I agree. I used to be one of those Isolationist nationalists, but the more I thought about it the less sense it made and I still don’t like our cultural output, because right now we’re spreading progressivism around the world, but that can change, it doesn’t have to be permanent. Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an Empire of Liberty is a noble one. An Empire. A Nation where man can build and create if he so chooses without he baggage, but takes the best of the old world. We’ve faltered from that dream, but and this may be naive, but I still believe in it.
That Reagan Farewell adress to the Nation still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up every single time i think about it. I keep watching it then and again to make sure i'm not delusional. He puts into modern language the fact that the system created by the Founding Fathers is something no human civilization achieved, and it is something preferable to anything ever conceived. But it is also fragile, and must be protected, both from inside and from the otuside. You believe in it because it can reform, and It is something worth fighting for. If it collapses, the conditions that created it may never exist again.
Progressivism is a virus, and the body is stronger than this virus. I see the Body fighting this virus and winning, slowly but steadly. Many would rather kill the patient than hope for a recovery. Based on all i've read and studied and thought about, that is just madness and impatience.
We don't know if it (the US) can bounce back, but it is preferrable that it does, for all of us that share this hemisphere. The alternatives are more than scary, they are raw human nature in its sheer hobbesian chaotic evil form.
His inaugural speech is also pretty good as well. I disagree with Reagan’s immigration policy of amnesty, but he wasn’t the worst, especially coming off the weak-willed Carter. Reagan smashed the Russians for sure.
Great stuff indeed. The speech hits home to me less because of who said it and more because of its content. It is by no means admiration for Reagan, but for the words of wisdom. Imagine a politician having that much eloquence today.
Really sharp analysis on hegemonic stability theory. The comparison to Napoleon's consolidation strategy is spot-on, but worth noting that forward bases aren't just about keeping rivals weak. Maintaning trade access through chokepoints like Hormuz is what actually keeps inflation from spiraling for average folks back home. Saw this firsthand when oil prices spiked in 2022 and everyone started caring about straits security real quick.
Interesting theory, however as a counterargument; MAD deterrence. A nation can be as militarily weak and noninterventionist as it likes and still be certain of avoiding invasion, if they have The Bomb. South Africa, Gaddafi's Libya and Ukraine vs North Korea set the examples. They made the mistake of giving up their nukes and got curbstomped, the Norks didn't and their regime is poor but stable, no matter how much the state department seethes.
No, it was to avoid another Haiti where both Whites and Mixeds were slaughtered to the last man. And many Yankee abolitionists were just as high on their moralistic indignation as today’s Woke, enough to get almost sexually turned on by the visions of the “virtuous” Blacks having a bloody revenge on their supposed “neighbors”. How is the Radical Republicans supposedly different from the Jacobins or the communists in this respect? This is where the collapse of European civilization began, here. This is where the tv-adulated Boomer generation missed the boat, by not bothering to read the actual documents.
Anyway, the South lost and became the depressed American Ukraine for 80 years as there was no credit to rebuild the ruins. Wonder if the Soviets learned from this? Of course, the South was badly compromised by their dependence on both English market for cotton and on the Yankee factories for bullets and beds, which many Southerns were aware of. Yet, the Planters class were so blind by their dependence and cultural habits that they couldn’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. Worse, their dependence made them forgot the hard lesson of 1776 and 1812 that free trade can never replace a domestic industry, and that war was only 48 years earlier! Many men in 1860 were kids then! Might be a case of intellectual decline in this class.
The South fought to seceeded after 10 years of heated debate over slavery on the new territories to the West and the Bloody Kansas affair. To say it was not about slavery is to both play by the rules of the enemie and to self-delude into fantasy. It was about their economy, which was Slavery. And honestly? were i a Southerner, i'd just fucking own it.
The point about another Haiti is not mutually exclusive and i'm sure given time the South would eventually have abolished slavery in favor of steam powered mills, but to say the war wasn't about slavery is just stubborn denialism, coupled with having to wash away a supposed wrong-doing. That presumes it was wrong,
Like hell it was wrong, it was the way of the world since the inception of civilization. Slavery and Racism were always the norm and our current vision is the exception.
Go ask the Chinese if they care about slavery. They enslave their own people to increase economic output. The fact that the US could mantain its Industry for so long before China began producing everything with modern slavery is what is truly suprising.
Also give some time to read about the Land Enclosures Policy in the United Kingdom to see how that virtuous nation arrived at such a high industrialization rate. They kicked everyone out of their own farms to work in a factory. And yes, they were the ones who "abolished slavery" worldwide on gunpoint.
The ambition to create an industry without slavery is one of the reasons the US has to survive. otherwise we are all fair game.
Not my opinion. It’s the one the best historians agreed on, that slavery was a contributing factor but not the determining one. Maybe I didn’t explain it before as well as I thought. Many slave states didn’t joined the Confederacy at first. Virginia thought it was a stupid and emotional move. The prime mover for the Confederacy was South Carolina where the Whites were outnumbered by the Blacks to such a dramatic degree that they either have to deport all of them for self-defense against another Haiti or to keep them enslaved. The first move would bankrupt the state, hand down. The second choice merely delay the inevitable logic in a hope of a future option. This was what Jefferson meant by taking the tiger by the tail. A dramatic break was required and not many were willing to make the move.
Virginia didn’t have that many compared to SC. In fact, Virginia almost abolish slavery in 1832 but fell only eight votes short on Thomas Jefferson Randolph’s plan to free the slaves over time. The reason the vote failed to carry the day was that 100,000 anti-slavery Quakers migrated into Pennsylvania in the last five years earlier. Randolph thought he was lucky to even get a debate in the House of Delegates. Imagine, that with time and more patience, many slave states will eventually abolish slavery and favor industry. But many Planters were deeply prejudiced against the idea of industry. They were stuck in the past. It will require a new Southern elite to break their hold.
No, what got many slave states to join Confederacy was in reaction what the military did in Missouri, with what many in both North and South considered an outrageous abuse of power. Virginia voted to secede in protest. Otherwise, Confederacy would be a very weak state by 1862, and likely to resolve the issue in some manner with the Union.
If economy was the determining factor, a lot of nations wouldn’t leave their imperial masters, like Britain leaving EU. No, they voted Leave for other reasons. New England was angry enough by the disruption to their sea commerce economy by the War of 1812 to discuss secession but money alone just wasn’t strong enough to enable the break. British America complained for decades about the limits placed on their domestic industry and trade, but it took an emotional desire to defend their self-government to provide the final push for the Colonies. Economics will always be important, but it’s just not that strong enough to provide the deciding break, which tends to be more emotional in nature, much like a romantic breakup. Otherwise, EU would have disappeared decades ago. Even the mass invasion of aliens and all the associated violence wasn’t enough to really drive many nations to break EU (So far). You are always free to disagree.
For me, I’m glad that the Union was held together because the divided states would give the British and French Empires a huge opening in the Americas. Maybe even a fatal one. Keeping the States together was required to keep the Great Powers out, which was why Britain and France encouraged the South to break away. They used the South like they are using Ukraine today, as a proxy against the two growing powers: America and Russia. Russia understood this enough to feed Lincoln the news and to park their navies in the Union ports. Russia may have saved the day for America.
Thank you for this excellent post. I've held this view for years and I'd shudder when some fat white guy who is a US citizen would jizz himself at the prospect of a "multi-polar world" with a lot of chickenshit wannabe hegemonies devouring the planet.
The US Hegemony does in many ways suck and I disagree with lots of aspects but so far no one has really proposed anything else that would actually work
You can't blame people for being politically retarded: white, nigger, yellow, whatever. But you can sure as hell blame people who vote and think on emotion alone. This means lack of a proper family structure and fundamental principles, which then lead to people seeking validation from podcasters and all manner of shills who act as modern preachers.
I think this will fix itself when people realize reality does not give a fuck about their delusions, which they can only hold because of greater men who protect them from their stupidity.
I agree in principle, but I don't think this applies to the US. America’s only threats are internal. That's what happens to any Empire that has no credible external rivals left. The Empire will be sure to convince us that they need to do keep the whole world in line to keep us safe but it's bs.
Sure, it sucks for certain global elites and the Cold War apparatus if we can't bully every corner of the world as much as we used to, but why should the average guy care?
If anyone tries to mess with us on our soil they get nuked.
The rest of the world can and should figure it out.
The only thing that will change is that maybe we won't be able to dictate how countries on the other side of the world run their countries.
Yes, and I love your stuff. I don't take what you say lightly.
But just because the U.S. wants to dominate the world and try to force its views on everyone else doesn't mean that's what every other power in the world would do. Not every nation or state has world conquest on its agenda. I don't even think Russia does. I think they would like US/NATO out of its backyard and want their own own power bloc, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe they're try to anex Alaska if we took our boot of their neck.
Let me know if I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm not suggesting I would rather have a different hegemon instead of the US.
You are misunderstanding in the sense that if you are not the Hegemon, someone else will be. The US citizens such as you Chris can only afford to say "we should not be world police" precisely because there are bases out there making sure others "behave". Sadly to pull back would destroy both the US economy and the world economy. These troops are not just there to justify the "military industrial complex" (altho it logically benefits from it), but to ensure trade lanes remain protected, regional stability remains high and trade (including oil) flows. It is a lot more complex than most people think.
Even if it is not desirable to you or to me, if the forces pull back the enemies become strong and the global market gets fucked. Thats just how it is.
There is no such thing as outdated knowlege about topics that concern the laws of men and warfare. Technical knowlege? Sure. But do read Von Clausewitz or Leviathan and tell me that is "outdated". Or maybe Trust the blue haired experts that graduated harvard not knowing if they are male or female. To each their own eh?
I agree. I used to be one of those Isolationist nationalists, but the more I thought about it the less sense it made and I still don’t like our cultural output, because right now we’re spreading progressivism around the world, but that can change, it doesn’t have to be permanent. Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an Empire of Liberty is a noble one. An Empire. A Nation where man can build and create if he so chooses without he baggage, but takes the best of the old world. We’ve faltered from that dream, but and this may be naive, but I still believe in it.
That Reagan Farewell adress to the Nation still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up every single time i think about it. I keep watching it then and again to make sure i'm not delusional. He puts into modern language the fact that the system created by the Founding Fathers is something no human civilization achieved, and it is something preferable to anything ever conceived. But it is also fragile, and must be protected, both from inside and from the otuside. You believe in it because it can reform, and It is something worth fighting for. If it collapses, the conditions that created it may never exist again.
Progressivism is a virus, and the body is stronger than this virus. I see the Body fighting this virus and winning, slowly but steadly. Many would rather kill the patient than hope for a recovery. Based on all i've read and studied and thought about, that is just madness and impatience.
We don't know if it (the US) can bounce back, but it is preferrable that it does, for all of us that share this hemisphere. The alternatives are more than scary, they are raw human nature in its sheer hobbesian chaotic evil form.
His inaugural speech is also pretty good as well. I disagree with Reagan’s immigration policy of amnesty, but he wasn’t the worst, especially coming off the weak-willed Carter. Reagan smashed the Russians for sure.
https://youtu.be/GiuFzpl28io?si=JozMOV-TjyfRYZrB
Great stuff indeed. The speech hits home to me less because of who said it and more because of its content. It is by no means admiration for Reagan, but for the words of wisdom. Imagine a politician having that much eloquence today.
Really sharp analysis on hegemonic stability theory. The comparison to Napoleon's consolidation strategy is spot-on, but worth noting that forward bases aren't just about keeping rivals weak. Maintaning trade access through chokepoints like Hormuz is what actually keeps inflation from spiraling for average folks back home. Saw this firsthand when oil prices spiked in 2022 and everyone started caring about straits security real quick.
Excellent. I dislike what neo-conservatism grew into but we simply cannot do without its Realpolitik insights.
Interesting theory, however as a counterargument; MAD deterrence. A nation can be as militarily weak and noninterventionist as it likes and still be certain of avoiding invasion, if they have The Bomb. South Africa, Gaddafi's Libya and Ukraine vs North Korea set the examples. They made the mistake of giving up their nukes and got curbstomped, the Norks didn't and their regime is poor but stable, no matter how much the state department seethes.
Lot of people think the South fought for slavery.
No, it was to avoid another Haiti where both Whites and Mixeds were slaughtered to the last man. And many Yankee abolitionists were just as high on their moralistic indignation as today’s Woke, enough to get almost sexually turned on by the visions of the “virtuous” Blacks having a bloody revenge on their supposed “neighbors”. How is the Radical Republicans supposedly different from the Jacobins or the communists in this respect? This is where the collapse of European civilization began, here. This is where the tv-adulated Boomer generation missed the boat, by not bothering to read the actual documents.
Anyway, the South lost and became the depressed American Ukraine for 80 years as there was no credit to rebuild the ruins. Wonder if the Soviets learned from this? Of course, the South was badly compromised by their dependence on both English market for cotton and on the Yankee factories for bullets and beds, which many Southerns were aware of. Yet, the Planters class were so blind by their dependence and cultural habits that they couldn’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. Worse, their dependence made them forgot the hard lesson of 1776 and 1812 that free trade can never replace a domestic industry, and that war was only 48 years earlier! Many men in 1860 were kids then! Might be a case of intellectual decline in this class.
The South fought to seceeded after 10 years of heated debate over slavery on the new territories to the West and the Bloody Kansas affair. To say it was not about slavery is to both play by the rules of the enemie and to self-delude into fantasy. It was about their economy, which was Slavery. And honestly? were i a Southerner, i'd just fucking own it.
The point about another Haiti is not mutually exclusive and i'm sure given time the South would eventually have abolished slavery in favor of steam powered mills, but to say the war wasn't about slavery is just stubborn denialism, coupled with having to wash away a supposed wrong-doing. That presumes it was wrong,
Like hell it was wrong, it was the way of the world since the inception of civilization. Slavery and Racism were always the norm and our current vision is the exception.
Go ask the Chinese if they care about slavery. They enslave their own people to increase economic output. The fact that the US could mantain its Industry for so long before China began producing everything with modern slavery is what is truly suprising.
Also give some time to read about the Land Enclosures Policy in the United Kingdom to see how that virtuous nation arrived at such a high industrialization rate. They kicked everyone out of their own farms to work in a factory. And yes, they were the ones who "abolished slavery" worldwide on gunpoint.
The ambition to create an industry without slavery is one of the reasons the US has to survive. otherwise we are all fair game.
Not my opinion. It’s the one the best historians agreed on, that slavery was a contributing factor but not the determining one. Maybe I didn’t explain it before as well as I thought. Many slave states didn’t joined the Confederacy at first. Virginia thought it was a stupid and emotional move. The prime mover for the Confederacy was South Carolina where the Whites were outnumbered by the Blacks to such a dramatic degree that they either have to deport all of them for self-defense against another Haiti or to keep them enslaved. The first move would bankrupt the state, hand down. The second choice merely delay the inevitable logic in a hope of a future option. This was what Jefferson meant by taking the tiger by the tail. A dramatic break was required and not many were willing to make the move.
Virginia didn’t have that many compared to SC. In fact, Virginia almost abolish slavery in 1832 but fell only eight votes short on Thomas Jefferson Randolph’s plan to free the slaves over time. The reason the vote failed to carry the day was that 100,000 anti-slavery Quakers migrated into Pennsylvania in the last five years earlier. Randolph thought he was lucky to even get a debate in the House of Delegates. Imagine, that with time and more patience, many slave states will eventually abolish slavery and favor industry. But many Planters were deeply prejudiced against the idea of industry. They were stuck in the past. It will require a new Southern elite to break their hold.
No, what got many slave states to join Confederacy was in reaction what the military did in Missouri, with what many in both North and South considered an outrageous abuse of power. Virginia voted to secede in protest. Otherwise, Confederacy would be a very weak state by 1862, and likely to resolve the issue in some manner with the Union.
If economy was the determining factor, a lot of nations wouldn’t leave their imperial masters, like Britain leaving EU. No, they voted Leave for other reasons. New England was angry enough by the disruption to their sea commerce economy by the War of 1812 to discuss secession but money alone just wasn’t strong enough to enable the break. British America complained for decades about the limits placed on their domestic industry and trade, but it took an emotional desire to defend their self-government to provide the final push for the Colonies. Economics will always be important, but it’s just not that strong enough to provide the deciding break, which tends to be more emotional in nature, much like a romantic breakup. Otherwise, EU would have disappeared decades ago. Even the mass invasion of aliens and all the associated violence wasn’t enough to really drive many nations to break EU (So far). You are always free to disagree.
For me, I’m glad that the Union was held together because the divided states would give the British and French Empires a huge opening in the Americas. Maybe even a fatal one. Keeping the States together was required to keep the Great Powers out, which was why Britain and France encouraged the South to break away. They used the South like they are using Ukraine today, as a proxy against the two growing powers: America and Russia. Russia understood this enough to feed Lincoln the news and to park their navies in the Union ports. Russia may have saved the day for America.
Thank you for this excellent post. I've held this view for years and I'd shudder when some fat white guy who is a US citizen would jizz himself at the prospect of a "multi-polar world" with a lot of chickenshit wannabe hegemonies devouring the planet.
The US Hegemony does in many ways suck and I disagree with lots of aspects but so far no one has really proposed anything else that would actually work
You can't blame people for being politically retarded: white, nigger, yellow, whatever. But you can sure as hell blame people who vote and think on emotion alone. This means lack of a proper family structure and fundamental principles, which then lead to people seeking validation from podcasters and all manner of shills who act as modern preachers.
I think this will fix itself when people realize reality does not give a fuck about their delusions, which they can only hold because of greater men who protect them from their stupidity.
I agree in principle, but I don't think this applies to the US. America’s only threats are internal. That's what happens to any Empire that has no credible external rivals left. The Empire will be sure to convince us that they need to do keep the whole world in line to keep us safe but it's bs.
Sure, it sucks for certain global elites and the Cold War apparatus if we can't bully every corner of the world as much as we used to, but why should the average guy care?
If anyone tries to mess with us on our soil they get nuked.
The rest of the world can and should figure it out.
The only thing that will change is that maybe we won't be able to dictate how countries on the other side of the world run their countries.
Did you read the article at all?
Yes, and I love your stuff. I don't take what you say lightly.
But just because the U.S. wants to dominate the world and try to force its views on everyone else doesn't mean that's what every other power in the world would do. Not every nation or state has world conquest on its agenda. I don't even think Russia does. I think they would like US/NATO out of its backyard and want their own own power bloc, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe they're try to anex Alaska if we took our boot of their neck.
Let me know if I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm not suggesting I would rather have a different hegemon instead of the US.
You are misunderstanding in the sense that if you are not the Hegemon, someone else will be. The US citizens such as you Chris can only afford to say "we should not be world police" precisely because there are bases out there making sure others "behave". Sadly to pull back would destroy both the US economy and the world economy. These troops are not just there to justify the "military industrial complex" (altho it logically benefits from it), but to ensure trade lanes remain protected, regional stability remains high and trade (including oil) flows. It is a lot more complex than most people think.
Even if it is not desirable to you or to me, if the forces pull back the enemies become strong and the global market gets fucked. Thats just how it is.
Thanks for further explaining. Your articles are awesome. I'm looking forward to the next one.
The next will not be about Geo-Politics, but thank you for being here!
I’ve enjoyed reading the Rake but he’s got to lay off the white stuff from now on. This article is just sheer lunacy.
Of all the batshit crazy stuff that i wrote on actual fucking coke this is where you draw the line? hahahahaha.
Yeah, because you don’t understand jackshit about geopolitics. Either that or your knowledge of geopolitics is woefully outdated.
There is no such thing as outdated knowlege about topics that concern the laws of men and warfare. Technical knowlege? Sure. But do read Von Clausewitz or Leviathan and tell me that is "outdated". Or maybe Trust the blue haired experts that graduated harvard not knowing if they are male or female. To each their own eh?
I almost never comment. But just wanted to let you know that I love your writing. Regardless of whichever substance you were on at the time.
i was replying to the anonymous dude down bellow, but thank you. i've laid off the substaces for now.