An Identity Based on the CCP is Not Good for Racial Purity

The CCP defines Chinese identity as absolute loyalty to the CCP, which has a race-neglecting, policy-based ideology. What do I mean by policy-based? I mean that the chief focus of the CCP is policies. The CCP sees disagreement with policies as severe disobedience which must be punished harshly. In other words, loyalty to the policies is what the definition of loyalty to the CCP apparently means. The punishments for this disloyalty do admittedly vary in severity, but they are punishments nevertheless. This begs the question: Who benefits from unquestioning loyalty to the policies of the CCP? It is clear that the CCP benefits from loyalty to policies that it has created, whilst the Chinese people does not benefit from this one-sided relationship.

Let me tell a short story. There was once a strict neighbour who made rules for his neighbours. One of his rules was that failing to uphold the rules would be met with harsh punishment. Everyone fears this strict neighbour. At some point the people asked, do we benefit from this situation or does this situation only serve the strict neighbour?

The story illustrates the fact that the policy-based ideology is inherently anti-Chinese. There is, however, more to it. Let us focus on the fact that the policies of the CCP define the identity that the CCP wants the Chinese to accept as the only true Chinese identity. This is proved by the behaviour of the CCP: ITHe t does not tolerate disagrement with its policies, because that is the basis of the ideology of the CCP. All members of the Party learn to obey the policies of the CCP from young age.

The oath that I had to swear when I became a Party member emphasised loyalty and discipline for the CCP’s sake:

It is my will to join the Communist Party of China, uphold the Party’s program, observe the provisions of the Party constitution, fulfill a Party member’s duties, carry out the Party’s decisions, strictly observe Party discipline, guard Party secrets, be loyal to the Party, work hard, fight for communism throughout my life, be ready at all times to sacrifice my all for the Party and the people, and never betray the Party.

What is said in this oath is significant for understanding the CCP ideology and their ideological definition of what it means to be Chinese. The Party wants us to obey the Communist policies with unquestioning faith. They are essentially saying: You just need to have faith that the CCP is the best for the Chinese people and then all will be well. ‘Never betray the Party’ means that we should be faithful to the Party for a lifetime. It is interpreted quite literally and in the most radical way, because there can be no doubt that Communism is inherently radical. Observe this oath is about a sort of marriage between Chinese people and the Party. Once we have sworn this oath we become lifelong servants of the Party. Love and relationships are not supposed to stand above this loyalty. We are meant to choose the Party in any situation, and everything else has to be sacrificed for it.

This oath does no longer reflect my beliefs. I disavow everything that I swore to the Party, and I will not rest until I have exposed all their secrets which reveal that the Party is not pro-Chinese but simply pro-itself. I do not want to be a slave of Communism. Party and people are not synonymous, unless you only mean Communist people when you say people. Chinese people are, however, not inherently Communist. The identity based on policies is an engineered identity. It is an identity that we as Chinese people are supposed to accept without any critical analysis. This is a dangerous situation for the people and their interests. The CCP wants its interests to prevail over everything. It evidently sees itself as a sacred entity above the law and above the people’s interests. This is an attitude that is extreme beyond a single doubt and it must be addressed for the people’s sake.

The Party uses hard work as an indoctrination tool. Everything must be seen as a means to an end. When people are hardworking, they do not have enough time for critical thought. For that reason, the Party members must be especially hardworking because they should be the most indoctrinated and obedient people of all. The fact that the CCP is so ideologically focused on policies shows that the ideology of the CCP is the ultimate form of social engineering. They engineered an identity for the Chinese, which shows that Chinese Communism is really leftism like Western liberalism. Marxism with Chinese characteristics and liberalism with Western characteristics really have a lot in common. Chinese Communism is supposed to be the real and pure Marxism. What is important is the Chinese Communist view and what others’ personal views are is irrelevant. How the Communists view themselves is the point that is missed on many people. Without knowing how they view themselves, how can you possibly conclude anything?

For all the years since the Communist take-over of China, the CCP has been obstructing meaningful progress in the area of discussing, expressing and pursuing racial interests. If you ask me, Western liberalism and Chinese Communism are essentially the same problem with superficially different appearances. We have lost decades of our time that could have been spent more meaningfully. The Chinese Communists are social engineers and leftists. Those basic facts should not be lost on anyone’s mind.

Leftism, by way of its social engineering, is fundamentally incompatible with racial purity, racial survival and racial preservation. I will not let social engineers define my identity, and I do not think that Whites should allow the liberals to define their identity either – this is a global leftist war on human traditional culture and identity. How the CCP defines Chinese identity is frightening and it is evident that social engineering has reached new levels in China. The CCP will only become more radical as it gains more power, and its ideology should be a warning for the entire world for it must be realised what the CCP is and what it is not and based on this what the CCP will do if ever it manages to gain the unchallenged status of sole global superpower. Chinese and foreign opposition to the CCP is justified. Racial interests, of which the epitome is racial purity, are my identity.


13 thoughts on “An Identity Based on the CCP is Not Good for Racial Purity”

  1. The CCP are pragmatic realists when it comes to things like geo politics. They will have to use ethnic nationalism as the main driver for unity of the mainland Han areas and the reunification of Taiwan. If Taiwanese aren’t Chinese then they have no claim on Taiwan. They will also use ethnic nationalist sentiments to get support from overseas Chinese.

    But back home they will do the opposite. They will signal multiculturalism so as to maintain minority areas such as Tibet and XingJiang. The have to virtue signal that they are for socialist values so as to mitigate the raising income inequality between the rich coastal provinces and the poorer inland areas.

    I don’t think they are driven by ideology at all. They have proven to be flexible in adopting different economic policies to achieve their aims, switching from communism to state capitalism. Thus, i continue to support the CCP.


    1. I have been a member of the CCP, and I am 100% certain that they have an ideology, which is also proved by the admission oath. The CCP controls an extreme indoctrination machine, and it lays claim to all Chinese because it is power-hungry – the Western liberal leftists lay claim to all Whites pretty much the same way. It is your own moral responsibility if you equate that with ethnic nationalism. Naïve support for the CCP does not liberate us from moral responsibility, so I distance myself from the vainglorious CCP. I cannot support a government that has been involved in the deaths of millions of Chinese. The CCP has a quite bad record as a government and as such I cannot support it – it took me years to finally break through my indoctrination and see this. By my book, the CCP has prevented us from achieving more awareness of racial reality for decades. It is time for progress. The policies of the CCP speak volumes to me. For instance, the one-child policy was for maintaining CCP control. It is not a policy that is pro-Chinese.


  2. If the CCP goes, we get most probably liberal democracy or a break up of the country. South Korea and Taiwan transitioned from authoritarian rule to liberal democracy. If you study the statistics both countries become more multicultural after that. The percentage of foreigners given citizenship was increased in both countries. South Korea has also switched from ethnic nationalism, with the belief that all Koreans are of the same blood to a civic nationalist model.

    CCP may not have racial purity as its ideology but it is far superior to liberal democracy if you want a homogeneous country . The best system is Juche isolationism if you want racial purity. Another good system is Bhutan where they reject modernity completely.

    It is highly unlikely that a national socialist, monarchist or other far right government will replace the CCP. Academia is controlled by progressive thought, unless the Alt right can take over and purge the universities, this will be the dominant strain of thinking in the developed world. Most probably any revolution that sweeps the CCP from power will be infected by progressive thinking. (unless it is an Islamic one)


  3. Hello CNM:

    China’s governance is sort of like the quip from Dr. Johnson’s dog story. That is, one does not expect it to be done well, but instead one is amazed that it is done at all.

    The idea of citizenship in China is wholly different than that found in Western liberal democracies. Anyone can become a citizen in America (a “proposition nation”), and for the most part they will be considered American. At least de jure, a also de facto. On the other hand, it is effectively impossible for a foreigner to become a citizen of China. In fact, it is almost impossible for a foreigner to do anything long-term in China. Score one for the Chinese.

    If a Chinese emigrant becomes a citizen of a Western country, generally they still consider themselves to be Chinese. For them, first love remains China. Even to the point of criticizing it soundly after it has (really or imaginarily) treated them badly. Of course this is not something unique to Chinese, but is an ethnic trait in general. I’m reminded of HG Wells who wrote in his Outline of History: “But in the main, patriotism in the Greek was a personal passion of an inspiring and dangerous intensity. Like reflected love, it was apt to turn into something very like hatred. The Greek exile resembled the French or Russian émigré in being ready to treat his beloved country pretty roughly in order to save her from the devils in human form who had taken possession of her and turned him out. ”

    As far as “racial purity” goes. The problem is the general move into modernity, and a substitution of natural order with an abstraction. Consider money, which used to be a simple place holder for goods and labor usually tied to a specific region, and an actual people. With the free flow of global capital, national borders are the first thing to go. Once borders go, nationality based on an organic notion of race/ethnicity is next, because the value of one’s labor (and in a lot of respects, one’s job defines one’s being) has no relation to one’s community. Abstract money in the form of national currencies is made convertible, and replaced by exchange traded funds, derivatives, options, puts and calls–instruments only marginally tied to any real and existing productive asset, and so on. People living for such abstractions become convertible themselves–at least in their thinking. And in order to follow the money, natural citizenship becomes a hindrance to them.

    The best way to “cure” the potential for racial impurity would be to go back to Tradition in both life and economies. But it is a big question as to whether anyone has the stomach for it. Certainly the existing political orders would not allow it. As an example, French social writer, Guillaume Faye [compare, Archeofuturism] argues for small scale national ethnically based economic autarkies in place of the monstrosity known as the EU.

    From a social-family standpoint, traditional Confucian thinking already solved the Chinese problem, but few want to really consider an old fashioned plan, today. It was old fashioned at the time of the May Fourth Movement., and a lot of left wing oriented Chinese movies were made about it in the ’20s and ’30s. But think about it, when parents choose their children’s mates, they will pick what’s best for the family. This will usually be [but not always-see the Shaoxing opera, Love with a Carp Fairy, for a moral about parents captivated by money over Tradition, and what it did to their daughter and her betrothed] someone who is like themselves socially and economically. That is, someone able to carry on the family intact. Inasmuch as we are under the spell of romantic love, this sort of tradition will likely never happen again. At least in the West. In China the family still hold considerable sway in matrimonial matters.

    China on average is doing pretty good in the social cohesion department. Especially when compared to the West, which is disintegrating rapidly. It may not always seem like it to Chinese, though. Compared to the Occident (with the real exception of Eastern Europe and Russia), there is no argument about it to be made. Italian philosopher Julius Evola [Ride the Tiger] wrote how modernity is an unrelenting force that cannot be stopped using “political” methods. He pointed to China’s transition from a traditional order at the turn of the last century up through 1949 in order to show modernity’s swift destructiveness. Ironically, the CCP has in its own way turned back from the future. Consider what is going on now with Confucius Institutes, comparing those with 1974’s “Criticize Lin, criticize Confucius” campaign. One may also cite the arrest of Bo Xilai (see his Red Culture program in Chongqing) along with his murderous wife in order to show how the Party is today concerned about “too much” Maoist communism, and is not going to tolerate it. Bo and Gu Kalai were the present-day Mao Zedong-Jiang Qing. Today in China, Confucius is OK, but we shouldn’t talk too much about Mao.

    PS: You wrote: “This begs the question: Who benefits from unquestioning loyalty to the policies of the CCP?”

    A point of style: I think you meant to write, “This situation requires a question to be answered: Who benefits…”

    You see, question begging is a technical term from logic. You find examples of it where a proposition that has yet to be proved is assumed to be true during the course of an argument whose point it is to prove the unproven proposition. Now, I don’t want to come off as the logic police…but for some compulsive reason this common misuse bugs me. Too many years hanging with academics, I guess. I apologize to you for that. Especially if English is not your first language, in which case I commend you for making the effort. Do not ask me to write much in Chinese, or you will laugh.


  4. To pick up on Xiahou Dun’s post: a warning. Evola presents a fundamentally different view (at least in some respects) than what I attribute to this blog’s author, who writes a lot about biological evolution and race. If I am unjustly characterizing her writing, the fault is my own. However that is, materialism was not Evola’s thing, and as a reactionary Traditionalist his thinking may seem quite strange, or even shocking to moderns who tend to be grounded in scientism, and other forms of material reductionism. For instance, his views on race cannot be distilled down to evolutionary biology.

    For those new to his works, three books serve as a good introduction: the aforementioned Revolt Against the Modern World, Men Among the Ruins (a more “political” work), and finally Ride the Tiger.

    On a different note, his overview of primitive Buddhist doctrine serves as a contrast to formal “religious” Buddhism as practiced China and elsewhere. At the same time, at least for a Westerner, one gains an appreciation of seemingly enigmatic texts, such as the Chinese sourced Diamond Sutra, after reading Evola’s Doctrine of Awakening.


  5. As a country becomes more and more liberal and adopts liberal democratic systems, the more downhill it goes from there onwards. You can see throughout the West today, all the right wing populist movements are growing in popularity. Europeans are waking up to there own demise and unfortunately, many of our people are too stubborn and stuck in fixing problems that happened over 70 years ago, especially with there grudge against Japan and the older generation’s powerlessness in enforcing East Asian identity and safeguarding the Yellow race against Cultural Marxism and Multiculturalism .Xiahou Dun is right. The CCP is the only, but not the most perfect system, where the East Asian male or the East Asian race in general can walk the planet with a smile on his face and head held high. The Filipinos have taken their country back and are on the path of taking their race back and Whites from the far right like ‘The Golden One’ have praised Duterte for saying no to the Jew World Order. North Korea has laws prohibiting interracial marriages and relationships between non-Yellows and East Asians.

    I stand vehemently in full support of what ever system will pop up a solid blockade against Western Liberal Marxism and Zionist’s agenda to get rid of East Asians. Don’t forget, Jews from the United States backed the Cultural Revolution which led to the extermination of the East Asian male. And they continue to work tirelessly through day and night to get rid of our race.

    The only thing I disagree with the CCP is the way our people get things done. Forcing people to get things done is more inefficient than getting people to do things that they find the best way to be done. And the CCP should incorporate Federal Racial laws into the legislation to safeguard the Han and East Asian Race. PS I don’t consider Turkish Kebab Uighurs as a part of the Yellow Race. That is like saying the Chinese who came to Turkey 2000 years ago were to settle there and rip out all of Northern Turkey.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s