…one person who is clearly a disgruntled past contributor.
While Sallis apparently bemoans the Soviet sufferings in the example of the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969, the normal answer/position for anyone who cares about Europeans and European EGI: with regard to which side to take in the Sino-Soviet conflict is of course the Chinese side.
This is like a case of chess vs. checkers. If you are playing checkers (which apparently Sallis is doing) then you’ll scream, “Russians are white and therefore they should be blindly supported no matter what they do, because their skin is very white!”
Or, you could play chess and realise that the Sino-Soviet split was one of the most exploitable things that ever happened for people who were struggling against the Soviet Union.
ALSO: Given the rhetoric that he is throwing around, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sallis will next declare that Adolf Hitler and the entire general staff of the German Army in NS Germany, as well as Benito Mussolini and the whole PNF, were somehow magically ‘race traitors’ to the European peoples because they chose to work with or enable the following militant groups of people against certain European groups: Japan, Korea (yes, large sections of Korean society fought in the IJA and collaborated with Axis), the Burmese National Army, the Indian National Army, Indonesian National Army, Young Malays Union, Thailand, the Philippines, Formosa (non-KMT Han in Taiwan and Taiwanese aboriginals), Mongolia, Crimean Tatars, Hmong tribes, Khmer Issarak (Cambodian and Khmer), Cambodia, Laos, Cochinchina (later part of Vietnam), Annam (later part of Vietnam), Tonkin (later part of Vietnam), Manchuria, Tibet, Assam, Bengal. I can’t wait to see the rationalising or perhaps the spinning that will happen next.
Asking ‘who would you support’ and presenting the dichotomy of supporting the USSR on one hand or the PRC on the other. The answer to that question is already known, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford supplied that answer. In the circumstances that had come to exist at the time, that was the best possible choice that could have been made.
Perhaps, gook, we’ll know what the “right choice” was when the final information is at hand. Me, I think Nixon should have agreed to let the USSR nuke China. If the White world ends up buried under a Yellow mudslide (with Danny masturbating and flagellating himself simultaneously), then I would think Nixon and Ford were in error.
Your blog should change its name, unless the “majority” in Majority Rights represents the populations of East Asia. As a vehicle for specifically European interests, the site is a treasonous, pathetic joke.
The Iron Dream, by Norman Spinrad
The Hitler fiction story is amusingly entertaining and indeed reminds one of standard “movement” racial history “non-fiction” texts. After all, the “movement” has six foot tall blonde Nordics creating every civilization between Gibraltar and the Himalayas, while Lord of the Swastika ends with seven foot tall blonde Nordics rocketing off to conquer outer space. Same difference. The following quote from the book summarizes the basic Piercian plotline:
Every inch of advance was a concrete step forward toward the goal of an earth inhabited entirely by tall, blond, genetically purebred supermen totally free from even the possibility of racial contamination.
I don’t know, Spinrad, that really doesn’t sound so bad to me. Yes, it is “anti-Med,” but that fictional future is a hell of a lot better than the present-day reality of the multiracial nightmare of America and the entire “West.” Hail Jaggar!
Ironically, in my “Nazi” opinion, Spinrad’s spoof backfired on him. The part of the book which reads most like a sarcastically critical spoof is not the Hitler story itself, but the critical analysis by Whipple (who even Spinrad described as a “tendentious pedant”). Whipple’s analysis is the usual warmed over, sexualized, Freudian psychobabble, an ad hominem attack in which the author Hitler is described as a (probably) syphilitic, crazed, obsessed, sexually repressed latent homosexual. Sound familiar? And, despite the Anglo-Saxon surname “Whipple,” this New York-based critic might as well have been named “Jewenstein.” It’s that “over the top.” And, given the context of the alternative history of The Iron Dream, in which a dominant Soviet Union controls most of the Earth, except a despondent America and a militant Japan, one can’t help admire the vision of Lord of the Swastika and despise the pedantic Whipple. Further, there is an implicit whiff of subtle praise for Hitler in the very format of this book’s alternative history – in the absence of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR would have conquered all of Europe and most of the world.
With all of this kept in mind, The Iron Dream is recommended reading.