas cannot be translated to reality at all. The ethnonationalist ideal, however, of a world where every people can have its own ‘home’ is an ideal that can be directly translated to reality; it will be difficult at times, but it can certainly be achieved if gradualism is acknowledged as the path to an ethnonationalist world.

Moreover, I don’t think we should force people against their will to live in a single nation-state made up of multiple traditional peoples; traditional peoples should be free to secede if they don’t want to live in the same nation-state as others anymore. I’m more concerned about the well-being of the people than the alleged ‘glory of the great unified country.’ I don’t believe in that glory, and therefore I see nothing wrong with Taiwanese and HK independence (or even Tibetan independence — which is a recurring Western political theme that is a real nuisance to the Chinese communists).

Unification has a tendency to destroy the unique traditional identities for the sake of a ‘Single Identity of the Greater Unified People.’ For example, the EU tries to propagate a ‘Greater European Identity,’ the USSR tried to propagate a ‘Greater Russian Identity,’ and the PRC tries to propagate a ‘Greater Chinese Identity.’ I care about peoples and their heritage, therefore I don’t support the unification of peoples as according to the progressive-globalist ideal, but I support the liberation of peoples as according to the ethnonationalist ideal.

I believe that international ethnonationalism will significantly reduce ethnic conflict on a global scale. For example, the HK identity clashes with those of the mainlanders, so it’s better to leave the HK people alone and to avoid unnecessary conflict between them and mainlanders; the best way to avoid conflict is to acknowledge the reality that people have different and conflicting interests. HK people should be free to protect their own interests and their own heritage.

HK people have their unique identity, and that is good for them. Mainlanders have their unique identities, and they should be free to protect their own interests as well. Ethnic conflict is kept at a minimum by ethnonationalism, and this will be good for the maintenance of world peace, although I expect that war won’t disappear from the world as long as the world is imperfect. We can strive for a better world, but we’ll have to be satisfied with the limitations of reality.

Communist propaganda is strongly anti-HK and anti-Taiwan, because HK and Taiwan are a thorn in the side of the CPC. The financial success of HK and Taiwan debunks the communist myth that China needs the CPC for economic success. The CPC is exposed for what it really is and isn’t by the fact that Taiwan and HK are so successful without the CPC. It’s now too obvious that the CPC isn’t necessary for economic success. They can’t have that, so they need to completely take over HK and Taiwan as soon as possible. When HK and Taiwan have fallen in the hands of the communists, and the rest of Asia as well, the world is next. It has always been a dream of the Chinese communists to conquer the world, and now the realization of that dream seems closer than ever. The constant obsession of communist propagandists with territory that ‘should’ belong to the PRC is a testimony to that.

I’ve heard people talk that there isn’t any ‘Chinese communist menace,’ and they often seem to believe that anyone who says otherwise is a fear-monger. I believe that these people are living in a state of denial, because the Chinese communists have ‘Great Plans’ for the world. If today HK and Taiwan fall, then tomorrow the world might fall. The Chinese communists are trying — and have always tried — to take over the entire world. This must not be underestimated.

I don’t understand why Westerners don’t seem to be very concerned about this, and instead seem to imagine China as a friendly trading partner. All countries in Asia have an uneasy relationship with China, so they know what China really is, and more importantly, what China really isn’t. Yet the West, with all its race-obsessed liberals and greedy capitalists, doesn’t seem to realise that the Chinese communist menace is a reality in Asia today, and a reality in the West and the rest of the world tomorrow.

Final Words

I now strongly believe that opposing the interests of the white race will always work to the detriment of the anti-whites. The same goes perhaps, albeit to a lesser extent, for anti-Asians. If East Asians oppose whites or vice versa, then we will cause mutual destruction from which no absolute victor will arise. The only natural political course for East Asians will be to find ways to cooperate with whites on an unconditional basis. It is in the best interests of the Chinese people to join the fight of whites in the West, and to help whites as if the Chinese people were a subgroup of the white race itself. No race-mixing between our peoples is in our best interests, but without the mixing of blood, both of our peoples can thrive and reap the fruits of an unconditional 10,000-year cooperation. (In Imperial China, the Emperor used to be addressed by the title of ‘Lord of 10,000 Years’ (万岁爷). The traditional exclamation ‘10,000 years!’ (万岁!) was used as a wish for the Emperor to live a long life.)

A pro-white asked me recently how Asian nationalists can practically help Western nationalists. I will provide a list here of things that an Asian nationalist can do:

  • Donating money to pro-white groups;
  • Writing scientific race theory books that advocate an unconditional 10,000-year alliance between whites and Asians and utterly destroy the liberal and communist myths that divide our peoples;
  • Posting racialist comments that seek to bring our peoples together rather than to divide them;
  • Analyzing liberal news articles and publishing these analyses online;
  • Publicly speaking out for white and Asian racial interests (i.e. public pro-Eurasian advocacy);
  • Funding Western nationalist political parties and movements and Western nationalist metapolitical groups and movements;
  • Investing money in companies which support racial realism;
  • Attending Western nationalist meetings;
  • Networking with Western nationalists and befriending them;
  • Starting judicial cases against anti-whites and funding such cases;
  • Working towards future Asian nationalist military support in case of a revolution or the event of war and advocating such military aid (Chinese nationalists might have special interests in this because we need to gain practical experience in overthrowing a powerful hostile government as represented by the CPC);
  • Writing e-mails to anti-whites no matter their ethnic background, religious affiliation, or political persuasion;
  • Denouncing and opposing Asian anti-whites and naming examples of such people to show honesty, integrity, and sincerity in our intentions to help whites in their current racial struggle for survival;
  • Making an effort to build a strong Asian nationalist community that supports white/Western ethnonationalism unconditionally.

White-Asian cooperation is my ideal, and it is my freedom of speech to say this. People are free to disagree with me and I am open to hearing all opinions and perspectives, but I sincerely believe that an unconditional long-term alliance between our peoples is in the best interests of our peoples. I don’t think that ethnonationalism has to be politically or racially isolating. I think we can have pan-ethnonationalism, i.e. an international network of ethnonationalists working together towards common goals and ideals, and well-organised advocacy of such a network.

Speaking of converting Asians to the racialist cause, there will always be Asians who will not be receptive to our message, but for every Asian who will not be receptive to our message, there will always be another Asian who is receptive to our message. Only a minority is needed to bring about a revolution; only a minority of Asian nationalists opposed to Asian communists, Asian liberals, and Asian anti-whites is needed. They will be the teachers and leaders of our people; they will strive to bring the majority of our people to the right side of the political feud. Moreover, it is my sincere hope that an Asian billionaire will someday rise as the champion and sponsor of the pro-white cause. I do pray that this wish will be granted, for I do not want this idea to be merely a passing daydream.

Please follow and like us: