The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndre Vltchek Archive
Why Are Anti-Migrant Arguments in the E.U., U.S. Pure Hypocrisy?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Almost every day we read about the latest outbursts in Europe, targeting pro-immigration policies. There are protests, even riots. Right-wing governments get voted in, allegedly, because the Europeans “have had enough of relaxed immigration regulations”.

That is what we are told. That’s what we are supposed to understand, and even sympathize with. Anti-immigration sentiments are even pitched to the world as something synonymous with the desire of Europeans “to gain independence from Brussels and the elites”. The right-wing, often racist, spoiled and selfish proletariat is portrayed by many as a long-suffering, hard-working group of people, with progressive aspirations.

If seen from a distance, such arguments are outrageous and even insulting; at least to the billions of those who have already lost their lives, throughout history; victims of the European and North American expansionist genocides. And to those individuals who have, until this day, had their motherlands ruined, livelihoods destroyed, political will violated, and in the end, free and unconditional entry denied; entry into those very countries that keep violating all international laws, while spreading terror and devastation to virtually all corners of the world.

 

In this essay, let us be as concrete as possible. Let us be brief.

I declare from the start, that every African person, every Asian, every citizen of the Middle East and every Latin American (how perverse this very name “Latin” and “America” is, anyway) should be able to freely enter both Europe and North America. Furthermore, he or she should be then allowed to stay for as long as desired, enjoying the free benefits and all those goodies that are being relished by Westerners.

To back this statement, here are several (but not all) basic moral and logical arguments:

First of all, Europe and North America do not belong to their people. They belong to the people from all corners of the globe. In order to build the so-called West, close to one billion (cumulatively, according to my friends, the UN statisticians) had to die, throughout modern and the not so modern history. Virtually everything, from theatres, schools, hospitals, parks, railroads, factories and museums, have been built, literally, on the bones and blood of the conquered peoples. And nothing much has really changed, to these days. Europe and later North America invaded almost the entire planet; they looted, killed, enslaved and tortured. They robbed the world of everything, and gave back nothing, except religion and a servile and toxic bunch of ‘elites’, who are continuously plundering their countries, on behalf of the West. Therefore, Europe and North America were built on credit, and now this credit is due.

Secondly, the Western culture, without any competition, is the most violent civilization on earth. I repeat, without any competition. It cannot be defeated militarily, without further losses; losses which could be easily counted in billions of human lives. Therefore, the only possibility of how to reduce the scale of further global tragedies, is to ‘dilute’ the West and its fundamentalist culture of racial and cultural superiority. The fact that Westerners are now in minority in such cities like London or New York, has not fully stop the U.K. and U.S.A. from committing monstrous crimes, attacking and pillaging foreign countries. But were Europe and North America still homogeneous, there would hardly be any free, independent country left anywhere in the world. Migration to the West is helping, at least to some extent, to save the world. Migrants, from the first and oldest generations, demand that the voices of non-westerners, would be listened to, at least some extent.

Furthermore, and this is of a course well-known argument: the only reason why people from previously wealthy countries like Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Iran or Syria are forced to emigrate, is because their nations were either bombed back to the Stone Age, or destroyed through sadistic sanctions. Why? So, there would be change of the government, and instead of local citizens, the profits from natural resources would benefit Western corporations. Also, of course, in order to prevent the “Domino Effect”. The West hates the idea of the “Domino Effect”: read, the regional or global influence of Communist, socialist or progressive governments which would be determined to improve the lives of their people. West needs obedient, frightened slaves, not great heroes and bright thinkers! To stop the “Domino Effect”, millions had to die in the 1965 coup in Indonesia, in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, to name just a few unfortunate nations. If you come to a rich, socially-balanced nation, rob it of everything, overthrow its government, and reduce it to a ‘failed state’, in order for your own nation and people to prosper, would you be shocked if some of its people were to decide to try to follow the resources that you have stolen; meaning, moving to your own country?

The reason why people in the West do not follow this train of logic is simply because they are thoroughly ignorant; trying extremely hard, for decades and centuries, to remain blind. If they claim ignorance, they don’t have to act. They can just enjoy the loot, without paying the price. It is simple, isn’t it?

 

Are those right-wing voters in the U.K., in Hungary, in Greece, France and Italy, as well as in other EU countries, really so blind, or so morally corrupt, that they do not see the reality?

Do they expect to have a ‘free ride’ for another century or two?

Do they teach history in European schools? I wonder. And if they do, what kind of history? I was shocked to realize that even some of my Spanish friends who are working for the United Nations, have absolutely no clue about the barbarity their country had committed in Central and South America. Or Portugal, in what is now Brazil or Cape Verde.

ORDER IT NOW

Now, the Italians with their Northern League (oh yes, “anti-establishment”, they love to say) firmly in government, are criminalizing people who are helping the ‘boat people’ sailing from Libya and other devastated African countries (mainly ruined by France and other EU nations) to reach Italian shores. Good ‘working people’ would rather if the refugees sank in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, as hundreds and thousands already have. And this anti-immigration rhetoric is actually being glorified as ‘brave’ and ‘anti-establishment’. How beastly, how low, the European culture continues to be. It was always ultra-violent and aggressive, but now it is also shallow, illogical and fanatic. It is not racist, anymore. It is far beyond that. It is turbo-racist, monstrously selfish. I often describe it as ‘fundamentalist’, not unlike what one encounters in the so-called ‘logic’ of movements such as ISIS and al Nusra.

In the U.S.A., the situation is not much better. Wall on the Mexican border? Study your history! The United States robbed half of Mexico, through expansionist wars. Most of migrants who are crossing the border illegally, are actually not Mexicans (Mexico is, with all its social problems, an OECD country), but from impoverished Central American nations. And why are these nations impoverished? Every time they democratically elect their progressive governments which would be ready to work on behalf of the people, the U.S. immediately applies its fascist dictatorial “Monroe Doctrine”, overthrows the government, injects right-wing death-squads, forces privatization, and strips the country of everything, like a locust. Don’t the people from Guatemala, Salvador, Honduras or Dominican Republic, have the full right to follow the loot, too, and settle near it, in the United States?

 

The Western doctrine is simple and at the same time, absolutely irrational. It is not defined, but if it were, it would read like this: “We can attack, rob, migrate wherever we choose to. Because we are white, Christian people with a superior culture and much better weapons than everyone else. No other reason, but this should suffice. Other people have to stay away, far away. Or else! If they disobey, they will be sunk by the Italians, beaten with rubber hoses on the open seas by the Greeks. Walls will be built, and people concentrated in repulsive camps, like what is being done if refugees try to cross from the south to North America.”

Oh, North America, where predominately first but also second and other generations of Europeans hunted down local native people like animals. Where the great majority of the First Nation died horrible deaths. Where the native people, in the U.S.A. and Canada, are often forced to live, to this day, in total destitution. North America, but also Australia – the same culture, same pattern, same ‘logic’.

And after murdering native people, what came next? Millions of Africans, in chains, brought as slaves by the Europeans, to build “the new world”. Men tortured and robbed of their dignity. Women tied in the fields and raped, day after day, by white plantation owners. Democracy. Freedom. Western-style.

Does such a ‘nation’, like the United States, have any moral right to decide who should cross its borders, and who to settle on its territory?

I don’t think so. Do you?

 

Things can be very different. Look at Russia during the Soviet Union. It never occupied the Central Asian republics. They joined voluntarily, and if you talk to people in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan, a great majority would happily join Russia, again; almost all feel nostalgic about the Soviet Union.

During the USSR, Moscow made sure that the standards of living in Tajikistan or Kirgizstan were almost the same as in Russia. Instead of plundering, Russia provided great subsidies and internationalist support.

And then, after the Soviet Union was destroyed by external forces, (the arms race with the West and by Western propaganda), the country broke into several independent states. And the flow of migrants began.

Russia never closed its borders. Travel from Central Asia (destabilized by Washington) to now rich Russia is easy. Millions of people from the former Soviet republics are happily working all over the Russian Federation. And there is no ‘moral obligation’ that the Russian state has towards them. All this is actually just common sense, respect for shared history and values, and normal human kindness.

 

Some will say, what the West did, it all happened long time ago. But no, it did not. It is still happening now, right now.

Of course, if you are frying your brains in some pub or club in London, or if you are sitting in a posh café in Paris, you would never think so. All you want is to be left alone, and to live your suave European life. A life built on the bones and blood of hundreds of millions of victims.

Huge and super-rich Europe cannot accommodate even one million of people flowing from the ruined Middle East? Seriously? Tiny Lebanon managed to survive an influx of 2 million refugees at the height of so-called “Syrian crises”. Crime rate did not skyrocket, country did not collapse. You know why? Because Lebanese people have heart and decency. While the West has nothing of that nature.

If your family became rich because it was robbing and murdering, would you want to return the booty? Would you open the doors to those whom your parents and brothers tortured and pillaged? Some would. After opening their eyes, they would. But not the West. It only takes. It never gives. It hates those who give. It smears, even attacks all decent nations.

The horrors are still happening right now, in devastated Afghanistan, a country reduced to ashes, after being designated as a training base for the fundamentalists ready to infiltrate and damage China, Russia, former Soviet Central Asia republics, Iran and Pakistan. I work there, I know. Or Syria. I work there too. Or Venezuela, one of my favorite countries on earth. And the list goes on and on.

I cannot anymore read those self-righteous, hypocritical outbursts, coming from the British, French, Italian, North American and Greek voters who only want benefits, while choosing to remain blind to the global genocides their regime is committing all over the world.

These people could not care less about who pays for their welfare, or how many millions die supplying them with their privileges.

They want more. They always complain “how poor and exploited they are”. They do not want to stop neo-colonialism. They only desire more money and better living conditions for themselves. “We are all humans”, they say. “We are all victims”. And then they vote in the extreme right-wing, and demand that the “refugees” be kept out.

They have blood on their hands. And most of them are not victims, but victimizers. They are not internationalists. Just mini-imperialists, selfish products of their culture of colonialism.

The West has to open the doors to the world which has been devastated during the long centuries.

Some people ‘outside’ have been literally turned into beggars, so the West could thrive.

‘Political correctness’ in London or New York lies, saying how wonderful the world outside is. No! It is not. Much of it is poor, gangrenous, horrid! Disgusting. Because it was made like that. Because it was beaten, violated, and robbed for centuries.

These people, the true victims, are demanding only two things: to be left alone and to be allowed to build their own nations, without Western military interventions, without self-serving NGO’s and Western-controlled U.N. agencies. That’s one.

Two, to go when they want to go, where their stolen riches are!

Either they will be let in, compensated and asked for forgiveness, or they will do what is their right: break the gates!

 

[First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook]

ORDER IT NOW

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
Hide 128 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. imbroglio says:

    Nice piece of satire.

    But you left someone out. The Jews have been as decimated as any modern people on earth, imperialized from their homeland and treated like dirt in Europe and the Middle East. Zionism was born on the entertainment pages of the Deutscher Beobachter in late 19th century Vienna by a foppish feuilletoniste. If the world has a legitimate claim to Europe and North America, dem Yids have the best claim of all when it comes to Palestine.

  2. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:

    I kind of agree with your sentiment. I am a committed anti-imperialist. But opening the borders of Europe and the U.S is precisely the wrong thing to do.

    [MORE]

    First of all, immigrants/refugees who come to the Empire, just end up abused and exploited as cheap/slave labor and as a political pawn to keep the populations distracted in virtue signalling politics instead of engaging in Empire-ending politics.

    Second of all, anti-imperialism is about strengthening the Third World and that can only be done by ending the brain and labor drain from the Third World and ending dependence on the Empire, Third World nations that rely on remittances from citizens in the Empire, lose independence and sovereignty.

    Third of all, the logic of ancestral crimes is a difficult to sell to people and it is seems rather ass-hole-ish to demand the plundered booty of your ancestors. The Third World should be more nobler and disengage and forgive the crimes of the past alongwith abandoning/disconnecting from the Empire system. By sending in immigrants you are entangling the fate of the third world with the Empire.

    Finally, the way forward for the Third World is to try to completely disengage from the Empire and build strong nations that can repel the Empires incursions, If repentant members of the Empire want to provide aid and help the Third World, than that is great, but if they don’t, that too is good, the Third world doesn’t need the Empire’s virtue signalling and oftentimes destructive aid.

    The Empire is in collapse and truly the only challenge for the Third world is to create strong countries that can stand by themselves whether the Empire exists or not (I see this happening with China’s international economic initiatives creating an infrastructure for a world without the Empire). The challenge is to outlast the Empire, not to try to take it over or claim it as your own. The Empire is a toxic mess and best to stay away from it, and let it collapse all by itself.

    The Empire is an evil aggressive street dog that has bitten many children playing in the streets, but the dog is old now and near death. It is better for the children to leave the old dangerous dog alone to die in its dirty alley home and plan for a future when the dog dead, than it is to tell the children that their future is in that dirty flea-infested alleyway the rabid dog calls home, and try to force themselves there while the rabid dog is still there.

    • Replies: @Andre Vltchek
  3. If you think the invading immigrants will somehow put things right and bring about a revolution in the west to remove the ruling elites responsible for the state of the world you are deluded. All those Third World countries had their National Front for the Liberation of this, that and the other led liberation struggles and they won so what more do they want now? No matter how much of the resources were stolen during colonial times a lot more were left behind for these National Fronts to make use of for the benefit of their citizens. And shouldn’t all those muslims be heading first to Israel? After all it is a lot closer and the cause of most of their present troubles. I thought you would have learned something from all your travels. Dogmatic propaganda you can learn just from reading books and no need to travel anywhere from the comfort of your Marxist-Leninist library.

    • Agree: freedom-cat
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  4. It is really a shame leftists won’t ever listen to or consider the point of view of the right wing. So much of the current political morass could be resolved if only they would. Our views are really not that divergent, yet the left insists on assigning views to us we do not hold.

    But since the left won’t listen, the issue of migration simply comes down to this: we peoples of European descent, we indigenous Europeans, are simply not going to allow you to drive us to extinction.

    No matter how inflamed your sense of ressentiment & jealousy, no matter how ahistorical and factually incorrect your excuses, there will never come a moment when we are convinced to commit suicide for the benefit of foreign tribes who hate us and want us dead.

    Tell yourself whatever you want to justify your attempts to drive us to extinction, and block up your ears to our counterarguments. All that matters in the end is that you will fail.

  5. @Anonymous

    I don’t believe it is up to Europe or the U.S., whether to open the borders or not.

  6. During the USSR, Moscow made sure that the standards of living in Tajikistan or Kirgizstan were almost the same as in Russia.

    Loyal members of the “Party” had first-in-line access to commodities such as bread. Everyone else was welcome to the products on empty bakery shelves. The wait time for an average peasant farmer to buy a vehicle such as a Lada was 5 to 10 years.

    Soviets used weaponized migration on the Baltics, and other regions. While Lithuanians and Estonians, for example, were being railroaded off to Siberia, native speaking Russians and loyal Communists moved into cities like Tallinn, Kaunas and Vilnius to ensure servitude to Moscow by the local populations.

    The massive levels of abortion in the USSR also point to the promotion of sexual promiscuity. Sexual liberation as well as alcoholism brought on by the easy access to state-produced Vodka were planned mechanisms used for political control and pacification.

    Lastly, the Soviet Union, had the “Iron Curtain,” completely accessorized with machine-gun towers. What are the odds of free-flowing migration with automatic rifles being used to secure border walls?

    Unz, after thorough research, changed his mind on important topics as he bravely reveals in his “Pravda” series. Vltchek, on the other hand, is set in “leftist” ideals and will never yield in his praise for the USSR. Fundamentally, there is no difference in the Communist East and the Capitalist West. They are identical in that both government and big industry work in unison as a single unit. They are both examples of tyranny.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @GeeBee
  7. @Andre Vltchek

    Don’t care much for democracy, do you? Then Israel must open its borders immediately!

    • Replies: @A123
    , @Paw
  8. @Old Mrs Ramblewood

    I hope you are right but there are many who think all is lost already, like Harbinger on the thread below “The Arabian Cradle of Zion Moses, Muhammad, and Wahhabo-Zionism”. Considering Europeans stand by and watch, nay they even support, Israelis shooting people trying to get back into their own country to get back their own possessions and herd them into the open air concentration camp of Gaza, I am surprised they are reluctant to employ similar methods to protect what is theirs from genuine foreign invaders. If they ever wake up and do what every normal human being does, protect their own, it will be ugly, and the longer its left undone the uglier it will be.

  9. Glancing through this, I don’t think I encountered one completely true statement.

    It’s possible I overlooked one, of course. I only scanned the piece.

  10. Cyrano says:

    Andre, I hope you realize that opening the borders of Europe and America is asking ordinary people to pay for the crimes of their elites.

    There might be some justice in that too, because the general population was careless enough to allow their intelligence to deteriorate to such a degree so it accepts all the garbage that the elites feed them.

    This is due to ceaseless propaganda bombardment of the inhabitants of the west.

    The 3rd worldization of the west was initiated by the western elites because they are moronic enough to believe that they are getting “socialism on the cheap” – so the demand for the real deal decreases.

    Further down the road it will ruin the entire western civilization, but hey, live for today, tomorrow is too far away. Fake socialism will prove to be more costly then the real one was – despite deserving some extra points for “creativity”.

  11. A123 says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    What would be even better is if IRAN head to open its borders immediately. That way Israel could use those immigrants to create an equivalent to al’Hezbollah near Tehran and arm it with 100,000 crude rockets that can be launched if Nassrallah misbehaves.

    PEACE

  12. So, are you calling for the GENOCIDE of White Europeans? I think so, unless this is an Onion job.

    If it’s true that Whites have plundered the world and committed such atrocities against Africans, etc, then WHY ARE THEIR POPULATIONS EXPLODING and whites populations dwindling.

    If whites really had wanted to kill everyone, why didn’t they?

    Why did the USA Government in 1801, shortly after the vaccine for Smallpox was discovered, start a nation-wide program to inoculate the Native Americans?

    The White European masses are not quite the privileged species you think. Europeans were invaded by many races over the thousands of years of their existence; even Mongols invaded Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Kievan_Rus%27

    Read also how the “Privilege” of Whites is actually reserved for the elite few:

    https://quillette.com/2018/08/29/unpacking-peggy-mcintoshs-knapsack/

  13. @Andre Vltchek

    It’s been 100% the Elites in Europe who have decided. It is not up to the “immigrants” at all OR the average citizens, who have been effectively silenced by totalitarian laws against free speech.

    The Elites of European Nations have for centuries, linked with Jewish elites, to benefit each other, but always at the expense of the average Joe/Jane.

    The Elite’s wars in the 20th century, were all joint efforts by the powerful Anglo and Jewish elites and who died in that century? Well over 100 Million White Europeans lost their lives, maybe more than that.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @EVROPEAN
  14. Cyrano says:
    @freedom-cat

    Patriotism is love for one’s country. But this love does not go directly to the source. Usually, the elites act as intermediaries between the country and the individual.

    The elites basically intercept the love for the country of the ordinary patriots and redirect it towards themselves. So, basically, when the ordinary Joe enlists in the army – his love for the country becomes love for the elites.

    In a patriotic war – it’s OK, the interests are all aligned between country, elites and ordinary citizen – soldier. Patriotic war can only be a defensive war, not war of aggression. US haven’t fought a patriotic war since WW2.

    All the patriots who served and died since WW2 in the American wars did so not in the name of love for their country, but in the name of love for their elites. Of course, they were not aware of that.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Platocrat
  15. EVROPEAN says:

    ENOUGHT
    Every country is born in genocide every one of them

    African bantus( blacks) exterminated all native subsaharian african pigmeans and bantus the only remainers are still slaves of bantu black masters
    The only reason khoisans in africa are still alive is thanks that european colonized the area before bantus enetered in it like it happened all scross ssh africa.
    The genetic distance between a black Nd a khoisan is the same that exist between a french and a han chinese

    2- arab raped to extinction native north african amazigh, they are 35% natives now speaking the language of their conquerors , in spain 15% of the male linage is arab/ bereber being under their boot for 700 years and treated like 3 tier citizens

    3 – turks replaced native greeks from anatolia and is still theirs.

    4- east asians killed native australasians all over their land while south east asians are a mix of mongoloid conqueror and australasian native

    5 – native indian australasians are reduced to lowest castes and treated worse than slaves

    6- all europeans were replaced from the rusdian steppe in the 4 century masacring them to oblivion
    7- the native inhabitants of xinjian in china were europeans till they were raped by turks and now interned in concentration camps by han supremacist

    If usa doent belong to europeans or europe itself then nobody have any right over their land

    Also europeans has done much more for this world than have taken from it from every one we slaved we free 10x times more ( mauritania is cutious case of how slavery was reintroduced once french abandoned the country) from every one we killed we gave birth to 10x times more with the spread of technology and medicine
    Dont blame us for their own incapacity of forming their own countries , who save us when we the turks were raiding our coast and slaving our people? Who give us refuge when hslf of the europesn population was dying from the black death? NOBODY and even in those circustances we were able to built a glorious civilazation that have brought more peace than any time in history .

    ENOUGHT with the self flagelation we are angels compated of what the rest have done to us or pretended to do

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Tom Verso
  16. EVROPEAN says:
    @freedom-cat

    Also china and india have more than enought capacity and population to built a truly multilateral world in the next 50 years .
    We are living in the more pecefull time in history and will continue to be if the right of europeans over our land is respected.
    Lets built a prosperous glovalist future respecting of course the right of self determination

  17. EVROPEAN says:

    If we keep folowing this path a never ending interal war will happen where every western country became a race caste system like india but to a global scale .
    You really want that?
    Its evident that your solution will be much worse for everyone in the long run .

    I can imagine blacks at the botton( untochable) , latinos low class , middle easteners south east asians low middle class , europeans middle, class east easians upper middle class and jews at the top .

    https://ibb.co/nwdhcs6

    You only need to look at india to know thst is really bad idea not only for us but for the newcomers too .

    • Agree: freedom-cat
  18. @Old Mrs Ramblewood

    ‘…All that matters in the end is that you will fail.’

    What does matter is when they fail. It will be both less messy and less painful all around if they fail sooner rather than later. Ideally, they could have failed about thirty years ago.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  19. Mighty confusion about tactics and strategy as different from ethical and moral philosophy. Take it as one more joke of consciousness on talent.

    The travesty is in the words (confusion), and sentences (scaling of that same confusion), to a linear story that points in one single direction. As the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

    The people of the West, profited, but none of it with more then a mere shortsighted sense of the near environment, the price of food or the access to housing. The a little sex, and when sex makes you too old, cooking and eating, watching the grand children and the lawn grow, and pushing them into ditto happiness all. The masses do not think, thinking is beyond their capacity, their level of energy, critical thinking as opposed to submissiveness (herds, following and respect for the dogs running circles around them) is bred out of them. That goes for the West, …and the rest. That goes for Western European descendants and any other superficial divide as religion, borders, law skeletons, financial juggling.

    Where there might have been a difference made, is the European, American, generational middle classes (themselves an untenable proposition) steering away from the elites’ appropriation. As psychology goes …they expectedly failed. Especially the bright Ashkenazim middle class of bread writers and bloggers. Tenants of the existential squeeze.

    Elite thinking is merely opportunistic thinking in the short term …anywhere, all micro bulbs over the globe. If ever the enlightenment idea was corrupted in terminis, they championed the feat. They also have no alternative, as Jewish internationalism goes, rapaciousness in cannibalism is tenacious at the top.

    Would it matter how to herd, yes, incrementally, temporally. Would it be the expected task of meat-bag humans, no. No as never seen, no as in never to materialize, no as in genetically defect. No as psychologically inconceivable.

    Any system, a patchwork of nations (itself quite Western in it’s presumable concept and not that old, it was simply a transposition of moving hard boundaries), a globalism of rape, as the other psychological mindset competing …it would at the least matter to the crowds either, rats or humans. No achievement beyond incremental can still be made. Why?

    Humanity (as in universal man), is redundant, and that makes the individual a liability. To nature, the environment, resources, any ambition of progress into the philosophical and science, of a conceptual future is suffocated by the plaid of mere numbers.

    The global elites, with the sense of the breeder, not knowing but intuiting that what is seen in the phenotypical must contain the genetical thread, ignoring that what is not expressed and devining there could be anything obscured, should give them the incentive to make a decided u-turn. Well they will not.

    As for all historical models of yet, they are irrelevant in the present. Proven wrong. Including national socialism. Including failed states. Especially military romanticism, war. A reduction of humanity indiscriminately to say ten procent of today would magically disappear most solutions and jesting as the above article, since there would be no problems to cater to.

    The author is wrong, and he knows it, he simply is doing his dance, running a joyous circle, and humbly making a living, corroborating the paragraphs above.

    • Replies: @Andre Vltchek
  20. @PetrOldSack

    Interesting. All I read here is confusion and desperate attempts to smear.

    You cannot dispute one single fact which I provide. Not even one..

    More you see that your society is constructed on loot and lies and mass murder, angrier you get.

    You are angry, hateful, because you are not used to this sort of writing. All you do is “talk among yourselves”. You talk about what is not disturbing on scary to you.

    I imagine, that is how Germans were reacting, when told what they were doing, during the WWII.

  21. EVROPEAN says:

    It seem that you are more obsesed with our destruction than offering a constructive alternatives to the ones you say you championize and building an armonic world for everyone .

  22. Axel says:

    Obviously this article is satire….

    Nobody could be that stupid..

  23. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Did your grandma tell you that your farts smelt sweet and you were a clever boy to be able to fart on demand like a Katyusha rocket launcher? Instead of obsessing about the barbarian conduct of the likes of Cortes and Pissaro get your mind round what Japan, China Taiwan, Singapore and Korea have achieved by free use of what Europe gave the world for hundreds of years and Europe and North America most recently. Or maybe #1 It is right; it is satire, just not good satire.

  24. More you see that your society is constructed on loot and lies and mass murder, angrier you get.

    You are angry, hateful, because you are not used to this sort of writing. All you do is “talk among yourselves”. You talk about what is not disturbing on scary to you.

    I imagine, that is how Germans were reacting, when told what they were doing, during the WWII.

    Dear Andre,

    Please read me, then read me again. Of course your suggestions are right, they are also wrong. That is a possibility that you, as being the philosopher can wrap your mind around.

    Your suggestions are also irrelevant, as hinted at briefly and implicitly, thus broadly by consequence. To knit-pick: sixteen million? during WWI of North Western Europeans, and what, give or take a Holy Caust, sixty million in WWII of casualties among across the board, regardless, Germans, Jews, French, sorry Belgians, Russians and on, do you think they were somehow cognizant of their status as then “canon fodder”, before or after the skirmishes?

    The masses are beyond redemption, they do not understand, regardless of your proselytizing or not. See the chains of comments at all lead articles on our favorite zine, see most papers produced by science. Most commoners, as true today, seem to believe they are American or any other flavor of nationality, that presidents rule nations, that there is a difference in approach to the hart and minds, other then cheap consumerism.

    We know, that makes a message of content as yours rather irrelevant, it is up to you to live with that. Maybe by lack of better venues, keep propping the weekly sermon. Mind, as you understood. To have any impact the message should be simple. Including here at unz. Yours is. We cede you the argument, after all, some of your colleges will answer determinedly and add and subtract to your cherished facts, …proffering some other flat bend of logic.

    As said before, educating the masses is a moron’s game. If you want to have an impact on the real, go get into elite circles, and leave the herding by content to the lesser gifted.

    Can you think of an idea that came out of the timely pipeline of history that was not short-lived by some reverse to the natal psychology of mass humanity? Content and logic, a conceptual destiny of mankind set inside a conceptual environment is beyond the pale. The real thinking done by Peter and Jill, the next corner rebbi is more like grazing, digest, and grazing some more. That is for one why elites anywhere, are into psychology, the next day, improvising by the day.

    Especially the Jewish elites, are championing this, after all they only had to plug the socket into their one million eight hundred thousand? words Talmud. That is over twenty times the wordcount of the Koran or the Bible, with software coding as that, the robots (human consumers) can be made to turn on the dime.

    Great article, better then the average stew of Shamir or Saker. The duck the real issue, of Giraldi and Unz, now is understood to be false in your case. You are level with what si produced here on the zine, if God gives you good health, we will see you at orders for quite some while. The world won’t wait.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  25. @PetrOldSack

    As one of our acquaintances said: “One can use the masses, or abuse them, …using them has never been tried yet.´´ To keep you going. After all, you are the one pressured into producing a steady stream of words.

  26. A question that often arises when someone is so fiercely favouring the destruction of European-heritage societies, is whether the advocate here, the longtime partner of ‘Zionist lite’ Noam Chomsky, is also in part Jewish in his heritage

    Does André Vltchek have some Jewish ancestry? On the web, Vltchek is described as having a “Czech nuclear physicist father” and a “Russo-Chinese painter” mother, and now naturalised as a USA citizen. Vltchek has written, boasting of his “incredible” genetic ethnic heritage:

    “Where are you from?” I was asked on many occasions.

    “Russia,” I’d reply. It was a gross simplification. I was born in Leningrad, now St Petersburg, but an incredible mixture of Chinese, Russian, Czech and Austrian blood circles through my veins. Still, the name “Russia” came naturally to me, in the middle of Afghan deserts and deep gorges, especially in those places where I knew that my life was hanging on a thin thread. If I were to be allowed to utter one last word in this life, “Russia” was what I wanted it to be.

    Vltchek has also written:

    Cuba has had a tremendous impact on me personally, and on my work as well. I proudly call myself a ‘Cuban-style internationalist’. I am endlessly grateful to Fidel, to the Cuban revolution and to Cuban people. In many ways, it is perhaps the greatest country in the world. A country I would never hesitate to fight for, or even to die for.

    Whatever the horrid, even genocidal, crimes of the European-heritage cultures … Is it not, nonetheless, a violation of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, to promote the destruction of these cultures as ‘just deserts’?

    • Replies: @Marcus
  27. Biff says:

    Hilarious, yea, the migrants can have the dump.

    If there is any place that deserves the worst Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras has to offer, it would be the U.S.
    Invade away you swarthy little pricks!

  28. Mr Vltcheck maybe morally right, to some degree. His thesis: our crimes against the 3rd world are a debit, therefore they are owed a credit (of roughly equal value). That credit appears to be basically a no borders policy.
    It’s a pity that we are only vaguely a moral species (we have morality, but it waxes & wanes with distance & circumstance).
    Ultimately, Mr Vltcheck’s moral arithmetic is probably self contradictory. Like the life raft, drifting, it can hold 20, then two more come along, then another two, then another two… & before you know it the life raft borders on a death raft….
    Of course, he would say that western countries are NO WHERE near that. No not yet. But we’re getting there…. Non existent climate change, pollution & poisoned oceans are at our backs, like time’s winged chariot.
    7–8 billion people — open borders won’t fix this problem. The liquidation of neoliberalism capitalism is only a necessary & sufficient FIRST step… which may be already too late…. I’m yet to be entirely convinced that we don’t “deserve” our apocalyptic fate….

  29. TG says:

    The third world is a miserable hell for one reason: because people consistently try to have more children than they can reasonably support. Opening up the entire world to their migration, regardless of past wrongs, will simply turn the entire world into an impoverished, polluted, Bangladesh or Pakistan.

    The most destructive force in all of human history is not “Western Imperialism,” bad as that might or might not be. No, it is the lies of the rich that Malthus was wrong. Malthus was not wrong. If, without an open frontier, people try to double their population every 25 years or so, before long they will fail, and as they fail, the average person will of necessity be crushed into miserable subsistence poverty. This is true, and has happened throughout history, and is happening today. That’s why the iron law of development is that first people reduce their attempted fertility rate, then (if everything else goes halfway right) they can slowly build up per-capita wealth.

    But it’s funny, the same Western ‘imperialists’ that this author rails against, also want open borders. Because now that they have conquered the world, they seen no reason for their own countries to remain prosperous, and they are pushing like crazy to turn the entire world into an overpopulated third-world hell like India or Mexico, because all that cheap labor maximizes their profits, and all that desperation maximizes their social power, and they know that they can live in splendor in their massive walled enclaves.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  30. 7–8 billion people — open borders won’t fix this problem. The liquidation of neoliberalism capitalism is only a necessary & sufficient FIRST step… which may be already too late…. I’m yet to be entirely convinced that we don’t “deserve” our apocalyptic fate….

    Cher Andre really morphed the world into a message in a bottle. Reductionism as usual. You of course are well spoken, in your unexpected overview.

    Dare we, still you are side-stepping the equation of the real at yet another dimension, not the one of humanity living in a myopic bulb ignoring the environment that permits his proper breathing, but the single most real equation within the human ignorance bulb:

    Elites versus population, an unsolvable one: since both variables are so close cognitively to not be making a difference as to foresight.

    Keeping the masses of the population in check is a done deal, how this is done and pewters out is a minor, now that should be allowing to focus on some sloppy conceptual thinking beyond who is to blame, as for the wined and dined elites of power by unforced error (this is used in the sport of tennis as standing for no-one else but oneself to blame), in their case not really talent but a generational pot shot.

    Again, solutions as to immigration, population numbers, population density, toxicity of the environment, the romance with war, compartimenting territories as if the world was flat, and not a globe, at all, secure hovering in a universe. The macro and the micro, beyond paper writing in science for the word count of it. It is not done.

    The world elites will have to reach beyond the Jew International “crowing on a pile of dung´´, that is where enlightenment starts, close but not exactly as Andre sees it. By the way, any Turk seems to be as Jew minded as the next one in elite circles. The discrepancy within their circles, between cognitive armor and brute forcing is evidenced anywhere.

  31. I am actually collecting all above comments.

    It will be useful to my writing, and for the world to understand how beastly racist Westerners became, just before their empire collapsed.

    It is good warning: after your Reich falls (soon), do not search for asylum, with this genocide-denial attitude, with fanaticism and brutal vulgarity. Rot in your own nihilist latrine.

  32. As Steve Sailor has said ‘science has shown us race is not real’.

    If we are all “Out of Africa”, then how can Europeans, who do not exist as a race, be blamed for returning to Africa, or going to places other “Africans” went? Conquest happened inside Africa, which apparently is OK , whereas European “Africans” invading Asian “Africans” is not.

    There are a series of videos made in New Zealand asking questions about the red-headed and blond people who were in New Zealand before the Maori, who are genetically related to “Africans” native to Alaska, conquest a thousand years ago. Here is the latest.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqci_tXGn94

  33. Why is this guy publishing here?

    Maybe Mr. Unz is keeping him around as a court jester, good debate practice or a reminder of leftist insanity.

    This same edgy Blame America/The West First rhetoric can be heard at any of a hundred USA Karlmarx Universities, on fake news or in hollywarped products.

    There’s always that one family member on Thanksgiving happy to remind everyone else over turkey how the poor Native Americans were genocided.

    Is that this?

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  34. The author should be shot.

  35. Cyrano says:
    @Andre Vltchek

    What is this – virtue signaling or virtual signaling? Everybody is racist man. The worst kind of racism is to be racist towards your own people – like the degenerate elites of the west are. And few lost souls like you – who think that being racist towards the white people puts you in the highest echelons of humanity.

    Mahatma Gandhi lived in South Africa for better part of his life, yet a picture of him and black person could never be found – not because the photo opportunity for him and other people of sunny disposition towards life (but of African origin) didn’t present itself – but because Mahatma simply wasn’t a big fan of Africans. And yet, he is one of the most celebrated peaceniks in history.

    It’s OK to be racist in your own country, it’s not OK to be in someone else’s. You are mixing history with present. It’s wrong what Europeans did during colonialism. Preserving the racial composition and harmony in the present day West is simply being protective of their countries.

    To totally miss-paraphrase that titan of intellectualism – G.W.Bush – we are racist here – so we don’t have to be racist over there – unfortunately US and it’s minions still do it a** backwards by bombing 3rd world countries and pretending to be great humanists by inviting the leftovers from those bombings to the west.

  36. @Sick of Orcs

    Why is this guy publishing here? … Is that this?

    A cross-breed between Slavoj Zizec and a pothole. A generous gene pool.

    Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon

    Got there on merit, again to get Patreonated, the idea expressed must be simple and soft of texture and taste. No face is almost a signature of Jewish involvement into his stellar pedigree. A winner.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  37. Look at Russia during the Soviet Union. It never occupied the Central Asian republics.

    What about Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? Why are they not mentioned at all, you sanctimonious twat?

    • Replies: @Platocrat
  38. @PetrOldSack

    HAI.

    I’m less offended by his words than that there is no one comparable allowed on leftist shitlib websites.

  39. @Cyrano

    All the patriots who served and died since WW2 in the American wars did so not in the name of love for their country, but in the name of love for their elites.

    I don’t see any valid reason for this qualification. Are you suggesting the Lindberghs were wrong?

  40. @Andre Vltchek

    It will be useful to my writing, and for the world to understand how beastly racist Westerners became, just before their empire collapsed.

    This is like how much more racist today’s Southerners who vote for Donald Trump are than their great-grandfathers, who voted for FDR four times.

    You really expect us to believe that “racism” is worse today than ever?

  41. Malla says:

    If European Empires were that bad tell them to explain this

    For example, Gordon Pasha of Sudan

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gordon

    Moreover, considerable progress was made in the suppression of the slave trade.[104] Gordon wrote in a letter to his sister about the Africans living a “life of fear and misery”, but in spite of the “utter misery” of Equatoria that “I like this work”.[105] Gordon often personally intercepted slave convoys to arrest the slavers and break the chains of the slaves, but he found that the corrupt Egyptian bureaucrats usually sold the freed Africans back into slavery, and the expense of caring for thousands of freed slaves who were a long away from home burdensome.[106]

    During this period Gordon grew close to the Anti-Slavery Society, an evangelical Christian group based in London dedicated to ending slavery all over the world, and who regularly celebrated Gordon’s efforts to end slavery in the Sudan.[84] Urban wrote that: “Newspaper readers in Bolton or Beaminister had become enraged by stories about chained black children, cruelly abducted, being sold into slave markets…”, and Gordon’s anti-slavery efforts contributed to his image as a saintly man.[84]

    Gordon had come into conflict with the Egyptian governor of Khartoum and Sudan over his efforts to ban slavery.

    …snip….

    Governor-General of the Sudan
    As governor, Gordon faced a variety of challenges. Besides working to end slavery, Gordon carried out a series of reforms such as abolishing torture and public floggings where those opposed to the Egyptian state were flogged with a whip known as the kourbash made of buffalo hide

    Slavery was the basis of the Sudanese economy, and Gordon’s attempts to end the slave trade meant taking on very powerful vested interests, most notably Rahama Zobeir, known as the “King of the Slavers” as he was the richest and most powerful of all the slave traders in the entire Sudan. An insurrection had broken out in Darfur province led by associates of Zobeir and Gordon went to deal with it.. The insurgents were numerous, and he saw that diplomacy had a better chance of success. On 2 September 1877, Gordon clad in the full gold-braided ceremonial blue uniform of the Governor-General of the Sudan and wearing the tarboush (the type of fez reserved for a pasha), accompanied by an interpreter and a few bashi-bazouks, rode unannounced into the enemy camp to discuss the situation.[115]

  42. Let’s just throw this article on dustbin of this site .

  43. Sorry, this guy lost me really early on. TW;DR.

  44. @Andre Vltchek

    I like your spirit. But, jeez, are you naive. It is only the common, everyday people of “the West,” whatever that is, who oppose immigration–and not even many of them.

    It is the rich of the West who, no matter what lip service they give, support full open immigration wholeheartedly. Because it keeps wages low and totally forbids unionization or any other type of organized popular movements. They actually give them money to immigrate. The rich of the west want immigrants, and plenty of them. I didn’t know you were on the side of the rich.

    Marx was against immigration. Because it lowers wages and prevents unionization. You should be too. If you thought about it for a second.

    Blaming struggling people for what the rich rulers of their great-grandparents did is a kind of long stretch. And yet it is done all the time. In the mainstream mass media. Did it ever occur to you that you–the radical contrarian communist–are toeing the mainstream mass media line, guilting westerners out about opposing immigration for perfectly obvious, practical, and not in the least xenophobic or racist reasons? Read Time magazine sometime. It is immigrants all day every day there.

    Congratulations on doing our owners’ bidding with such panache!

  45. Paw says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Vlcek /from Czech country/,, why not to be the First . Why not to be an example , instead of the tsunami ideological propaganda verbalism..Take a dozen of them, to your family home !
    By their deeds we will know them !! After while come again…If you and your family and kids are still alive …
    Not so a philosopher, as the freak.

  46. @obwandiyag

    Correct! Andre is the enemy of the working class no matter how he tries to present himself.

  47. @obwandiyag

    It is the rich of the West who, no matter what lip service they give, support full open immigration wholeheartedly. Because it keeps wages low and totally forbids unionization or any other type of organized popular movements. They actually give them money to immigrate. The rich of the west want immigrants, and plenty of them. I didn’t know you were on the side of the rich.

    Cheap labour is a minor issue, political control of the native population is. The “at the bottom anybody is equal´´ push. And the bottom is to be defined by the newcomers, used to hardship and having the qualities to live on a dump, if there is no dump, to make it a dump. Their incredible naivety, be it incremental to the natives, the ethno-centricity, of theirs so they can be batch processed into political and administrative coercing.

    At the other end, the territories bombed are easily controlled, and the resources mined and exported without much resistance while the natives are so hard on with other issues: escaping to the West, on an individual and family basis, cocooning from the bottom up. The local “elite´´ fractions as such become cheap, since none are really in control, they need “coalition´´ support. A hard nut to crack as Assad, thus had no choice as to pick his delivery Putin´s Russia.

    The media in the West, their workers, a middle class phenomenon, collaborate in maintaining the narrative. Their larger parts are even too naive as to comprehend the phenomenon, the smarter ones are complicit. As long as immigration as a single independent issue can be peddled and discussed without the context of above paragraphs, as cher Andre does (how can he be so thick a philosopher not to understand the real issues), the thing is a win. The alternative media are in par, note a Jared Taylor, a Kevin Mcdonald, to keep it short, this is a comment, they all survive by pro-actively blur the underlying grander strategy.

    Neither Russia and China see this mindset as a problem, do comprehend the tactics, as long as their interests abroad are not compromised. How they, China and Russia handle the local mind control is slightly different, rather not understood by the West. Call it a different stage, Russia and China have no need to break up their societies to rule the meat-bags, alas commoner, alas deplorables (one should be surprised when “les gens de rien´´ pop up in conversations between “gens de vraie´´). The local situations (US, West, EU…) can thus be better exploited by administrative and political players. The US and European elites have no alternative as to break up their native populations, and especially their middle classes into trailer parks to have a remnant of control.

    The Yellow Vests of France, although they themselves do not understand this in an organized manner, come closest to driving a wedge between the spokes of what can be called a centuries plus Jewish International mindset and strategy to keep control by subduing the native elites into puppets as Roosevelt and Churchill characters. These days one step further, as the propping and scripting characters that seem to step out of fairy tales, as Ilhan Oh-mar, or The Sopranos star Trump (mind the list contains most if not all Washington public figures). Deadbeats as May or Boris Johnson, Christine Lagarde, grandma Merkel and on.

    The strategy only can work when the few trouble makers are duly neutralized, Patton…Assange…the listings are on scraps of paper. Some-one to glue the counting names in comprehension? Second line individuals are sacrificed on holidays, alas Epstein (how does a pimp compare to a billion manipulating banker).

    China then Russia have the first laugh, they yes do have a homogenized elite in better control, and see the desperate scramble of the West to catch up to regain control of their societies as reality television.

    The cause for the West´s fall out, first and foremost, individual greed, infighting, the mafia mindset of their elites, a copy-paste of the fifties in Chicago, Italian hitmen, and Jewish book-keepers owners, decision makers.

    At the least a hundred individuals and also bankers, Central Bank, Federal Reserve, Wall Street characters, in the case of the US, should be handled. In China that means death penalties after due process, with the distinction of no or opportunistic public exposure.

    Elites are a necessary thing, through history, deplorables are bred for submissiveness, and will always go for the next psychopath to do them in. Snake oil is a psychological medication. So somehow the elites act should be cleaned up without any hope of being organized or directed from the bottom up. Activists, as Antifa or any equivalent are jokers but for decoying the real fight. Hence the French Revolution. Meaning the decision should be advanced in inner circles, individual humans simply scale badly, so rotten cores short-circuit. When China and Russia, see that the time is ripe, they will gladly provide, and even in the cocooned West, the deplorables can be used in a conventional manner to the advantage of the lucky fraction of winners to make a better run. The times are mature, the issues are systemic, the end of a live-cycle shows.

    Globalism also must prevail, our planet became interconnected to the point of no return. Nations, concepts of nations are laughable from a practical viewpoint. They had a real historical sense and purpose. The question of globalism is on what basis, at the benefit of whom. For now there is some serious homework to be done in the West.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  48. For a minute there, until I double-checked the byline, I thought maybe ‘Tiny Duck’ had taken some typing lessons.

  49. “Tiny Lebanon managed to survive an influx of 2 million refugees at the height of so-called “Syrian crises”. Crime rate did not skyrocket, country did not collapse.”

    Well knowing the Lebanese very well, I beg to differ with what you have claimed. Lebanon was unable to stop the flow of Syrian refugees not because the Lebanese are such compassionate people but more because they have a totally dysfunctional government courtesy of their sectarian and multiculturalist society. The influx of Palestinian refugees in 1948 was the direct catalyst to the brutal and devastating civil war for which Lebanon is still paying a high price up to today. In fact the people who were mostly in favour of opening the border to the Palestinian refugees in 1948 and the recent Syrian refugees were the Sunnis out of religious solidarity and to get an numerical edge over other sects in Lebanon at the behest of the American government and its regional allies.

    Needless to say that the greatest danger to Lebanon, just like any other third world country that had to contend with Imperial occupation, is the rampant corruption that has taken hold of the country especially after the end of the civil war whose main protagonists are big business and ex militia leaders who joined in an unholy alliance. The same applies to most other countries who yell ‘ imperialism’.

    While I do agree with you about the evils of imperialism, when it comes to Western ‘ White’ imperialism one should set the record straight as to whose imperialism it actually is; the imperialism of the people or that of the elites and specifically the Zionist bankers. We cannot blame the people for enjoying the bread crumbs of the imperial loot or equally blame the British commoner about being proud about the British Empire. The people are always ignorant of the facts and misled by their rulers. And who are those people advocating unrestricted immigration to the West? Well they are the same elites who want to keep down the wages of their nationals. So we cannot blame populist parties for advocating a restriction on foreigners entering their country.

    Your claim of Western Imperial guilt about the recent influx of refugees from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Honduras and other countries that were devastated by wars and coup D’etat perpetrated by the combined aggression of the US, U K and France is very much true. Yet, this kind of imperialism is no different from the one the Southern American Federation suffered at the hands of Northern Unionist aggression. American Southerners were White and victims of imperialism. And populist parties have the duty to bring their governments to account for their evil deeds in all the afflicted countries which contributed to the refugee crisis. But to chastise the people for wanting to protect their culture from the influx of unassimilable refugees is a form of intellectual and cultural terrorism.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  50. Clearly all humans are the problem; in one dashing fit of selflessness, someone needs to trigger that Strangelovian Doomsday device that will free Earth of the carbon infestation that plagues it. Sorry, seemingly innocent flora and fauna, but we must ensure there is no hope of humans ever again evolving up from primordial goop.

  51. szopen says:

    (1) Mongols have murdered hundreds of thousands and devastated huge areas, effectively stopping the development of Rus.

    (2) Turks invaded Europe, murdering, raping and effectively stopping development of Balkans, whiel taking thousands of slaves

    (3) Every year, dcade by decade, century after century Tatars were pillaging Russia and Poland-Lithuania, capturing slaves and selling them in thousands in the markets of Middle East.

    (4) Neither Poland nor Hungary, nor Czech had any colonies. Rather it was Poland which was occupied and was treated as a colony; Czechs had their elites removed in XVII century.

    And yet, despite all of this, someone has audacity to claim that somehow we, Poles, Czechs, hungarians OWE something to the murderous bastards who were invading us and capturing us into slavery?

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Marcus
  52. Sean says:

    Hypocrisy is not practicing what you preach. If the West doesn’t think it owes the Third World then it might be bad, but it is not inconsistent.

  53. Tom Jones says:

    To the kind attention of Mr. Andre Vltchek,

    Dear Sir,

    For 2500 years we, whites, have produced the best minds on the planet, the greatest flourishing of the arts and sciences ever seen, the most complex and organized societies. We have White Supremacy, whatever exactly it may be, because we have been the earth’s most successful race. No other has come close. Deal with it.

    We put probes on Mars and invented the thousands of technologies needed to do it. We developed the symphony orchestra, the highest form of musical expression. We invented the airplane, the computer, the internet, and tennis shoes. Putting it compactly, we invented the modern world. A degree of privilege, however you may conceive it, goes with the territory.

    Still, permit me a brief and very incomplete list of things white people have done or invented:

    Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.

    (…)

    Now, I have often heard blacks demanding reparations for slavery. All right. I agree. It is only fair. I will pay a half-million dollars to each of my slaves, and free them immediately. I am not sure how many I have, but will try to give you an estimate in even dozens. Further, I believe that all blacks are entitled to a similar amount for every year in which they were slaves.

    However, I think you owe us royalties for the use of our civilization, which can be regarded as a sort of software. There should be a licensing fee. After all, every time you use a computer, or a door knob, you are using something invented by us. Every time you sharpen a pencil, or use one, or read or write, you infringe our copyright, so to speak. We have spent millennia coming up with things–literacy, soap, counting–and it is only fair that we receive recompense.

    The accounting burden would be excessive if we tried to distribute royalties in too fine a granularity, such as three cents per use of a boom box or a Glock, so we should probably use a bundled approach–so much per year for use of the wheel, refrigerator, and television. The amount could be deducted first from reparations payments and then automatically from EFT cards.
    Gothic

    Text above taken from the following weblink :

    http://www.unz.com/freed/are-white-men-gods-ii/

    Best regards from Switzerland.

    Tom Jones

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
    , @Cyrano
  54. @Tom Jones

    A gem, and exactly on the snare that is missing: cher Andre fails to see immigration, the issue, in anything of a minimal context. Dim dong dim or thrifting.

  55. Cyrano says:
    @Tom Jones

    Dear Tom,

    I think you are singing a wrong tune, bud. I kind of sense where Andre is coming from. I have been in his shoes (and unfortunately I still am). Eastern European immigrant coming to the west and expecting miracles from the so called “democracy”.

    It didn’t take long for me (and I suspect the same thing happened to Andre) to become totally disillusioned by the complete phonines of the west. But I am still not – and probably never will be – at the point where Andre is now. Which is rooting for the 3rd world.

    Not that I care about the west, I really don’t – and I know that it’s mutual – but I don’t care about that part either. Because I am not going to base my sense of self-worth on the fact whether the west likes me or not. For that, you’ll have to talk to the Polish and Ukrainians – they seem to be in desperate need of the west’s approval.

    The reason why I am not rooting for the 3rd world – despite not caring about the west one iota is simply self-preservation. Because if you let your stupid a**es in the west to be completely overrun by the 3rd worlders – our position (the one of the Eastern Europeans – the ones that I care about, which is not all of them) will become untenable.

    Somehow, as much as I don’t care for the west, I care even less for the 3rd world. I simply cannot see them as our allies. Whether the west can be saved – it’s a big question mark. This is how bad the things are: First came the great rebellion of 2008 – they elected the first black president. That rebellion didn’t accomplish diddly squat. Then came the great rebellion of 2016 – they elected a clown, someone who is not a politician, but not a very smart person either. Rebellion through voting – what can I say – long live democracy. The west has simply relied too long on instincts of their elites for their self-preservation. Good luck with that. Their priorities might be slightly different than those the general population.

  56. Richard S says:

    Is there a “Troll” button for the columnist himself? What utter drivel

  57. Morris L says:

    Ron Unz is to be congratulated for publishing this kind of content, but the standard needs to be a lot higher!

    Whilst I share the author’s passionate anti-imperialism, the claims the author makes are mostly laughable. To wit:

    The wealth of the west being built on the bones of the 3rd world: total nonsense. Plenty of western countries didn’t invade anyone and are still wealthy. Some are wealthier than those that did. Empires cost money, and if you’re foolish enough (a la Portugal) to import and assimilate significant numbers of low IQ 3rd world people, you’ll be sub-par forever after. Western wealth is built on intelligence and economic freedom.

    The conquests of the west being uniquely evil: Everybody’s tried to conquer everybody else. The worst you can say about whites is that they were just better at it! An unlike Mongols and Muslims the western invaders did not generally engage in mass butchery. The reason that there’s nobody around today bitching about Genghis Khan is because he exterminated their ancestors.

    Ordinary people being responsible for the actions of their rulers: Another reason that west is best is because we go after those actually responsible for a problem rather than punishing everyone. So by all means prosecute and (if found guilty) the war criminals of the west, but the idea that a Ron Paul, George Galloway or John Doe should get crushed too is ridiculous.

  58. @PetrOldSack

    Wrong. Low wages and preventing organization is the purpose.

    Or maybe you said that. Who can tell. Learn concision.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  59. anon19 says:

    Is this a joke? Actually it was Europe that was victimized first. Carthage attacked Rome. Persia attacked Greece. The Mongols conquered Russia. China gave Europe the black death. The Ottomans enslaved the Balkans for five centuries and forced European children to be Janissaries. The word slave actually comes from the Slav peoples. Not to mention the two million Europeans enslaved by the Barbary pirates and the 700 year conquest of the Iberian peninsula.

    • Agree: Malla
  60. Malla says:

    When we talk about European colonialism, Bruce Gilley, a Political Science PhD and Associate Professor at Portland State University has recently published a paper named ‘The case for colonialism ‘ in the THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY.

    BTW you can get the article here

    https://archive.org/details/Gilley

    Some snippets from the article by Bruce Gilley

    Perhaps the most egregious violation of epistemic virtues is internal coherence (or non-contradiction). Eminent scholars repeatedly make the logically contradictory claim that colonialism was both too disruptive and not disruptive enough, whether with regard to boundaries, governing institutions, economic systems or social structures, as evidenced in the short space of just two pages by Young. Africanists in particular applaud the work both of Herbst, who argued that colonialism did too little state-making, and Young, who earlier argued that it did too much. New territorial boundaries are criticised for forcing social integration while old ones are criticised for reinforcing tribalism, a contradiction noted by Lefebvre. Marxist scholars found colonialism at fault when it did not invest in public health and infrastructure (showing a callous disregard for labour) and when it did (in order to exploit it). Colonialism is credited with near-magical powers to sweep away everything good in its path (like tribal chiefs or ethnic identity) and with equally magical powers to make permanent everything bad in its path (like tribal chiefs or ethnic identity).

    Finally, there is the simple epistemic virtue of falsification. This is most pointed in the treatment of what was undoubtedly a benefit of colonialism: the abolition of slave-trading. Anti-colonial critics squirm and fidget over this issue because it puts the greatest strain on their ‘colonialism bad’ perspective. The result is a constant stream of revisionism: it did not happen fast enough; there were mixed motives; not all colonial officials supported it; former slaves remained poor and former slave owners remained rich; it should never have existed in the first place.

    Of course, not all research falls afoul of the basic prescriptions above. Research that is careful in conceptualising and measuring controls, that establishes a feasible counterfactual, that includes multiple dimensions of costs and benefits weighted in some justified way, and that adheres to basic epistemic virtues often finds that at least some if not many or most episodes of Western colonialism were a net benefit, as the literature review by Juan and Pierskalla shows. Such works have found evidence for significant social, economic and political gains under colonialism: expanded education, improved public health, the abolition of slavery, widened employment opportunities, improved administration, the creation of basic infrastructure, female rights, enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded communities, fair taxation, access to capital, the generation of historical and cultural knowledge, and national identify formation, to mention just a few dimensions.

    This leads to the second failure of anti-colonial critique. Given that objective costs and benefits varied with time and place, another approach is simply to defer to the judgements of those affected. The subjective legitimacy approach asks whether the people subject to colonialism treated it, through their beliefs and actions, as rightful. As Hechter showed, alien rule has often been legitimate in world history because it has provided better governance than the indigenous alternative.

    Anti-colonial critics simply assert that colonialism was, in Hopkins’s words, ‘a foreign imposition lacking popular legitimacy’. Yet until very late, European colonialism appears to have been highly legitimate and for good reasons. Millions of people moved closer to areas of more intensive colonial rule, sent their children to colonial schools and hospitals, went beyond the call of duty in positions in colonial governments, reported crimes to colonial police, migrated from non-colonised to colonised areas, fought for colonial armies and participated in colonial political processes – all relatively voluntary acts. Indeed, the rapid spread and persistence of Western colonialism with very little force relative to the populations and areas concerned is prima facie evidence of its acceptance by subject populations compared to the feasible alternatives. The ‘preservers’, ‘facilitators’and ‘collaborators’ of colonialism, as Abernethy shows, far outnumbered the’resisters’at least until very late:‘lmperial expansion was frequently the result not just of European push but also of indigenous pull’.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Commentator Mike
  61. Malla says:
    @Malla

    More from the article by Bruce Gilley

    Sir Alan Burns, the governor of the Gold Coast during World War II, noted that had the people of the Gold Coast (present nation of Ghana) wished to push us into the sea there was little to prevent them. But this was the time when the people came forward in their thousands, not with empty protestations of loyalty but with men to serve in the army … and with liberal gifts to war funds and war charities. This was curious conduct for people tired of British rule .

    In most colonial areas, subject peoples either faced grave security threats from rival groups or they saw the benefits of being governed by a modernised and liberal state. Patrice Lumumba, who became an anti-colonial agitator only very late, praised Belgian colonial rule in his autobiography of 1 962 for’restoring our human dignity and turning us into free, happy, vigorous, and civilized men’. Chinua Achebe’s many pro-colonial statements, meanwhile, have been virtually airbrushed from memory by anti-colonial ideology. The few scholars who take note of such evidence typically dismiss it as a form of false consciousness.

    The failure of anti-colonial critique to come to terms with the objective benefits and subjective legitimacy of colonialism points to a third and deeper failure: it was never intended to be ‘true’ in the sense of being a scientific claim justified through shared standards of inquiry that was liable to falsification. The origins of anti-colonial thought were political and ideological. The purpose was not historical accuracy but contemporaneous advocacy. Today, activists associate ‘decolonisation’ (or ‘postcolonialism’) with all manner of radical social transformation, which unintentionally ties historic conclusions to present-day endeavours. Unmoored from historical fact, postcolonialism became what Williams called a metropolitan flaneur culture of attitude and performance whose recent achievements include an inquiry into the glories of sado-masochism among Third World women and a burgeoning literature on the horrors of colonialism under countries that never had colonies.

    This third failure of anti-colonial critique is perhaps most damaging. It is not just an obstacle to historical truth, which itself is a grave disservice. Even as a means of contemporary advocacy, it is self-wounding.

  62. Malla says:

    What I find funny is third worlders and leftards bleat and bray that immigration to the West is the punishment for colonialism. So I guess they are accepting the fact that the presence of third world people is a punishment!!! Is that not insulting to the Third World migrants? That they are a punishment population?
    And why does no leftard accuse First World countries for poarching the human resources of Third World countries? They conveniently avoid this accusation but constantly accuse the First world for ‘looting’ the Third World’s resources. Are not human resources not one of the resource being looted?
    Third worlders and leftards very very fishy.

    • Agree: Marcus
  63. @Malla

    Cargo cult mentality. Best thing was to leave them and their territories alone but it’s too late now and everybody is paying the price for greed. But it was inevitable development of predatory capitalism, although conquest predates capitalism and even tribes fight over hunting grounds, water resources, and more.

    • Replies: @Malla
  64. Marcus says:

    In order to build the so-called West, close to one billion (cumulatively, according to my friends, the UN statisticians) had to die

    Your friends are as dumb as you are, the population of the entire world was hovering around 1.5 billion in the early twentieth century and 28% of that was in Europe and North America, i.e. largely white. It is essentially impossible to have killed 1 billion between, say, 1400-1950. Central Asian conquerors like Timur, Babur, Genghis, etc. were not exactly averse to greening the world by reducing its carbon footprints either. As far as building the West, it already was better off than most of the world, especially per capita, and had contributed far more to humanity anywhere else. People who crow about India’s GDP in 1600 neglect to mention that there was no India and that the Mughals lavished their incredible wealth on a few, leaving most of the population impoverished. Contemporary European advances in agriculture and printing did more for the common man than a thousand Taj Mahals. America annexed an almost entirely empty territory from Mexico and made the 75,000 Mexican nationals there citizens in addition to recompensing the Mexican govt, the horrors. In any case, more and more of us are abandoning the subhuman mindset that holds success as a something to be atoned for: you can either keep trying to guilt-trip us and fail or you can grow up and be decent neighbors.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  65. Marcus says:
    @szopen

    It’s quite hilarious that our village idiot singled out Hungary for approbation regarding its refusal to open its asshole to third world detritus. Not only was Hungary not an independent identity in any real sense during most of the colonial era, it was colonized by a power of Middle Eastern origin for about half of that time. A Hungarian (ironically named Orban) built the cannons that the Turks used to crack the walls of Constantinople; so, if anything, this trog should be praising Hungary for allowing Asiatics to help themselves to Europe’s benefits (as reparations for… something) for centuries to come.

  66. Marcus says:
    @Brabantian

    Hate to speculate, but I find it hard to believe gentile Czech would sing the praises of the USSR. Sure there were some traitors though

  67. Marcus says:
    @Jon Baptist

    Bizarre how our internationalist, third worldist tovarisch has zero compassion for the millions of Central Asians killed by collectivization and denomadization schemes, this is something that is well-attested to, unlike his fantasies of Europeans killing the world’s entire population several times over in five centuries. And what about Afghanistan, which has still never recovered from the Soviet invasion? They had a functional economy, with strong agriculture fueled by irrigation, which was wrecked by his fellow communist scum
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1919%E2%80%931922
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333
    http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002-p4/baker_p4_12-01_mj_sz/

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  68. Platocrat says:
    @Cyrano

    Actually, even World War 2 was a make-believe patriotic war.
    FDR engineered and maneuvered the US into war.
    The Japanese attack was a response to endless provocations. The obscene fact is that the approaching Japanese fleet was detected and allowed to attack. They sacrificed 3000 sailors to have a casus belli.
    That the German government held out as long as it did without responding to the criminal acts of FDR is a testament to their responsible attitude. FDR lied us into war.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  69. Malla says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Best thing was to leave them and their territories alone but it’s too late now and everybody is paying the price for greed.

    Agreed. Colonialism was a dumb mistake for European nations.

  70. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    People who crow about India’s GDP in 1600 neglect to mention that there was no India and that the Mughals lavished their incredible wealth on a few, leaving most of the population impoverished.

    Indeed, glad you mentioned India.

    Check this out

    http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/essay/economic-lessons-from-the-raj
    IT’S A SAD paradox of our history that national independence came with the loss of the economic freedom India enjoyed for a century-and-a-half under British rule. That may come as a surprise to Indians brought up on nationalist myths about colonial rule plundering India, de- industrialising its economy and draining off its wealth. More recent economic studies show that colonial India, well ahead of other developing countries, had built up a trading and industrial base that would have made it the envy of the Eastern Tiger economies, had Nehruvian socialism not cut it off from global markets after 1947.

    Let’s take the myth of colonial plunder first. During the early phase of conquest, British generals and common soldiers undoubtedly acquired much war booty, then regarded as the legitimate spoils of victory. But their plunder was minimal compared with that of Indian contemporaries like the Marathas and Tipu Sultan or other foreign invaders from Iran and Afghanistan.

    Much before the East India Company took over Bengal, the Marathas had ravaged the province with six plundering raids in the course of a decade, killing off hundreds of thousands and exacting huge sums in chauth from its Mughal Nawab, estimated at Rs 2.5 crore (Rs 25 million) per annum in today’s money. It was these attacks and the inability of the feeble Mughal administration to resist them that led the Hindu business community, led by the powerful Jagat Seth banking house, to plot the British takeover of 1756-64.

    Delhi was less fortunate than Bengal and suffered devastating invasions by Iran’s Nadir Shah, followed by the Afghan Ahmad Shah Abdali. According to contemporary estimates, Nadir Shah’s sack of Delhi in 1739 extracted in one month an estimated Rs 70 crore (Rs 700 million) worth of plunder, many times anything creamed off by the Company Sahib during its most rapacious years in Bengal, and a blow from which the Mughal economy never recovered.

    Myth number two is that India declined from being an economic superpower under the Mughals to a de-industrialised colonial wasteland. True, Mughal India in 1700 accounted for 25 per cent of world Gross Domestic Product, a statistic often misquoted to prove economic success, except when one remembers that India also had 25 per cent of the world’s population. Far more revealing are statistics of per capita GDP compiled by the Maddison Project, generally accepted as the most authoritative guide to global prosperity from ancient Roman times to the present.

    The Maddison figures show that India’s per capita GDP was only half that of Britain’s in 1600, when the Mughal Empire was at its peak. Thereafter India witnessed steady economic decline, with its trade heavily dependent on textile exports increasingly unable to compete with cheaper European cloth. That’s because the Mughal economy offered neither incentives nor opportunity for labour-saving technological innovation. Eighty per cent of its territories were allocated to a rentier class of jagirdars, who creamed off any agricultural surplus for their own luxurious lifestyles. Because their tenure was restricted to a few years, they had no incentive to reinvest their rents in improved productivity. Capital costs were prohibitively high, with interest rates double the 6 per cent average in Britain and peaking as high as 40 per cent in pre-colonial Bengal.

    That’s not the propaganda of colonial apologists but the judgement of eminent Indian historians as diverse as the Marxist Irfan Habib and the nationalist Tapan Raychaudhuri. ‘Not only was the Mughal state its own gravedigger,’ concluded Habib, ‘but no new order was or could be created by the forces ranged against it.’

    Both Habib and Western economists like Angus Maddison have agreed that the Mughal land revenue system was far more exploitative than anything later devised by the Company Sahib or the Raj. It’s estimated that the Mughal elite creamed off an average 15 per cent of national income for its own consumption, compared with a mere 5 per cent by the British. Under the rapacious warlords who succeeded the Mughals, land revenue demands soared as high as 50 per cent of production to fund their local wars.

    India in 1750, on the eve of the British conquest, had no scientific or technological research, no machinery, no mechanical tools. Its labour-intensive textiles were bound to suffer dramatically, whoever ruled, once cheaper European industrial goods captured their markets. This economic challenge coincided with a period of fierce regional wars, following the collapse of Mughal authority, which devastated both agriculture and manufacturing across vast swathes of the Subcontinent. It was a situation which left the European-ruled ports as the only safe havens for Indian commerce, prompting a migration of business communities like Marwaris from declining inland cities like Benares and Mathura to Calcutta, Madras and Bombay.

    The first two decades of Company rule were undoubtedly a period when private trade carried on by its corrupt employees, in defiance of the Company’s own monopoly, damaged indigenous competitors. But the Company itself had no interest in such abuses, relying as it did on a steady supply of high quality Indian textiles that it could export to Europe. After 1773, when the British Parliament took direct oversight of the Company’s finances and administration, such privateering was firmly stamped out.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  71. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Continuation of my earlier post

    Myth number three is that our colonial rulers deliberately de-industrialised India by flooding it with machine-made British goods at the expense of Indian manufacturing. The Company certainly had no links with the satanic mills of Lancashire, nor any interest in selling their products. Its own trading interests lay in selling Indian goods to Europe, so it lobbied hard to lower British tariffs on them and also to raise protective Indian tariffs. That it failed to do so was a measure of the extent to which Europe’s Industrial Revolution was inevitably turning the economic tide against traditional cottage industries worldwide.

    Even so, recent research has demonstrated that European industrial competition, though far from being a zero-sum game, created winners as well as losers. Cheaper factory-made British yarn may have hit Indian spinners but was a boon for weavers, who could now source cheaper supplies and produce a more competitive end-product. Although textile exports declined, domestic demand grew, with per capita cloth consumption increasing from 5.8 sq yards per year in 1750 to 7.4 sq yards in 1850. Handlooms held their own in the production of saris, but lost out to machine-made men’s clothing.

    By the 1850s, a massive road-building programme by the East India Company had given Indian trade 2,600 km of newly metalled highways, including, of course, the Grand Trunk Road

    Far from being wiped out by colonial competition, actual numbers in the handloom sector remained stable throughout most of the colonial period, ending with the same number in 1947 as in 1750. Cheap yarn imports also freed weavers from being tied to regional spinning centres and enabled them to move closer to the ports, where they forged new links with mercantile houses, sowing the seeds of India’s own infant textile factories. India’s population increased from 170 million in 1750 to 425 million in 1947, a sure indicator of reduced famines and improved public health.

    Myth number four is that imperial trade was a one-way flow, with cheap Indian raw materials extracted to supply British industry. The Raj created a Subcontinent-wide single market or customs union, which would have been the envy of the European Union today and which hugely expanded both internal and foreign trading opportunities for Indian merchants. By the 1850s, a massive road-building programme by the East India Company had given Indian trade 2,600 km of newly metalled highways, including, of course, the Grand Trunk Road. By 1913, India also had the world’s largest canal system and its fourth largest rail network.

    This new transport revolution transformed agriculture and commerce by enormously speeding up flows of goods and price information. The railways lowered freight costs by as much as 90 per cent in the mid-19th century, compared with their predecessor, the bullock-cart. Based on the volume of freight traffic in 1900, the social savings brought by rail amounted to as much as Rs 1.2 billion or 9 per cent of national income. Detailed statistical studies at Cambridge University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have demonstrated that railways raised real incomes by an average of 16 per cent in the districts they reached.

    India’s foreign trade also benefitted from British command of the seas. Imperial naval protection helped Gujarati merchants like the Khojas trade with East Africa and the Gulf, establishing business networks that still survive. The other hugely lucrative opportunity for Indian merchants was the British-protected China trade in tea, cotton, indigo, jute and, notoriously, opium. The wealth from such commerce found its way into new banks and joint stock companies, established on the basis of newly introduced Western- style company law, and fed infant stock markets. The managing agency system, later reviled by Indian socialists, allowed scarce managerial skills to be pooled across companies, while protecting them from hostile takeovers.

    From 1913 to 1938, Indian manufacturing output grew at an annual 5.6 per cent, well above the world average of 3.3 per cent and a growth rate we would welcome today

    By the 1850s, India’s own industrial revolution was taking off, fuelled by a virtuous economic circle of faster internal transport, increased commerce and agricultural productivity, rapidly expanding export markets and the resulting much-needed capital accumulation in an economy long starved of venture capital. Far from blaming colonialism, development economists now agree that India’s chronic capital shortage was largely due to geographical and climatic factors.

    If globalisation is defined as the capacity to buy the knowledge, goods and services one needs in global markets, the British Empire led the modern world in the first great wave of globalisation in the 19th century. India was at its heart and a major beneficiary of the new openness and cosmopolitanism. The Empire offered free movement of capital and labour and relatively free trade in goods. A Bombay mill-owner could set up with borrowed British capital and the latest machinery and skilled foremen from Manchester. India’s first cotton mills opened in 1851, preceding Japan by 20 years and China by 40. They were soon beating Manchester at its own game, supplying 76 per cent of India’s textile demand by 1945.

    Not surprisingly, thriving merchant communities strongly backed the Company during the 1857 revolt, and the smooth supply of crucial goods from the ports helped turn the tide against the rebels. According to economic historian Tirthankar Roy of the London School of Economics: ‘The Indian merchant saw the Raj to be a force working for the kind of capitalism in which they had built a stake, a better bet than the remnants of Mughal feudal warlords who led the other side.’ British Indian cities, thanks to public and private endowments, soon sported some of the world’s best municipal services and world-class educational and medical institutions.

    Far from becoming a dumping ground for British products, India maintained a trade surplus with Britain throughout the colonial period, and export earnings paid for the services bought in from abroad by both public and private sectors. True, 19th century British governments at home and in India were committed to economic laissez faire and free trade and did little to protect indigenous industries. Nevertheless, young Indian industries like textiles and steel were given tariff protection during the world depression in the 1920s. From 1913 to 1938, Indian manufacturing output grew at an annual 5.6 per cent, well above the world average of 3.3 per cent and a growth rate we would welcome today.

    From the 1920s, the colonial government made India’s railways buy their entire rail requirement from Tata Steel at Jamshedpur. By 1935, India produced 50 per cent of all the world’s steel made outside Europe, North America and Japan. Firms like Tata Steel profited enormously from government contracts during both World Wars; and these profits were ploughed into new industries like sugar and paper. Between 1850 and 1940, employment in Indian factories went from near zero to two million, while per capita output of industrial goods rose by one-third, hardly a mark of de-industrialisation. India’s per capita industrial output at independence was higher than anywhere else in Asia except Japan, and more than half its exports were manufactures, not raw materials.

    Myth number five is that British governments, companies and officers drained off India’s wealth through foreign remittances of their ill-gotten gains. The actual fact is that by 1913, colonial India had attracted an enormous and very welcome injection of £380 million (£23 billion in today’s money) as inward investment by British capital. In the same year, the so-called ‘Home Charges’, the money remitted back to Britain by government and private transfers, amounted to the comparatively tiny sum of £11 million. Economists recognise that all foreign capital comes at a cost of foreign remittances. Calculated as an annual return on British investments in India, the Home Charges amounted to an average of only 3.4 per cent, a far lower return than British capital could have earned in world markets at the time. Amounting to an annual average of only 1.5 per cent of India’s national income, such remittances were hardly a drain of resources.

    ‘The so-called drain,’ writes Tirthankar Roy, to whose research I owe many of these figures, ‘was also a payment for skills, and it is impossible to imagine an economy short of skills dealing with the world without having to buy skills from abroad.’ Ironically, World War II allowed India to reverse the flow of remittances, with the imperial government paying New Delhi handsomely for the deployment of Indian troops abroad. The result was that at independence, the Reserve Bank of India held the enormous sterling balance of over £1 billion (£36 billion in today’s money), a golden handshake if ever there was one.

  72. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    It is essentially impossible to have killed 1 billion between, say, 1400-1950.

    LOL the kind of BS some people dream up in their desire to blame the West & Japan for everything.

    Check out my post 62 which mentions this idiotic mindset

    “Marxist scholars found colonialism at fault when it did not invest in public health and infrastructure (showing a callous disregard for labour) and when it did (in order to exploit it). Colonialism is credited with near-magical powers to sweep away everything good in its path (like tribal chiefs or ethnic identity) and with equally magical powers to make permanent everything bad in its path (like tribal chiefs or ethnic identity).”

    and

    “Unmoored from historical fact, postcolonialism became what Williams called a metropolitan flaneur culture of attitude and performance whose recent achievements include an inquiry into the glories of sado-masochism among Third World women and a burgeoning literature on the horrors of colonialism under countries that never had colonies.

    LOL.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  73. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    A thorough and well-deserved thumping of neoliberal assclowns like Vitchek and BengaliCanadianLeech (I won’t even deign to call them Marxists, since when do the latter believe in blood guilt or retribution on an entire society for what they believe are the sins of the upper classes?). Regarding plunder, just to give one example: the privateer Henry Every captured enormous wealth that the Moghul tyrant Aurangzeb had sent as a gift to Makkah, certainly not justifiable, but it was definitely not going to benefit the average Indian LOL.

    • Replies: @Malla
  74. Malla says:

    Chinese guy tells Congolese, the Belgians had built such great infrastructure, you guys ruined everything. from the documentary Empire of Dust

    A comment from a Congolese on this video.

    Roderick Balenda writes
    8 months ago (edited)
    “I have already given upon Africa, I am sick and tired our lack of self-respect. The Chinese man who commented about what is going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo is right. This is what infuriates me, how come a country, which was once Africa’s second industrialized country after South Africa falls into pieces? How come a country that once had a First World infrastructure now becomes a hellhole? It is because we chose to destroy everything and I am fed up. I just wanna work hard and create my own life – I am not going to waste time on those who want to be average. This video puts me in tears.”

    Lebanese oncologist Prof Philip Salem admits that Lebanon Would Be Better off if It Were Still Under French Mandate

  75. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    it was definitely not going to benefit the average Indian LOL.

    Very true. And the British Navy was on the side of the Mughals against Every. Even getting the Kohinoor Diamond back will not solve our problems. We and other brown blacks can ONLY solve our problems when we start behaving like a First World people to make a First World Society. But that seems more and more unlikely. There was a video on First Worldism by Ryan Faulk. Check it out.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  76. Malla says:

    If colonialism was so horrriblee, explain this

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300811h.html

    When the Prince of Wales sailed to India from London, late in 1921, Mr. Gandhi, then at the height of his popularity, proclaimed to the Hindu world that the coming visit was “an insult added to injury,” and called for a general boycott.[13]

    [13. Gandhi’s Letters on Indian Affairs, pp. 96-7.]
    Political workers obediently snatched up the torch, rushing it through their organizations, and the Prince’s landing in Bombay became thereby the signal for murderous riot and destruction. No outbreak occurred among the responsible part of the population, nor along the line of progress, which was, of course, well guarded. But in the remoter areas of the city, hooliganism ran on for several days, with some fifty killings and four hundred woundings, Indian attacking Indian, while arson and loot played their ruinous part.

    Meanwhile the Prince, seemingly unmoved by the first unfriendly reception of all his life, proceeded to carry out his officially arranged programme in and about the city. On the evening of November 22 it was scheduled that he should depart for the North.
    As he left Government House on the three- or four-mile drive to the Bombay railway station, his automobile ran unguarded save for the pilot police car that went before. Where it entered the city, however, a cordon of police lined the streets on both sides. And behind that cordon pressed the people–the common poor people of the countryside in their uncountable thousands; pressed and pushed until, with the railway station yet half a mile away, the police line bent and broke beneath the strain.

    Instantly the crowd surged in, closing around the car, shouting, fighting each other to work nearer–nearer still. What would they do? What was their temper? God knew! Gandhi’s hot words had spread among them, and God alone, now, could help. Some reached the running-boards and clung. Others shoved them off, for one instant to take their places, the next themselves to be dragged away. And what was this they shouted? At first nothing could be made of it, in the bedlam of voices, though those charged with the safety of the progress strained their ears to catch the cries.

    Then words stood out, continuously chanted, and the words were these:

    “Yuvaraj Maharaj ki jai!” “Hail to the Prince!” And: “Let me see my Prince! Let me see my Prince! Let me only see my Prince just once before I die!”

    The police tried vainly to form again around the car. Moving at a crawl, quite unprotected now, through an almost solid mass of shouting humanity, it won through to the railway station at last.

    There, within the barriers that shut off the platform of the royal train, gathered the dignitaries of the Province and the City, to make their formal farewells. To these His Royal Highness listened, returning due acknowledgments. Then, clipping short his own last word, he turned suddenly to the aide beside him.

    “How much time left?”

    “Three minutes, sir,” replied the aide.

    “Then drop those barriers and let the people in”–indicating the mobs outside.

    Like the sweep of a river in flood the interminable multitudes rolled in–and shouted and adored and laughed and wept, and, when the train started, ran alongside the royal carriage till they could run no more.

    And when he turned back from his transit of the Great North Gate–the Khyber Pass itself–a strange thing awaited him. A swarm of Untouchables, emboldened by news that had reached them, clustered at the roadside to do him reverence, “Government ki jai!” “Hail to the Government!” they shouted, with cheers that echoed from the barren hills.

    And when the Prince slowed down his car to return their greetings, they leapt and danced in their excitement.

    For nowhere in all their store of memory or of legend had they any history of an Indian magnate who had noticed an Untouchable except to scorn him. And here was a greater than all India contained–the son of the Supreme Power, to them almost divine, who deigned not only to receive but even to thank them for their homage! Small wonder that their spirits soared, that their eyes saw visions, that their tongues laid hold upon mystic words.

    “Look! Look!” they cried to one another. “Behold, the Light! the Light!”

    And such was their exaltation that many of them somehow worked through to Delhi to add themselves to the twenty-five thousand of their kind who there awaited the Prince’s coming. The village people from round about flocked in to join them–the simple people of the soil who know nothing of politics but much of friendship as shown in works. And all together haunted the roadside, waiting and hoping for a glimpse of his face.

    At last he came, down the Grand Trunk Road, toward the Delhi Gate. And in the center of the hosts of the Untouchables, one, standing higher than the rest, unfurled a flag.

    “Yuvaraj Maharaj ki jai! Raja ke Bete ki jai!

    “Hail to the Prince! Hail to the King’s Son!” they all shouted together, to burst their throats. And the Prince, while the high-caste Indian spectators wondered and revolted within themselves at his lack of princely pride, ordered his car stopped.

    Then a spokesman ventured forward, to offer in a humble little speech the love and fealty of the sixty millions of the Unclean and to beg the heir to the throne to intercede for them with his father the King Emperor, never to abandon them into the hands of those who despised them and would keep them slaves.

    The Prince heard him through. Then–whether he realized the magnitude of what he did, or whether he acted merely on the impulse of his natural friendly courtesy toward all the world–he did an unheard-of thing. He stood up–stood up, for them, the “worse than dogs,” spoke a few words of kindness, looked them all over, slowly, and so, with a radiant smile, gave them his salute.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Morris L
  77. @Marcus

    Marcus, all good points. I fully agree.

  78. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    Gandhi quite enjoyed his time in London and loved English customs, more than a little dishonorable for him to then portray the empire as a prime evil.

    • Replies: @Malla
  79. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    What’s most disgusting of all is that they heap the most abuse on Western nationalists, who are mostly powerless and would (can’t speak for all of us, granted) hope to maintain positive, neighborly relations with non-Western countries while also observing non-interference in their internal affairs. It’s the Western liberals who preach diversity as strength and would join in with third worldists in proclaiming blood guilt for colonialism that are also intent on interfering in the third world’s internal affairs.I have great sympathy for Hindu conservatives personally even though I am occasionally irritated by desi leftists here.

    • Replies: @Malla
  80. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    True indeed, the libtards are the new colonialist poking their nose into everything to bloat their egos. WNs just want to be left alone but many brown blacks stupidly equate WNs with colonialism. That is stupid, WNs just want to be left alone among themselves and live their lives. I understand that.
    But these new libtard colonialists do not have the intelligence and manly vigour of the real colonialist a century ago. Indian soldiers respected those English gentlemen officers because of their intelligence, moral qualities and manly vigour. Imagine a libtard antifa pussyboy hippy trying to command battalion of tough Sikhs today, the Sikhs would laugh so hard on the pussyboy’s face that he would pee his pants and run away sobbing. LOL.

    sympathy for Hindu conservatives

    I am not a Hindu conservative. But anyways. I am more of an anti-NWO guy. I do not have kids yet but I do not want my future kids living in an up coming Orwellian Satanic NWO.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  81. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    Lol true. Cornwallis (of American Revolutionary War infamy) also praised the qualities of the native “black” troops of the Company, even comparing them to Prussians; though Bengalis were eventually classed as “effeminate” (in contrast to the “martial races” of the north and west of the subcontinent, 1971 kind of rubbished that) due to the mutiny.

    • Replies: @Malla
  82. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Bengalis and Gujratis are still considered “effeminate” in the Indian Army today. But fish loving Bengalis are considered prime grade intellectuals and Gujratis are great slimeball businessmen.

    • Replies: @Anon
  83. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    I’d be curious to see who exactly has been funding of third-worldism, post-colonialism, etc. The US “Deep State” was always very keen on dismantling European empires, and one of the godfathers of third worldism, Frantz Fanon, was arguably a CIA asset.

    • Replies: @Malla
  84. Andre,

    The pro-immigrant antifa are just the mirror image of the alt-right street goons. This antifa Willem Van Spronsen who attacked ICE released his farewell statement and except for some word changes it could have been penned by an extremist alt-righter attacking an immigrant centre to burn it down:

    There’s wrong and there’s right.
    It’s time to take action against the forces of evil.

    Alt-right agrees.

    Beware the centrist.

    Alt-right agrees.

    In these days of fascist hooligans preying on vulnerable people in our streets, in the name of the state or supported and defended by the state,

    Alt-right accuses the antifa of being the said hooligans supported and defended by the state.

    We are living in visible fascism ascendant. Now it unabashedly follows its agenda with open and full cooperation from the government. From governments around the world.

    Substitute globalism for fascism to enter into an alt-right manifesto.

    Fascism serves the needs of the state serves the needs of business and at your expense. Who benefits? Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Betsy de Vos, George Soros, Donald Trump, and need I go on?

    Substitute globalism for fascism to make it into an alt-right statement with same clearly defined billionaire enemies.

    You don’t have to burn the motherfucker down, but are you going to just stand by?

    Wouldn’t an alt-righter going berserk say the same?

    The semi-automatic weapon I used was a cheap, home-built unregistered “ghost” AR-15, it had six magazines. I strongly encourage comrades and incoming comrades to arm themselves. We are now responsible for defending people from the predatory state. Ignore the law in arming yourself if you have the luxury, I did.

    Alt-right statement – check.

    And then some more rambling about how he really had to go out and do it because he was radicalised by whatever events in his life.

    So these two lots of radicals, antifa and alt-right, go out and bash each other on the streets because they have the same enemies, the state and the billionaires. And each claims that the other lot are agents of that state, paid and supported by the state and said billionaires (Soros). Go figure. So one lot is pro-immigrant and the other is anti-immigrant. And most of both are whites, with some homos and Jews (real or crypto) thrown on each side too.

    What’s the point of all this? Smells like divide and rule by said state and billionaires.

  85. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Sikhs are getting fat and tubby these days. There are far fewer in the army and wrestling. Lots of drug addiction and alcoholism.

    The true martial race of today’s India are the Haryana Hindu Jats. Lots of good boxers and wrestlers coming out of there now.

    • Replies: @Malla
  86. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    I’d be curious to see who exactly has been funding of third-worldism, post-colonialism, etc. The US “Deep State” was always very keen on dismantling European empires, and one of the godfathers of third worldism, Frantz Fanon, was arguably a CIA asset.

    ((The Big bankers)). The big bankers made the money from the empires but want to misdirect the blame on average YT. They are the ones funding.

  87. Malla says:
    @EVROPEAN

    You could have added the massacre of Arabs (and Indians) in Zanzibar by blacks after the British left.

    Genocide of Arabs by blacks in Zanzibar

  88. Malla says:
    @EVROPEAN

    You also missed the genocide of White French by blacks in Haiti.

    And also the genocide of Mariori by the Maoris of New Zealand

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori

    Invasion by Taranaki Māori (1835–1868)

    In 1835 some displaced Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, from the Taranaki region, but living in Wellington, invaded the Chathams. On 19 November 1835, the brig Lord Rodney, a hijacked[30] European ship, arrived carrying 500 Māori (men, women and children) with guns, clubs and axes, and loaded with 78 tonnes of potatoes for planting, followed by another load, by the same ship, of 400 more Māori on 5 December 1835. Before the second shipment of people arrived, the invaders killed a 12-year-old girl and hung her flesh on posts.[31] They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. With the arrival of the second group “parties of warriors armed with muskets, clubs and tomahawks, led by their chiefs, walked through Moriori tribal territories and settlements without warning, permission or greeting. If the districts were wanted by the invaders, they curtly informed the inhabitants that their land had been taken and the Moriori living there were now vassals.”[32]

    A hui or council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing of the Māori predilection for warfare, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that “the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative.”[32] Although this council decided in favour of peace, the invading Māori inferred it was a prelude to war, as was common practice during the Musket Wars. This precipitated a massacre, most complete in the Waitangi area followed by an enslavement of the Morori survivors.[33]

    A Moriori survivor recalled : “[The Māori] commenced to kill us like sheep…. [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed – men, women and children indiscriminately.” A Māori conqueror explained, “We took possession… in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped…..” [34] The invaders ritually killed some 10% of the population, a ritual that included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days.[35]

    During the following enslavement the Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them.[35] Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori or Māori, or to have children with each other. Which was different from the customary form of slavery practiced on mainland New Zealand.[36] However, many Moriori women had children by their Māori masters. A small number of Moriori women eventually married either Māori or European men. Some were taken from the Chathams and never returned. In 1842 a small party of Māori and their Moriori slaves migrated to the subantarctic Auckland Islands, surviving for some 20 years on sealing and flax growing.[37] Only 101 Moriori out of a population of about 2,000 were left alive by 1862.[38]

  89. Malla says:

    Let us discuss the Domincan War of Independence against the colonisation of the Dominican Republic by Haiti. Yes independent Haiti was a colonial power.

    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-did-the-dominican-republic-became-a-country.html

    The Dominican Republic declared independence from Haiti on February 27, 1844, following a war of independence. In 1822, Haiti invaded the Dominican Republic, then known as Spanish Haiti.

    Unified Hispaniola
    The Dominican government agreed to merge with Haiti under the Haitian president, laws, and administrative system. At the time Haiti was militarily, and economically, a powerhouse, and the Dominicans thought they would benefit from the unification. The then-Haitian president, Jean-Pierre Boyer, invaded Santo where he successfully ended the remaining rebellions. In February 1822, Boyer entered the city and was handed the keys to the presidential palace. He declared that the island was united from Cape Samana to Cape Tiburon.

    Quest For Independence
    Once in power, the Haitian government mismanaged the new state and subjected the citizenry to military law. It quickly became very unpopular among the Dominicans. An economic crisis soon hit the country after it was forced to repay a French loan accrued by the Haitians. In 1838, resistance movements began emerging with the aim of recruiting and inciting Dominicans to oust the Haitians. La Trinitaria, as the group was known, was divided into several cells to maintain secrecy. Within a short period, the group had recruited several Dominicans, and its activities attracted the attention of the government. The group changed its name to La Filantrópica. In 1843 it made a breakthrough when it liaised with a liberal party in Haiti to overthrow Jean-Pierre Boyer. However, the president’s successor became suspicious of the group’s intention and imprisoned some of the senior officials while forcing the group’s leader Duarte out of the Island.

    War Of Independence
    On February 27, 1844, the Dominican Republic declared independence and the rebels waged war against the Haitians. They attacked Haitian garrisons, pillaged and burned fortresses. The group’s new leader, Matías Mella, declared himself the new president of the Dominican Republic. Duarte returned to the country shortly after and was received by hundreds. Haitian commanders sent thousands of troops to crush the rebellion, but the Dominicans stood their ground although they were outmanned and outgunned. In 1945, the Dominican’s confidence against the Haitians was so overwhelming that they began launching attacks across the border. The rebels captured towns and villages on the Haitian side of the border forcing the Haitians to withdraw their forces from the Dominican Republic to counter the attacks. In 1849 British and French blockades forced a truce between the two countries. In 1854, the two countries ignited the war again, several Haitian forces were captured or sank while the Dominicans defeated a contingent of 30,000 Haitian troops.

  90. Malla says:

    Check out what Churchill said about giving independence to India. Everything he said came true, especially the last sentence.
    https://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/our-duty-in-india/

    “If the British people are to lose their Indian Empire, they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blindfold into a trap.”

    ….snip….

    “Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.”

    ….snip….

    “But that is not all. To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence. It would shame for ever those who bore its guilt. These Brahmins who mouth and patter the principles of Western Liberalism, and pose as philosophic and democratic politicians, are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow countrymen whom they call ‘untouchable’, and whom they have by thousands of years of oppression actually taught to accept this sad position. They will not eat with these sixty millions, nor drink with them, nor treat them as human beings. They consider themselves contaminated even by their approach. And then in a moment they turn round and begin chopping logic with John Stuart Mill, or pleading the rights of man with Jean Jacques Rousseau.”

    …..snip…..

    “Let me just direct your attention once more upon these untouchables, fifty or sixty millions of them, that is to say more than the whole population of the British Isles; all living their lives in acceptance of the validity of the awful curse pronounced upon them by the Brahmins. A multitude as big as a nation, men, women and children deprived of hope and of the status of humanity. Their plight is worse than that of slaves, because they have been taught to consent not only to a physical but to a psychic servitude and prostration.”

    ……snip…..

    “There is a more squalid aspect. Hitherto for generations it has been the British policy that no white official should have any interest or profit other than his salary and pension out of Indian administration. All concession-hunters and European adventurers, company-promoters and profit-seekers have been rigorously barred and banned. ut now that there is spread through India the belief that we are a broken, bankrupt, played-out power, and that our rule is going to pass away and be transferred in the name of the majority to the Brahmin sect, all sorts of greedy appetites have been excited, and many itching fingers are stretching and scratching at the vast pillage of a derelict Empire. I read in the Times newspaper, in the Times mind you, only last week of the crowd of rich Bombay merchants and millionaire millowners, millionaires on sweated labour, who surround Mr. Gandhi, the saint, the lawyer, Lord Irwin’s dear colleague and companion. What are they doing there, these men, and what is he doing in their houses?

    They are making arrangements that the greatest bluff, the greatest humbug and the greatest betrayal shall be followed by the greatest ramp. Nepotism, back-scratching, graft and corruption in every form will be the handmaidens of a Brahmin domination.”

  91. MarkinLA says:
    @Platocrat

    The Japanese attack was a response to endless provocations. The obscene fact is that the approaching Japanese fleet was detected and allowed to attack. They sacrificed 3000 sailors to have a casus belli.

    The US is to blame for Japan attacking us. Now I have heard everything. Japan wanted and believed it deserved an empire of its own, just like the European powers. Why did they invade and occupy Korea? Did the US make them do that? They certainly weren’t welcomed. They invaded China. Did the US make them do that? Those “provocations” were the result of Japan’s actions in the east. They chose to attack the US and the fact that we had an idea they were going to attack and didn’t stop it makes it our fault?

    The Japanese Navy had more aircraft carriers than the US Navy at the start of the war.

    Japan is to blame for the war in the Pacific. They didn’t seem to understand the first rule of war. Don’t start one you know you can’t win – and EVERY admiral in the Japanese Navy knew that Japan could not sustain a war with the US for more than a few years. The only reason Japan lasted as long as it did was Germany took precedence.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  92. Malla says:
    @MarkinLA

    FDR had planed sneak attack on Japan before Pearl Harbor

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  93. Malla says:
    @MarkinLA

    Joshua Blakeney – Hour 1 – Japan Bites Back: Allied Demonization of the Empire of the Sun

  94. Malla says:
    @MarkinLA

    A KOREAN professor of Kaya University in South Korea, who speaks out about the Truth of Japan’s annexation of the Korean Peninsula. He was born in Korea 1923 during the Japanese rule, so he knows Korea during the Japanese rule.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  95. Platocrat says:
    @Oleaginous Outrager

    Not to mention the forcible occupation of East Prussia, legally a part of Germany for 800 years and the murder /ethnic cleansing of the German population.
    Here is what the Red Army beasts brought into Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemmersdorf_massacre

    Thus Konigsberg, the hometown of classical philosopher Kant, ceased to exist.
    Kaliningrad is the obscene new name.
    This guy is as deluded and intellectually dishonest as the old Bolsheviks were.

  96. MarkinLA says:
    @Malla

    Blah, blah, blah. Empires are in conflict with each other. So the US did things short of war, as Britain did after WWI in response to the US Navy’s two ocean expansion plans. The British were positioning Japan as their ally when war with the US came. That is where the Japanese gained a lot of their naval aviation technology. It was averted by the Washington Naval Treaty. Britain probably entered WWI to keep the German High Seas Fleet from eclipsing their Grand Fleet. And so it goes.

    The US had a treaty with the old Kingdom of Korea and probably did not do what it should have and came to its aid when Japan invaded.

    Everything you posted is nonsense as far as who gets the blame for the war in the Pacific. Arguments like this are just as stupid as GWBs was for getting us into Iraq again.

    • Replies: @Malla
  97. MarkinLA says:
    @Malla

    You will always find some traitors who are happy that their country was conquered and occupied by some foreign power. If it was so good why did it require force and an occupation. Why didn’t Korea just enter into an agreement of integration?

    • Replies: @Malla
  98. Malla says:
    @MarkinLA

    Everything you posted is nonsense as far as who gets the blame for the war in the Pacific. Arguments like this are just as stupid as GWBs was for getting us into Iraq again.

    Nah, not nonsense. FDR really wanted the war with Japan than the Japanese did.Go through it again.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @MarkinLA
  99. @obwandiyag

    Low wages, the outcome, could be solved in other ways. Russia and China do that in different ways. Within Western democracy it could be achieved also, without immigration influxes.

    “Preventing organization´´, or politically control, socially control the society of the many, feed the democratic system into organizational control, we think is the main issue. Different a way to achieve this would mean to do away with “democracy´´ as understood. So preventing organization within the context of Western democracy seems to be the essential intent.

    Indeed this is what my initial comment meant to say. Sorry for the inferior English language use.

  100. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    I agree he was very hostile to Japan, but this is basic geopolitical logic, it was not in the US (or anyone else’s) interests to see Japan continue to rampage across China. The Japs should’ve been content with Manchuria, which offered plenty of resources and land for settlement at little cost, whereas if they had even conquered China proper somehow it would’ve been an incredible burden.

  101. Tom Verso says:
    @EVROPEAN

    How many lives have the Europeans saved; e.g. there is no smallpox in the world today.
    It has been obliterated as a result of Western medicine. Every time a non-European walks into a hospital they should fall on their knees and thank God for sending them Europeans.

    One cannot begin to list all the life saving and quality of life benefits everybody in the world received from Europeans.

  102. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Japan was a communist threat in China. The USA kept mum whenever the Soviets expanded in the East just like the USA hardly did anything against Soviet expansion in Europe. The Americans were acting like pussyboys infront of Soviet commissars whenever the case of Soviet Expansion in the Far East was concerned. But when Japan moved into Indo China (to block the supply routes of the nationalists) with permission of the Vichy regime, a regime which was recognized by the United States, suddenly FDR got butt rash!!!
    There was a lot of Communist influence in China for a long time. The Japanese were facing a possibility of a wall of Communism. if Japan was an expansive nation, Japan controlled vast tracts of Russian Eastern territory in the Russian civil war in between Reds and Whites. Indeed the Japanese had one of the largest anti Red foreign armies in Russia. But once the Whites lost the war, the Japanese gave all that territory back and returned to base. Similarly Japan returned most of the ex German colonies like Tsingtao back to China. Does not look like a expansive nation to me.
    The fact that the Russian Emperor was killed by the commies further alarmed the Japanese and made them more anti communist still. The Japanese worshiped their own Emperor the regicide of the Russian Romanovs was horrifying to them.

    Secondly Chinese nationalists have been killing foreigners for some time. During such situations, the USA, Britain, Japan etc had taken punitive actions against China to rescue their own citizens in the past. Indeed Chiang Kai Shek was responsible for many anti American actioons which led to the death of many Americans.. It is surprising that the USA became an ally of this same Chiang. All is forgiven in geopolitics it seems.

    Before the Japanese incursion into China there have been many murders of Japonese families and officers in China while there were no attacks on Chinese in Japan. That is why the punitive action against China.

  103. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    From the Book: America Has no Enemies in Asia written in 1938 by Ralph Townsend

    https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=moore

    [MORE]

    The Soviet Union has long sought control of China. It has backed the Communist faction within China. Japan opposes the prospect of a red China. This makes Japan an enemy of the Soviet Union.’ The Soviet Union wants American aid against Japan. This partly explains why reds were eager to see conflict between China and Japan. Such a war, it was hoped, would ally America and Moscow. Warrant for this statement may be found in writings of bolshevik leaders, too lengthy to quote here.
    Bear in mind that it was a Chinese Communist faction, directly allied with Moscow, that kidnapped Chiang Kaishek to force him into war with Japan. Concerning this bolshevik scheme to have America fight Japan for Moscow’s convenience, the following statement of red strategy is informing:
    “Our salvation would be more readily assured if the imperialist powers (meaning, in this case, America and Japan) became embroiled in a war. If we are forced to tolerate such scoundrels as the capitalistic thieves, each one of whom is whetting his knife against us, then it is our immediate duty to turn these knives against each other.” -From the speech of Lenin to the Moscow unit leaders of the Communist Party in Russia, Nov. 26, 1920. Collected Works of Lenin,
    Vol. XXV.
    Why any ally of Moscow, such as China, is always sensationalized in America as a victim of “aggression” is explained in the following statement of red philosophy:
    “Every war which the Soviet League will wage will be a defensive and a just war, regardless of whoever starts it.”
    -From the Soviet writer L. S. Diegtyarev, in his book, Political Work in the Red Army, 1930, page 15.
    The Soviet aim to get a “capitalist” nation as an ally for convenience in attacking any opponent of the Soviet Union is informingly set forth thus:
    ” . . . . we can form a military alliance with another bourgeoisie (capitalist country), so that we can crush a third bourgeoisie by means of this . . . . In this form of national defence-a military alliance with bourgeois states, it is the duty of the comrades in such a country to help this alliance to victory.”
    -From a speech by Bukharin at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern, 1922, quoted in Red Militarism, by Peter Garwy, 1928.”

    ..snip..

    “Recent statements by ruling Soviet officials show that such aims are still part of the Soviet creed.From the plainest of evidence it is clear that reds do not object to loss of life as such-they merely sensationalize that which may aid in stirring resentment against their enemies, and aid in gaining an American alliance against anti-red nations on the pretext of fighting for “democracy.” The “democracy” the reds have in mind of course means the Soviet variety.

    In 1904-05 US papers lavishly favored Japan. Many Americans didn’t know then that such press praise for Japan was partly stirred by organized forces here working for revolution Russia. Above item appeared 12 years later, in 1917. Backing Japan to defeat the Czar from without aided revolutionaries seeking his overthrow f rom within. Such facts show how newspaper campaigns of hate or praise may be influenced by interests not suspected at the time. U. S. papers on the whole favored Japan as long as Japan opposed Czarist Russia, but turned anti-Japanese after 1917 when Japan became a potential enemy of revolutionary Russia.”

  104. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Further we read

    “Numerous Americans who lived through those days in China lost mothers, sisters, fathers or brothers in killings which resulted from openly proclaimed Chinese official policy.The same Chiang Kai-shek group which perpetrated this program of anti-American killings and property destruction is now shouting its friendship for America to get our aid against Japan.
    There was no valid excuse for this 1927 campaign to drive Americans from China. Our residents there were in legitimate business. Most of them were in philanthropic work- maintaining schools and hospitals-to which wealthy Chinese usually give nothing. Americans had donated more than 80 million dollars in American money for hospitals and schools, and were giving from five to ten million dollars annually to support these.

    Our total of residents in China was only about an eighth the total of Chinese residing in America. America had always befriended China. We had never taken a single acre of territory there. So far as this writer can learn we had no mining or railway concessions. American influence had saved China from being parcelled out among European powers back in the 19th century. America had given back indemnity money levied on China after the massacres of 1900 when the Chinese Government had ordered all Americans and other foreigners in China slain.

    Chinese Politics
    For decades in China it has been the fashion to blame foreigners for the distress brought on partly by overpopulation and partly by Chinese civil wars and official cruelties.
    Probably less than five per cent of China’s population can read, though the number of Chinese graduates of American universities is large. Mass ignorance makes anti-foreignism a natural choice of corrupt politicians.
    After America and England bombarded Nanking to rescue foreigners and showed a firm resolve to defend the Shanghai Settlement, Chiang’s party found that anti-American and anti-British policies did not pay. So Chiang’s party moderated that tack and began to seek U. S. aid. Chiang wanted aid to help him subdue rival claimants for the dictatorship. He promptly got U. S. backing, for reasons too devious to relate here, despite just having finished a campaign of anti-Americanism in which much American property was burned and in which a number of Americans were killed.
    When U. S. and British backing became assured, Chiang’s party shifted the anti-foreign emphasis to Japan. The Anglo-Japanese alliance had expired. Bolshevist publicity against Japan had been effective in America. Thus isolated, at that time not having either Italy or Germany as theoretical allies, Japan was the ideal target-much better than America or England- for traditional Chinese anti-foreignism.

    China’s Anti-Japan Campaign It seems to this writer that there was no justification for the new anti-Japan policy in China. Chinese businessmen by the thousands were well-treated in Japan. At that time Japan had not occupied Manchukuo, then called Manchuria. Japan in 1922 had voluntarily handed back to China the former German concessions of railways, etc., in the Chinese province of Shantung, which Japan had taken from Germany in the World War. Japan’s return to China of these properties was a generous gesture, very exceptional in the history of international dealings. It was particularly significant on the part of Japan, which is a relatively poor country and in need of outside resources.

    Just why the Japanese returned the Shantung properties to China, this writer can not say. Japanese papers at the time were full of arguments that Japan should take the lead in cultivating Chinese good will, and thus open trade relations with China which would be more valuable than the Shantung concessions. This sentiment seems to have been strong, for a little later, in 1929, the Japanese Government appropriated 72 million yen to establish scholarships for Chinese students to study in Japan as “good will” guests. Also, the Japanese opened a number of good will hospitals in China, financed in Japan, for the benefit of poorer classes of Chinese. Certainly the anti-Japanese campaign in China did not originate with the. Japanese occupation of Manchuria. It was provably under way years before that event.

    The Manchurian Conflict
    During the Japanese conflict with Chinese in Manchuria, between- 1931 and 1933, Chiang Kai-shek never once took the field against the Japanese. That conflict was largely between the Japanese and Chang Hsueh-liang, war chief who ruled Manchuria as his own province, independent of Chiang’s regime in China Proper.”

  105. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Further we read
    “Japan’s return of the Shantung concessions to China and other good will gestures may have placated some of the better elements in China. But they failed to halt the antiforeignism which was the main political expedient of many Chinese politicians and racketeers. The failure of Chinese officials to halt anti-Japanese campaigns, often resulting in violence, aroused bitterness in Japan, coming as they did on top of Japanese good will gestures which had meant considerable sacrifices to Japan.
    Anti-Japanese agitators in China did not propose to buy Japanese properties. Their slogans called for confiscation.

    Comparisons
    When the Chinese launched an official program of killing Americans and other foreigners in 1900, we (USA) fought back with troops sent to China. We fought back until the Chinese agreed to peace and guarantees against such outrages in the future .
    When the Chinese repeated their official program of killing Americans and other foreigners in 1927, when Chiang Kai-shek first came into power, we again sent troops to China and fought back. We fought back until the Chinese officially took steps to halt such outrages against our citizens there. This course was in accord with what successive American presidents have defined as our obligation to insist on respect for civilized principles.

    It is hardly logical for us to be so severely critical of the Japanese for fighting now as a result of conditions which caused America to fight in China on two occasions within the last 38 years.
    The magnitude of military operations is far greater in the warfare in China now. But the principle involved in provocations leading up to the conflict is the same as that when America fought in China in 1900 and in 1927.

    Anti-Japanese Violence
    It is commonly supposed by uninformed Americans that anti-Japanese agitation in China, during years preceding the present conflict, was a matter of boycotts and press criticism. It was not. The writer of this booklet offers an illustrative instance of which he had direct knowledge:
    In Foochow, a South China city, there, were some hundreds of Japanese. They were there as tea buyers, wholesalers, and other legitimate occupations, entitled to the same protection Chinese business men received in Japan. In one house lived a Japanese school teacher and his wife. Chinese secret societies threatened the life of the school teacher-not, so far as any one could learn, on complaints that he had committed any offense-but because it was planned to kill him as a demonstration of “Chinese patriotism.”
    The Japanese Consul asked the Chinese officials to provide guards for the teacher’s home. Chinese guards were sent. A few days later, mysteriously, the guards suddenly left their posts without notice. At once a gang of “Chinese patriots” burst into the home and shot both the Japanese teacher and his wife. In this case, the charge of the Japanese was not that the Chinese officials had ordered the killings, but that they had connived at it or permitted it by abruptly withdrawing the guards without notice at a time when it was known a gang contemplated the crime.”

  106. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Further we read
    “Chiang’s Predicament
    Anti-Japanese agitation from 1928 to 1937 was waged considerably by Chinese elements – particularly Chinese Communists-who hated Chiang. If he could be entangled in a losing war, reds might hope to gain power in large areas of China in consequence of wartime disorganization. When Chiang Kai-shek undertook to subdue anti-Japanese lawlessness, his enemies in China shoute.d that he was pro-Japanese. Yet to compromise with the anti-Japanese elements and officially sanction their violence would invite war with Japan. Chiang was in a hard position. Finally he yielded to the factions clamoring for war.

    In June of 1936 a South China faction revolted with the announcement that its aim was to force Chiang to attack the Japanese. Then in December of 1936 the Chinese Communists, in an alliance with another faction, kidnapped Chiang and announced he would be killed unless he agreed to war on Japan. War came seven months later.The point is not that Chiang Kai-shek himself provoked the present war. But it is a matter of plain evidence that provocations from the Chinese side were numerous.”

    Chiang’s Kidnaping
    From Madame Chiang Kai-shek’s book on the kidnapping of her husband, plus other evidence, it seems plain that Chiang had to choose between risk ing his dictatorship in civil war or joining the movement to make war on Japan. The Blue Shirts, an organization of anti-Japanese officers in the Chinese army, might join the factions against him if he refused to side with the factions seeking war on Japan. Chinese businessmen and the more stable variety of educated Chinese generally seem to have opposed war. The common coolie and farmer classes dreaded war. But these pro-peace elements were shouted down by the radicals. Meanwhile, red propagandists spread the word that aid from America could be expected if war could be started. While affairs were thickening, after Chiang was kidnaped by reds in December of 1936, Chinese radicals were shouting that China, with nine times as many ready troops, could win against Japan.

    When Conflict Came
    Probably no foreigner knows positively who began the shooting on the night of July 7, 1937. This was in itself unimportant. It became serious when the Chiang Kai-shek central government of China, under pressure from pro-war elements, refused to recognize the negotiations of local Chinese officials at the scene of the incident. The local officials seemed ready to settle it peacefully. Chinese radicals in Nanking and Shanghai were shouting that the local officials were sell-outs to Japan, and that Chiang should not accept their settlement. This meant war.”

  107. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    Further we read

    “Civilian Killings at Tungchow
    What roused Japan more than anything else after the July 7, 1937, affair, was news of the slaughter at Tungchow, near Peiping, of some 200 Japanese subjects–men, women, and infants. American papers gave this event either very obscure notice or no notice at all, though it was of great importance in launching the war.
    The Tungchow massacre was perpetrated by Chinese soldiers apparently excited by reports that the Japanese had been routed and were in retreat from China. Tungchow was not a theatre of conflict, and the Japanese families there were set upon without warning and slain . Indignation among Japanese in Japan ran high, and from that time on-July 29 -a full size war with China was considered inevitable.”

    …snip…

    “Defining the Aggressor
    The League of Nations sessions at which Japan was called the aggressor were dominated by Soviet Commissar Maxim Litvinoff, known also as Finkelstein.”

    …snip….

    “The League blundered badly in 1931 when it sent out the Lytton Commission to gather facts. The Lytton Commission findings showed an embarrassing array of Chinese provocations. The League didn’t make that mistake again in 1937. Directed by Comrade Litvinoff it took action for China, Moscow’s ally, without any inquiry-a procedure as high-handed as would be a judgment without evidence in an ordinary court case.”

    …snip….

    “Voluntarily, Japan returned to China in 1922 the Shantung properties won from Germany in the World War. Japan’s relatively small army, one-ninth the size of China’s prior to the present conflict, would hardly indicate adequate preparation to fight China alone, not to mention America and the rest of the world.
    Japan’s peace offer to China in January of 1938, with a view to ending the present war, did not demand an inch of Chinese territory. The main demand was that anti-Japanese violence and agitation of the sort causing the massacre of Japanese civilians at T ungchow be suppressed.”

    “If the Japanese were looking for conflict with China, as the Tanaka Memorial says, there were numerous provocations between 1927, the date Chinese claim the Tanaka Memorial was drafted, and 1937, the date present fighting began. In 1927, in fact, the British Government, now allied with Moscow against Japan, appealed to Japan to send troops to China to help defend British lives against Chiang Kaishek’s anti-British drive. If japan wished to attack China, that was a splendid opportunity-with British approval. At any time prior to 1937, Japan could have attacked Chiang when he was less well equipped with imported foreign arms. During years prior to 1937, too, Chinese militarists repeatedly sought Japanese aid, promising all sorts of concessions in return for aid resulting in victory over other Chinese factions.These were refused by Japan.”

    • Replies: @Malla
  108. Malla says:
    @MarkinLA

    Why didn’t Korea just enter into an agreement of integration?

    Why would the exploitative elites ruling Korea do something like that? During Japanese Empire, the population growth rate of the Korean population accelerated and was higher than Asia. Seoul, Pyongyang were developed. Before this most Koreans lived as serfs to exploitative Hanbang elite classes.

  109. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    What I find interesting and at the same time appalling is that the United States of America and Great Britain played a big part in destroying the greatest anti-communist nations on Earth, Third Reich Germany, Fascist Italy and the Japanese Empire. Now the descendants of White Americans and Britons are looking at a commie future right before their eyes. And tomorrow the Whole World.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Anon
  110. Marcus says:
    @Malla

    Well, I disagree, those governments were most interested in self-aggrandizement (as all are tbf) and communism was mainly a convenient bogeyman. Also I don’t see many communists in important positions today, just libs and neolibs. Gommies like our special needs author are just useful idiots of Kochs, Soros, Sutherland, etc. While I appreciate your posts, in the future, could you please limit to maybe 3 responses? I get email notifications for each reply lol

    • Replies: @Malla
  111. masseltov says:

    one question:
    are you mildly loony?

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  112. Anon[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Communism would represent a huge improvement to our current system. At least Communists sometimes did nice things for the working class.

    Our current leaders are blood suckers and care not for the masses.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  113. Malla says:
    @Marcus

    While I appreciate your posts, in the future, could you please limit to maybe 3 responses? I get email notifications for each reply lol

    LOL Sure.

  114. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Those blood suckers have been the funders of communism around the world. Jacob Shiff, Rockefellars, you name it, they love Communism. For them Communism is the next step of the current system you hate so much.

  115. I agree about the Americas. The people living there had a rough go of it because how the ice age went about ending (basically blowing out ice dams which blew out everything they had set up prior to 10,000BCE. There were also people apparantly coming in from both the European side and Asian side in prehistoric times. Europeans came in in the 16th and 17th century to north america and saw all the empty ruins of once large settlements but none of the locals had a clue what had happened. This is strictly to set aside heterodox ideas about minor trade contacts in ancient times with Romans and Phoenecians who were in on the Big Secret.
    Also, the US did rob a third of Mexico’s territory in an act of colossal piracy on the scale of what the Nazis wanted to do to Russia. I don’t understand the hate on central americans- these are the heirs of the great Mayan kingdoms and the Toltec, Mayan and Mazatecan realms. These are not forest monkeys. Plus they are some of the hardesst working people you’ll ever meet.

    As far as europe goes, the ‘Moslem World’ (which includes a whole hell of a lot of Christians, Mandaeans and others) has intermingled with europe since the Ottomans, the Umayyad Sultans and lets not forget Vikings and Normans, who were all over the area. I understand why the importation of hundreds of thousands of black africans freaks people out. People have always intermarried and traded across color lines all through time. But when you get the not unreasonable idea that someone else has decided FOR YOU that your daughter must produce lots of half black children who can form a servile caste who will do drudgery work for slave wages, you start wanting to fight back. The world is a lot smaller for good or ill, but people don’t like their genetics and culture being sculpted against their better judgement by some think tank scumbag feaux intellectual who think the perfect world is that Aldous Huxley presented as a nightmare.

  116. Malla says:
    @Anon

    What I meant was we need Socialism but a Socialism that has nothing to do with Marx. There were many socialists before Marx, they are all conveniently forgotten.

  117. @masseltov

    You should use the REPLY button so we know who the message is for. Was it for Malla?

  118. Morris L says:
    @Malla

    Incredibly interesting posts – thank you so much for taking the time to write them. Can you point me to any source material please?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  119. MarkinLA says:
    @Malla

    You don’t get it. That FDR wanted war with Japan does not make it the US’s fault for the war in the Pacific. It is irrelevant want the did short of an act of war. Refusing to supply a country with materiel their industry needs is not an act of war.

  120. Malla says:
    @Morris L

    If you check out the book I have linked in post 108. I did not write it, I just quoted from the book.

  121. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The Tungchow massacre was perpetrated by Chinese soldiers apparently excited by reports that the Japanese had been routed and were in retreat from China. Tungchow was not a theatre of conflict, and the Japanese families there were set upon without warning and slain .

    I must add, I did some research into this and it seems this massacre was done by East Hebei Army troops who were Japanese trained and under Japanese command who mutinied against the Japanese after a clash with KMT troops of General Sung Che-yuan. Tungchow is located east of Beijing but is very close to Japanese controlled Manchuria. As they outnumbered Japanese personnel in the city, East Hebei troops soon took control and went into a killing frenzy and soon became out of control. Hundreds of Japanese military personnel, Japanese civilians, and Korean civilians working for the Japanese were massacred, and many Japanese women in the city were raped, and some were murdered. Much of the city was burned down. Only 60 Japanese civilian survived. Many of the slain were Koreans (Japanese Empire)
    So this massacre was not done by the KMT forces directly, I want to make that clear.
    Unknown to Japanese, the East Hopei leader Yin Ju-keng, had reached a secret agreement with General Sung Che-yuan of the KMT who hoped to use Sung’s Kuomintang troops to rid himself of his Japanese overlords.

    However the kidnapping of Chiang Kai Shek did happen, an incident which did turn his policies more anti-Japanese than anti-Communist. That kidnapping incident is called the Xian Incident.

    However about the Marco Polo bridge incident which started the war. It is very hard to determine, who fired the first shot. Both sides blame each other. Did the Japanese provoke the Chinese to justify an invasion of China or did the Chinese provoke the Japanese? I cannot tell as we get different versions of the events.

    Either the Japanese were guilty of many of these incidents and used it as pretext to attach China to colonise China or the Chinese because of Anti-Japanesism provoked the Japanese. There are also various claims of KMT wanting to provoke the Japanese to bring the USA, UK etc… into their side. There are also claims about the Shanghai incident that communist moles tried to set up a war in between the Chinese nationalists and the Japanese. Well China did go Communist after all after the war.

  122. GeeBee says:
    @Jon Baptist

    ‘Fundamentally, there is no difference in the Communist East and the Capitalist West. They are identical in that both government and big industry work in unison as a single unit. They are both examples of tyranny.’

    I just saw your comment, and your closing sentence (which I quote above) is an excellent summation of why we of the true Right should hate both sides of that same bogus ‘Left/Right’ coin that we are supposed to accept constitutes a real ‘choice’ and which we get to vote for in that cruel sham we call ‘democracy’. It is said that under communism the government owns big business, while with capitalism, big business owns the government. A compelling cases can be made that in essence these two seemingly antithetical political systems are in fact virtually the same. This truism reveals exactly what you say above, and indeed this same idea features in Orwell’s ‘book within a book’ in ‘1984’: Big Business is The Party and The Party is Big Business. This hideous entity’s objectives are power and wealth, and ‘the proles’ can go hang.

    Might it not be claimed that modern China is a species of National Socialism? Certainly it was an idea decades ahead of its time, and yet never was any movement or political philosophy more swiftly, more thoroughly and more cruelly scrubbed form the earth by the Anglo-Zionist ‘Empire’

  123. Malla says:
    @Morris L

    Sorry I answered for a different post. There is a link to the book in my post.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andre Vltchek Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?