The 4th Ideology

Very, very few in the West will understand the significance of the historic resolution passed by the CPC at its most recent plenary session:

The Chinese Communist Party has passed a “historical resolution”, cementing Xi Jinping’s status in political history.

The document, a summary of the party’s 100-year history, addresses its key achievements and future directions.

It is only the third of its kind since the founding of the party – the first was passed by Mao Zedong in 1945 and the second by Deng Xiaoping in 1981.

It was passed on Thursday at the sixth plenary session, one of China’s most important political meetings.

As only the third Chinese leader to have issued such a resolution, the move aims to establish Mr Xi as an equal to party founder Mao and his successor Deng.

“Just like the previous two resolutions, [this resolution] will play an important role in helping to unite the theory, will and action of the party – to achieve future progress and in realising the second centenary goal and the great Chinese dream of rejuvenation,” senior party official Qu Qingshan said at a press conference on Friday.

What this action signifies is that China’s ideology, which has not been Maoist since 1978, is officially no longer Dengist either. This third adaptation marks the triumph of the brilliant Wang Huning, China’s chief ideologist and the architect of the new Xiist ideology that rejects the Western-influenced Dengist economics-first approach that has been the official party line since Mao’s successor rejected doctrinaire Marxist-Leninism and publicly declared “to get rich is glorious” in 1978.

The CPC has historically recognized three political cultures:

  • Traditional Confucianism
  • Marxist-Leninism as interpreted by Mao
  • Communo-Corporatism as interpreted by Deng

The globalists of the neo-liberal world order loved Dengism and were intimately involved in its formation. Consider how George Soros described his own involvement with “the bold reform agenda” and Deng’s conception of “China’s place in the world.”

Mr. Xi came to power in 2013, but he was the beneficiary of the bold reform agenda of his predecessor Deng Xiaoping, who had a very different concept of China’s place in the world. Deng realized that the West was much more developed and China had much to learn from it. Far from being diametrically opposed to the Western-dominated global system, Deng wanted China to rise within it. His approach worked wonders. China was accepted as a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the privileges that come with the status of a less-developed country. China embarked on a period of unprecedented growth. It even dealt with the global financial crisis of 2007-08 better than the developed world.

Xi’s Dictatorship Threatens the Chinese State, George Soros, 14 August 2021

However, the highly influential Wang pointed out the flaws inherent to the third political culture in his famous text known as The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture:

The bourgeois revolution in the West promoted the basic values of freedom, equality, fraternity, and democracy, and on this basis a political culture evolved over the succeeding centuries. The ancient Chinese core values emphasizing the respective roles and duties of ruler, subject, father, and son similarly dominated the political culture at that time. But there are no core values in China’s most recent structure. This lack has multiple meanings: it may mean that the value itself has yet to evolve; it may mean that the value exists but has not universally entered political culture; and it may mean that we do not have vehicles to carry out the transmission of values. Since 1949, we have criticized the core values of the classical and modern structures, but have not paid enough attention to shaping our own core values. In and of itself, Marxism transcended the Western rule-based worldview, but in China, which never possessed that worldview, the results of the adoption of Marxism were not always positive. Therefore, to forge core values today means grasping the overall process of transformation from a culturally oriented political culture to an institutionally oriented political culture, and to choose core values conducive to this transformation.

The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture, Wang Hunin

What the elevation of Xiism – Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, to be specific – to equal status with Maoism (Mao Zedong Thought) and Dengism (Deng Xiaoping Theory) signifies is the complete rejection of what presently passes for “democracy” as well as the neo-liberal world order. That is why the international corporations are fleeing China, why the chief executives of major Chinese corporations are stepping down in disgrace, and why globalist figures are furiously denouncing Xi as the latest “new Hitler”. Like Vladimir Putin, and unlike Donald Trump, Xi Jinping has successfully overcome the agents of the neo-liberal world order in defense of his nation.

This official declaration marks the completion of the rejection of the globalists that first became apparent in 2015, when Xi publicly declined to provide what was intended to be a symbol of Sino-Globo unity by giving the offspring of Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg an honorary Chinese name.

Nationalism is rising, in China as elsewhere, and this is a development to be celebrated by nationalists everywhere. While the Christian West is not China, and while China is not necessarily a friend to the Christian West, neither is China an enemy. To the contrary, China is now the most formidable enemy of the ancient evil that has subjugated the Christian West. And what is the enemy of one’s enemy, if not a friend?

DISCUSS ON SG


The Éminence Grise

If you ever wondered why my views have tended to sound so harmonious with Chinese policy in recent years, it’s because the leading Chinese intellectual has been looking at the same things I’ve been looking at, reading the same books I’ve been reading, observing the same things I’ve been observing, and reaching strikingly similar conclusions… only he did it 13 years before I did. Of course, it’s extremely informative to observe the difference between the way Wang Huning was embraced by the Chinese elite and the way I was systematically banished and minimized by the Western elite.

At this point, like many during those heady years of reform and opening, Wang remained hopeful that liberalism could play a positive role in China, writing that his recommendations could allow “the components of the modern structure that embody the spirit of modern democracy and humanism [to] find the support they need to take root and grow.”

That would soon change.

Also in 1988, Wang—having risen with unprecedented speed to become Fudan’s youngest full professor at age 30—won a coveted scholarship (facilitated by the American Political Science Association) to spend six months in the United States as a visiting scholar. Profoundly curious about America, Wang took full advantage, wandering about the country like a sort of latter-day Chinese Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting more than 30 cities and nearly 20 universities.

What he found deeply disturbed him, permanently shifting his view of the West and the consequences of its ideas.

Wang recorded his observations in a memoir that would become his most famous work: the 1991 book America Against America. In it, he marvels at homeless encampments in the streets of Washington DC, out-of-control drug crime in poor black neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and corporations that seemed to have fused themselves to and taken over responsibilities of government. Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions, including between rich and poor, white and black, democratic and oligarchic power, egalitarianism and class privilege, individual rights and collective responsibilities, cultural traditions and the solvent of liquid modernity.

But while Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.

“The real cell of society in the United States is the individual,” he finds. This is so because the cell most foundational (per Aristotle) to society, “the family, has disintegrated.” Meanwhile, in the American system, “everything has a dual nature, and the glamour of high commodification abounds. Human flesh, sex, knowledge, politics, power, and law can all become the target of commodification.” This “commodification, in many ways, corrupts society and leads to a number of serious social problems.” In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality. As a result, “nihilism has become the American way, which is a fatal shock to cultural development and the American spirit.”

Moreover, he says that the “American spirit is facing serious challenges” from new ideational competitors. Reflecting on the universities he visited and quoting approvingly from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, he notes a growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values” and actively rejects its cultural inheritance. “If the value system collapses,” he wonders, “how can the social system be sustained?”

Ultimately, he argues, when faced with critical social issues like drug addiction, America’s atomized, deracinated, and dispirited society has found itself with “an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance.

Once idealistic about America, at the start of 1989 the young Wang returned to China and, promoted to Dean of Fudan’s International Politics Department, became a leading opponent of liberalization.

He began to argue that China had to resist global liberal influence and become a culturally unified and self-confident nation governed by a strong, centralized party-state. He would develop these ideas into what has become known as China’s “Neo-Authoritarian” movement—though Wang never used the term, identifying himself with China’s “Neo-Conservatives.” This reflected his desire to blend Marxist socialism with traditional Chinese Confucian values and Legalist political thought, maximalist Western ideas of state sovereignty and power, and nationalism in order to synthesize a new basis for long-term stability and growth immune to Western liberalism.

Of course, what works for China will not work for the West. Among other things, a Western nation cannot turn to Confucian values it never had. As Lee Kuan Yew reminds us in his memoirs, different peoples must construct their own forms of government that are suited to their customs and culture. But even though Wang’s precise prescription is not an option for us, that does not mean that his diagnosis of the West’s problem being the neo-liberal world order and its rejection of traditional Christian values should be ignored.

Nor does that mean that a Western form of Neo-Authoritarianism designed to restore Western values and Western nationalisms should not be pursued with the same vigor that China has constructed its post-Maoist system, and with a similar confidence of success. The more important question for Americans is: precisely what should American Neo-Authoritarianism look like?

DISCUSS ON SG


The Devil’s Children Fear Xi

For the benefit of all the Boomers, retards, and civnats who don’t understand that China is not simply RED CHINER full of damn commies who jes’ wanna invade the USA because they hate us for our freedoms, it might be helpful to observe how the wrath of globohomo and its servitors is particularly reserved for the very powerful Xi Jinping, who unexpectedly succeeded Hu Jintao as China’s leader, after which he proceeded to kick Silicon Valley out of his country while jailing over 100,000 party officials, from the highest level to the lowest, in the largest anti-corruption campaign ever waged in the history of Man.

That is why the global media has waged an unstinting personal campaign against him that is now growing to a fever pitch courtesy of Rupert Murdoch in the aftermath of the recent submarine deal between the USA and Australia.

Under the headline ‘China’s the main game. Removing Xi is how to play it’ commentator Paul Monk, writing in The Australian, speculated that the only way to avoid a devastating conflict with China is to facilitate a coup and suggested it should be on the agenda at the upcoming Quad conference between Australia, the US, India and Japan – described as Asia’s NATO.

“Xi needs to be removed from power and a broad path to democratic reform opened up at long last in China,” says Monk. “The Communist Party must make the shift to democratic rule that Taiwan and South Korea made from the late 1980s. The Quad should openly call for such a transition.”

In support of his suggestion, he cites a recent article from former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd in which he suggested the Quad could “provide a rallying point for all those concerned about Xi’s jingoism and arrogance”.

Warming to his topic, Monk declares, “Xi must go, and with him the reactionary dictatorship and hubris he espouses. This must be our stance. It must be the stance of the Quad. It must be the mantra of all those seeking a peaceful, prosperous future for Asia and the world.”

This is total nonsense. There is no way to avoid conflict with China. China’s entire military strategy has been aimed squarely and specifically at undermining US military hegemony, even at the expense of its ability to wage regional war against its neighbors, since 1991, but China’s leaders have considered the USA’s encouragement of “a shift to democratic rule” to be war even before Deng Xioaping officially declared it to have replaced the Soviet Union as China’s primary threat.

Despite the Bush administration’s efforts, Deng’s comments about the United States changed dramatically beginning in 1989. Throughout most of the 1980s, as a review of his Selected Works makes clear, Deng would occasionally chide the United States for democratic arrogance or for interference in Taiwan, yet he did not refer to the United States as a threat. After 1989, he frequently denounced the United States in ideological terms. For example, in a private talk with several members of the CCP Central Committee just two months after his meeting with Scowcroft, Deng said there was now “no doubt that the imperialists want socialist countries to change their nature. The problem now is not whether the banner of the Soviet Union will fall—there is bound to be unrest there—but whether the banner of China will fall.”

The sentiment became a common feature of Deng’s remarks, even his public ones. “The West really wants unrest in China,” Deng declared later that same month, “it wants turmoil not only in China but also in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The United States and some other Western countries are trying to bring about a peaceful evolution towards capitalism in socialist countries.”

In Deng’s mind, this threat to China was a form of warfare. “The United States has coined an expression: waging a world war without gunsmoke,” he argued. “We should be on guard against this. Capitalists want to defeat socialists in the long run. In the past they used weapons, atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs, but they were opposed by the peoples of the world. So now they are trying peaceful evolution.” In a meeting with Richard Nixon after Tiananmen, Deng declared that the “United States was deeply involved” in “the recent disturbances and the counter-revolutionary rebellion” of the students and that “some Westerners” were “trying to overthrow the socialist system in China.

In a November 1989 address, he warned, “Western countries are staging a third world war without gunsmoke.” Then, in a talk with a visiting Japanese delegation, Deng elaborated on Western responsibility for the Tiananmen incident. “Western countries, particularly the United States,” he argued, “set all their propaganda machines in motion to fan the flames, to encourage and support the so-called democrats or opposition in China, who were in fact the scum of the Chinese nation. That is how the turmoil came about.”

Not only was the United States responsible, in Deng’s view, but its objectives were hostile: “In inciting unrest in many countries, they are actually playing power politics and seeking hegemony. They are trying to bring into their sphere of influence countries that heretofore they have not been able to control. Once this point is made clear, it will help us understand the nature of the problem.”

THE LONG GAME: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order, Rush Doshi

The reason globohomo fears Xi, and the reason a petty third-rate power is talking utter nonsense that provides China with a legitimate cause of war against it, is because Xi is, like Putin, a nationalist whose objectives are completely opposed to the satanic globalists who presently rule the United States, Britain, Australia, and Israel. Unlike Putin, Xi may not yet be viewed as a good guy in conventional Western terms, but he is appears to be the most bitter and formidable enemy of Mankind’s true enemy.

DISCUSS ON SG


China Shows Up for the Future

Unlike Americans since 1965, China actually pays serious attention to its demographics because its leaders understand that the makeup of the population is what determines the health and capabilities of the country.

China on Friday passed a law amendment which allows each couple to have three children and stipulates supportive policies for childbearing, with observers believing it indicates China has officially moved from restricting births to encouraging births, paving the way for not only the third-child policy’s full implementation across the country, but also potentially encouraging even more births.

It took less than three months for the policy to be made into law after it was first announced on May 31 at a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, revealing the urgency and gravity of China’s population development beset by falling fertility rates, a shrinking workforce and increasing aging population, Chinese observers said.

The comprehensive supportive measures for the shift of the population policy – which were not highlighted in the last revision – show China’s strong determination in actively tackling its population challenges and building a fertility-friendly society, and more detailed measures are expected to be introduced soon, they said.

The amendment to the Population and Family Planning Law was passed at a session of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on Friday. 

The amendment says one couple can have three children, and it cancels relevant restrictive measures, including social maintenance fees and fines on couples who violate the law to have more children than permitted.

Twenty-one provisions were amended, deleted or added to the law, and the amendment took effect immediately after its announcement on Friday, the Xinhua News Agency reported. 

One can always tell that a China skeptic is totally clueless if they mention “the one-child policy” or make the ridiculous assertion that China is somehow demographically doomed. The Chinese birth rate was much higher than the US or any of the European states until 1992. It’s now marginally lower due to the one-child policy established in 1979, but that was eliminated in 2015. And between the aggressive pro-family policies now being instituted and the strong nationalist restrictions on immigration, imports, investment, and business ownership, the Chinese are already in a vastly stronger position for the future than beleaguered Americans, who are on the verge of being outnumbered in what used to be their own country.

Remember, the future belongs to those who show up for it.

DISCUSS ON SG


Antiheureusitarianism

A question asked on SocialGalactic: What tribe does the American who’s ancestors include multiple Europeans nations belong to?

None. Such individuals don’t have a tribe or a nation. That’s why US society is described, correctly, as “atomized”. It has been literally blown apart by mass immigration and labor mobility. Forget tribe, many US citizens don’t even have a clan, as their extended families are spread out across the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

It’s rather like asking what AKC-registered breed a mongrel is. The correct answer is “none”. No matter what the mongrel’s genetic pedigree might be, it is not accepted as any of the 193 breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club.

Passport-based civic nationalism is pseudonationalism. It’s the substitute of state paperwork for nationality. It’s the “divided” state that precedes the “conquered” state in the “divide-and-conquer” concept.

It may help to remember that the truth is not heureusitarian and the concept of nation is not determined by whatever makes the greatest number of individuals feel good about themselves.


The end of the civic nationalist

All of us have heard conservatives – piously or smugly as the case may be – signal their virtue by pontificating about how [insert minority here] is a Fine American because he supports Conservative Values and how said conservative would rather live surrounded by Fine [insert minority here] Americans than white liberals. And while there is a certain logic to that position, the problem is that it is based on an entirely false assumption, which is that Fine [insert minority here] Americans vote according to their expressed ideological values.

And to say they do not do so is putting it mildly. Here is how black conservatives actually voted in 2016.

In other words, even if a black individual describes himself as a conservative, firmly believes in God, views homosexual relations as sinful, opposes affirmative action, thinks income taxes are too high, and is pro-life, there is still a 96.2 chance that he will vote Democrat. More or less the same identity-first behavior holds true for other minority groups.

Identity always trumps ideology for anyone who actually possesses an identity. Which, of course, is why Americans have been methodically stripped of their sense of identity for the last 100 years.


This is what hope looks like

Young white Americans understand, in a way most of their elders simply cannot, that they are caught up in an existential war against them, and they are desperate for the kind of hope the God-Emperor is providing them:

DONALD Trump’s rally in Minneapolis has turned heads after people pointed out that it looked more like a Justin Bieber concert rather than a political meeting. Teenage girls and boys were seen crying tears of joy as the US president talked about his win in the 2016 election to a 20,000-strong crowd in Minnesota.



Generation Zyklon rises

No wonder the neoliberals and the neoclowns are terrified of the rising nationalism across the West. As I have repeatedly told you, the youth of Europe have no sympathy for them or their false ideals of “progress”, “equality”, or even “democracy”.

A poll has revealed that two-thirds of young people want a strongman as leader, while more than one-quarter would be happy with the military leading the country, revealing that younger generations are turning their backs on decades of liberalism.

The poll of 5,073 people conducted by Hanbury Strategy between the 21st and 28th of June and published on Thursday by conservative think tank Onward found that across all age groups, 58 per cent of people think that having “a strong leader who does not have to bother with Parliament” would be a good way to run the United Kingdom.

Let’s face it. If the men who fought WWII for the Allies could see what has resulted from their sacrifices, they would have laid down their arms and refused to fight. Even nuclear devastation is less destructive than immigration and immorality.

Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally. But was it worth it? Her answer – and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s – is a resounding No. They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It’s not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger.

Curious about his grandmother’s generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences.

He rounded off his request with this question: ‘Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?’

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves.

Reject Satan and all his devices and servitors.


The end of liberalism

Pat Buchanan explains why liberalism is dying now that it has set itself against nationalism:

Liberalism appears to be losing its appeal. A majority in the world’s largest democracy, India, consciously used their democratic right to vote — to advance sectarian and nationalist ends.

Why is liberalism fading away, and nationalism ascendant?

The former is an idea that appeals to the intellect; the latter, rooted in love of family, faith, tribe and nation, is of the heart. In its potency to motivate men, liberalism is to nationalism what near beer is to Bombay gin.

To be a proud Pole, Hungarian, Italian or Scotsman has a greater grip on men’s love, loyalty and allegiance than to be a citizen of Europe.

“Whoever speaks of Europe is wrong,” said Bismarck. Europe is but “a geographical expression.”

Identity politics, people identifying themselves by their ethnicity, nationality, race, culture and faith, appears to be the world’s future.

And good riddance too. Good riddance to liberalism, to conservatism, and to all the abstract ideologies that accomplish nothing more than to rationalize and imperialize evil. Nationalism, ideally Christian nationalism, is the optimal way forward for men of every nation.

Meanwhile, the liberal imperialists are attempting to criminalize love of one’s country… in the soldiery.


Addressing ethno-nationalism

Owen Benjamin is getting increasingly fed up with globalist critics who are attempting to discredit me and other nationalists with spurious charges of hate, racism, and other supposed evils:

Here’s the thing that Indians know that a lot of whites don’t: how the whites destroyed their nations. The way the liberals paint the picture is not reality. It’s not like: “the white people came in, they destroyed everyone and raped and killed everyone, and everyone had smallpox from blankets!”

No. What they did, they took their gods, they took their languages, they outbred them, they took everything that made them a nation. And now, as when someone recently said to me, “well, Vox doesn’t even look like an American Indian.” He’s a member of a tribe! That’s my whole point!

Those dudes get it. So when they say ethno-nationalist, they’re not saying “kick out black people.” Black people built America with white people and all kinds of people. It’s this new flood that is breeding out our nation. People that think there is Magic Dirt, that if you come to America, welcome, it’s great, it is the land of immigration and diversity is our strength, no! There is no Magic Dirt. Do you know who else believed in Magic Dirt? Adolf Hitler!

When Adolf Hitler invaded Russia with Barbarossa, they were such mystic, occult weirdos – that’s one of the reasons I hate associating with Nazis at all, although Ben Shapiro annoys me endlessly, I try not to attack him TOO much because I don’t want Nazis to think I’m one of their guys because they were all occult weirdos – they would ship dirt from Russia back to Germany because they thought there was something magical about the dirt. There’s nothing magical about the dirt!

A nation is its people. Its blood, its traditions, its heritage, all that stuff. That’s all 100 percent true. And I’m starting to get a little offended. I don’t get offended very easily, but people implying that I am motivated in any way by hate or racial purity. My grandmother is Jewish, I’m married to a woman whose father was a brown Mexican, one of my best friends and opener, Eric Nimmer, is black, and none of that was my plan. I wanted to keep it in the family. Obviously, I found love with a half-Prairie N-word, Nimmer’s the funniest, most loyal guy I know, and my grandmother happened to have sex with my grandfather.

But people that are trying to imply that me, or Vox, or one of these people are motivated by racial hate… it’s starting to get offensive. My son is one-quarter Hispanic? Do you think I hate my son? I’ll put you in the dirt! I’ll dig a hole, a deep hole, not a shallow one where people will find you, and I’ll kill you and put you in the hole if you keep talking that shit.

All Vox’s point is, and all American Indians get it, because that’s how they were destroyed by us palefaces. They bred them out of existence so you don’t even know what an American Indian looks like half the time, and they took their gods, they gave them alcohol, sugar, welfare, put them in a little area and said, “good luck”.

Does that sound familiar? They’re currently doing it to white Americans! Take these pills, watch this shit, watch this porn, take this free shit, have no God, have no tradition, have no family unit, broken, broken, broken.

My response is a little more etymological. All genuine nationalism is ethno-nationalism. Just look up the root of the word “natus”. Also, “white” is not a nation. Neither is “black” or “red” or even “Arab”. No attempt at transnational empires have ever survived, from Nasser to the European Union.

Civic nationalism is fake nationalism. It substitutes the state for the nation; it is literally a statist construction in the same way that Gross Domestic Product was substituted for Gross National Product in the 1990s. It’s all a form of globalism, and they’re now using the same “Sweden is a nation of immigrants” and “Britain is a nation of immigrants” rhetoric that they first introduced in the USA in order to adulterate it. But if all nations are just immigrants, there are no nations, and we know from the Bible precisely who it is that is seeking to destroy the nations.

And we also know that he will fail.

Speaking of etymology, I found one Vietnamese nickname for the USA to be of interest:

One of the Vietnamese names for the United States is Hiệp Chủng Quốc, Nation of Many Race

Or in other words, nation that is not a nation.