Drones, Dead Jews, And the Inevitability of Sino-Futurism

Andrew Anglin July 22, 2024

Houthis are now killing Jews in Tel Aviv.

These are very primitive people. I don’t know that the people are primitive, I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, but I mean to say they’ve been getting the shit bombed out of them by Saudi (using US weapons, of course) since 2015, and the country is like basically a large Gaza.

Saudi deescalated last year because Xi Jinping showed up like Doraemon and took everyone on a magical adventure of friendship, but the country is still a total disaster, and now being consistently bombed by the Americans.

And they are killing Jews. In Tel Aviv. With drones that barely cost 5 figures. Which can be produced in unlimited amounts by basically anyone, anywhere.

Israel’s “Iron Dome” is completely obsolete.

Meanwhile – and this isn’t really a joke, you can go read about it – the US Department of Defense, RAND, CSIS, and others continue to pretend that drones don’t exist.

But of course that’s not literally true. Surely not. And no, you’re right – RAND and CSIS both published studies on drones… in 2014.

  • CSIS: Sustaining the U.S. Lead in Unmanned Systems: Military and Homeland Considerations through 2025. Brannen, S. J. (2014).
  • RAND: Armed and Dangerous? UAVs and U.S. Security. Davis, L. E., et al. (2014).

Seriously, look it up. I read through RAND and CSIS stuff and have for a long time. And Hudson and you know, other stuff. I don’t just make up the things I write on this website, I just generally think constantly citing sources doesn’t really add anything. If anyone disagrees they can disagree. Like if you think the two main “defense” think tanks have addressed developments in drone technology and how that would affect a large scale conflict in the Middle East, you can respond to me and cite the source. You won’t, because there isn’t one. The word “drone” is occasionally dropped casually, but the think tanks that serve the DoD operate as yes men, and no one in Washington wants to hear anything other than “we have aircraft carriers so we can kill everyone in the world if we want.”

It’s actually astonishing.

Iran is sort of a major military entity, so when they overwhelmed the Iron Dome as a demonstration that they can reach out and touch someone, it was kind of not totally shocking.

But the Houthis literally killing someone in Tel Aviv… that is really something. It’s quite something indeed. This isn’t Lebanon. This is Yemen. It’s 2,000 kilometers away.

The drone, an Iranian Samad-3, didn’t go over Saudi Arabia. It crossed the Red Sea, cleverly going over the Sudan, then Egypt, then over the Mediterranean, then hitting the Jews from the West. And it actually hit near the US embassy. So it was guided, using an MS Flight Simulator type system, to a direct target.

For the record, it was only one drone. It wasn’t a swarm. The Jews blamed “human error” for it not being stopped.

Okay.

The Jews responded with a symbolic bombing.

Well, Jews: we already knew you could bomb Yemen. What we didn’t know is that the Houthis could use a $15,000 drone to hit the fucking US Embassy.

This is a really, really serious change in the basic nature of warfare.

The Guardian:

Yemen’s Houthis will continue to attack Israel and will not abide by any rules of engagement, the group’s spokesperson Mohammed Abdulsalam told Qatar’s Al Jazeera TV on Sunday, a day after Israel struck Houthi military targets near Yemen’s Hodeidah port killing at least six people.

Abdulsalam said there would be “no red lines” in the Houthis’ response to Israel. “All sensitive institutions with all its levels will be a target for us”, he was quoted as saying.

Technology has democratized violence. That idea, “the democratization of violence,” is actually very interesting and important. You can research it. Ask one of the robots about it. It’s already happened.

If one Houthi drone can literally hit outside the US embassy in Tel Aviv and kill a Jew, the obvious question becomes: “Can Iran sink a US aircraft carrier?”

The answer is “obviously, yes.”

When we talk about the democratization of violence, this important term, we are not talking about a point at which there is some kind of “mutually assured destruction” between small rebel groups and massive advanced militaries. We’re talking about a situation where the rebel groups actually have the advantage.

All a rebel group has to do to win a war is survive. The state actor has to destroy the rebel group, which has repeatedly been proved to be impossible, or continue to suffer casualties.

The theory behind the democratization of violence through technological development is that it forces large states (basically, the US empire) to allow independence. Obviously, the Houthis don’t want to be bombed by Israel, but it is so much less to them to be bombed by Israel than it is for Israel to be bombed by them.

Right now, the people of Yemen are willing to tolerate being bombed by Israel and the US because they are mad about Palestine, they are mad they’re being attacked for defending Palestine.

The US could solve the problem simply by stopping weapons shipments to Israel, which would force Israel to capitulate to Hamas. Hamas is open to a two-state solution, by the way. That’s a complicated topic I won’t go into now, but they are de facto open to this, even if they don’t publicly state it as such. In 2017, Hamas changed its platform to include the idea of a “temporary” two-state solution, something like a frozen conflict perhaps – but only along 1967 borders. But the fact that they’re saying 1967 borders means they’re open to it.

Since October 7th, they’ve more or less “explicitly implied” (if you will) a willingness to sign some kind of official agreement surrendering 1967 “Israel” to the Jews.

Here’s the question of all questions: if Donald Trump does what he says he’s going to do and goes all-in for Israel, and Iran sinks a US aircraft carrier, what exactly does that mean?

Does it mean something like this?

For those who don’t know (you probably should know, frankly) that is a scene from the 1939 film “The Wizard of Oz” where the heroes discover that the powerful wizard is just a weak old man using a machine to project the image of being a godlike creature.

If Iran sinks a US aircraft carrier, and the whole world witnesses it, we start living in a new world, where people are not going to tolerate being bullied by the Jewnited Snakes anymore.

There were always a lot more “goyim” than Jews. It has always been an illusion that they control us. They have enslaved us to our sins, using free sex, pornography, drugs, processed food, and various other items from their bag of Jewish tricks. But the actual reality of the situation is that no one, save child molesters, hardcore sluts, and a few other groups of freaks, ever wanted this Jewish control, and it always could have been stopped, because they are not all-powerful godlike beings.

They are… well, most of them look like this:

It’s fear that leads people to believe in the idea of Jewish invincibility.

When the illusion fails, as it would if Iran sank a US aircraft carrier, everything changes, and people start saying: “No, actually – we’re going to run our own countries as we see fit.”

When countries say that, China is going to say: “We think that’s a really good idea. Every country has a right to manage its internal affairs as it sees fit, and the US never had a right to tell anyone what to do. It was always kind of fake nonsense anyway, which is why we never really built much of an army – we knew they were going to end up imploding under the weight of their own hubris, because we did all these studies on the psychology of Jews. So, anyway, now that this is settled: who here among you is interested in high quality products at reasonable prices?”

Then, that is Sino-Futurism.

It’s a new world order based on national independence for nation-states¹ and peace enforced not through violence, but through international trade.

Foot Notes: 

¹”Nation-state” is a specific term that means “a nation with a state.” It’s something of a complicated concept now. Obviously, Thailand is a “nation-state.” 98% of the citizenry is Thai and Buddhist. They have a shared national identity based on both race and religion. (Maybe Thailand isn’t the best example, because they’re now going anal and it’s clear Buddha doesn’t like this. They also have a lot of white people there, which, while not citizens, cause some form of unrest in the society due to their numbers. Anyway, I already wrote it down as an example and I don’t have time to change the example.)

The states of Europe were all nation-states after World War I and definitely after World War II, with the exception of Switzerland, which is an “artificial state,” and some people being on the wrong side of borders, and Austria somehow not being the same country as Germany.

Russia is a whole other creature, given that the core (white, Slavic) Russian population conquered a bunch of Moslem areas hundreds of years ago and then governed them. However, that situation is… more or less stable. The minority groups have “semi-autonomous Republics” under a federation. But I mean, to be frank, there are too many Chechens in Moscow. That’s simply a fact. That wasn’t the case during the USSR, however, because if a Chechen wanted to go to Moscow, he had to get a stamp on his passport. So if he had a good reason, he could go. I met an old Kazakh woman in Kazakhstan who lived in Moscow under the USSR, because she had some specific medical skill (which I didn’t really understand the specifics of). She said it was really uncomfortable, and the Kazakh community was very small and all lived together and everyone was mean to them. Now, of course, Kazakhstan is no longer even a part of Russia, but Moscow is filled with Kazakhs. You know. It’s not good. But it’s not terrible and it will be fixed at some point. It’s a standard “labor wages… population… inflation… deflation…” type situation and as always, the solution is to BAN WOMEN.

In Sino-Futurism, we will have to strengthen nation-states. People with the same genetics, culture, religion, identity – they tend to get along. “Multiculturalism” causes very serious trouble everywhere it is implemented. The Chinese understand this, they have full university studies about it. They also understand that tourism is good for everyone, student exchange programs increase peace, and so on. But a state has to be a nation in order to feel that it is united with a common purpose.

This is the path to peace. The Chinese figured it out. White notions of colonialism were always stupid. Whites were so stupid, they brought 12 million Africans into America because Southern plantation owners wanted to reenact some weird concept of medieval feudalism or something. I don’t really understand the reasoning. There were enough poor whites to pick the cotton. It was fine.

Anyway, as we look forward to the Glorious Golden Age of Sino-Futurism, we should understand that nation-states and national independence and the right of a people to government their own affairs is core to the Chinese conception of Sino-Futurism.

It would be nice if America and Europe were entering this Sino-Futurist age with fewer problems. I am a Sinophile, and I am a CPC shill, but it should be understood that the Chinese are not doing this for charity, they are doing it because they think it makes the most sense and will make them a lot of money. One of the problems is that the Chinese will buy land in other countries if they are allowed to. That is not a state policy, and it’s not really part of the theory of Sino-Futurism. It’s just something that individual Chinese people will do. The Glorious Empire of the Glorious Emperor Xi is not the same thing as 1.5 billion (when you include the diaspora in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, it’s probably closer to 2 billion) Han Chinese people. The first reason Glorious Emperor is so glorious is that he abolished corruption in a purge. Chinese people don’t do violent crime, but they will do dirty, snakey type stuff if they can get away with it. I should say “some Chinese people.” I think it’s fine for countries to let the Chinese government and companies contracted with them build ports. The will build the port on reclamation land anyway, so you don’t even have to sell them land for the port. But I don’t think we should be selling them land, and I think in principle, this goes against the ideals of Sino-Futurism and Xism more generally.

Like all things, it’s complicated. But it’s not really that complicated. The same people who are trying to start a war with the Chinese created laws allowing second citizenships and foreign ownership.

Frankly, however, Chinese people owning some of the land in our countries is going to be like an ant standing next to an elephant when compared to the problems these Jews have caused and continue to cause every day. I mention these issues of nation-states, and the issues of some potential negatives we will have to deal with in Glorious Sino-Futurism in order to demonstrate to you, my dearest reader, that I have thought through the negatives as well as the positives of the coming Golden Age of peace and prosperity.

You should take a moment to ponder a world where each people governs its own self according to its own values, and the Pax Sino is capable of enforcing peace without violence.

We are in a very, very bad situation in the West. Look around. There is one way out of this, and that is Sino-Futurism.

No one has to pledge allegiance to the Chinese. The Chinese are not going to tell anyone what to do. They are not going to do “humanitarian interventions.” According to the doctrine of Sino-Futurism, if you want to do something weird in your country, you have every right to do so. You simply do not have the right to go around, like the Jewnited States, and tell others what they can and can’t do inside their own country, and to inflict your values on them using violence.

The borders of some countries will need to be tidied up. “The Ukraine” for instance is not a nation-state, which is why the Chinese implicitly support Putin’s actions there in liberating Russian people from the iron boot of the Jewish Junta in “KEEV.” I don’t think “Austria” is a real thing, though that is up to the Germans to decide. America will probably have to be partitioned, a la India in 1947.

But here’s the point: you will have a place. You will have a home. You will have a people, a race, a religion, an identity. And you will not need to use violence to defend it.

Basically, Emperor Xi is like the real version of the mother in the Pink Floyd song “Mother.”

When you ask him “should I build a wall?” he replies “hey, if you think you need one, go for it, buddy. And of course, we’ll help.”

He also doesn’t think they’ll drop the bomb. And he thinks they’ll like this song.

End Note:

I have zero apologies for shilling for Sino-Futurism.

None.

At all.

I am fully willing to talk about potential problems that will arise, and I want to put my own people first. I’m not like, just really into Chinese people or something. What I am talking about is a realistic future where white people have control over their own destinies. This is what is realistic. I would normally say “it might not be ideal,” but nothing is ideal.

Sino-Futurism is as close to “ideal” as anything could ever be.

Anyone who tells you anything different from this is lying to you on purpose, or they are stupid and have no idea what the hell they’re talking about.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2024, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.