Prior to the atomic bomb the incentive of nations, like fish, was to get bigger and eat your neighbors. The book 1984 predicted the inevitable outcome of this material force. The era prior to the bomb is an endless catastrophe of waring states, and this “get big or get conquered” problem was supercharged by endless population growth and the need for a constantly expanding resource base that brings. This is why paranoia about the second coming of Hitler is so annoying: because the forces of mass starvation are no present in the modern world, or at least not to the degree they existed before. It is easy to convince people to conquer land in the east and put those land into food production when their kids are starving. Nothing makes people crazy like having a child to protect, and a world of constant population growth is one where 1. everyone is a parent, 2. everyone has the capacity of violence that parents have, 3. there are periods of periodic starvation that threaten one's children, and 4. you can always get more food by conquering and enslaving the neighbors.
Everyone in the past practiced some combination of (a) conquest, (b) slavery, (c) genocide, (d) cannibalism, and (e) human sacrifice. The Aztecs did all of these and Europeans are remarkable for mostly only doing a, b, and occasionally c.
Paranoia about the second coming of Hitler is intentionally ignorant of historical forces in order to drive justification for a certain globalist agenda. I use the term globalist as a place holder here for a nebulous concept that describes a collection of economic and Zionist forces and persons with machinations of a certain kind of bug eating world. It is promoted to demoralize whites and the discussion of the atrocities of other races is intentionally left out to create a lie of omission to enger useful white guilt, guilt that can be exploited.
Political-moral messaging is nearly always an attempt to exploit someone for status, sex, money, or power. When ever you are addressed with a political message that commands you to support ___ you must ask yourself, “does this benefit me?” It sounds sociopathic but the only thing worse than modeling how a sociopath thinks is obeying the moral commands of one. “Good” normal people obey moral messaging while evil ones invent it. This does not mean at all that real morality does not exist; we are talking about that special circumstance where the political is mixed with the moral, when you are told slogans like “America is a nation of immigrants,” “work hard and you will succeed,” “unproductive people are useless,” “age gap relationships are predatory.” Real morality is universally applicable and benefits everyone at some point in their lives but political-moral commands only benefit some special group of people. Real morality says “murder is wrong,” while political-morality says “not serving our interests is wrong.”
Thus when you are told “support globalism or you are a racist”you should be suspicious. You have been fed a false version of history by people stupid enough to believe the return of someone like Hitler is possible. Oh yes dictatorship in America is possible, but the constant shrill whine that this would be a Hitler-like character, that Trump is Hitler, or George W Bush, or Putin, belies the fact that we no longer live in a world of desperate parents and the material forces that let you convince a whole population that genocide is good and we should do it don't exist anymore.
Credit where credit is due: you can think Oppenheimer and his Jewish team for the bomb and Gregory Pincus, John Rock, and Katharine McCormick for the pill, without which the world of get big or get eaten would not have been abolished.
Ostensibly we now live in world of war by proxy empires, meaning, that nuclear armed nations use proxies like Ukraine to fight each other. This is going to be the case until some other technology or organizational system comes along and changes the configuration of material forces in this regard. There is interesting work by about AP Markets that might render all war a thing of the past, but that is a digression from our subject.
We are talking about globalism and it's empire, and specifically the maintenance of it by the United States and it's fleet of super carriers. This power and the world stability it is supposed to bring (jury is out on that) is onerous to the US, and other powers for better and probably worse are eager to challenge that power and create a multi-polar world. The libertarian theory is that trade creates peace, the globalist theory is that America bossing the world around with its military, and buying all the world's goods also creates peace. I do not know how much is true and suspect that only the military part matters but if the trade benefits are gone or America no longer perceives a benefit then military draw down is probably happening eventually.
Globalism needs to outsource itself. Everyone like being governed by white men when they permit themselves to think, though admitting it is humiliating, so they prefer immigration over imperialism and cope with the contradiction using wokeness. Unlike other business where an ethnic group are allowed to monopolize things: Jains in Indian Banking, Chinese in manufacturing, Jews in media and Finance, Blacks in sports, Whites are not allowed to admit it – too much historical baggage, but there is a way to pull this off that saves face for minorities and avoids immigration. A way to give everyone what they secretly want with a plausible deniability that keeps them sane, and a way to give globalists what they want in order to free America from the burden of it's own empire. Ever heard of a franchise?
We have several hundred military bases around the world and many of them have the potential to either be transformed into city states or build cities in the unused land along their edges. A specific example that comes to mind is Al Udeid Air Base, a place I have been, and a place with vast stretches of undeveloped land along the edges and within the gaps. out of the hundreds of bases and naval stations you can scrounge up several dozen to develop? 100 would be a nice round number, and if they were spread all over the world on every continent and close to major shipping lanes that would be ideal. Each of these could be a democracy, and they could be collectively be run by a separate and parallel parliament whose prime minister is under POTUS. Basically the President of the United States is the head of state of the United City States (UCS) while the Prime Minister is Head of Government. the thing makes it's own laws, is outside the jurisdiction of onerous America rules, but is militarily subordinate to the US. The roles of Head of Government and Commander in Chief are also separate with POTUS having that role for the USC and the Join Chiefs working in co-operation with the Prime Minister.
Imagine traveling on a single passport and needing no green card to work. The UCS would straddle the world with cities on every continent except Antarctica. The UCS would use the American dollar, patents and trademarks would not exist within its borders, and it's close proximity to dictatorships would allow people to experience freedom. It would take in a billion immigrants and peoples fleeing persecution. Vast amounts of cheep labor for globalists to exploit. It would have it's own stock market. There would be a capitol whose location would travel, moving from continent to continent around the world from East to West. Every city state would have a parliament building with an identical layout so city state Senators can always find their office. Every two years Parliament would move to another one of it's city states. The benefits would be immense and it would create a true global community, for whatever that's worth.
One that could take over the globalist dream so that America can pursue a nationalist dream. The UCS would even have an official libertarian ideology which would be taught by the very progressives the US re-educates and deports! We could dump millions of insufferable shitlibs on a new nation! Imagine the US with no liberals in positions of power. Imagine the libs living cheek by jowl with their new African friends. What better place to put city states than Africa? Of course unlimited immigration is a one way proposition here. Being a citizen of the UCS does NOT make you a citizen of the US, but being a citizen of the US automatically grants you UCS residency.
Imagine the tax revenue from a global nation, imagine placing city states adjacent to shipping lanes to extract global rents from the Chinese. The Strait of Malacca would be an ideal place for a new democracy. We might buy some land in The Philippines too. Let us count the benefits:
Travel the world using your US passport without restriction
A place to deport libs to
No currency barrier
No need for Green Card to work
Unlimited immigration to the UCS
Real estate sales
Low cost labor
American universities abroad
Benefits of living in the US without living in the US
US military protection
Taxes for the US military
Potentially extract global rents
Build and own ports in other countries
Spread a global libertarian ideology
Weaken the world with libertarianism while strengthening ourselves with nationalism
Free America from global obligations
Have our own cheep manufacturing
Fuck over China
The new nation might eventually conquer territory
And mostly white liberals would be forced to take on the role of administrating minority populations while protecting their own survival from them.
x
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep it civil