Archive for April 3rd, 2006

Tim and the Chinese

Tim says,

“Mr. Whitaker,”

“Do you consider the Chinese to be a serious threat to our race? I keep reading reports about Isreal selling us out to the Chinese. We all know that Jews are not exactly pro-white allies. If they are partners —are they partners on more than just steeling technology? You have stated that the Chinese have a childs mind (or something like that). But led by a nest of Vipers they could be dangerous (especially since there are so many of them and they STEALING our technology). I know you have your eyes on everything. Sound off on this one. ”

My position on the Chinese is considered absolutely wrong by absolutely everybody, which, in my intellectual history, tells me I am right on the money.

The Chinese might INHERIT the world, but they will not conquer it.

White nationalists are infuriated at my saying this because they do not really understand that race is REAL.

The Yellow Peril has been front page news since Ghenghis Kahn, who was NOT Oriental.

When the Kahn took Russia in the late Middle Ages, the West began to take a close look at China. What they saw was a country that was destined to rule the world.

China, despite civil wars, did manage to unite a fifth of the world’s population, all of Oriental descent, under a single strong monarch again and again. From a white point of view, this made eventual Chinese conquest of the world inevitable.

The Yellow Peril looks at the world from a WHITE point of view. If one single country united a fifth of the world’s population, all white, under a single strong ruler, that country WOULD rule the world.

But the reason China has managed to repeatedly enslave a fifth of the world’s population, all Oriental, under a single state is the exact rason that they are not prone to conquer the world.

The reason for this is incomprehensible to white people:

The Chinese don’t WANT the world.

Whites were never united because they were white. When whites actually DID rule the world, they went to war with each other in World War I.

Each country wanted the world for itself.

China has NEVER conquered ANY non-Oriental country. The only time China went beyond its borders was to take Manchuria and Korea, but Japan stopped the Chinese invasion. They also took took over a major part of Southeast Asaia, also Oriental, for a short period of time.

The ginle little island of Britain took all of India, ten thousand miles away. China never set foot on the whole whole subcontinent of Inida, which sat right on its doorstep in complete anarchy.

China today refers to people of Chinese ancestry outside China as “Chinese living abroad.”

They have even gien up on Japan.

They want Taiwan back, and they have said, repeatedly, that if we don’t want them to have the right to conquer Taiwan we should take down Lincoln’s portraits in the White House.

But what would China do with Africa? They don’t want black slaves. There are plenty of Chinese to perform the same functions.


In Oriental society, unlike white society, everybody doesn’t want to be a chief. They already have all the Indians they need.

I will aswer the second part of your question, the Chinese-Jewish relationship, later.




Peter says,

“Sometime you should write on why the anti-federalists were called Federalists, the anti-whigs were called Whigs, the anti-republicans were called Republicans, and the anti-democrats are called Democrats. ”

Comment by Peter


The Federalists were called Federalists because they werre tied to Washington, whose reputation got the Constitution ratified. They subsituted a Federal system, with a strong central government, for the Confederation, which had practically no central government.

As the Federal Government got stronger the word “federalism” became more and more just a reminder that the states ALSO had rights. So the old Federalists like Alexander Hamilton who wanted nothing BUT a central government became Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans, who destroyed federalism altogether.

The Whigs were called Whigs after the Revolutionary Whigs who opposed the monarchical Tories. The party took that name as opposing the “monarchy” they said Andrew Jackson was trying to impose.

The Democrats have that name simply because Jackson gave it to them. In over seventeen decades, that party has had nothing in common with the original party but the name.

The original Republican Party, the Republican-Democrats, was the name given to the anti-Federalist party by Jefferson. Jackson claimed his party was truly Jeffersonian.

The original Democratic Party opposed a national bank and other centralizing measures Hamilton and Lincon wanted, so it was actually anti-Federalist, in the later meaning of that word.

A more genereal answer to your question goes back to a point I keep making, and that I hope will not die with me:

When someone declares he is anti-Hate, you know that he considered Hate to be prime motivator. He is a Hater.

When somone freely accuses everybody of lying, he considers lying to be a natural action, and he is a liar.

The Hamiltonians and Lincolnites wanted ONLY a central government, but in order to get started they needed a central government to start with. So they got the Constitution by guaranteeing states’ rights. They got the name “Federalist” from that. But they were not Federalists, they were centralists.

A party gets its name from the FIRST step.

The Whigs were Hamiltonians opposing Jackson’s Jeffersonians. Thewir first step was to drive the Southerners under Jackson out of power. Then they could continue the Hamiltonian program of destroying the states altogether. To achieve this first step, they called themselves Whigs, dedicated to overthrowing Jackson’s “monarchy.”

But it was so they could set up a centralized monarchy of their own.

Lincoln did that.

Sometime you should write on why the anti-federalists were called Federalists, the anti-whigs were called Whigs, the anti-republicans were called Republicans, and the anti-democrats are called Democrats.

Comment by Peter