Why Whites Should Support the Iraq War

An important point about Saddam is he was a very secular dictator. Osama Bin Laden he was not. Taliban he was not.

Saddam Hussein was someone who brutally held down religious extremism. He did not use holy law and he did not restrict women from participation in his society. Never before has a middle-eastern dictator been as secular as Saddam Hussein. it is unprecedented. That is why I think he was the appropriate leader for Iraq, and taking him down harmed both American and Iraqi interests. Saddam Hussein was helped into power by Americans, and Americans should have stayed on his side.

This is one thing I agree with Paul about, but I have other points of disagreement, such as Iran and Afghanistan. Even with Iran, I don’t advocate a strike as long as negotiating is working.

By on 1/17/08 at 12:23 am

I’m not a racialist, but I am a “human-biodiversity realist” and a Ron Paul fan. The Iraq war has been very harmful to American interests, just as Vietnam (remember how communism defeated capitalism and all the dominoes fell? oh, nevermind) was. We are wasting money and blood while oil is getting more, not less expensive. The current leadership is far too idiotic for anything like victory to be plausible. Right now Iran is a natural ally, to an even greater degree than China was went Nixon went over and furthered the Sino-Soviet split. We should hand over influence in Iraq to them and form a front against the Sunnis who’ve been trying to kill us.

Daryl, secular dictators in the Middle East are nothing new. Ever heard of Nasser? Saddam isn’t even the only Ba’athist dictator. Syria has been under the same party, which crushed the Muslim Brotherhood at Hama.

I defend radical non-interventionism here. I’ve also debated Mencius Moldbug on colonialism numerous times, and if you haven’t joined in the comments section at his blog you should.

By on 1/17/08 at 4:08 am

I completely disagree with you.

Firstly let me say that I could not give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqi people - to qoute Bimarck in another context, “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier”. Secondly, Saddam was first and foremost an Arab Nationalist. The whole history of his regime was strongly anti-Islamist and secular, in fact his role-model was Joseph Stalin.Incidentally it was the USA that goaded him and encouraged him to attack Iran in 1981 - mainly based on fears of ‘Islamic expansionism’. Saddam was an unintelligent man and a loser - there’s no doubt about that, but having said that his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, that sparked the whole present, sorry mess was strictly an inter-Arab matter, regarding two arbitrarily created states - delineated by British colonists in 1921 after the Ottoman breakup. Of course the 1990 war was all about cheap oil, no one doubts that.(The irony is today that oil has never been more expensive due solely to market demand from China).Muslims around the world were very aware of this fact - and the fact that neo-con lead USA was willing to slaughter poorly defended Iraqis on a mass, horrific scale purely to sate their selfish lust for ‘cheap fuel’. I am afraid what we are reaping now is the (justified) in my opinion whirlwind from a proud people who ARE racially and politically aware. “White” does not always mean “Right”.

By Fox Bark on 1/17/08 at 10:02 am

Ian Jobling states - Why does the racial right support white interests in domestic policy, but side with Muslims when it comes to foreign policy?

If I felt the war in Iraq was in the interest of American and Whites then I’d embrace Irish’s idea of “VICTORY”. But is it? Iraq, militarly, has never been a valid threat to America or Isreal. Was Saddam choking off oil to the West in an attempt to force his agenda? If he was then a valid argumnet could be made to invade.

Multple sources estimate the war in Iraq will total between one and two TRILLION dollars. Is that type of investment worth the price considering the vital domestic interests that remain unsolved at this moment? (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the national debt ect..) Should we make that type of investment for America and Whites on the fact that “Saddam was a menace in waiting”? I fell the evidence is as unconvincing now as it was five years ago.

By on 1/17/08 at 4:35 pm

Frankly, the only reason Muslims pose any threat to Western Societies is due to the twin insanities of Mass Third World Immigration and State-sanctioned Multiculturalism. The War on Iraq sponsored by Neocons and the Israel Lobby in the U.S. has been an absolute disaster and is unjustified on every level. Iraq was fully contained via sanctions and the no-fly zone policy and Dubya’s War was both a financial and strategic boondoggle which future generations of Americans may yet pay a heavy price for.

As Serge Trfkovic has stated in ‘Sword of the Prophet’ and ‘Resisting Jihad,’ a two-pronged policy of containment and non-interference along with an end to Immigration, and maybe even a firm program of repatriation, is the only viable solution. Perpetual war on Islam will only end in disaster for both Israel and the United States

By on 1/17/08 at 8:37 pm

The original ideology of Saddam’s Ba’ath movement may not have been primarily religious — Arab nationalism, socialism, hostility to Western “colonialism”, and hostility to Israel being primary instead. However, all of them ruled a deeply religious people whose culture was saturated in Islam, and for whom no source of authority had greater legitimacy than the clerical — and they acted accordingly.

Furthermore, the colossal failure of the secular socialist Arab regimes, both the Ba’ath and the wider movement as well, to achieve the destruction of Israel, let alone pan-Arab unity, great power status, or widespread prosperity, discredited the whole movement in the eyes of the masses, the intellectuals, and sympathizers abroad. As a result, even the “secular” dictators turned increasingly to religion to justify their grip on power.

Saddam was no different. After his crushing defeat in the Gulf War, he added the phrase “Allahu Akbar (Allah is great)” to the Iraqi flag, effectively making it impossible to change the flag after his regime fell. He began to appear in propaganda clips and images in religious garb, kneeling in prayer, and the like. The Iraqi state framed issues in religious terms, always of course with Saddam as Allah’s favored son and his enemies as Allah’s enemies. Saddam even had a Koran produced written in his own blood to flaunt his piety.

The idea that two genocidally anti-Jewish, fanatically anti-American mass murdering pro-terrorist Sunni Muslim Arabs would never cooperate, or even explore cooperation, is silly. If the white “racist” Nazis could would together with the Imperial Japanese (who sought to expel all colonialist whites from Asia); if the USA could work with the USSR and the British Empire; if, in World War One, reactionary czarist Russia could work together with republican France, so could Saddam with jihadis. The head of Saddam’s secret police, the Mukhabarat, flew to Sudan for face-to-face talks with Osama bin Laden.

Now, did the two have a hand in glove relationship? No. But they were in touch and in sympathy in many areas, and Saddam was OPENLY in favor of terrorism.

The notion that Saddam, a boastfully flagrant, blatant, open funder, trainer, houser, and shelterer of anti-American terrorists; a reckless and unpredictable aggressor who had staged unprovoked attacks on three other sovereign states, a multiply proven and caught liar and cheater on WMD, would have nicely behaved himself if we had left him alone to work his will for even longer is comically naive.

By Irish on 1/17/08 at 10:39 pm

Fox Bark, if oil is the lifeblood of the modern economy why on Earth shouldn’t white people and our governments do whatever is necessary to secure access to it?

Your rhetoric echoes the worst of self-hating anti-white nonsense. No other people on Earth denigrates the legitimacy of pursuing its own interests and well-being.

I guarantee you the Chinese have not spent one second worrying and castigating themselves over their efforts to secure access to oil, nor would they even if they had a democratic government and a free press.

Finally, the supposed secularity of Saddam’s regime, and his supposed antipathy to religiously motivated jiahdis, is overstated in the conventional wisdom, mostly because of the anti-white media’s desire to undermine any rationale for the war in Iraq.

By Irish on 1/17/08 at 10:46 pm

We could argue all day about whether or not Saddam was or was not a threat to us and whether defeating him was in US interests. I’d answer yes to both questions, but I’m not going to defend those positions now. Rather, I’d like to clarify what I think is most important about Irish’s article: he puts his finger on an important inconsistency in the racial right. On the one hand, they’re all for aggressive assertion of white interests when it comes to issues like the treatment of non-whites in white countries. However, when it comes to the war, they suddenly become terribly concerned about our treatment of Iraqis. The racial right’s infatuation with Paul is telling example of this inconsistency.

So what’s the reason? It’s obvious: the racial right dislikes blacks and Hispanics, but they aren’t the object of its hatred: that is reserved for America and the Jews. Although Irish’s article doesn’t state this, he has managed to put his finger on how anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism warp the perception of the racial right.

By on 1/17/08 at 11:11 pm

I’m less familiar with racialists than you are, but my strong impression is that they oppose the Iraq War because it is not in America’s interest, as I also believe, rather than because of its effects on the Iraqi people. The sanctions on Iraq were killing plenty of Iraqis, but they didn’t get the ire of racialists up (I am generally opposed to sanctions because they have never worked and are usually counter-productive while a Nixon-goes-to-China approach has worked wonders in the past).

Irish, it is certainly true that the Middle East is infused with Islam and most “secular” regimes have to be careful to appeal to that, though Turkey was surprisingly successful in beating it back. However, to say that in absolute terms Saddam appealed to islamists is not to say that in relative terms his replacement will be better or that he did not serve as a bulwark against islamism. In all likelihood Iraq is going to dominated by islamist Shi’ites of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution working on behalf of Iran. The only real alternative to them is the more nationalist Mahdi Army of al-Sadr, which is more nationalist and willing to join with nationalist Iraqi Sunnis against foreigners both American and Iranian. The former definitely seems like it will have a better chance of winning, so I think right now our goal should be to get Iran and it’s future client-state to see us as allies or at least somewhat friendly partners against it’s Sunni enemies, just as China joined with us against the Soviet aligned nations during the Sino-Soviet split.

Iraq was plenty willing to sell us lots of oil under Oil-for-food, and I don’t really care if it was going to buy weapons rather than feed people. The war disrupted its output of oil so that we are getting less. It is a war for less oil. It is really only crazy lefties who believe we stole their oil for big business during the war. Michael Neumann had a much more realistic take in Victory and Recruitment. If we had saved all the money spent on the war and used it to buy oil, we’d have a hell of a lot more.

It is true that Saddam sponsored terrorists. He supported the Kurdistan Worker’s Party against Turkey, which is currently quite active again due to the relative autonomy of the Kurdish northern Iraq region. That is why Turkey has been making incursions. For those curious, I reviewed the Turkish movie about Iraq that was so controversial a while back here. He also supported the Mujahedin al-Khalq (they claim to be pro-democracy and capitalism but by other accounts they are a crazy communist cult…kind of like Jonas Savimbi’s UNITAS) against the Iranian regime. as our own government has. Iran offered to hand over members of al-Qaeda to us in exchange for selling out MAK, but Cheney stupidly decided not to. I believe Saddam also supported terrorists against Syria, but we don’t give a damn about that. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, but he was definitely a small-fry when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Iran and Syria are much bigger players). He supported local terrorists to destabilize his neighbors. He had already gotten smacked around by the U.S once and wasn’t stupid enough to try that again. He was a very venal man concerned with his own power who didn’t really have anything to gain from ideological international terrorism. The terrorist groups I just mentioned that he sponsored don’t have any unifying ideology and in many cases were contradictory toward that of his own regime (he committed genocide against the Kurds, so he definitely wasn’t for Turkish nationalism and I believe he also repressed Marxist parties within Iraq). Worrying about Saddam because Islamists threaten the U.S would have like been worrying about Franco when the communists were threatening us.

Many of you are racialists, which means like me you are fringe radicals (I’m a paleolibertarian anti-federalist). I would expect you to recognize that the government, even though it is elected by a majority of your fellow Americans (the majority of whom are white like you) is distinct from you and Americans more broadly. It pursues its own interests, which are very frequently orthogonal to or even contradictory toward your own. To assume that because someone opposes a policy of our government makes them “anti-American” or “anti-white” is the height of folly. If I oppose affirmative action or hate-crime legislation, does that make me anti-American? It should be obvious that it does not.

Finally, to quibble, Arabs are part of the broader Caucasian race. It is true they are Semitic rather than Indo-European (the Persians of Iran are the latter), but they’re Caucasian nevertheless. If you really only feel solidarity with European whites and their descendants, rather than emphasizing the racial white part you might want to emphasize the culturalist European aspect.

By on 1/18/08 at 1:25 am

It is probably accurate to say that Arabs have many traits that Blacks and Hispanics do not. Arabs are disciplined and authoritarian, and ultra-religious. Blacks on average are less intelligent, and Hispanics on average are more lazy.

A fascist type would probably sympathize with the Arabs.

By Daryl on 1/18/08 at 5:08 am

Response to Irish, etc.

Just a few points regarding this topic. Israel’s interests aren’t synonomous with those of The U.S. and the Iraqi Regime under Saadam was absolutely no threat to either the U.S. or Israel. Contrary to Neocon war propaganda, Iraq had no WMD’s, no air force, no means to carry out these so-called threats whatsoever. The notion of Arabs/Muslims driving Jews into the sea and destroying Israel should they get the opportunity belongs in the realm of Sci Fi or Fantasy fiction genre. It is nonsense. Israel has a nuclear arsenal consisting between 200-400 weapons, state Philof the art missile defense systems, and the best trained military in the region. Iran isn’t a threat to Israel’s existence, let alone the pathetic regime of Saadam Hussien ever had been. This notion is pure Likudnik propaganda. Israel can easily destroy any Arab rival, or combination thereof, a thousand times over, if necessary.

As for Saadam, the main reason he went from being a CIA backed “ally” to “the new Hitlerian madman of the Levant” was due more to his policies placing the interests of Iraq over those of U.S. and Foreign owned Oil conglomerates. When he nationalized oil production and pursued an independent foreign policy, he became public enemy number one. As to the atrocities and brutalities perpetrated by his Regime, how did these differ from those of compliant U.S. satellite states such as the Saudi kleptocracy, Jordan, or Mubarek’s Egypt. Do Arab-hating Neocons really care whether Arab/Muslim states are transformed via U.S. military force into Levantine style Jeffersonian democracies? Do they care whether Arab/Muslim women wear Burquas or pierce their navels and listen to American-style pop music? Nonsense. They do care about making the Mid-East safe for Greater Israel and Halliburton though. We have no business in this war. It is emphatically not in White Racial Interests to have young European-American Men and Women dying needlessly in Anbar Province or the Baghdad environs in order to protect Israel and Big Oil’s desire to control Iraqi oil reserves.

The Best defense against Islamic or Arab aggression is for a complete halt and reversal of Mass Immigration and an end to meddling in other peoples affairs. It didn’t work for the crusaders and it won’t work for us. Arabs/Muslims are no threat to anyone confined to their Levantine Homeland. As for Israel, they can more than adequately protect themselves without dragging us into a Mid-East quagmire.

White Nationalists or “Race-Realists” who support this insane and pointless war need to study the history of past empires and great powers, including our own. Keep this salient fact in mind. Imperialist adventures abroad are the biggest enemy of Racial integrity. If we had avoided the Spanish-American War of 1898, we’d have avoided the inclusion of Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans within the U.S. If we had avoided the Korean and Vietnam Wars and minded our own business, we wouldn’t have a large and growing Asian population within the U.S. The longer the U.S. remains involved in the Mid-East, the greater the chance of churches, social welfare agencies, charities, and the U.S. Government sponsoring a mass migration of Iraqi refugees to the U.S. mainland. Translation: This means Iraqis, Afghans, and god knows what else, coming to a neighborhood near you, and eventually becoming your co-workers, neighbors, and child’s schoolmates. When taking this all into consideration, is the war still worth it? I say no. This is why I proudly support Ron Paul, even though I disagree quite strongly with Libertarian economic principles in a lot of areas. Our troops belong stationed on our southern border not in Iraq.

By on 1/18/08 at 7:21 am

Daryl, the secular Arab nationalism popular before Nasser’s defeat at the hands of Israel and the Iranian revolution does share many similarities with fascism, but I would not call it fascist. I don’t think the Arabs are especially organized either (neither were the Italians for that matter, fascism was something they aspired to in order to fit in a modernized world). Remember Lawrence of Arabia? The Arabs could have overthrown the Ottomans but could never get organized. As Samuel Huntington put it, the Arab/Muslim world is characterized by U-shaped loyalties. The family/clan is quite strong, the nation-state is weak and the umma (worldwide islamic community) is again strong. The clan system is frustrating attempts to create a viable Iraqi state as loyalties don’t go that far. Al Qaeda is aiming for reviving the umma as a political unit as things were before the rise of the nation-state (Europe was also once like that with the Catholic Church stronger than any king). There have been fascist blacks like Marcus Garvey (who actually got along well with the Klan in the 20s), but for the most part they seem more family/clan based when creating their own societies (as in Africa) than Arabs, and lack any sort of strong pan-African consciousness. Hispanics can go for fascism easily, it appears to me. Spain and Portugal were both considered fascist (I know they are not Hispanic, but they are related). South and Central America frequently had regimes that might be characterized as fascist. Integralism and Peronism can be considered examples of fascist movements.

Chris, I agree that it would be quite a coincidence if Israel’s interests were always the same as that of the U.S, but you should also refrain from assuming the neocons serve Israel’s interests. They are actually wannabe-Likudniks who see their fellow jews kicking ass and like many diaspora populations aspire to be “more Catholic than the pope”, as it were. Israel was far more worried about Iran than Iraq, and toppling the Iraqi regime was a huge boon to Iran (this is discussed at the Counterpunch article I linked to). The neocons also pushed for our intervention against Serbia, which Israel (perhaps feeling kinship with a country dealing with a muslim terrorist problem) opposed. Israel must live with the reality of terrorism, for neocons it is all a game of living up to the Greatest Generation and killing the memory of the 60s and Vietnam.

Also, Saddam was a client of the Soviets during the Cold War. That’s why during the Iran-Iraq war the former had U.S made weapons and the latter commie materiel. If you look at the Wikipedia page of sources for Iraq’s equipment during that war, the U.S is too trifling to be considered.

Finally, while I agree with you that we should have avoided all those wars you mentioned, what is wrong with Asian immigrants? I thought they usually didn’t cause any problems.

By on 1/18/08 at 12:07 pm

TGGP,

The sentimentality from the racial right over the plight of Iraqis has been pervasive. The racial right website VDARE, for example, publishes Paul Craig Roberts articles that bewail the fate of the poor Iraqis, the poor Palestians, the poor Iranians, and other victims of the Israel and its vassal state, the US. That’s really how Roberts views the world. Look here and browse through these. So the double standard I pointed out in my last comment really does exist.

Also, whites and Arabs do not belong to the same race. Look up Cavalli-Sforza’s History and Geography of Human Genes. He defines European and non-European Caucasians as separate gene clusters, his weasel word for races. And, in case you haven’t noticed, I do deal with European culture a lot around here.

By on 1/19/08 at 7:08 pm

Arabs are not nordic, they are not “aryan,” but they could pass for Southern European. Some have taken in negroid strains but the majority have not. Those who have not usually resemble Spaniards/Italians. Because of this, to say “Europeans are separate from Arabs” is probably inaccurate if you consider Spanish, Greek, and Italians to be European. If you said “Nordics are separate from Arabs” the statement would be more accurate. Clearly, Arabs are not Swedish, German, or British. But they could realistically be Southern European.

By on 1/19/08 at 8:32 pm

Sure, Arabs have a separate gene cluster from, say, the Irish. So do Jews (even Ashkenazim), Italians and Finns. They are all sub-races within the broader Caucasian race. Above that there is pretty much just the human race, unless you want to divide humanity into Out of Africa & Stayed in Africa.

By on 1/20/08 at 8:46 pm

I get tired of how so many people in this movement blindly consider arabs white. In a way, I find this argument insulting. What have arabs done culturally that compares to what Europeans have done? I have argued my stance on this tiresomely on Amren and it disgusts me how so many “race realists” naively consider them “just the same as us”.

Ian Jobling brings up a very true point about the recent genetic studies. This is something I have mentioned over and over on Amren. The days of lumping Italians in with arabs and separate from Scandinavians are long gone. If arabs and southern Europeans are one and the same then this means that we as whites (from northern Europe) can’t take credit for what the Greeks and Romans did. I find this insulting (mostly because it isn’t true).

Look at a map. Arabs and other semites originated from the Arabian peninsula. Indo-Europeans originated from somewhere above the Black Sea. There is a great difference in latitude between these two regions if you haven’t noticed. There was a point where the Caucasian race split long ago forming these two distinct groups. Arabs are closer to us than blacks, but to consider them the same as Europeans…..are you kidding?

And yes, Italians, Greeks and Spaniards are overwhelmingly Indo-European. Quit giving the overly-proud and arrogant arabs a reason to take credit for Ancient Greek accomplishments (which is what you are doing). And as Ian pointed out, the most recent genetic studies lump southern Europeans closer to northern Europeans than to arabs. Sorry.

By on 1/20/08 at 11:03 pm

This is not an attempt to argue against your point, but I think it’s funny how often people claim people who take a different position do so “blindly”. What would it mean to clear-sightedly consider Arabs white and what other than disagreeing with you makes these other people “blind”? Since I’m not a racialist I don’t particularly care where you draw the line when it comes to whiteness, but they’re still Caucasians and lack of comparative civilizational achievement doesn’t change that.

I didn’t claim Southern Europeans were closer to Arabs than Northern Europeans, just that they are all sub-groups within the broader Caucasian race that can be identified using genetic cluster analysis. The variation within it is mostly clinal with major geographic boundaries like bodies of water, deserts and mountain ranges separating the large racial groups (Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Orientals, Oceanians, Native Americans) in a more discontinuous manner.

Whether whites would be able to claim the achievements of Greeks and Romans for their own has no bearing on how closely we are related. The Greeks and Romans peaked a long time ago, though the latter made a comeback during the Renaissance, and why give them the same excuse that Middle Eastern and Islamic cultures make for their current mediocrity?

For those interested, a book by a white nationalist that takes seriously the historic achievements of Middle Easterners and Southerns Europeans and offers an explanation of how more northerly people dominated more southerly ones is Understanding Human History (available for free online) by Michael H. Hart (the same guy who denounced David Duke in the AmRen conference). I discussed it here.

By on 1/21/08 at 2:08 am

Gene Expression recently had a post on population structure within European Americans here that some of you might find interesting.

By on 1/21/08 at 2:38 am

Chris, I never mentioned Israel in my blog post, other than obliquely when I talked about Saddam’s history as a aggressor (he launched unprovoked attacks on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel). Your mentioning it suggests more about your priorities than mine.

Saying that Israel’s interests are not synonymous with those of the US is a straw man. Nor did anyone claim that Iraq had fleets of bombers capable of reaching US shores and overcoming our air defenses, although assymetrical attacks via drones and the like were discussed. Furthemore, Iraq did have an extensive air force that they buried and hid http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mig25/pics03.shtml - it is not unreasonable to suppose that they could have and did hide other things.

And Iraq did indeed have WMDs. We have found hundreds of chemical warheads, ignored by the anti-white, anti-American domestic and global media on the excuse that they were unmarked, mixed in with conventional warheads, pre 1991, and not properly maintained. The OJ jury like media’s requirement has thus shifted from “any WMDs” to “only WMDs that are sparkly new, specially marked and set aside for easy discovery by inspectors, and maintained to 1st world standards”, but it’s never explicitly given as such, so as to have a rationale for ignoring what we have found.

But regardless of whether Iraq had WMDs or not, we had a reasonable suspicion that they did, as we would about a multiple time black drug felon having drugs on him at a particular time. If we collared him on sight and found him “clean” this time (although with traces of drugs), should we be racked with guilt?

Your claim that Iraq had no means to carry out its threats beggars logic. An oil-rich terror-state known to have had extensive WMD programs in the past should have been left alone to work its mischief?

I’m all for confidence and white pride, but such arrogance for me recalls our smug pre Pearl Harbor belief that those silly bucktoothed bespectacled Japanese could never harm us. 9/11 should have put to rest any notion that the Muslims lacked the means, motive, and opportunity to do us harm.

All Saddam had to do was hand off nerve gas warheads to be put on container ships, or packets of anthrax or the like to one of his many terrorist friends to cause untold havoc and devastation in the West. He would have known that we would have lacked the will to engage in devastating retaliation after the fact, if even menacing a terrorist with dogs or pouring water on his face for thirty seconds is a source of widespread self-hatred by whites today.

As for the destruction of Israel, it is a tiny nation with a 10 mile wide wasp waist, and just a handful of tightly packed urban centers. Where conventional arms failed, a nuclear, biological or chemical campaign could destroy most or all of Israel’s Jews. A 9/11 style suicide attacker or a megalomaniacal leader willing to sacrifice millions of his own people (as the leadership of both Iraq and Iran were/are) cannot be deterred by the prospect or retaliation, so all of Israel’s nukes are useless in safeguarding its existence from these attacks. Not that you’d worry overmuch, I’m sure.

As for demonizing oil companies, again, oil is vital to modern life. Therefore, any pro-white should have no compunction whatsoever about securing access to it for his country.

Now, can we benefit from weaning ourselves from oil, so that we are no longer at the mercy of Muslims, Nigerians, Venezuelans, and the like? I think the policy suggested at www.energyvictory.net has promise. But until then, we should do whatever we have to do, and leave the self-hatred to the Noam Chomskys.

By Irish on 1/21/08 at 2:48 pm

I didn’t now Saddam had attacked Saudi Arabia. I know they were afraid of him (karma’s a bitch, you bastards) but I didn’t know their fears had materialized.

We have found hundreds of chemical warheads, ignored by the anti-white, anti-American domestic and global media on the excuse that they were unmarked, mixed in with conventional warheads, pre 1991, and not properly maintained. Is Wikipedia anti-white and anti-American? National Review editors defending the invasion? Neocons at the Weekly Standard defending the invasion? The Bush administration? I believed Iraq had WMDs too, though I still opposed the war. What I didn’t know but I do know is that the chemical weapons they had possessed would “go bad” if not maintained.

But regardless of whether Iraq had WMDs or not, we had a reasonable suspicion that they did, as we would about a multiple time black drug felon having drugs on him at a particular time. I was going to disagree until I noticed you had inserted “black” in there and that makes all the difference.

If we collared him on sight and found him “clean” this time (although with traces of drugs), should we be racked with guilt? Leaving aside the utter clusterfuck that is the “War on Drugs”, I’d say if you got over 3000 American soldiers killed and blew trillions of dollars, damn skippy you should be wracked with guilt.

Your claim that Iraq had no means to carry out its threats beggars logic. An oil-rich terror-state known to have had extensive WMD programs in the past should have been left alone to work its mischief? We were able to live with Russia and China having WMDs, we could live with Iraq. Iraq never really recovered from the Gulf War, and the weapons inspections were working. Furthermore, it was only a threat to its neighbors, which don’t include the United States.

I’m all for confidence and white pride, but such arrogance for me recalls our smug pre Pearl Harbor belief that those silly bucktoothed bespectacled Japanese could never harm us. That ended with the Russo-Japanese war.

9/11 should have put to rest any notion that the Muslims lacked the means, motive, and opportunity to do us harm. Muslims are not a monolithic bloc. There were no Iraqis on the hijacked airplanes. Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where both the hijackers and the top leadership of al Qaeda hails from? That’s almost like invading China and kicking out Chiang after Pearl Harbor.

All Saddam had to do was hand off nerve gas warheads to be put on container ships, or packets of anthrax or the like to one of his many terrorist friends to cause untold havoc and devastation in the West. Except his nerve gas was old and busted, he was as likely to hand over WMDs to terrorists as Wilhelmine Germany was to hand over battleships to anarchists, and the only terrorist attack I can recall him carrying out in the West was the takeover of the Iranian embassy in England, which was a field day for the S.A.S.

He would have known that we would have lacked the will to engage in devastating retaliation after the fact, if even menacing a terrorist with dogs or pouring water on his face for thirty seconds is a source of widespread self-hatred by whites today. We engaged in devastating retaliation for attacks he never even carried out! Iran is a country that lacks the will to carry out devastating retaliation after the Taliban murdered some of their officials. Because they’re a crafty bunch they let Uncle Sam take out their two neighboring enemies. Also, abu Ghraib hasn’t gotten any U.S troops out of Iraq, has it? Just so you know, most of the prisoners there were just run of the mill criminal trash rather than terrorists. Crime is pretty big now in Iraq with the iron fist of law and order removed.

Where conventional arms failed, a nuclear, biological or chemical campaign could destroy most or all of Israel’s Jews. I don’t think there has even been a chemical or biological campaign carried out that was effective as our nuking of Japanese cities. Israel has plenty of nukes though, including on submarines, and would absolutely devastate anyone who tried that out. The U.S would likely help out, as we’re at least as supportive of them as Kuwait.

A 9/11 style suicide attacker or a megalomaniacal leader willing to sacrifice millions of his own people (as the leadership of both Iraq and Iran were/are) cannot be deterred by the prospect or retaliation I gather even suicide bombers would rather not have their families nuked. And Saddam was deterrable. He wanted to make peace during the Iran-Iraq war, but the weak Iranian regime (he had attacked it soon after the revolution) wanted to show it was not to be messed with. Saddam was not an ideological fanatic willing to sacrifice himself, which is what happened even without him attacking us, and the Iranians have behaved more rationally than the U.S government. Also, I would note that during the Vietnam war there was use of suicide bombing, but after we pulled out we didn’t have any problems (the Vietnamese did, but nut to them).

As for demonizing oil companies, again, oil is vital to modern life. Therefore, any pro-white should have no compunction whatsoever about securing access to it for his country. Japan manages to do that just fine. Buying it is a hell of a lot cheaper than launching a military invasion, and we ended up getting less oil than under Saddam.

Now, can we benefit from weaning ourselves from oil, so that we are no longer at the mercy of Muslims, Nigerians, Venezuelans, and the like? In what sense are we “at their mercy”?

But until then, we should do whatever we have to do, and leave the self-hatred to the Noam Chomskys. It seems to me it’s more like the neocons and Bush administration who hate America and want to do it harm. As deluded as Chomsky is, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and just because he says something doesn’t make it wrong. It’s entirely possible to hate the people in charge of our government (Bush is, after all, a major proponent of open borders) but not America. If you had lived in the Soviet Union, would you have told Solzhenitsyn that he is just a self-hating anti-Russian?

By on 1/21/08 at 7:00 pm

Ian Jobling and Irish,

I agree that it was right to depose Saddam Hussein but the troops have no business being there anymore. It is not legitimate to commit American troops to nation-building.

American pro-white politicians have a long tradition of supporting non-interventionist foreign policy.

I quote Senator Benjamin R. Tillman:

“Those peoples are not suited to our institutions. They are not ready for liberty as we understand it. They do not want it. Why are we bent on forcing upon them a civilization not suited to them and which only means in their view degradation and a loss of self-respect, which is worse than the loss of life itself? I am nearly done. Nobody answers and nobody can. The commercial instinct which seeks to furnish a market and places for the growth of commerce or the investment of capital for the money making of the few is pressing this country madly to the final and ultimate annexation of these people regardless of their own wishes… . Why not tell these people [the Filipinos] now before further blood is shed? … We bought you from Spain and have title. We only want enough of your territory to give us a harbor of refuge, a naval station, the right to protect you from outside interlopers, and to get such commercial advantages as you of right ought to give us. Pass a resolution of that kind, and then if those people will not listen to reason and continue to fire on the flag, I for one will say the blood will be on their own heads. Let slip the dogs of war and teach them to respect the Stars and Stripes. But we are there now upon a false pretense. We are there wrongfully. We are there without any justification to ourselves or to the civilized world.”

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/empire/text7/tillman.pdf

Tillman was unabashedly pro-white:

“We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tillman

Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy happen to match the tradition of the American racial right.

By Observer on 1/22/08 at 11:23 pm

‘Oil is vital to modern life, no one should have any conpunction in securing access to this vital commodity’ (or words to that effect).

A very interesting point of view. In fact it is exactly the same point of view any black mugger or burglar would give you if you actually bothered to spend the time talking to him.

‘My family was starving, that cash I stole was important to my family’s survival, therefore I had no compunction about that theft’.

By Beardsman on 1/23/08 at 8:27 am

I’d like to reiterate that it has been hugely expensive invading and occupying Iraq. We could have easily just bought the oil for much less money and trouble.

By on 1/23/08 at 4:33 pm

There’s so much wrong with this piece that I don’t know where to begin.

For the first, most salient point: recognizing the demographic and cultural threat Islam presents to the West does not in turn justify the Iraq War. For one, Saddam was a secular dictator, not an Islamist. For the second point, the war has created an entire new generation of refugees, some of which will undoubtedly come to Europe and America. Finally, the fact that we should want to keep Muslims and non-whites out of our countries does not, in any logical progression, support making war on Muslims. We would be better in pursuing reforms of our immigration policies.

Secondly, the necessity of access to oil does not further support the Iraq War or more generally our policies in the Middle East. Has the war made oil any more available or cheaper? Hardly! The fact that we may be culturally and demographically at odds with Islam and the Arab world does not necessarily imply that we cannot deal with them at arms distance. Indeed, promoting better relations with at least some Muslim governments in the Middle East might support that goal better than our irrational bellicosity. What good did it do us in any way, even for our present goals, for the Bush administration to categorically rebuff the overtures of the Iranian government in 2003?

Ultimately, it is the thrust of our Middle East policies, and the other reason for them other than oil, that complicates things, and that is the elephant in the room that this website seeks to obscure. Our foreign policy is skewed dramatically against our interests in large part by the Israel lobby and the foreign power that it represents. This is increasingly becoming an uncontroversial and accepted reality of American foreign relations. While I applaud Dr. Jobling’s long efforts to challenge the ugly anti-semitic and fascistic historical trends that have poisoned prior efforts at white activism, I cannot extend that applause to such a willful denial of political reality and the impact it has on this nation and its affairs.

By Tom on 1/27/08 at 6:13 am

To put a different spin on it, I think America should take up the white man’s burden and bring western civilisation to the world. The world was overall an imensely better place for white and non-white at the dawn of the 20th century thanks to European imperialism despite the disreputable origins of their respective empires.

The anti-war pacifists always have the same narrative often comparing the origins of the Iraq War to the origins of WW2, despite being very different conflicts in terms of threat and scale. The reasoning is always the same Hitler/Saddam was a ‘nice man’ in comparison to his neighbours, the fact that they had invaded and occupied their neighbours is irrelevant after all these were just artificial lines drawn on a map by our last crop of leaders and besides these polish colonels/kuwaiti monarchs are not much different than Hitler/Saddam and their countries are so far away and besides Hitler/Saddam are ‘reasonable’ men who would never want to go to war against us so they can be trusted with all the power that comes with their domination of the middle east/Eastern Europe. All we need is to keep in their good graces.

At the same time these pacifists always attack the status-quo which they themselves assist in creation by willingly spreading defeatist propaganda on behalf of the terrorists who they form a symbiotic relationship with, goulishly seizing on every soldier killed in action and every set back to hammer home their agenda.

For the record I was originally very lukewarm in my support of the invasion of Iraq, beleiving it to be the wrong target and when the ‘real war’ started in the aftermath I quickly turned against it joining the ranks of the anti-interventionist right. Again back then I was open border libertarian who thought that anybody who didn’t beleive in 100% open borders was a bigot. The fact I am posting on this site suggests I have done an ideological 180* with regards to race, (although not liberty).

What changed my mind was the fact that all the evidence points to that the coalition forces are defeating the insurgency and all the warhawks who counselled the waverers to stay the course were correct.

By Richard on 6/25/08 at 4:54 pm