Lmao - "Ukraine to NATO is a great idea because Russia is still "our" #1 enemy" ... nevermind this would dramatically increase likelihood of nuclear weapons being used.
Kinetic war with China is a "whatever" (insert sound of Cali valley girl vocal fry)
"Only Chinese misinformation is causing US soft power decline" ... while US is supporting a wholly unpopular country in ItsNotReal (e.g. UN resolutions only voted down by US + Pacific Island states + Israel) and peace talks in African, Ukraine conflicts taken to the Middle East or China without US mediation.
Continuation with Bretton Woods = definitely no hyperinflation in the future as interest rate payments rival / overtake Social Security payments
This n*gga is really just the same old "Everything is Fine (while fire in background" meme.
I would prefer a trade war with China to a kinetic war. I don't think everything is fine. I also never said that Social Security wasn't a problem. I think anti-American attitudes from "patriots" are extremely destructive. I don't think our support for Israel is the fundamental cause behind this "anti-American patriot" attitude.
China did essentially pursue something like colonization. Dynasties repeatedly conquered or vandalized xinjiang, and later funded fleets to control piracy and the trade routes in Southeast Asia, even kicking the Dutch out of Taiwan at one point. The question of why China never colonized America seems to be answered by that it never made economic sense to. Consider that one of the things Spain did with their riches from the Americas was quickly spending it to buy Chinese products.
Wanting to extend pax American debt for as long as possible seems to be a path that would prevent renewal. Some sort of creative destruction seems necessary for ethnos to regenerate from the costs of empire. And the current debt empire is tied to hyper leftoids.
I prefer hyper leftoids to collapse -- I think you would argue that leftoids make collapse inevitable, but I am not an accelerationist. I understand that our civic religion is flawed, but I would prefer to work with existing structures to force a renewal from within the elite. I think that's what Caesar accomplished, with the help of his Gallic allies. He wasn't wishing for a Germanic invasion or the collapse of "degenerate Rome." Eventually that did happen, but I see no point in speeding it up. There were a lot of great Roman writers, poets, and neo-Platonists in the two centuries after Caesar. I'm sure America will do some cool stuff in the next 200 years, despite some ideological issues. I am pretty optimistic.
I don’t doubt that in 200 years Americans might still produce notable inventions and works of art. I also think that if the American governance does not change drastically, there will be no Americans left in 300 years. Trading a century or two of productivity for longevity is the trade the far right wants to make, although how it would make it is unclear.
My internet is dial up right now so in the interest of consolidating comment threads I'll post this here: The caveat on destroying the middle class is I think we have to consider the problem of military recruitment. So I am exaggerating but I simply want to get past the point where I am trying to score technical points against your arguments and understand that the limiting factor in our communication is mostly about sacred cows and religious axioms.
I'm not in favor of a strong Europe, I'm in favor of everyone being under the thumb of America, and America remaking the world in its image. I think we can do that while working on infrastructure, economics, our social and political problems.
Amazing that the conclusion you derive from Schmitt is "I should betray my country because ideology." I'm sure that's exactly what Schmitt would have done.
I'm not in favor of Walmart, Chinese goods, the vagrancy crisis, mass migration, financial crimes and speculation, or waving the American flag either. The solution is to improve the country, not abandon it.
I'm not a classical liberal, but I do believe in endless war. I have told you many times I'm not in favor of immigration in general, not sure why you're strawmanning me so hard.
You argue that "elites seek to enrich themselves, and maintain their status and power." I agree, but you also make this statement hysterically, as if it is unnatural or unusual. Can you give me an example of elites who do not do this, in any country, at any point in history? Are you a Christian?
Can you name one healthy society where "elites are kept in check and subordinate to the interests of the society"? Name one. Any country. Any time in the last 10,000 years? No? Just wishful thinking and moralism?
Be specific. Which was this Chinese, Japanese, and western elite class who was kept in check and subordinate to the people? Give a year and a name of a ruler or regime.
Holy Roman governance did a good job of keeping the bourgeois elite from fully executing their rapacious whims. Until napoleon came along and blew it up.
The Chinese dynasties have never gone as far as current western elites have in terms of anti peasantry in x-thousand years of governance.
I disagree that some cultures don't want to take over the world. I think there are differences in degrees of expansion historically, and some of that can be explained by mythic structures (inward looking cultures vs outward looking adventurous cultures). Even if that were true, I value expansive cultures, and think that America should be expansive, because expansion is a moral good in itself. I don't think that any country is confined by anything besides sheer force and incompetence. China is far too competent now, and the only solution is sheer force (which could come in the form of economic sanctions, which I would prefer over open warfare, but it's still a form of coercion and "trade war").
I don't think Europeanism offers anything favorable to Americanism. Europe without America is a Russian vassal, which is depressing in my opinion. Ukraine could easily be integrated into NATO with enough threatening force applied. I agree that the war should have ended in 2022, but believe that America should have directly put troops on the ground in Ukraine, surrendered the Donbas and Luhansk, and conducted a full-scale integration / occupation to re-organize Ukraine. Ukrainians are no less capable of European integration than Slovaks, they just need some help. I'm happy to sound like a neo-con, but I prefer the term neo-liberal, because I'm not pretending to be an evangelical Judeo-Christian family values respecter. (neo-Roman would be best, but that may be a bridge too far)
I don't think Europe would do fine without America, I think it would be Russian. I think Russia has a history of doing that. Ukraine is only surviving because of NATO -- without NATO, Ukraine would have been conquered in 2 weeks. I'm ethnically Jewish and culturally Anglo. It sounds like you have some kind of superstitious hatred of those two groups -- are you an Irish Catholic or something?
Russia is not strong enough to fully buy out Europe. Some politicians wanted a sort of Eurasian alliance between the two, but the Ukraine conflict has scuttled such plans.
I like this; being offensive from the left is good. Also, Ford was secretly pro-choice: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/20/us/ford-urges-gop-to-drop-abortion-issue-and-shift-center.html
A lot of early eugenicists were pro-choice, so this isn't terribly surprising.
Lmao - "Ukraine to NATO is a great idea because Russia is still "our" #1 enemy" ... nevermind this would dramatically increase likelihood of nuclear weapons being used.
Kinetic war with China is a "whatever" (insert sound of Cali valley girl vocal fry)
"Only Chinese misinformation is causing US soft power decline" ... while US is supporting a wholly unpopular country in ItsNotReal (e.g. UN resolutions only voted down by US + Pacific Island states + Israel) and peace talks in African, Ukraine conflicts taken to the Middle East or China without US mediation.
Continuation with Bretton Woods = definitely no hyperinflation in the future as interest rate payments rival / overtake Social Security payments
This n*gga is really just the same old "Everything is Fine (while fire in background" meme.
I would prefer a trade war with China to a kinetic war. I don't think everything is fine. I also never said that Social Security wasn't a problem. I think anti-American attitudes from "patriots" are extremely destructive. I don't think our support for Israel is the fundamental cause behind this "anti-American patriot" attitude.
What's your nation? The white race?
What's your religion?
China did essentially pursue something like colonization. Dynasties repeatedly conquered or vandalized xinjiang, and later funded fleets to control piracy and the trade routes in Southeast Asia, even kicking the Dutch out of Taiwan at one point. The question of why China never colonized America seems to be answered by that it never made economic sense to. Consider that one of the things Spain did with their riches from the Americas was quickly spending it to buy Chinese products.
Wanting to extend pax American debt for as long as possible seems to be a path that would prevent renewal. Some sort of creative destruction seems necessary for ethnos to regenerate from the costs of empire. And the current debt empire is tied to hyper leftoids.
I prefer hyper leftoids to collapse -- I think you would argue that leftoids make collapse inevitable, but I am not an accelerationist. I understand that our civic religion is flawed, but I would prefer to work with existing structures to force a renewal from within the elite. I think that's what Caesar accomplished, with the help of his Gallic allies. He wasn't wishing for a Germanic invasion or the collapse of "degenerate Rome." Eventually that did happen, but I see no point in speeding it up. There were a lot of great Roman writers, poets, and neo-Platonists in the two centuries after Caesar. I'm sure America will do some cool stuff in the next 200 years, despite some ideological issues. I am pretty optimistic.
I don’t doubt that in 200 years Americans might still produce notable inventions and works of art. I also think that if the American governance does not change drastically, there will be no Americans left in 300 years. Trading a century or two of productivity for longevity is the trade the far right wants to make, although how it would make it is unclear.
Ok, well I am not far right, so I will take 200 years of productivity in exchange for an eventual collapse in 300 years.
oil production, patents, military tech.
My internet is dial up right now so in the interest of consolidating comment threads I'll post this here: The caveat on destroying the middle class is I think we have to consider the problem of military recruitment. So I am exaggerating but I simply want to get past the point where I am trying to score technical points against your arguments and understand that the limiting factor in our communication is mostly about sacred cows and religious axioms.
I'm not in favor of a strong Europe, I'm in favor of everyone being under the thumb of America, and America remaking the world in its image. I think we can do that while working on infrastructure, economics, our social and political problems.
-Said Cicero to Caesar
Rome 300 years later was essentially Greek. 600 years later, the Greek half was invaded by Slavs, Arabs, and then put to bed by Turks.
Not contradicting me.
True; China is different now.
The sphere of trade in Southeast Asia is bigger now owing to better sailing ships. It will end up touching Hawaii.
Amazing that the conclusion you derive from Schmitt is "I should betray my country because ideology." I'm sure that's exactly what Schmitt would have done.
I'm not in favor of Walmart, Chinese goods, the vagrancy crisis, mass migration, financial crimes and speculation, or waving the American flag either. The solution is to improve the country, not abandon it.
I'm not a classical liberal, but I do believe in endless war. I have told you many times I'm not in favor of immigration in general, not sure why you're strawmanning me so hard.
You argue that "elites seek to enrich themselves, and maintain their status and power." I agree, but you also make this statement hysterically, as if it is unnatural or unusual. Can you give me an example of elites who do not do this, in any country, at any point in history? Are you a Christian?
Can you name one healthy society where "elites are kept in check and subordinate to the interests of the society"? Name one. Any country. Any time in the last 10,000 years? No? Just wishful thinking and moralism?
Be specific. Which was this Chinese, Japanese, and western elite class who was kept in check and subordinate to the people? Give a year and a name of a ruler or regime.
Holy Roman governance did a good job of keeping the bourgeois elite from fully executing their rapacious whims. Until napoleon came along and blew it up.
The Chinese dynasties have never gone as far as current western elites have in terms of anti peasantry in x-thousand years of governance.
I disagree that some cultures don't want to take over the world. I think there are differences in degrees of expansion historically, and some of that can be explained by mythic structures (inward looking cultures vs outward looking adventurous cultures). Even if that were true, I value expansive cultures, and think that America should be expansive, because expansion is a moral good in itself. I don't think that any country is confined by anything besides sheer force and incompetence. China is far too competent now, and the only solution is sheer force (which could come in the form of economic sanctions, which I would prefer over open warfare, but it's still a form of coercion and "trade war").
I don't think Europeanism offers anything favorable to Americanism. Europe without America is a Russian vassal, which is depressing in my opinion. Ukraine could easily be integrated into NATO with enough threatening force applied. I agree that the war should have ended in 2022, but believe that America should have directly put troops on the ground in Ukraine, surrendered the Donbas and Luhansk, and conducted a full-scale integration / occupation to re-organize Ukraine. Ukrainians are no less capable of European integration than Slovaks, they just need some help. I'm happy to sound like a neo-con, but I prefer the term neo-liberal, because I'm not pretending to be an evangelical Judeo-Christian family values respecter. (neo-Roman would be best, but that may be a bridge too far)
I don't think Europe would do fine without America, I think it would be Russian. I think Russia has a history of doing that. Ukraine is only surviving because of NATO -- without NATO, Ukraine would have been conquered in 2 weeks. I'm ethnically Jewish and culturally Anglo. It sounds like you have some kind of superstitious hatred of those two groups -- are you an Irish Catholic or something?
Russia would occupy Europe in the same way that America occupies Europe. No storming required.
Russia is not strong enough to fully buy out Europe. Some politicians wanted a sort of Eurasian alliance between the two, but the Ukraine conflict has scuttled such plans.
Strength is relative
Again, I disagree that you can extrapolate intentions from incompetence.