It was an interesting read. But it is an example of what I believe to be one of the flaws I think we see with AmNats, Anglosphere and other "Western chauvinist"-types who often transferred to Third Positionism from the economic right rather than the economic left/centre in their worldview, especially in regards to geopolitics. Before I go on, I should preface by saying that the rise of China is concerning and China is indeed a pillar under the Jewish-dominated system (the only regional powers I'd argue who are truly outside the Zionist global system are Iran and North Korea) although opposition to it should not be based on this liberal stalwartism against the outsider Oriental collectivism which we see with the backing of the HK protestors or hypocritical crying about Chinese tech firms doing spyware while turning a blind eye to America doing basically the same thing for potentially longer (its sort of similar to the hypocritical Russian election hysteria among liberal centrists). I think a lot of people in this sphere unfortunately have a very simplified view of the current geopolitical situation, how it operates it and the actual background to it. But I am getting off-topic, back to this article.

The point the author makes in brief is that American Cold War anti-communist policies during Rostow's period were justified because it was a defence of Anglosphere values against the rise of communism and that today these values are under threat from "Sino-Bolshevism" and the western left because of the failure to hold them back. Honestly, on this point he is partially correct. To allow a ideological opponent to foster its strength and spread itself without opposition will result in it making significant games. This is not just true for communism, one example would be how the Saudi-Petrol Dollar allows it to spread Wahabbism from every to Africa to the Arab diaspora in Europe but another is how the cultural and economic influence of America when not regulated brings with it a sort of inevitable liberal alignment which for example we see in Hong Kong or how Vietnam is now back in the American sphere of influence. However, on this point, I think there is some extra context. Firstly, while communism is an aggressive ideology that seeks to spread its revolution once implemented in one place, interventionism or the kind that America practices and the author advocates has been shown to be counter-intuitive (it lost Vietnam militarily, it only regained it through soft power following the USSR's collapse). Secondly, the assumption is that communism is the SOLE subversive force.

In this article, the author proudly talks about Anglo-Saxon values and "Western freedoms and liberty". From this I gather he at least partially subscribes to the liberal worldview, whether post-Enlightment or the Burkean reactionary kind. He believes the Jews despise these "traditions" as he calls them and they are helping the Chinese to abolish them. Well, he is right that it is in opposition to communism but this Anglo-Saxon liberalism is not something the Zionist powers despise like he thinks it is because the Jews would not have there power today without it. If anything, such a system IS the original subversive force. This system laid the groundwork for global finance and the need an economy based upon global trade. Its emphasis of individual liberty in contrast to the "coercive moralism" he criticises is what dismantled social traditions and pushed us to our modern socially decadent society. It was under this system where the Jews were emancipated, "integrated" and came to dominate economic positions of power. I believe in Mein Kampf, Hitler declares his despising of this system which he calls "Manchester liberalism". And a derivative of this system is still the dominant force of today, if anything China HAS come close to it not further away. After all, that in essence the purpose of Deng's reforms to move away from the more isolationist collectivism of Mao. And this goes on to the other point, of regarding the Anglo-Saxons and America as the protagonists of history. In the general trend, they are not. It was Winston Churchill, a liberal imperialist who is the very personification of this system, who led the charge against the European struggle to free themselves from Zionist tyranny in the 1930s and 1940s. Post-Stalin, it was the Western world who had become the more Jewish-influenced faction of the Cold War (and I should note after the Sino-Soviet split, China moved towards the West) and the actions this very author praised at least laid to groundworks for liberal imperialism to put its tentacles on every continent.

My point being, the author notes the subversive elements of China and "Sino-Bolshevism". But he takes them as the primary antagonist, and not only dismisses but endorses the far stronger and more important wing of the system. China is an enemy yes, but for now until it actually declines, the American Empire is the main enemy and that system was not built upon communism but the very ideology he praises. People must reject both and embrace the Third Position.