By Ian Jobling • 1/16/08
A man who frequently comments on this site under the name “Irish” has sent in the following brief essay arguing that the Iraq War is in the interests of whites and that, consequently, the racial right’s support of Ron Paul is mistaken. While I would debate Irish on some points, I find his argument compelling. Why does the racial right support white interests in domestic policy, but side with Muslims when it comes to foreign policy? I reproduce Irish’s essay, with a little of my own editing, here in full.
It ought to be unthinkable for anyone who is genuinely pro-white to support Ron Paul because he does not believe in VICTORY for America and its allies in the single most crucial test of will for this generation of Western Civilization, Christendom, or the white world: the WAR IN IRAQ.
Story after story at the AR website and other racial right publications reveals the suicidal self-hatred of whites, and especially Europeans who allow Muslims onto their soil. The people who comment on these posts fully recognize the alien and inherently hostile nature of Islam and argue for the right of white nations to defend and advance their interests even if that means harming non-whites.
And yet, in a bizarre reversal of thinking, many of these same posters echo Muslim and other anti-white propaganda about Bush being a “liar” on Iraqi WMD, denouncing the war effort in Iraq as unjust and illegitimate!
Why does the racial right believe it is right to advance white racial interests when it comes to domestic policy, but favors the interests of Muslims in foreign policy? White nations should feel free to overthrow any Muslim government if they deem in it in the national interest to do so.
It is clear that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was in the interests of the West. Sitting on a huge portion of the world’s oil reserves, able to fund terrorism or a WMD program as soon as the heat was off, and having bought off UN officials, the French, and others with his Oil for Food scams, Saddam was a menace in waiting no responsible Western ruler could afford to ignore—and the sanctions were crumbling. Rather than “rushing to war,” America and the other white powers demonstrated their usual suicidally excessive patience by waiting for 12 years through Saddam’s “hide the pea” games with weapons inspectors and open funding of suicide bombers, harboring of anti-American terrorists such as Abu Nidal, and countless other brazen provocations, including the attempt to assassinate former president Bush in 1993, which would have been enough to start a war alone. All this was in direct violation of the peace terms Saddam agreed to after begging for a halt to the first Gulf War, which his own aggression had begun. Any self-respecting white president would have thrashed him long before 2003. What would Teddy Roosevelt have done? Thomas Jefferson? Anyone? (By the way, for constitutional fundamentalists, these presidents, even the ultimate strict constructionist Jefferson, went to war without waiting for Congress to declare war.)
After 9/11, which Saddam openly praised and gloated over, even the cautious knew that it was no longer acceptable to sit around waiting for our enemies to choose their best time to strike. Saddam harbored and helped al Qaeda veterans, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi, after 9/11.
As for WMDs, it is true that Bush, in the teeth of dogged resistance from Politically Correct, Ivy League, establishment anti-whites in the CIA and State Department, interpreted the trickle of ambiguous but seemingly damning evidence to leak out of Iraq’s tightly sealed police state in a negative rather than positive light. So what? His refusal to give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam, who had been exposed as a liar many times before, was merely prudence. Even though Saddam turned out not to have WMDs, the invasion of his country was thoroughly deserved due to his long track record of deception as well as his regime’s potential for harm.
Make no mistake: Iraq is a central battleground. Osama bin Laden has said so repeatedly. Al Qaeda in Iraq is dug in deep and is fighting us tenaciously as we try to root it out.
Whites once had no compunction about imposing our will on others to advance our interests. Now, in a world unimaginably more dangerous for us than the 19th century, in which Muslim fanatics long to destroy our civilization and relentlessly pursue the means to murder us on an apocalyptic scale, many of us shrink from doing the hard, grim, and patient work necessary to thwart them.
It is inexcusable for people who call themselves pro-white to oppose the war because ending the war is a cause célèbre for the primary enemies of white interests: the anti-white Left and Muslims.
Ron Paul has openly and repeatedly said that he will, if elected, order all US forces to withdraw Iraq immediately. To be crystal clear for those who obfuscate this issue: that constitutes DEFEAT for America, the West, and whites as a whole. The enemy has made its stand there and has vowed to drive us out. Will we let them?
