Nancy Pelosi’s flight landed in Taiwan on August 2 despite very loud and vigorous protests from the People’s Republic of China. For the time being, the Chinese have done little but whine impotently, rattle their sabers, and announce military exercises near and around Taiwan. They’ve declared a state of emergency in the coastal regions nearest to Taiwan, which is expected to last until August 7. Chinese sources are calling this the Fourth Taiwan Crisis.

Even pro-regime Chinese journalists are openly saying that if the Chinese Communist Party does nothing in response to this provocation by America, it loses face and should no longer have the loyalty of the Chinese nation. The Russian meme of “China’s final warning” has been circulating on the Internet, mocking Chinese inaction. China is further embarrassed by being, at least on paper, the stronger half of the Moscow-Peking axis, but doing nothing while weaker, poorer, Nigeria-with-snow Russia is ostensibly fighting the “fascist West” in Ukraine. So, America has put the heads of a state whose culture depends on maintaining face in a position where they either declare war or lose face. Ooooh, boy.

Any sort of tension between America and China is a major geopolitical event that cannot be ignored by white identitarian nationalists. Crisis is opportunity. A clash with China has the potential to weaken the ruling regime. It also has potential to strengthen it. After all, power is a resource which increases when used. The Biden administration successfully humiliating China and getting away with it would be a major foreign policy victory, increasing its internal legitimacy not only publicly, but also to stakeholders within the American governance structure. On the other hand, the Chinese could take the bluff and give the US military its first real test in decades. Or, they could simply be blown out of the water by combined US-Taiwanese and possibly Japanese forces, and left seething on China’s shores. While China’s army is gigantic, its navy is barely capable of coastal defense. Taking Taiwan would mean a state which is civilizationally hydrophobic (China has never had serious naval commitments) mounting an amphibious landing on a hostile shore, in contested seas, and under contested airspace against the greatest thalassocracy the world has ever seen. Behemoth swimming out to meet Leviathan in the sea: If Dugin were dead, he’d be turning in his grave.

Since crisis is opportunity, the opposition in the West, mostly gathered under the umbrella of MAGA and allied organizations, has been accusing the ruling regime of being irresponsible and needlessly provoking China. The gamble there is that the war-weary population of America and its allied states will flock to the banner of such opposition figures if they condemn escalation of hostilities with China. Others, having been radicalized and believing that the regime is their greatest enemy (which is true, incidentally) are openly cheering for China in the hopes that an embarrassment for the Biden administration or an all-out war will lead to destabilization and opportunity for them. Many times, this plays into the very well-developed — one might say overdeveloped — thanatic impulse of the online Dissident Right. Other times it’s messiah complex. With Donald Trump having failed and turned to pure grifting, and with Putin’s Russia being consistently shown as both anti-white and incapable of posing a serious threat to the West, the hopium addicts have turned yellowed sclerae towards glorious Chairman Xi, who’ll karate-chop the gay unipolar world order, et cetera.

In any case, there are good and bad reasons to be skeptical of escalation with China. I’m going to go against the dissident grain here, however, and give some reasons why conflict with China is not only inevitable, but could also improve the situation of white people in the world.

For starters, let me dispel a common myth. The idea is that China is not imperialistic because it hasn’t expanded outside of its own borders historically, outside of perhaps treating the kingdoms of Korea and Vietnam like vassal states. Indeed, a common trope of dissident discourse regarding China is that the only time they had a foreign intervention was in Vietnam (just after America withdrew) — and lost to the Vietnamese. This historical trend is often used as evidence that China does not constitute an imperial threat against anybody, least of all white people.

To this I’ll respond that a casual look at the map will tell us that Chinese expansion is only checked by natural and political obstacles. To the east, China is bounded by the Pacific and its littoral seas; to the West, by impassable mountain ranges and bone-dry deserts; to the south by dense jungle and more mountains; and to the north by the harsh steppe and its transition into tundra. Even its small border with Korea is mountainous and marked by the Yalu River. Furthermore, the notion that China does not practice imperialism would come as news to Tibetans and Uyghurs. Tibet was an independent state until the 1950s, when it was annexed by China. While it is true that the kingdoms of the Tibetan plateau historically had links with China, and had often been vassals of China, the same thing can be said of Korea and Vietnam and yet we do not consider it right and proper that China should invade, subjugate, and assimilate Korea and Vietnam. Indeed, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam is rightfully considered to be an imperial venture.

Historically, China has expanded until it overstretched its supply lines or ran into something as impassable as the Himalayas. It would then retrench and begin the process of assimilating the newly-conquered lands and peoples. Some areas and peoples would become part of China not by being conquered, but ironically by conquering it and then losing their own elite, who were then the rulers of China, to sinnicization from the bottom. This famously happened to Kublai Khan and his descendants, and more recently to China’s Manchurian rulers of the Qing dynasty, leading to parts of Mongolia and all of Manchuria being absorbed into China and rapidly being sinnicized. However, this sinnicization has given China plausible deniability for its imperialism. Yes, it expanded outwards, conquered peoples, or was conquered by peoples, but it absorbed them all into the umbrella-ethnicity of Han and declared their lands eternal and inviolate Chinese land, so it never in fact expanded. All those conflicts were in fact a form of self-defense.

I’m not faulting China for this, of course. States and civilizations expand until they find a barrier. The West is far more expansionist than China ever was and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Good and bad are wrong terms to use in the context of geopolitics. Morality presupposes an authority to instantiate and moderate it. Between states of the same civilization, morality can exist because it flows from the same civilizational presuppositions about the world, usually expressed in religious terms. So, we can speak of China treating Korea immorally within the context of the Confucian ethic, or France being gallant in its dealings with Germany within the context of the West’s Christian and post-Christian ethic. Obviously, this is not always the case, but it is never the case between states of civilizations alien to each other. In fact, the very idea of a single moral system for the whole world is precisely what we mean by globalism, universalism, and all of those nasty things we tend to oppose on the Right.

You can buy Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe here.

Further, even if China had historically not been an imperial power, there’s nothing to stop it if there is no opposition to it. States are water; they flow until they are stopped. More often than not, what stops them are other states. Japan was isolationist for 260 years under the Tokugawa Shogunate and then exploded violently outward after the Meiji Restoration, humiliating Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, conquering Korea, Manchuria, and Northern China, and then it finally attacked the Western powers and their colonies in the East in an effort to control the Asian part of the Pacific Rim, including Australia and New Zealand. The much-vaunted honorary Aryans planned to subjugate or exterminate the white people of Australia and Asia. Disastrous though the 1939-1945 conflict may have been for the white race in other theaters, in the Pacific theatre it was very explicitly a race war between the Japanese on one hand and the Americans, British, Australians, New Zealanders, and Dutch on the other. Or, to quote Francis Parker Yockey in The Enemy of Europe:

The third of these wars was related to the second: the American war against Japan, like the European war against Russia, was a war of the West against the outer revolt. In this war, America’s role was that of a Western colony, and its victory over Japan was also a victory for Europe, just as a victory of Europe over Russia would have been a victory also for America.

Some of Yockey’s terms seem a little jargonistic to the newcomer, so a mini-glossary: The “third war” refers to the three organically distinct conflicts that made up the Second World War, the first being an intra-European conflict between England and Germany, masking an ideological conflict between capitalism and National Socialism; the second being a war of the European Imperium led by Germany against Russia in its function as the leader of the Outer Revolt — i.e. the coalition of non-white peoples resenting white dominion over the world and fighting against it; and the third being a less grand version of the same conflict in which European America attempted to subjugate non-white Japan and beat back the Outer Revolt in East Asia.

Again, we may quote Yockey on the conclusion of this theater of war:

The extent to which the military victory of the Washington régime over Japan was also a political victory for all of Western Civilization over Japan is thus very slight. The American policy of rebuilding Japan undermined the greater part of the victory. America’s abandonment of China and Manchuria to Russia, leader of the outer revolt against Western Civilization, undermined it even further. The last remaining step, the restoration of Japanese sovereignty, is only a matter of time, for in this domain the initiative lies with Japan. The outer revolt against the West was only locally contained by America’s military victory. But in all other parts of the Far East, the revolts were successful. The Chinese, Malays, Indonesians, and the natives of the Philippines drove all their Western masters from positions of control.

In the metapolitical sense, Western Civilization lost the War against Japan, despite the local and nakedly military victory of the Americans.

With the defeat of the Japanese Empire, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) took its place as the preeminent power of the yellow race and the primary challenge to Western supremacy in East Asia. Of course, this did not come about naturally. Beginning with the treasons and espionage within the American government which allowed Mao’s Communists to triumph over the eminently more controllable Chang Kai-Shek, it concluded with the strategy developed by Henry Kissinger and implemented by a wing of the American Deep State to break relations with the Republic of China on the island of Taiwan and prop up the PRC as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. Billions in American and Western investment went into China, allowing it to industrialize on a scale that Mao never dreamed of, all to poke the Soviets in the eye. And now America faces off against this paper tiger with nuclear teeth of its own making.

Even Russia, China’s ostensible friend, doesn’t feel comfortable with their new senior partners. With the loss of the European energy markets due to sanctions in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Russians can either sell their crude and gas to China at discount prices or pound sand, as it is popularly described by people on the Internet, all while ethnic Russians are being demographically displaced by Chinese in the Russian Far East.

One of my biggest points of disagreement with Yockey in The Enemy of Europe is his description of Russians as Mongol savages. It leads to wrongheaded analysis on his part and wrong conclusions. When we look at the problems with modern and historic Russia, they are typically white people problems, i.e. the valuing of moral communities above communities of kin. Indeed, the problem of Russians considering an ethnic Tatar, Chechen, or even Nigerian as their kin, insofar as he is Orthodox and speaks Russian, while rejecting their actual racial kin in Europe as “heretics and Satanists” sounds like a very European problem to have. The Russian expansion into Siberia and the steppe, as well as its subjugation of northern China during the Century of Humiliation, can be understood as a Western subjugation of non-whites, but for us to accept that, we need to understand that Russians are white.

Nevertheless, the concept of the Outer Revolt, and crucially, the resentment against white domination that motivates it is very useful. The Century of Humiliation is itself a propaganda term which the Chinese Communist Party uses to gin up anti-Western sentiment, and indeed, we must not underestimate the degree to which Chinese policy is guided by this sense of humiliation and a thirst for reassertion of their national pride. The CCP, in part, has the loyalty and cooperation of the Chinese population, the Mandate of Heaven if you will, because it has promised an end to this humiliation and revenge for it. Having ensured the West’s retreat from Hong Kong and Macau, Taiwan is now the last in the string of pearls, the final bastion of white barbarians in China proper. After Taiwan is secured, China will have to renegotiate the positions of Vietnam and Korea within the Chinese-led order. These countries have historically been Chinese vassals and are part of the Confucian/post-Confucian civilization led by them. The last battle will be Japan, the ancient enemy, and China’s only real rival within the Confucian civilizational space. After that, the righting of wrongs stage will be over and the revenge stage will begin.

In China’s cartoonish proclamations that they’re numba one, we see their fundamental civilizational insecurity. Sure, they are The Middle Kingdom, but they were also trod underfoot by the blue-eyed beasts from beyond the sea for more than a hundred years. The Chinese both resent and hero-worship the West, building life-sized replicas of Western cities and poisoning themselves with milk, even though they have no lactose tolerance, just to show that they can be like us. They resent us completely — not only our civilizational achievements, but also, on a much pettier level, our tolerance for milk and alcohol, our large bodies and great physical strength, our height, our long faces and facial hair, and the fact that we engender lust in their women while they themselves only inspire contempt in white women. Given the chance, they’d kill us all.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here

It used to be common sense that all political parties and movements in a country could agree on that country’s long-term strategic interests. For example, it would be uncontroversial that no matter who was the Prime Minister of Sweden, the country’s neutrality has to be respected and that will be the geopolitical orientation of Sweden, come hell or high water. Nowadays, however, public trust in the West is so eroded that cheering victory or defeat in a civilizational clash is contingent on one’s political belonging. And so, we have white men hoping that God-Emperor Xi will destroy the West and liberate them from the tranny regime. We have ostensible China hawk Donald Trump throwing a wet blanket over Pelosi’s high-stakes gamble in Taipei, suddenly worried about escalation. It’s all very entertaining, but let me offer a modest proposal.

White identitarians and nationalists should seek to make China a friend to the West — by that, I mean the kind of friend that Japan has become to the West: a nice, friendly country which makes affordable cars, high-quality electronics, and produces the best cartoons on the planet. A peaceful country which will not even dare think to rise up against the white man ever again, content to amaze the West with its culture, its exquisite cuisine, and its business practices, descended as they are from the samurai code of honor. We eat sushi and tayaki, we bask in Bashõ’s quiet splendor, we enjoy the Japan-Western syncretist work of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, and even indulge our morbid fascination with the weird side of Japanese culture: the tentacle stuff, the panty-vending machines, and Yukio Mishima. But Zero fighter planes now exist only in memories and media. As evident from the media they produce, the Japanese view Americans and white people in general as blonde six-footers covered in muscle and driven by an unstoppable will. For all the bluster leading up to 1945, and for all their valor, actual and imagined, they are now completely cowed and docile. And that is what China ought to become. A peaceful, grass-eating, hero-worshipping friend of the West. Just imagine the syncretic art we can beat out of them. Shanghai Jazz is only the beginning.

What is necessary in the long term is a subjugation of China and a shattering of their dreams for revenge. Having wrested from the Soviet Union the title of Leader of the Outer Revolt, they are now the greatest civilizational threat to white people and are fueled by dangerous levels of resentment against us. This is and will remain true regardless of who holds power in the West. Supporting China in any conflagration between China and a Western country, or a Western vassal state such as Japan or South Korea, is therefore a big no-no. As dissidents, we should also be aware that we’re always in danger of being co-opted by imperial rivals to the Washington regime, foremost amongst them Moscow and Peking. A strong and unstinting policy of “China is asshoe” guards vigorously against the danger of Chinese cooption, much as how robust anti-Semitism guards against Jewish infiltration. The optics of supporting China are also horrible, especially for people who purport to be pro-white. Any white identitarian cannot possibly support racial outsiders in a white-on-yellow conflict and would lose credibility as the result of such a position.

Of course, seeing as how we are Western dissidents, we shall nevertheless use any weakness that accrues to its ruling elite as a result of conflict with China to further our own political prospects. This means undermining and sabotaging the regime’s credibility and legitimacy. But a careful balance must be struck: China must not be allowed to break the fences that have cut it off from the Pacific Ocean, and under no circumstance must it be allowed to encroach anywhere near white homelands. Chinese immigration into and infiltration of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in particular is dangerous and must be stopped. Parallel to hurting the regime, we must also use this crisis to remind white people that yes, the Chinese are racial outsiders and enemies, and no, the existence of subjugated and friendly Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Taiwan Chinese) does not negate the fact that the bulk of the Asian biomass is arrayed against the West and its preeminence in the world.

The ZOG regime will try inasmuch as possible to depict this conflict as being one of democracy versus authoritarianism, and liberty versus despotism. We must, however, deconstruct that narrative and impose our own. White vs. Yellow. Aristocratic egalitarianism vs. Oriental despotism. Smiling, heroic Aryan warriors vs. faceless Asiatic hordes. This will not only delegitimize the regime by exposing its hypocrisy, but also awaken people in the West as to the fundamentally racial and ethnic nature of conflict — not just this conflict, but every conflict on the planet.

Above all, dissidents must not allow themselves to be suckered into carrying water for either side of this conflict. If you’re part of the US Navy, unless you’re a commander who can win fame and then convert it into political success, you probably have no business being anywhere near the theater of operations. If you’re in a country other than the United States, you probably want to steer clear of this whole bullshit. This is not Ukraine; there’s no cause for white solidarity. I care about Taiwan only insofar as they can make computer chips and be used as a promontory from which the West can launch attacks against China. Save your powder and your strength for our struggle back home, where we seek to reassert white control over white countries.

Ideally, the Washington regime breaks China’s back, but is so weakened that we can simply sweep it aside and take our rightful position as leaders of our respective countries in the West. The real world is rarely ideal, so we’ll probably have to do some vigorous fighting back home first before the West rides out in force once again — this time to inflict ten thousand years of humiliation on the Pompously Prideful Han.