From Patriotic Alternative.
By Matthew Slater
One of the most galling elements of the Afghanistan débâcle is the way in which those who favour military interventions in the cause of globalism represent themselves as patriots. In the US, senators such as Lindsay Graham consistently take a pro-military line, backing the US presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and winning a large degree of support from confused Trump voters (Magatards). In the UK, we have seen a government minister (Ben Wallace, Minister of Defence) burst into tears at the thought that not all Afghans who want to move here will be flown out. British MP Tom Tugendhat (apparently a Roman Catholic of partly Jewish ancestry) made what was described as a stirring speech in Parliament condemning the pull-out from Afghanistan.
Such people represent themselves as patriots, arguing that such interventions are in our interests, because they advance “our values”. Those who don’t support globalist interventionism are, in their narrative, the traitors. Curiously, though, and despite the fact that all media in the US and UK have condemned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the majority of the American and British populations have always opposed the Afghan war and think that the decision to leave was inevitable or even that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Are the majority of the US and UK populations traitors, with the only patriots in the globalist elites?
The interesting question is why America and Britain have since around 1991 intervened in so many countries. This is justified on the basis of “promoting democracy” and “spreading our values”, which are deemed to be appropriate values for every country in the world. This stems from the way in which the collapse of the Soviet Union left the US the sole hegemon, and encouraged the view in Western elites that we had reached the End of History (the title of a book published in 1992 by Francis Fukuyama). Apparently, now that communism was dead, the geopolitical contest between nation states was over, as all countries were destined eventually to become US-style democracies. This kind of “One Worldism” openly rejects the notion that there are racial and cultural differences within the human race. All human beings are interchangeable, they claim. If Afghans are as amenable to democracy as Swedes, then why not bomb the Taliban into submission to force them down this inevitable path that they will eventually have to take anyway? One way of reading this is to argue that the US is attempting to create pro-democratic allies all over the world in a way that defeats what it is claimed are Russian and Chinese machinations.
But it is not surprising that the One Worldism that leads to the forceful imposition of Western-style regimes also sees mass immigration from the non-European world as a good thing. After all, all people are interchangeable. Imposing democracy in Afghanistan and welcoming Afghan migrants here are thus part of the same worldview. If there is no difference between Englishmen and Afghans, they can become as democratic and liberal as us, and they are equally good candidates for British citizenship and even “Englishness” as us. In fact, the One World view argues that Englishness is meaningless, or even a bigoted concept, as “the English” will always be just whoever happens to rock up in England at any point in the future.
This globalist approach is thus summed up by Steve Sailer, an Internet right-winger, as “invade the world, invite the world”. The globalists aren’t patriots at all. In fact, they explicitly seek to destroy Britain and America as nation states in favour of a global definition of citizenship. For this reason, those ideologues who have promoted this approach in the US are known as the “neo-conservatives”. The “neo-” in the term refers to the fact that what they peddle is not the original conservatism (known as “paleo-conservatism”), but resulted from the move to the Republican Party of former Trotskyists or leftists who opposed the Stalinism of the Soviet Union. Their anti-Soviet stance was welcomed by the Republicans, but they also brought their Cultural Marxist baggage with them. They sought to turn the US Right into supporters of anti-racism and feminism (maybe the gay and transgender issues were not as prominent originally in their rhetoric). They appeared to be patriotic, because they were in favour of American power and against the Russian state, but their fundamental worldview stemmed from the Far Left. Thus the neo-conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s favoured the Vietnam War, while also backing the Civil Rights campaign, so-called, of the black minority (managed by organisations that were led by Jews).
The early neo-conservatives shared an ethnic affiliation. Irving Kristol, the editor of The Public Interest from 1965 to 2005, is known as “the godfather of neo-conservatism”. Another proponent was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. Other early neo-conservative thinkers were Daniel Bell, Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss. The Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol promoted these ideas within the conservative movement – and pushed “palaeo-conservatives” (those who believed in racial differences) out of the movement. Prominent neo-conservatives including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle used their influence in the US government to push for wars for Israel (which they claimed promoted “our values”, despite leading to hundreds of thousands or even millions of Arab deaths), achieving their ultimate victory after 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Alt-Lite figures such as Ben Shapiro are neo-conservatives, as is Ezra Levant in Canada. All these individuals share an ancestry. The Koch brothers and the late Sheldon Adelson used their dominance of campaign finance to push globalist neo-conservatism, including mass immigration and wars in the Middle East.
It is no doubt true that many Gentiles have supported the neo-con project. George Bush and Tony Blair are noted neo-cons. But the original philosophical rationale for the turn of the Right away from ethno-nationalism towards civic nationalism, immigration and foreign wars comes from the ex-Marxist entryists into the Right, nearly all of whom were not Gentiles. For most Republican voters in the US and Conservative voters in the UK, it seemed that it was patriotic to support our troops overseas, although this was articulated to an explicitly anti-white political agenda that sought to replace national or racial identity with a kind of NGO-left humanism, one that ignored real group differences and sought to encourage refugees and their families to move to the West in large numbers. Support for these wars has more recently declined in the Republican and Conservative bases, as the forever wars seemed poorly linked to our national interests and lacking in an obvious endpoint. Presumably, many in-the-Beltway think-tankers support the US empire, and see neo-conservatism as a way of preserving US hegemony over the long term, and on that basis they claim it to be patriotic. Yet whether or not it extends the life of US hegemony, the white populations of the West will only see their own standing in their own countries decline as the One World outlook of the globalist elites changes our demographics.
It is easy to get sucked into support for British troops abroad. But it’s clear they are not serving any definition of our national interests, but promoting a global humanism that writes us out of the picture. We now see British soldiers actively scouring Afghanistan looking for people from the least assimilable ethnic origin who would like to move to the UK. Army officers, some of whom are now retired, have appeared in the media claiming the withdrawal is a betrayal of our fallen. One major-general, Charlie Herbert, stated in the Daily Mail:
“I am not a man easily moved to emotion. But today I feel almost overwhelmed – filled with anger, grief and outrage. For what other response can there be to the West’s betrayal of Afghanistan?”
Whereas once the army would have been filled with hard men, who were unlikely to burst into tears over Far Left causes, now the army has been transformed into the military wing of the No Borders left. This man doesn’t stop to think that the reason why the Afghan army (trained and equipped by NATO) collapsed before a bunch of Islamists in sandals toting Kalashnikovs is because people are not the same all the world over, and the Afghans did not buy into the political/cultural agenda that the US was trying to impose on them. The Taliban are barbaric. A large number of Afghans are happy with barbarism – it’s that simple.
The stated reasons for being in Afghanistan are absurd. Firstly, if women’s rights are the issue, then why aren’t we bombarding Saudi Arabia? Ditto, if democracy is the issue. Secondly, if it is because of 9/11 and the presence of al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, then it has to be pointed out that the US were the ones who encouraged Islamic extremists in Afghanistan in the first place, then known as the anti-Soviet Mujahideen. Al-Qaeda had some camps in Afghanistan, but 9/11 was planned in Saudi Arabia with Pakistani money. The Israelis appear to have known all about the impending attack on the Twin Towers, as did the CIA. All of these were seeking a pretext for neo-con wars in the Middle East. The Taliban themselves played little role. Finally, the US may have seen a geopolitical angle in occupying Afghanistan, sandwiched between Iran, China, Russian-supported Central Asia and Pakistan and India. But US geopolitical games hold little benefit for the white population of the US or other Western countries, particularly when the US elite is pushing globalism both at home and abroad. Quite literally, there was no good reason for the US to be in Afghanistan – or Iraq or Syria.
The same people who have pushed all these wars have called for an attack on Iran, a much more substantial country in the Middle East. It seems, maybe, that the moment for this has passed, but the neo-conservatives are likely to keep on trying. If any country is not democratic or doesn’t support women’s rights or “gay” rights, then the neo-cons favour bombing them. We need to point out that this has nothing to do with “our values”: these are the values of the anti-white elite in all Western countries. Although I don’t like to see Englishmen with their limbs blown off for nothing, ultimately these wars should not be happening. And neither should those soldiers be allowing themselves to serve as ferrymen for a refugee invasion of the West.
The “our values” line is nonsense. What we need is not the survival of abstract values, particularly ones interpreted the way our elites interpret them, but the survival of our actual nations. If it is one of “our values” that we have to become minorities as we welcome hordes of migrants, then those values are self-destructive. The only value that makes sense is our right to survive. The only democracy that makes sense is one that only British people take part in, or else we will simply be outvoted by the incomers. The Afghanistan withdrawal is a clear sign that Britishness is being articulated not to national identity but to global identity, to an ideology of national decline and race replacement. The only positive alternative is to argue for racial identity – for our identity as white men across the West, and not the cucked British identity that no longer makes much sense. Afghans can be given British passports, but they can’t be given white racial identity. We must not allow neo-conservatives in our parliament and our elite to marry race replacement with some twisted kind of patriotism – after all, the homeland of the neo-cons, Israel, doesn’t do this themselves. They take part in the Middle Eastern wars, not to spread “democratic values”, but because they see Arabs as their enemies. They don’t allow a single Arab (or Afghan, for that matter) refugee in, because it would destroy their ethno-state. In fact, they take their own side. So should we.