The Moscow-Beijing Express on The Saker
Cross linked with 44 Days http://44days.net/?p=3099and Sound Cloudhttps://soundcloud.com/44-days/slavs-the-yellow-peril-are-niggers-brutes-beasts-for-western-empire-moscow-beijing-express
The conflicting visions between the Anti-West and Eurangloland (NATO, with Australia and New Zealand) continue unabated. China and Russia, the dynamic duo that stands tallest among the Anti-West, have been very visible recently. Russian and Chinese Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, respectively, attended China’s jaw dropping Victory Against Fascism Parade in Beijing, on September 3rd. Putin was Xi’s honored guest, as was the Russian detachment that participated in the parade. [http://thesaker.is/the-moscow-beijing-express-from-may-9th-in-moscow-to-september-3rd-in-beijing-the-anti-west-order-comes-full-circle/]
Both Putin and Xi gave important speeches during the 70th anniversary session of the United Nations. Putin said all he could, without visibly spitting on the West’s name. Xi’s US state visit was just as withering for Obama and the West. Both leaders left America proudly waving the Anti-West banner and continue to be heroes for the world’s Moral Majority, that 85% of humanity who is mostly dark skinned and frequently Muslim, Hindu, Christian Orthodox, Buddhist, Animist, or in the Americas and Africa, dirt poor Christians.
The Western perpetrated genocide in the Ukraine and Uncle Sam’s never ending onslaught to try to overthrow the Communist Party of China are ongoing reminders that Eurangloland’s colonial empire is very much intact and sad to say, thriving. One only needs to observe Western destabilization and/or military activities in the Americas, Africa and Asia, to swallow this bitter pill of truth: empires, with their extermination, genocide, war and economic enslavement, don’t fall overnight. All we fighters of truth and justice can do is keep flinging rocks at this 500 year-old, multi-headed Hydra, until it finally collapses from internal rot and external overreach. I’ll be 62 this year and even if I live into my eighties, I may still be writing in my dying days, about the pestilence of ongoing Western empire, instead of celebrating hopes for a new, more just and holistic cooperation among the world’s peoples, as well as dreams for the steady state use of Mother Earth’s precious natural and human resources. Only Eurangloland’s virulent racism and fascism, wrapped in the iron fist of an idealized, sanitized and mythical capitalism, stands in the way.
In my writings, I have often talked about racism as a facet of Western empire, but it has often been based on gut instinct and verifiable extermination and genocide of the Moral Majority, since Christopher Columbus first set foot in the Americas, in 1492. As Howard Zinn pointed out in his majestic book, “A People’s History of the United States”, when the natives, who Columbus first encountered, could not produce any gold to be stolen, he ordered that all of them be executed on the spot. This is the gist of modern history writ large.[dropcap]A[/dropcap] book I just read really brings the West’s racism into disturbing and chilling focus. “’Exterminate All the Brutes’: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide”, by Sven Lindqvist, really does live up to its title and subtitle. Of course, the great quote, “Exterminate all the brutes”, is a line taken from Joseph Conrad’s blistering, anti-colonial, reality-as-fiction masterpiece, “The Heart of Darkness”.
Mr. Lindqvist did a huge amount of research and reading of historical documents, to write this book, and it pays off in blood drenched spades. Yes, Adolf Hitler was an unreconstructed hater of Jews, but it was his National “Socialist” Party’s (NSP) platform and policy implementation to exterminate ten million Russians – Slavs, they were called, in order to make “elbow room” (later changed to “lebensraum”). The name “Slav” is fraught with racism. The word “slave” comes from Western Europe’s 8th century King Charlemagne using Slavs, to be worked to death in his mines. For the world’s Moral Majority, nothing about the West has changed in 1,200 years.
SIDEBAR: MADISON GRANT & THE RACIST SOUTH: AMERICANS TAUGHT THE NAZIS MUCH ABOUT THEIR RACIAL SUPERIORITY PROGRAM, BOTH IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
SIDEBAR ANNOTATION BY PATRICE GREANVILLE
[dropcap]M[/dropcap]ost Americans remain blissfully ignorant that many racist concepts embraced by the Nazis were actually imported from American sources. Throughout the 19th century racist theories bloomed in EuroAmerica, but the US literally took the lead in developing (and practicing) such arguments. First with the eradication of native Americans, seen as “obstacles to progress” due to their race and “inherent inferiority.” They were to be treated as children, at best, or suppressed like animals in case of rebellion. In the eyes of many white settlers Indians—due to their “childlike innocence or animalistic tendencies”— did not deserve the right to private property, a concept which native Americans did not quite understand and which, in practice, living in a life of tribal collectivism, rejected as immoral. It was therefore natural that in time the legal and moral justifications for such massive programs of expropriation of land and resources, what would eventually be called “racial cleansing”, were elaborated, codified, and put into practice by the Federal government itself.
One of the most notorious cases, as the author of this essay points out, was Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, involving the fate of millions of Native Americans in the Southeastern states of the Union. While with hindsight, both the Removal Act and the fate of the Indians, could be seen as sealed and inevitable, the process did not prove as smooth as expected. A significant level of opposition arose, sometimes in surprising quarters.
Notes the Wikipedia summary about this painful chapter in US history:
“In the early 1800s, the United States government began a systematic effort to remove Native American tribes from the southeast. The Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, Seminole, and original Cherokee Nations — referred to as the “Five Civilized Tribes” by Anglo-European settlers in reference to the tribes’ adoption of aspects of colonial culture — had been established as autonomous nations in the southeastern United States.
The acculturation proposed by George Washington was well under way among the Cherokee and Choctaw by the turn of the 19th century. In an effort to assimilate with white American culture, Native people were encouraged to “convert to Christianity, learn to speak and read English, and adopt European-style economic practices such as the individual ownership of land and other property (including, in some instances in the South, African slaves).”Thomas Jefferson‘s policy echoed Washington’s proposition: respect the Native Americans’ rights to their homelands, and allow the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee nations to remain east of the Mississippi provided they adopt Anglo-European behavior and cultural practices. Jefferson encouraged practicing an agriculture-based society.
However, Andrew Jackson sought to renew a policy of political and military action for the removal of the Native Americans from these lands and worked toward enacting a law for Indian removal. In his 1829 State of the Union, Jackson called for the removal.
The Indian Removal Act was put in place to give to the southern states the land that Indians had settled on. Although the act was passed in 1830 talk between Georgia and the federal government had started in 1802. Davis states in his article that, “the federal government had promised Georgia that it would extinguish Indian title within the state’s borders by purchase ‘as soon as such purchase could be made upon reasonable terms'”. As time had passed, southern states began to speed up the process by posing the argument that the deal between Georgia and the federal government had no contract and that southern states could pass the law themselves. This scheme forced the national government to pass the Indian Removal Act on May 28, 1830, which President Jackson agreed to divide the United States territory west of the Mississippi into districts for tribes to replace the land they were removed from. President Jackson promised this land would be owned by the Indians forever. The Indian Removal Act brought many issues to the table, such as whether it was constitutional, who had the authority to pass what, and could the sovereignty of Indians be protected as promised.
In the 1823 case of Johnson v. M’Intosh, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. Jackson, as was common before the American Civil War, viewed the union as a federation of sovereign states. He opposed Washington’s policy of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were foreign nations. Thus, the creation of Indian jurisdictions was a violation of state sovereignty under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. As Jackson saw it, either Indians comprised sovereign states (which violated the Constitution) or they are subject to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson urged Indians to assimilate and obey state laws. Further, he believed he could only accommodate the desire for Indian self-rule in federal territories. That required resettlement west of the Mississippi River on federal lands.
Support and opposition
The Removal Act was strongly supported by non-native people in the South, who were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the Five Civilized Tribes. In particular, Georgia, the largest state at that time, was involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees. President Jackson hoped removal would resolve the Georgia crisis.
The Indian Removal Act was controversial. While many European Americans during this time favored its passage, there was significant opposition. Many Christian missionaries, most notably missionary organizer Jeremiah Evarts, protested against passage of the Act. In Congress, New Jersey SenatorTheodore Frelinghuysen and Congressman Davy Crockett of Tennessee spoke out against the legislation. The Removal Act passed after bitter debate in Congress.
Jackson viewed the demise of Indian tribal nations as inevitable, pointing to the advancement of settled life and demise of tribal nations in the American northeast. He called his northern critics hypocrites, given the North’s history; Indian tribes were driven to extinction, Indian hunting grounds replaced with family farms, and state law replaced tribal law. If the Indians of the south were to survive and their culture maintained, they faced powerful historical forces that could only be postponed. He dismissed romantic portrayals of lost Indian culture as a sentimental longing for a simpler time in the past—progress requires moving forward.
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he fate of African slaves in the new nation is well known. While the Founding Fathers—despite their contradictions and deficient praxis— exhibited an admirable degree of respect for an ideal of citizens equality regardless of race or class, in the wake of the Civil War such sentiments became gradually diluted in many sectors of society, and class and racial inequality began to permeate the entire nation. By the 1880s and 90s, gentlemen racists, steeped in “eugenics”, enjoyed considerable respect and popularity in the poshest salons. Among them, Madison Grant (November 19, 1865 – May 30, 1937), a Yale-educated socialite and lawyer descendant of British puritans and Huguenots was an especially influential figure. Grant was known primarily for his work as a eugenicist and conservationist.
As a eugenicist, Grant was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Grant is most famously the author of the popular book The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, an elaborate work of racial hygiene detailing the “racial history” of Europe. Coming out of Grant’s concerns with the changing “stock” of American immigration of the early 20th century (characterized by increased numbers of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, as opposed to Western and Northern Europe), Passing of the Great Race was a “racial” interpretation of contemporary anthropology and history, stating race as the basic motor of civilization…In the book, Grant recommends segregating “unfavorable” races in ghettos by installing civil organizations through the public health system to establish quasi-dictatorships in their particular fields. He states the expansion of non-Nordic race types in the Nordic system of freedom would actually mean a slavery to desires, passions, and base behaviors.
Nordic theory, in Grant’s formulation, was similar to many 19th century racial philosophies which divided the human species into primarily three distinct races: Caucasoids(based in Europe), Negroids (based in Africa), and Mongoloids (based in Asia). Nordic theory, however, further subdivided Caucasoids into three groups: Nordics (who inhabited Northern Europe and other parts of the continent), Alpines (whose territory included central Europe and parts of Asia), and Mediterraneans (who inhabited Southern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East).
In Grant’s view, Nordics probably evolved in a climate which “must have been such as to impose a rigid elimination of defectives through the agency of hard winters and the necessity of industry and foresight in providing the year’s food, clothing, and shelter during the short summer. Such demands on energy, if long continued, would produce a strong, virile, and self-contained race which would inevitably overwhelm in battle nations whose weaker elements had not been purged by the conditions of an equally severe environment.” The “Proto-Nordic” human, Grant reasoned, probably evolved in eastern Germany, Poland and Russia, before migrating northward to Scandinavia.
The Nordic, in his theory, was Homo europaeus, the white man par excellence. “It is everywhere characterized by certain unique specializations, namely, wavy brown or blond hair and blue, gray or light brown eyes, fair skin, high, narrow and straight nose, which are associated with great stature, and a long skull, as well as with abundant head and body hair.” Grant categorized the Alpines as being the lowest of the three European races, with the Nordics as the pinnacle of civilization.
|“||The Nordics are, all over the world, a race of soldiers, sailors, adventurers, and explorers, but above all, of rulers, organizers, and aristocrats in sharp contrast to the essentially peasant character of the Alpines. Chivalry and knighthood, and their still surviving but greatly impaired counterparts, are peculiarly Nordic traits, and feudalism, class distinctions, and race pride among Europeans are traceable for the most part to the north.||”|
Grant, while aware of the “Nordic Migration Theory” into the Mediterranean, appears to reject this theory as an explanation for the high civilization features of the Greco-Roman world.
|“||The mental characteristics of the Mediterranean race are well known, and this race, while inferior in bodily stamina to both the Nordic and the Alpine, is probably the superior of both, certainly of the Alpines, in intellectual attainments. In the field of art its superiority to both the other European races is unquestioned.|
Grant’s book was closely studied by several Nazi hierarchs, including Goebbels, Streicher, and Hitler himself. They found his formulations not only scientifically sound, but imperative, if a “superior” race was to be preserved. We know now where those beliefs have led. —PG[/learn_more]
SIDEBAR ENDS HERE[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he justification for the NSP’s lebensraum was that Germans had the same right to stolen real estate, just like the other European colonial masters were doing across the Americas, Africa and Asia. When Hitler got elected Chancellor in 1933, there were only 250,000 Jews in Western Europe, including Germany. The biggest numbers of them were in Eastern Europe and Western Russia. Jews made up 10% of Hitler’s coveted Slavic lebensraum, but 40% of its urban populations. City folk were the ones who went to the concentration camps first, Russian or Jewish, because they were easy to round up in big numbers, being close to railway stations and good roads to transport them.
Hitler and the NSP were infatuated with Andrew Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act and how it legalized the extermination of 15 million Native Americans. It simply codified what George Washington called the “necessary extirpation” of the natives, from “our settled lands”. Hitler & Co. also used America’s Indian reservations as a blueprint for Nazi concentration camps. Round them up and work them till they die. In fact, the etymological origin of the term “concentration camp” is colonial Spanish, not German.
Hitler’s and the NSP’s racist hatred of their dehumanized Slavs is graphically demonstrated by historical fact. Jews were not the first group to go to the gas chambers in Auschwitz. It was Russians. Just as the Americans made sure that white man’s Indian reservations were set up for enslavement and an early death, Russian prisoners of war perished like flies. Over three million Russians died in the camps, two million in the first year alone. Captured Russians were considered no better than the black skinned Herero and Namaqua tribes, which the Germans exterminated in today’s Namibia, in 1905 (the Germans did this in part to show that they were just as good as the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Americans, at large scale genocide, thus, just as deserving of lebensraum). Only 3.5% of “white” English and American prisoners of war died, but 57% of “Slav” Russians did.
The Chinese, the “Yellow Peril”, were gleefully addicted to British and American opium, in what has been called the “world’s longest running, largest global, criminal enterprise in human history”, starting in the 1840s. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s family got its wealth from helping to addict and enslave around 100 million Chinese, as did many other thousands of “civilized” white families across America and Europe. After all, the Chinese were no better than yellow niggers.
When the US lost its lucrative slave trade from Africa, after the Civil War in 1865, these upstanding businessmen and Christians simply started sailing their US flag ships to Southern China, to capture and buy one million Chinese, to sell across the Americas. This went on until 1874, when the Chinese emperor’s ceaseless diplomatic and public relations campaigns in the West finally shamed them into stopping.
It was these Chinese “coolie” slaves (from the Chinese, kuli, or “bitter strength”) who built America’s railroads out West. Those who didn’t die from starvation and mistreatment were exterminated through ethnic cleansing across the Western United States. As with Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, this frenzy of bloodlust against the Yellow Peril was codified by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Like Native Americans and “freed” slaves, it was open season for slaughter, and many thousands of Chinese coolies were hunted and killed like rabid dogs. There is a reason why the saying, “He doesn’t stand a Chinaman’s chance”, became so popular in 19th century America. Because it was true.
Mr. Lindqvist spells out, with scathing research, why Slavs and the Yellow Peril were (and are) considered just as subhuman as Africans, in the eyes of Western Europeans and Americans. European and American colonialists called all the different dark skinned peoples in their colonies, “niggers”, “brutes”, “kaffirs”, “beasts”, “inferior races” and “lower races” – from the Caribbean to Central-South America to Africa and Asia – Russians and Chinese included. They were classified by the West’s best scientists as something between an ape and the superior Western race. Predestined extinction of these weaker, less intelligent subhumans was simply the natural order and this “scientific theory” filled volumes of academic journals in English, French, Spanish and German.[dropcap]H[/dropcap]itler fondly called the Japanese “honorary Aryans”. When their imperial army slaughtered 300,000 innocent Chinese women, children, aged and others, during the Nanjing Massacre, in 1937, it caused just as little outrage among Western Europeans and Americans, as all the countless genocides committed in their names and for their financial enrichment, since 1492. Which Westerners cared then and who cares today? Just look at Syria/Iraq, Palestine, the Ukraine, the Congo’s pygmies, the Amazon’s indigenous tribes and Burma’s Rohingya Muslim minority, to name a scant few. They are just the tip of the West’s ongoing, unwritten policy of genocide and extermination, either directly or by proxy. After all, as they say, niggers are just niggers.
This has troubling implications for current events and the 21st century. What is clear is that this deep seated Western racism has not gone away. It is still alive and well in the hallowed halls of power, capital and empire. Western racism is clearly expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, America’s foreign policy czar since the Carter administration. He sums up his genocidal philosophy, with, “Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people”, and how important it is to, “Keep the barbarians killing each other”. “Barbarian” is only a slightly more socially acceptable synonym for “nigger”, and we can see his psychopathic, imperial handiwork in Afghanistan, where he created Al-Qaeda, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Ukraine and elsewhere, not to mention the destabilization of China, via its predominately Muslim province of Xinjiang.
Westerners cannot write about their racial superiority and the perceived subhumaness of non-Westerners, like they were able to do so freely, until the 1950s. But it is still manifestly the fundamental principle that drives America’s “exceptionalism” and the West’s “shining beacon on a hill” superiority, thus legitimizing ongoing Western genocide, wars, government overthrows and economic and resource exploitation, through the “benign, invisible hand” of capitalism, across Planet Earth.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill simply stated longstanding, Western imperial policy and popular, public sentiment, when he said, to justify the genocide of Palestinians, in order to create Israel,
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.
For Westerners, it was true then, and is still true today. Just ask Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.