Agenda 21: The Elite Plan for Global Tyranny

If you’ve found your way to this humble outpost of truth, you might have noticed the world around you is beginning to not make any sense. Up is down, left is right, black is white. Part of the reason for the chaos is the fact George Soros and other elites are organizing camera-ready protests, then bringing two sides of extremists together to clash while pinning the blame on one side.

This agenda has been going on for years. (Ferguson, San Jose, Charlotte, et al.) So, it’s worse than what happened in Charlottesville. What’s more, almost every “news” item one sees in the mainstream media is a farce, a marvel of the Hegelian dialectic intended to accomplish goals of elites paying talking heads to read propaganda before they swoop in like vultures with “solutions.” These false flags and psyops are designed to create division and to implode the remnants of the American republic. We are entering the advanced stages of a long-term elite plan for a so-called post-democratic, post-industrial world. It is to be a world constrained by a tightly controlled, planned economy. In essence, global Communism is its aim.

The irony that the U.S. and Russia have so dramatically switched roles in the world since 1991 is all the more astounding, in that the U.S. is now making concrete steps to enforce its brand of totalitarianism on the world and Russia is making strides towards democracy, nationalism, and national identity once prized by America.

It now seems the Cold War was a fight over who would get to take over the world first, not the trite freedom vs. tyranny narrative American statesmen sold us for half a century. The U.S. used the power of the free market to take advantage of the economic weaknesses of Socialism, only to make a stunning about-face once the Soviet threat died and the world lay before the American elite as spoil.

The bleak future of American-style global Socialism (and later, Communism) is what many have dubbed The New World Order. One of the key ways global tyranny is being implemented is through Agenda 21. Not enough people know the truth of what Agenda 21 really is, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 as a “voluntary” (it’s not) agreement to create a world run by the elite in which each citizen is as interchangeable as a piston rod (to paraphrase Howard Beale) and every bit as expendable.

Most think Agenda 21 is just another crazy conspiracy theory, although in modern times, conspiracy theories are beginning to make more sense than the unending stream of lies from corporate media.

Looking back, the transition from a free society to a society run by tyrants began 100 years ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve, effectively handing over the power to create money to a private bank. As the Rothschild family knows, and Nathan Rothschild once said:

Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.

Barbary

The Barbary Slave trade culminated in 1 to 1.25 million white Christians being enslaved by black Muslims between 1500-1800

Indeed, those who control the purse strings make the rules. But, the ball really got rolling on the agenda to topple American democracy and replace it with worldwide tyranny after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the institution of mass feminism, and the scapegoating of whites for the crime of slavery (which all races participated in – the first American slave owner was a black man, and there was the Barbary slave trade in which Africans enslaved millions of Europeans between 1500-1800) as an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement. It’s no coincidence all this happened in the 1960s.

The current obsession with the slavery narrative in the brainwashed world of the corporate media is intended to start small, strategic fires around the foundation of the American republic with the removal of Confederate statues, then progress into a big, roaring flame culminating in the burning of modern Rome. The slavery narrative is the perfect Trojan Horse, since the Founding Fathers were slave owners when they formed the American republic.

The slavery narrative is intended to ultimately debase and destroy the United States Constitution.

No matter how noble the aims of the authors of the founding documents were, how they inspired the world and how rare the gifts they bestowed on the masses have been in the course of human history, the lobotomized narrative is the fruit of their labor must be discarded because it is “tainted” by their participation in an economic system that dominated the entire world at the time. Slavery, as horrible as it was, and is, was the entire world’s economic system for thousands of years. (Interestingly, only 5% of the African slave trade came to the U.S. and the rest went to Latin America! Yet another fact the Anglo-American media cartel refuse to acknowledge!)

The elite intend to enslave mankind by decrying slavery. This is just how diabolical the plan the American elites have for the world really is.

Buffer.jpg

One of the NWO blueprints, in which a central planning agency decides where people can and cannot live

Agenda 21

The supreme hypocrisy of media narratives is the fact talking heads condemn a world run by white men, but the New World Order will result in world run by rich white men once again – a 1% which is ostensibly the same 1% that owned slaves in the first place (99% of whites never owned slaves). If there plans are realized and the U.S. Constitution is dissolved, thus begins a downward slide into hell on earth. Here are key bullet points that are part of Agenda 21. It’s aims are anti-life and anti-humanity:

  • Ending national sovereignty
  • Constant surveillance of all activity
  • State planning of all land resources
  • Ensuring global equity (equal slavery)
  • Elites only defining the role of business and finance
  • Abolishing private property
  • Restructuring the family unit (i.e. destroying it)
  • The State raising children rather than moms and dads
  • The State choosing jobs for citizens
  • Restricting movement (Think TSA on steroids)
  • Creating “Human Settlement Zones”
  • Beginning mass resettlement and forced eviction
  • Dumbing down (even further) education
  • Mass global depopulation (killing billions)

All these goals are being worked on piecemeal, as the economy is inflated and then crashed in concentric rings with the noose slowly tightening around the West’s throat as living and working conditions worsen with each generation. The above goals are the antithesis of what America is supposed to stand for, and each legislator who has supported them in the past and supports them today are treasonous scum.

paul-revere-1536168_1280

We must be this generation’s Paul Reveres, alerting the masses to the danger the American government is placing them in

We Are The Resistance

If Agenda 21 realized, we will live in a world in which the individual is finished. Man nor woman will have any control over their own lives, as electronic slavery is unleashed on the world via RFID chips. The State and the henchmen who finance it in the corporate world will have total control over the populace. Indeed, Agenda 21 realized could lead to the end of the human species itself.

How do we resist? We went searching for answers. Interestingly, the Jeremiah Project proposes one of the most viable short-term solutions. It offers a three-pronged course of action for those awakened men who see what’s coming. It says the awakened man must:

  1. First, he must defend himself by protest, i.e., legal action.
  2. Second, he must flee if at all possible,
  3. Third, he may use force if necessary to defend himself.

The full treatise of the plan of action to resist the NWO is available here. As TNMM has repeatedly written, we must not let ourselves be divided any longer on matters of race, gender, sexuality, and other wedge issues designed by the planners of Agenda 21 and The New World Order to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they dissolve any remaining freedom we enjoy. From the Jeremiah Project:

We must reject the collectivist idea of “divide and conquer” and instead accept ALL men as equals. We need to consider the words of Martin Luther King and reject the racist labels put on humanity by those who want to control and dominate us. There is no black, no white, no Hispanic, or whatever when it comes to humanity. Sure, there are those ethnic differences, but those differences are only descriptors of our heritage, not differences in human value. We are all brothers and sisters on this planet and we should live our lives that demonstrate that solidarity.

We should encourage whatever talents each person has and allow them the opportunity to express those talents in a way of each person’s choosing.

The controllers of the world know that in order to dominate and control the masses, the easiest way to accomplish this goal is to keep the people divided amongst themselves. Rather than expending valuable resources to conquer a society, the controllers instead pit one another against their neighbors and let them fight amongst themselves, thus destroying their unity.

Unity is strength, always remember that. Here is more sage advice to resist the NWO as the world descends a world electronically controlled darkness, unlike any mankind has ever known:

  • Disconnect from all Establishment media and other sources of Marxist propaganda
  • Seek out like-minded men and help build each other up
  • Self-educate and think critically
  • Learn to recognize the Hegelian Dialectic: Most “problems” are created so the masters can impose preconceived solutions on the masses, stealing their liberty and autonomy
  • Learn to recognize false flags, which have been perpetrated on the public for literally thousands of years
  • Patronize small business rather than multinationals and chains
  • Get your money out of the banks – fractional reserve banking means the bank only has 10% of the sum of all customer deposits available at any one time
  • Reduce the amount of taxes you pay into the system as much as possible by any legal means necessary – this usually means learning to live on less
  • Eat non-GMO food and organics when possible

Of course, these bullet points are only a start when it comes to planning a peaceful resistance movement. The bad news is, we absolutely cannot expect our representatives to do anything except blow hot air as we’ve seen with the Establishment’s moves to maroon Trump on a political island. (Whether he is part of the ruse remains to be seen.)

Mousey-Gobbler

Mighty Mouse and The Gobbler aren’t going to save you – Ryan and McConnell are traitors to the American people

Republicans Are Complicit

If the election of Trump has proven anything, it’s the the Republicans are malware. They refuse to move on any of his agenda items despite having an overwhelming mandate as they control more of the United States government than the party has at any time since 1929. It is obvious they are complicit in impaling the heart of the American Republic as Democrat Socialists lead the way. Laurence Vance of the Lew Rockwell blog details how bad Republicans really are:

Republicans are worse than Democrats because they use libertarian rhetoric to deceive conservatives and libertarians into thinking that they actually believe their mantra of the Constitution, limited government, federalism, fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, private property, and the free market.

Just take one issue: the war on drugs. Republicans support it lock, stock, and barrel even though it is not authorized by the Constitution, it increases the size and power of government, it violates the principle of federalism, it wastes billions of dollars a year, it negates personal freedom, it infringes upon property rights, and it is contrary to the free market.

How bad are the Republicans in Congress? The few that are good are very, very good. The many that are bad are horrid.

The only thing Americans could possibly do to drain the swamp at this point is to elect an entirely new Congress, throwing every Republican and Democrat currently in office out on their asses. That simply won’t happen. Re-election rates for incumbents are high, despite the fact their approval ratings are low. The shuck and jive still works for those holding the levers of power.

plane-1712737_1280

Leaving America may just buy you some time

Go Minimalist Now, Expat if Possible

The best advice for those planning for the worst is to go minimalist now if you haven’t already. Destroy your debt. Stay out of debt. Live on less. Downsize from a McMansion to a smaller home. Don’t buy new cars. Stockpile money and diversify your investments. Plan for the worst, because the current economic bubble we are in will be imploded just as all the rest were imploded since the advent of the Federal Reserve, by design.

Future articles will expound on what men can do to safeguard their own lives and those of their loved ones.

If you haven’t made strides to expat and take the fruit of your labor with you, now might be a good time to speed up that agenda. At least it will give one breathing room and a buffer zone when the inevitable conflagration begins in the United States. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be here when Martial Law is declared and mass chipping of the public begins.

Falling back at least gives men time to regroup and come up with a new plan, since we are painfully behind the 8-ball as earnest efforts to de-legitimize the U.S. government begin. As we either try to weather the storm or fall back and regroup, when making our plans we must always remember one sage piece of wisdom. As the Founding Fathers knew: Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

 

Locus says, “the only solution is the complete and total end of all involvement in the UN and similar organizations, and the withdraw of all western nations from any and all involvement with non-white nations. All political elites and corporate leadership and their families must be liquidated, deportation of non-whites (especially non-white males), and anti-white populations within the west must be relocated to controlled zones for reeducation for those who can be, and termination of those who refuse to submit to white male rule.”

The Alt Right Means White Nationalism

They openly deride us but at the same time they don’t like it when we want nothing to do with them. They’re parasites, plain and simple. Integration is essentially bondage of the white race.

Parasites would be an understatement, but I do agree. They are entitled parasitic violent, disgusting, hateful people. All non whites that do not wish to assimilate but wish to change our nation must be dealt with. This is not their home! I had a non-white once ask me.. ‘why do you think Donald Trump is good for OUR country?’ OUR COUNTRY?!

This is a WHITE NATION that was never EVER meant to be multicultural! They are so deluded and entitled that non whites actually think they deserve a say in what changes we make to OUR country. Let’s get this straight, if you aren’t WHITE.. you DO NOT get a say!

We are demonized to the point of non whites thinking they are justified to commit violent acts upon us. We must defend ourselves and our nation. Most importantly we must defend ALL white people, even those who are brainwashed by the left.

 

The Alt Right Means White Nationalism . . . or Nothing at All

https://www.counter-currents.com/

 

ControlledDemolitionHillary Clinton’s Alt Right speech was a complete dud. It probably did not harm Trump or help Hillary, since Trump voters either don’t care about the Alt Right or look favorably upon it, while the only people susceptible to Hillary’s scare-mongering were already going to vote for her.

I had, however, hoped that Hillary’s speech would at least bring new attention to Alt Right websites like Counter-Currents. But although there was a jump in our traffic last Thursday and Friday, it had more to do with the fact that I had written an article on Hillary’s speech than with the speech itself. All my articles produce similar jumps in traffic (as do Gregory Hood’s).

At least as far as Counter-Currents is concerned, there is no evidence of a Hillary bump. And this is actually consistent with past experience. Counter-Currents has been mentioned and linked in the mainstream press. I can see exactly how many people follow those links to our site, and it is usually minuscule. In fact, based on their comment sections, when I publicize these links to our readers, the mainstream media gets more readers from Counter-Currents than vice versa.

The explanation for this is simple. The smug, middlebrow, newspaper-reading public lacks intellectual curiosity. They are content to “Wow, just wow” and then click for more prolefeed rather than venture into the great unknown. Yes, our movement and influence are still growing, but mainstream media attention has surprisingly little to do with it. Which is one more reason to simply ignore their media and keep building our own.

Nevertheless, in the wake of Hillary’s speech, there was a buzz of social media activity, in which a number of people embraced the term “Alt Right.” But they either did not know what it means, or they simply wanted to redefine it in terms of . . . surprise . . . the various currents of the mainstream Right that we saw fit to discard long ago, such as civic nationalism and libertarianism.

Naturally, many bona fide Alt Rightists are alarmed at the prospect of our movement being co-opted or hollowed out by entryists and carpet-baggers just as we are starting to get more mainstream attention. Initially, I dismissed this fear, for four reasons.

First, mainstream media attention probably matters less than we think it does.

Second, the whole point of the “Alt Right” is to be a broad umbrella term for ideological tendencies that reject mainstream American conservatism. The Alt Right is thus defined in terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is. It has no “essence,” so what is the point of arguing about what it “really” is?

Third, instead of defending the vacuous “Alt Right,” I prefer to defend more concrete positions: White Nationalism (including its self-evident corollary anti-Semitism) and the New Right. Defending these positions has two advantages. First, they state my actual beliefs. Second, I defy any libertarian or civic nationalist to co-opt them.

Fourth, if we actually join battle against these entryists and carpet-baggers, we will end up defending White Nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the like anyway. So why worry about the Alt Right moniker? Just focus on the substance.

However, there’s another way of looking at this. Granted, the Alt Right “brand” is largely empty, aside from the fact that it negates the conservative mainstream. But meaning, like nature, abhors a vacuum. So someone will eventually endow the Alternative Right with a positive content. So it might as well be me.

This content will, to a great extent, be socially constructed. Meaning that people can try to offer any definition they want, but unless it is widely accepted by others, it does not matter. Thus, for a proposed meaning to stick, it must either come from someone relatively authoritative, or it must be immediately compelling, or both.

My definition meets both criteria, so here goes: the Alternative Right means White Nationalism — or it means nothing at all.

The original concept of the Alternative Right emerged from paleoconservatism. (I prefer to call it “faileoconservatism,” an evaluation that is even shared by paleocon pioneer Paul Gottfried, who declared the end of paleoconservatism and called for an “Alternative Right” in the same 2008 H. L. Mencken Club speech.)

Like paleoconservatism, the Alternative Right was simply a way that timid, status-conscious conservatives could flirt with racism and even anti-Semitism while maintaining some sort of pretense of mainstream credibility.

But when Richard Spencer started the Alternative Right webzine in 2010, the principal funders and writers regarded it simply as a vehicle for White Nationalist entryism, and they would have blown it up rather than see it become anything else. Today’s White Nationalists need to take the same strongly proprietary attitude toward the Alternative Right. It is a vehicle of White Nationalism, and we will give it the Howard Roark treatment if it is hijacked from us. Full stop. (Spencer himself torched the Alt Right webzine in 2013 for very different reasons.)

But we also need to remember that the Alt Right will not serve as a tool of White Nationalist entryism and outreach if we drive out everyone who is not a White Nationalist. Converts, by definition, don’t already believe what we believe. Thus purging the Alt Right of people who are not already White Nationalists is ultimately self-defeating.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go forth into battle and make this concept of the Alternative Right the dominant one. That is all.

The Specter of White Nationalism

Greg Hood once pointed out to me that a White Nationalist Manifesto could begin with the Preamble of The Communist Manifesto, with only a few words changed:

A specter is haunting the world — the specter of White Nationalism. All the powers that rule over white nations have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this specter: church and state, Left and Right, oligarchs and rabble, high culture and low, academia and the lying press.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as “racist” by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach “they’re the real racists,” against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

1. White Nationalism is already acknowledged by all existing powers to be itself a power.

2. It is high time that White Nationalists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Specter of White Nationalism with a manifesto of the movement itself.

To this end, we present the following Manifesto.

The parallels are rather uncanny — and rather encouraging, since in a little more than a century, Communism went from being a specter of power to being an actual world power.

The standard game of political parties today is “negative legitimation”: they demand your allegiance based not on the positive ground of what they stand for, but simply on the fact that they are not the other party. This allows them to avoid standing for any specific platform, and if it gets them into power, they basically have a blank check, so long as they are sufficiently unlike the hated other party.

But all of the system’s parties quickly unite when any form of white ethnonationalism appears on the scene. White Nationalism is the other party for the whole globalist, multicultural, multiracial system. And as the system lurches from crisis to crisis and fails to deliver its promised multicultural paradise, increasingly its only legitimization is not being us. The system is so bent on stigmatizing people who stand against multiculturalism and globalization as evil, racist whites, that it will declare George Zimmerman a white man and Donald Trump a Nazi.

But in what sense was Communism a “power” in the 1840s, and in what sense could White Nationalism be a “power” today? In neither case are we speaking about real political power. Instead, White Nationalism today, like Communism back then, is simply an image of evil, a bogey man that the system uses to scare the rabble into compliance.

One feels that if we didn’t exist, the system would find it necessary to create us. Indeed, in many cases they do create us. First, the system projects images of its diabolical opposites. Of course, these are the diabolical opposites it prefers, diabolical opposites that it thinks it can defeat or control. And sometimes rebellious but uncritical minds will adopt these images and act accordingly — so-called “Hollywood Nazis,” for example. Second, the system will simply create its own false opposition groups.

Yet for all that, there is a real and growing resistance that is rooted not in the projections and machinations of the system but in the objective reality of racial differences, which make racially and ethnically diverse nations inferior to homogeneous ones. This resistance is growing up through the cracks in the system: the internet, social media, alternative media, and face-to-face groups. Our people are waking up. White Nationalists are now shaping their perceptions and changing their actions. We are showing them the failures of the system, explaining why it is happening, and offering them a workable and inspiring alternative.

But does this make us a power? Being in harmony with reality is certainly an advantage in a movement that is largely a debating society. It is also an advantage in contending for power with a system premised on lies. Moreover, being in harmony with reality will certainly serve as the basis of stable political power, if we can attain it.

But the problem is in the attainment. In itself, truth is not power. The difference between truth and power is the difference between theory and practice, between potentiality and actuality, and a theory we cannot yet practice, a potentiality we cannot yet actualize, is hardly better than a dream.

How then is a specter of power a real power? It is a power only in the psychological sense. It is the power to incite fear. The establishment uses the specter of White Nationalism to scare the normies. But, increasingly, the establishment itself is afraid of us as well. They think that we are behind Brexit, Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, Orbán, etc. And in a way we are, since we support them, and our ideas also influence them or the people around them.

The establishment has turned White Nationalism into the embodiment of evil, the political equivalent of Satan. This is just the latest version of the ancient slave revolt in morals, in which slaves invert the values of their masters so they can feel good about themselves. Jan Assmann argues that the Jewish ritual law was created by the “normative inversion” of Egyptian religion, and Nietzsche argues that Christian values were created by the normative inversion of Greco-Roman pagan values. Today, every sentiment that preserves distinct peoples from a global homogeneous consumer society — a sense of rootedness and identity, patriotism and love of one’s own, a commitment to non-material values, and the willingness to fight and die for them — are labeled evil as well.

This is why evil is so appealing in the Judeo-Christian-liberal world: everything vital, manly, aggressive, lordly, proud, rooted, patriotic, passionate, self-transcending, and glorious is bundled together and labeled evil, whereas everything weak, meek, sniveling, shilly-shallying, rootless, and self-indulgent is labeled good. All the forces that build civilizations are called evil, whereas everything that dissolves them is deemed good.

The human forebrain can convince itself of such inverted values, particularly individuals with the powerful psychological motive to overthrow the standards by which they are judged inferior. But the values of family and tribe appeal to older parts of the brain, which the forebrain can ignore and repress but never reprogram. Which means that everything we stand for already appeals to all of our people — even the most confused and decadent among us — in a deep-seated, literally visceral way.

Everything the system labels evil is a psychologically powerful force, not because evil is good, but because biologically healthy values have been defined as evil but remain irresistibly attractive nonetheless. We have power in the imaginations of our people, the power of the dark side. We must take care not to allow the enemy to define us. We have to mock their projections, not own them. But we can exploit the demonic status and emotional power they have granted us and infuse it with our own content. They define everything vital as evil. We can own the vitality and discard their value judgments.

How do we turn psychological power into political power, the specter of White Nationalism into the real thing? We have to make ourselves leaders and get our people to follow us. (The actual history of Communism has something to teach us here.) It’s a long journey, but it begins with laying the right metapolitical foundations.

An important part of the process is deconstructing the false values that clutter our people’s forebrains. We would not have gotten into this position if our conscious moral convictions had no power to determine our behavior.

Equally important, though, is crafting our appeals to the complex of pre-rational sentiments of blood, soil, and honor that our enemies stigmatize and fear. That is not the province of philosophers, but of artists and orators. It is by seizing their passions that we goad our people into action and direct them towards our goals, turning theory into practice and truth into power.

White Nationalists are Not “White Supremacists”

The charge that White Nationalists are “White Supremacists” has two aspects. First, there is the claim that whites think of ourselves as superior to other groups. Second, there is the idea that whites want to rule over other groups.

I do think that whites are superior to some groups in some ways. I am very proud of our people, and we have a great deal to be proud of. In the areas in which we excel, we have done a lot for the world. Our superior achievements in comparison to other races are why so many non-whites are flooding into white societies. There’s no need to mince words about that or apologize in any way.

It is easy to find ways in which we are superior to other groups. But you can also find ways in which we are inferior to other groups. I just don’t think this issue matters, however, because as Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor have pointed out, even if we were the sorriest lot of people on the planet and had accomplished almost nothing, it would still be natural, normal, and right for us to love our own and to be concerned with the future of our people. And it would still be politically expedient to demand our own sovereign homelands.

As for the idea of whites reigning over other people, I don’t want that. I am a nationalist. I believe in self-determination for all peoples. The people who are actually committed to whites ruling over other people are the civic nationalists of the Alt Light. People like Gavin McInnes, for instance, claim that they are civic nationalists and Western civilizational chauvinists. But they are not ethnic or racial nationalists. They have basically conceded multiracialism to the Left. It is a victory they are not even going to question, much less try to roll back.

Chauvinism is an attitude of superiority. A Western chauvinist believes that Western civilization is superior. What is Western civilization, though? Basically, it is white civilization. The Alt Light is thus committed to the idea of white civilizational superiority, which is the first form of supremacism. They try to evade this implication with a hat trick, of course, declaring that Western civilization is a universal civilization, but it’s not.

Western civilization is a product of white people. The people who are most comfortable in Western civilizations are white people. When Blacks, Asians, and other groups come to white countries, they want to change things to suit them better. The Western chauvinist must say “no.” Non-whites have to live by white standards, including white laws, which are of course enforced by the state. In effect, this means whites must rule over non-whites. This is white supremacism in the second sense.

Now I believe that if non-whites live in white societies, we damn well better impose our values on them, or they will create a society that we do not want to live in. We really need to reflect for a moment on the absurdity of the situation in which it is now “problematic” for white values to be “supreme” in white societies, which were created and sustained by white people and white values.

But we have to be honest about the fact that it is a form of oppression to impose white standards on non-white populations and demand that they “assimilate,” that they surrender their identities, that they go around wearing the equivalent of uncomfortable shoes or seasonally inappropriate clothes. Because a civilization should be as comfortable and as becoming as a well-tailored suit. And blacks don’t find white civilization comfortable. It is like demanding they wear shoes that are two sizes too small when we impose our standards of punctuality and time preferences, demand that they follow our age-of-consent laws, or foist the bourgeois nuclear family upon them. These things don’t come naturally to Africans. White standards like walking on the sidewalk, not down the middle of the street, are oppressive to blacks. Such standards are imposed by the hated “white supremacy” system. But if we don’t impose white standards upon them, we have chaos. We have great cities like Detroit transformed into wastelands.

There’s a line from William Blake, “One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.” Because lions and oxen are different beasts, to put them under one law forces them to live contrary to their natures. White supremacism would be like lion supremacism: demanding that the ox live by the code of the lion. But the ox doesn’t eat meat. He eats grass. Eating meat doesn’t come naturally to him. The true white supremacists are the civic nationalists, who would think they are doing the ox a favor by declaring meat the “universal” diet and force-feeding it to him.

White Nationalists are not white supremacists, because it is not our preference to rule over other groups. Although if forced to live under multicultural systems, we are going to take our own side and try to make sure that our values reign supreme, our preference is to go our separate ways. We want an amicable, no-fault racial divorce so we can live in the manners that most befit us in our own separate homelands.

The Invention of Civic Nationalism Against Europeans

Languages, peoples and ethnopolitical divisions of Europe 1815-1914

 

Separation of Ethnicity from Civic Identity

Western nation-states should be based on civic values alone, individual rights, private property, and equality under the law, without any reference to ethnicity. This is one of the most powerful contemporary tenets. Europeans have been made to believe that a state that identifies its citizens in ethnic terms cannot be for liberty. Just as a liberal state is said to be one in which religious affiliations are decided by private individuals, and that the state should not “impose” any religious beliefs on its citizens, cultural Marxists have effectively imprinted on the minds of Europeans the notion that a nation-state can be true to liberal values only when the identity of its citizens are conceived without any collective reference to their ethnic identity. Ethnicity should be a matter of individual choice and the state has no business identifying the state with any ethnicity.

The only political/collective identity a liberal state can encourage among its citizens is civic, that is, the identity of being a member of a nation state where everyone regardless of race, sex, and religious orientation is afforded the same rights under the law. It is true that, since the nineteenth century, liberals have recognized civic rights for minorities already established inside the nations of Europe. What has transpired in the last few decades goes well beyond this. We are now being told that liberalism requires civic nations to be thoroughly diversified in order to fulfill the ideals of a nation that is truly civic. In other words, there is a mandate accepted by all mainstream political parties and all political theorists that Western nations must cease to be populated by citizens belonging to one race or a majority race, with a culture that reflects the history and traditions of this race. The diversification of the citizenry along both racial and cultural lines is now hailed as the liberally progressive thing to do. Those who oppose mass immigration in the name of preserving their age-old ethnocultural characterare automatically classified as illiberal. You can criticize immigration on economic grounds but never for the sake of maintaining the ethnic character of your nation.

How did we reach this position, from recognition of the individual rights of minorities to widespread consensus among current elites that liberalism demands the diversification of Western nations through mass immigration?

The Intellectual Proponents of Civic Nationalism

Be it noted that the nations states of western Europe, as will be briefly shown below, actually emerged as civic nations in conscious celebration and awareness of their millennial ethnic heritage. So why did liberal theorists come to accept the argument that Western nations, to be truly civic, cannot be based on ethnicity? It seems to me that this identification of Western nations with civic identities cannot be understood apart from the very successful theoretical efforts of Hans Kohn, Karl Deutsch, Ernest Gellner, and Eric Hobsbawm against any notion that Western nations were rooted in primordial ethnic identities. According to Azar Gat, an Israelite whose book Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism (2013) I will be examining below, these authors were

all Jewish immigrant refugees from central Europe. . . . All of them experienced changing identities and excruciating questions of self-identity at the time of the most extreme, violent and unsettling eruptions. It was only natural that they reacted against all this.[1]

In other words, feeling excluded from nation states with strong ethnic identities in central Europe, they reacted by formulating the argument that the nation states of western Europe were inherently intended to be civic only.

None of these writers denied that people in the premodern era had a sense of communal kin affinities within their respective tribes or localities. Their focus was on themodern nation states of Europe, and their argument was that these nation states, and the corresponding ideology of nationalism, were “artificial historical constructs,” “invented traditions,” designed by political elites interested in forging powerful territorial states among previously scattered and loosely related rural communities lacking a sense of national-ethnic identity. The claim that European nations contain a strong ethnic core was not factual but an ideological weapon employed by state-elites seeking to create states with mass appeal, a national infrastructure, official languages, centralized taxation, national currency and laws, through the modern era, culminating in the nineteenth century. The exhortations of nationalists in the 19th and 20th centuries about the kin-ethnic roots of their nations were mere rhetorical ploys to induce in the masses support for elite efforts at extending their power nationally over an otherwise disparate, never ethnically conscious, population consisting of multiple dialects, ancestries and local loyalties.

With the experience of World War I and II, both within liberalism and Marxism, this critique of nationalism turned into a concerted critique of ethnic nationalism, which came to be associated with German militarism in WW I and Fascism thereafter. While Marxists, such as Hobsbawm, started advocating working class internationalism, liberal theorists such as Kohn, Deutsch, and Gellner began to formulate a strictly civic form of nationalism, while discrediting ethnic nationalism as both an artificial construct and as the source, in the words of Hobsbawm, of “demotic xenophobia and chauvinism” with no basis in reality.

Obviously, there were other intellectual currents percolating through the West, Frankfurt School ideas, civil rights in the United State, feminism, postmodernism, and, not to be underestimated, the pressure from corporations for cheap immigrant labor and consumer demand, coinciding and reinforcing each other in a grand effort to produce a totally new form of Western identity against the perceived dominance of European patriarchs. Much has been written about these developments, but the writings of the progenitors of liberal or civic nationalism have been neglected. This subject deserves far more than I am offering here. Suffice it to say that in Western countries civic nationalism has become the only accepted form of national identity. The meaning of civic nationalism is neatly captured in the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry:

Civic nationalism is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.

According to Hans Kohn, Western nation-states were civic from their beginning in the late eighteenth century. “Illiberal ethnic nationalism” was a phenomenon of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Fascism, places that hyped up the ethnic character of the people while suppressing individual rights.

Civic nationalism came out of western-north European countries where a solid middle class had developed; the members of this class were inclined to a conception of the state as a voluntary association of individual wills. This was a progressive class, or so argued Kohn, in wanting a form of citizenship based on laws originating out of the free reasoning of individuals; this class did not like states that impose an ethnocultural identity on its members. Ethnic nationalism, by contrast, come out of cultures lacking a middle class, driven by regressive classes suspicious of free willing individuals, and preferring states that impose on their people an irrational sense of ethnic collective identity inspired by emotions rather than by factual historical realities.

Celebrating the Ethnicity of Others while Accusing Europeans of Ethnocentrism

These ideas resonated greatly in the aftermath of WWII. The term “ethnicity” itself came to be defined in strictly cultural terms without any reference to race or biological distinctions among different groups. Every textbook in the social sciences in the 1950s and after came to endorse this culturalist definition. Combined with this definition academics added an instrumental and/or functionalist definition, according to which ethnic identification was a superstructural phenomenon behind which stood the real interests of ruling classes consolidating their power, or the functional requirements of a national system of education, administration, war-making, and overall modernization. Here is what Jonathan Hall says about the usage of ethnicity:

In the wake of the Second World War — and more particularly the Holocaust — the motives for treating ethnic identity as a valid area of research were discredited…The anthropological response to the crisis of scholarship occasioned by the Second World War was the ‘instrumentalist’ approach to ethnicity which proclaimed that ethnic identity was a guise adopted by interest groups to conceal aims that were more properly political or economic.[2]

But Jonathan Hall then notes that this cultural-instrumental approach also came to be seen, from the 1970s on, as inadequate in not being able to account for numerous post WWII national liberation movements across the world that were self-consciously identifying themselves along blood lines and viciously fighting for their “ancestral territories.” What Hall leaves out, and should be kept in mind as we read this next passage, is that social scientists were starting to view ethno-kin identities in the non-Western world as progressive, not as fixed identities but as “negotiable” identities, in reference to “oppressed minorities” and without reference to genetic traits.

Yet the ethnic resurgences of the 1970s and 1980s presented a clear challenge to the validity of the instrumentalist approach; this prompted a renewed anthropological interest in the subject of ethnic identity. . . . Current research tends to grant at least an intersubjective reality to ethnic identity, though it differs from pre-war scholarship on a number of important points. Firstly, it stresses that the ethnic group is not a biological group but a social group, distinguished from other collectivities by its subscription to a putative myth of shared descent and kinship and by its association with a ‘primordial’ territory. Secondly, it rejects the nineteenth-century view of ethnic groups as static, monolithic categories with impermeable boundaries for a less restrictive model which recognises the dynamic, negotiable and situationally constructed nature of ethnicity. Finally, it questions the notion that ethnic identity is primarily constituted by either genetic traits, language, religion or even common cultural forms. While all of these attributes may act as important symbols of ethnic identity, they really only serve to bolster an identity that is ultimately constructed through written and spoken discourse.[3]

Clearly, this passage admits that “a putative myth of shared descent and kinship” and “primordial territory” may play a role in the self-identification of groups, but then proposes that ethnicity is never static but dynamic and “situationally constructed,” and, in the end, decides that it is “ultimately constructed” through discourses. This is actually the state of the research on ethnicity today — a postmodern mishmash seemingly playing multiple sides yet “ultimately” defining ethnicity in discursive terms very similar to Hans Kohn’s civic definition, while avoiding any substantive biological references. Hall does not reveal the political considerations underlying this renewed emphasis on ethnic kinship. He assumes it was a purely scholastic affair conducted by university professors pursuing the truth. He ignores the growing voices both for the ethnic authenticity of non-European minorities and for the inauthentic character of Western civic nations. Just as the ethnic identities of non-Europeans were being heralded as liberating and progressive, the notion that Western nations were civic since the 18th century, or earlier, was increasingly subject to criticism due to their “discriminatory” treatment of minorities inside their borders, their imperial designs, and their “white only” immigration policies, which pointed to the presence of ethnic discrimination and thus the reality of ethnicity.

Of course, this is not quite how the revival of interest in ethnicity was interpreted by its proponents. There is no denying either that the idea that Western nations were simply civic just seemed out of touch with reality, regardless of one’s political intentions. The leading critic of the concept of civic nationalism was Anthony Smith, starting with his book, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, and multiple publications since. His main contention was that modern nations were not created ex nihilo on the basis of civic values alone or because the ruling elites wanted to augment their authority through modern infrastructures; rather, nation states were created on the basis of pre-existing ancestral ties and sense of historical continuity. A sense of nationhood predated the modern era and could be traced as far back as ancient times and throughout the world. The nations of Europe were not mere “inventions” or functional requirements of modernity, but were factually rooted in the past, in common myths of descent. While the rise of modern industry and modern bureaucracies allowed for the materialization of nation-states in Europe, these nations were primordially based on a population with a collective sense of kinship.

Smith’s work was undoubtedly fruitful in challenging the notion that Western nations were inherently civic. Yet, for all this, Smith’s concept of ethnicity was more about the importance of past communities, a rough territory, a language, artistic styles, myths and symbols, states of mind, than about emphasizing any form of identity along blood lines — actual common lineage and consanguinity. To be sure, an ethnic group cannot be categorized as a race, but his concept of ethnicity followed the mandated social science prohibition against the inclusion of biological references, physical characteristics, skin color, body shape, and other features that have a racial dimension. Ethnicity was defined by Smith in terms of cultural traits, linguistic, historical and territorial traits, common mythology and folkways.

Meanwhile, as Smith was busy writing historical works, and without his full awareness, an avalanche of ethnically oriented programs, hundreds of conferences and academics were eagerly affirming the value of ethnicity, but only in relation to “oppressed” groups. Writing about this would require a separate paper. Perhaps the best way to sum up our current obsession with ethnic talk is to look at the mission statements of Ethnic Studies programs or departments. These are very vocal in claiming that race is a reality of the West that cannot be ignored because racism has been and continues to be one of the“most powerful social and cultural forces in American society and in modernity at large.”

Azar Gat’s Politically Correct Sociobiological Perspective

There is one current writer cited earlier, Azar Gat, Professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, who does appear to offer a strong biological conception of ethnicity, in his book Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism.

This book is said to be written from a “sociobiological perspective”. The opening chapters and the conclusion definitely state that nations “are rooted in primordial human sentiments of kin-culture affinity, solidarity, and mutual cooperation, evolutionarily engraved in human nature.”[4] Agreeing with “much” of what Smith says, he still finds wanting his lack of emphasis on human nature, evolutionary theory, and unwillingness to break away from a culture-oriented perspective. He writes that “ethnicity is by far the most important factor” in national identity and that through history nations “overwhelmingly correlate with and relate to shared kin-culture traits.”[5] Welcoming the application of evolutionary theory to explain human behavior, he says:

Its [sociobiology] relevance to our subject can be summarized as follows: people tend to prefer closer kin, who share more genes with them, to more remote kin or ‘strangers’. As a propensity, this is not necessarily conscious.[6]

But it soon becomes apparent that Gat (despite his correct recognition that humans have strong genetic dispositions and that preference for one’s kin is an evolutionary selected behavior, rather than an “irrational” “epiphenomenon of something else”) is not willing to recognize, or even say anything about the rational ethnic dispositions of Europeans, but actually takes it as given that Europeans inhabit nations dedicated to the creation of new immigrant ethnic identities under the umbrella of a common culture that cannot but be defined in civic terms. Gat is quite effective in documenting the importance of kin-ethnic attachments and common culture for premodern states, including empires, origins of modern European states and non-European states.

Yet, when it comes to the current Western nations experiencing mass immigration, it never occurs to Gat to consider the ancestral attachments and kin-relatedness of the peoples who have inhabited these lands the longest and transformed them into modern nations. He simply accepts without question the experience of mass immigration as if it were a natural occurrence consistent with the ethnic histories of Western nations. He proposes a new definition of ethnicity to deal with the reality of mass immigration, which is inconsistent with his sociobiological perspective. He proposes indeed an immigrant definition of ethnicity, by indicating that, while his definition of ethnicity is not restricted to culture, it views ethnicity “as an ongoing process” not exclusive to one ethnicity but capable of explaining the formation of “immigrant states” and how such states “habitually integrate new comers into a broad cultural and kin community.”[7]

There is no space here to go over some of the things he says about Spain, France, Britain, and Canada. Highlighting what he says about the United States and Europe generally should suffice to illustrate his rather civic-oriented and ultimately multiculturalist approach when it comes to current European ethnic identity. Although Gat insists that American nationhood is not founded on liberal propositions alone, and that “there exists a very distinct American culture, widely shared by the large majority . . . common American-English language and all-pervasive folkways . . . entertainment industry, Hollywood, and television,”[8] with a strong Anglo-Protestant lineage, he acquiesces to a cultural definition of America in viewing American ethnicity as a changing reality, not only with respect to diverse European immigrants, but with respect to post-1965 immigration policies, which he sees as a natural continuation of earlier trends.

My point is not to deny that American ethnicity is changing but to ask why he refuses say a word about “the deep human preferences toward one’s own”[9] that Europeans Americans may feel in the face of mass immigration since 1965 from non-Europeans nations. Or, if he thinks European Americans are satisfied with mass Mexican immigration, why is that the case, and does it mean, therefore, that American nationality is indeed strictly cultural? Or, could it be that Gat is unaware of the wider political realities shaping the way we think about ethnicity, and that European peoples, and only European peoples, are prohibited from affirming their ethnicity in the face of a system of mass immigration imposed across the Western world, and that social scientists such as Gat have been incentivized to go along with the program, unless they are willing to risk their careers?

Gat’s effort to argue that America is a nation with an immigrant identity carries weight when one considers the pre-1965 immigration period, which, after difficult racial tensions resulting from the high levels of immigration from diverse European nations in the 19th and early 20th century, became a well united nation by the 1950s, except for its non-European inhabitants, Africans and Natives. But he does not consider whether this immigrant identity was successfully nurtured due to the compatible ethno-European heritages of most immigrants. Instead, he takes it as given that America’s post-1965 immigration patterns are the same as before, writing that “the Latino immigration is not fundamentally different from earlier waves of immigration in its gradual acculturation.”[10] While he is aware of challenges to this argument, he thinks he can emphasize America’s ethnic immigrant identity simply by appealing to the common usage of the English language, ignoring how common Spanish is becoming in many localities across the United States and how whites exhibit implicit patterns of race separation in their choice of residential areas to raise their families and educate their children, notwithstanding their explicit claims about the benefits of diversity.

Having painted the United States as a nation with a uniquely immigrant ethnicity, he seems at a loss trying to account for the importance of ethnic identities in current European nations and Canada. “The phenomenon of mass immigration has transformed the map of identities in Western countries in recent decades.”[11] How and why are current Europeans allowing the millennial ethnic identities grounding the formation of their nations states to be radically diluted if ethnic nationalism is truly, in the words of Gat, “one of the strongest forces in history”? How did they overcame their genetic predisposition to have a preference for their own, and why is Gat taking mass immigration as if it were a natural process or somehow part and parcel of Europe’s national identity without even asking a question ? An honest sociobiological approach would have required such questions, but Gat only poses cultural Marxist questions to the effect that “not a few immigrants and their descendants are in fact integrating, culturally and socially, well enough for them to be described as ‘joining the nation.’”[12] But how are the original ethnic nationalities of Europe integrating with the new immigrants? If ethnic identity is so important why are Europeans expected to accept, in his words, a “weakening connection”[13] between their nation state and their ethnocultural heritage? In the end, Gat has no choice but to shift his take on ethnic identity in the direction of the liberal values Hans Kohn equated with Western nationalism; more than this, he has no choice but to endorse a liberal multicultural definition of Western identity.

He thinks a good indication in Europe of a common national culture is the recent “retreat” from multiculturalism “which has led to a reemphasizing in many Western countries of the official connection between (majority) culture and polity”[14] but he never brings up any shared aims between immigrants, a majority culture, and the state. The one factor he can muster in the name of a common immigrant culture, to repeat, is the fact that immigrants are learning the language of the immigrant nations. How about patriotic attachments to past European symbols, folk-songs, legendary historical figures, food, that is, shared traits that can be categorized in ethnic-kin terms? Not a word. Instead we get the usual attitude that things must be working since there is no civil war, immigrants are trying to be successful economically and educate their children. The only common culture that seems to be tying together Western immigration is cultural Marxism, an ideology imposed from above, without democratic consent, by bureaucratic elites convinced that diversity is an improvement and that Europeans are racist unless they interbreed with millions of non-whites. He regularly cites Will Kymlicka, calling him “the chief theorist of liberal multiculturalism” in a sympathetic manner, without ever bringing to attention Kymlicka’s open call for an end to any intrinsic links between the nation states of Europe and any form of ethnicity that can be called “European.” Is it not quite revealing that the same author who writes a book dedicated to a sociobiological approach on the ethnic roots of nations ends up sympathizing with the foremost advocate of multiracialism in the West?

Conclusion

The sensible response one should reach on examining the debate between civic and ethnic nationalism is that the historical research validates the idea that European nation-states were founded around a strong ethnic core even if there were minorities co-existing with majorities. The states of Western Europe developed liberal civic institutions within the framework of this ethnic core. Sociobiological research further supports the natural inclination of humans to have a preference for their own kin. This biologically based research demonstrates that humans cannot be abstracted from an ethnic collective. The claim that such a preference is an irrational disposition imposed from above by regressive elites is false. Ethnocentrism is a rationally driven disposition consistent with civic freedoms. Civic freedoms are consistent with a collective sense of kin-culture. What is not consistent with rationally based research, with individual rational decision making, and with our collective kin-dispositions, are the claims that Western nations were civic in origins and the current enforcement of mass immigration without allowance of open rational debate.

Notes

1. Azar Gat, Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism, 2013: 16
2. Jonathan Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1997: 1
3. Ibid. 2
4. Gat: 380
5. Ibid. 24
6. Ibid. 27
7. Ibid. 20
8. Ibid. 271
9. Ibid. 386
10. Ibid. 276
11. Ibid. 349
12. Ibid. 349
13. Ibid. 350
14. Ibid. 350

Source: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2015/07/invention-of-civic-nationalism-against-europeans.html

 

 

In a recent column entitled “The Call of the Nation,” Avnery observes, “a DARK wave is submerging democracies all over the Western world. … fascism and populism are gaining ground all around” and doing so in the name of old-fashioned ethnocentric nationalism. After all, “for most people, the need to belong to a nation is a profound psychological need. People create a national culture, often speak a national language. People are ready to die for their nation.”

In the end, Avnery concludes that “What we are witnessing now is a rebellion of nationalism against the trend towards … a globalist world.”

 

 

 

 

 

SPLC mocks white victims of Genocide in South Africa.

SPLC mocks white victims of Genocide in South Africa.

http://cofcc.org/

Don’t worry, says SPLC, black people are only killing whites because they want to steal from them. It’s not hatred or genocide. The dead guy is a victim of a love crime!

SPLC posts absurd and hate filled rebuttal to the numerous protests against South African Genocide.

What did you expect from a group that equated the American Family Associated to the Ku Klux Klan and says Lord of the Rings is a racially offensive movie?

The radical left-wing SPLC denied claims by major International Human Rights organizations that whites face genocide in South Africa. The SPLC lays out it’s alternative explanation. You see blacks in South Africa only want to steal from whites and sometime kill them in the process. The SPLC suggests that the whites are not victims of hatred or genocide, but victims of robbery. Then the SPLC cites ANC propaganda that white people caused it all. The ANC is the very organization that is actively promoting and encouraging hatred against white people. This includes singing songs like “Kill the Boer (white people)” at huge ANC rallies.

This is nothing new. The SPLC has mocked and insulted white victims of racially motivated hate crimes in the United States.

The SPLC then claims that white people who are protesting the Genocide in South Africa are “neo-nazis.” To back this claim, they cite one guy in Louisiana with a website. They say he is an ex-con and a member of an obscure “neo-nazi” group that no one has ever heard off. We did some searching and can’t find any evidence that there was a protest in Louisiana, or that the guy named by the SPLC had anything to do with organizing any of the protests that occurred around the US. The SPLC then rants about two other people they say is connected to the first guy. We googled their names. One is dead and the other appears to be in prison. So obviously neither of the those two organized any protests. Nice detective work SPLC!

Look at this comment that the SPLC allowed someone to post on their website! This was in response to the SPLC mocking the victims of Genocide in South Africa. Look at the poster’s name. “Antifa” is a violent Marxist gang that has committed violent attacks on conservatives all over the world.

The protests against South African genocide are part of a worldwide effort launched in Europe. In the United States, the protests were organized primarily on facebook. We can’t find any evidence that the ex-con named by the SPLC played any significant role whatsoever. It is simply some guy with a website that redistributed information from other sources.

To show you how much integrity the SPLC has, check out this story. A while back, the Associated Press ran a fake story claiming that Rosa Parks was the victim of an attempted rape by a white employer when she was young. CofCC.org immediately debunked the story as a hoax. The SPLC posted a tirade on their website attacking CofCC.org for debunking the hoax. Yet, at the same time they admit in the condemnation that we “might” be right. Well, in short order, the Rosa Parks institute also denounced the story as a complete and utter hoax. The SPLC had claimed that CofCC.org might be right about the story being a hoax, but “the answer died with Parks in 2005.” Well, we did know. The Associated Press writer faked the evidence. Every single aspect of the story was a hoax.

The fact that the SPLC would condemn someone for exposing a very blatant, obvious, and racially incendiary hoax shows they are completely without any moral compass.

The fake Rosa Parks story:
CofCC.org exposes the story as a hoax.
SPLC attacks CofCC.org for exposing story as a hoax.
Rosa Park Institute denounces AP hoax as an even bigger hoax than originally reported by CofCC.org

Mandela health problems renew fears of mass genocide in South Africa.

A common racial abuse that blacks hurl at white people in South Africa is “wait until Mandela dies.” This stems from a common belief among black South Africans, and some American blacks, that the all out mass genocide of whites will begin when Nelson Mandela dies. Militant black South Africans believe that they have yet to experience the “Uhuru” that came to other African nations in the 1960s. This “Uhuru” was usually marked by mass murder and a catastrophic collapse of society.

Below, Khallid Muhammed describes the “Uhuru” plan for South Africa.

This is Khallid Muhammed died in 2001. He was the National Youth Minister for the Nation of Islam and the Leader of the New Black Panther Party. He was publicly supported by Al Sharpton and Sharpton paid $10,000 to cover the cost of his funeral. Major black politicians like Keith Ellison, and black celebrities like Ice Cube were vocal public supporters of Muhammed and his violent rhetoric.

Notice Muhammed spits on Nelson Mandela and considers him a weakling for not having led a mass murder of white people himself. In other parts of the video Muhammed praises the campaign of violence and murder led by Winnie Mandela and endorses the “necklacing” of blacks “snitches and sellouts.”

Winnie Mandela’s horrific campaign of necklacing. She was found guilty of being an accomplish in the murder of a 14-year-old black boy. She was ordered to pay a fine. In 1998, the South African government declared that she “politically and morally accountable for the gross violations of human rights.” Nothing happened to her. In fact, she ran for parliament and won. She was convicted of election fraud in 2003, but allowed to run for re-election anyway. She still holds her seat in parliament.

“With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country” – Winnie Mandela 1986.

 

Fall of the American Empire

The American Empire is falling off a cliff.

Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, look at gold’s standing ovation for the Obama-Boehner debt ceiling theater. In the second half of the show, Max talks to Stefan Molyneux about the Fed audit and the debt ceiling.
KR on FB: http://www.facebook.com/KeiserReport

 

WHY AND HOW AMERICA MUST COLLAPSE

by Kirk Brothers

CLICK HERE to return to Index

INTRODUCTION

     To anyone with a penchant for history, it is obvious that
our once-great nation is dying--and the end will not be peaceful.
The United States, like an aging star, must first collapse, and
then explode, in a final burst of energy that will be awesome to
behold.
     Alternatively, to pursue our astronomical metaphor for one
more sentence, the United States might by that dreadful time have
become so massive from the dead weight of political corruption
that it will end as a black hole, from which nothing can escape.
     This grim prophetic view of our destiny will, of course, be
laughed off by those who habitually refuse to see the truth even  
when it walks up and spits in their faces--but happily, I do not
expect to live long enough to see the end, which is inevitable.
     The signs of our bleak future are to be seen everywhere, and
it is our national tragedy that neither our alleged leaders nor
the majority of the people are intelligent enough to recognize
them.  For what it is worth, this article will point out the
facts, if only for the benefit of future generations who must
pick up the pieces of rubble and try to decide what to do with
our junk.  It is my hope--albeit a forlorn one--that my articles
may survive long enough to serve as documentary evidence of
exactly who and what were to blame.

THE ROOT CAUSES

     Let's begin with Malthus (1766-1834)--the Catholic Church
disapproves of Malthus, which is reason enough to hold him in
high esteem.  And by way of introduction, let's recall for a
moment the innumerable times you've heard some older person
reminisce about "the good old days"--before you were born.
     Well, the good old days were pretty rotten in some ways, but
on balance they were very good, indeed--for one reason.
     There weren't so damn many people overcrowding this planet!
     Malthus wrote in his classic economic work, AN ESSAY ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION, that population increases much faster
than the resources necessary to support them--so that as popula-
tion goes up, the quality of life goes down.  Let me give you a
specific illustration from my own life span.
     I grew up in a little town in Massachusetts at a time when
the country's population stood, fairly constant, at around 120
million people (the latest figure available estimates our numbers
now at some 266 million).  My home town numbered about three
thousand, and there were a number of farms quite close to the
center--which was marked by the Unitarian Church and a row of
about a dozen small stores.
     Less than two blocks from our home on the main street stood
a 60 acre dairy farm where we could buy raw milk.  A mile further
down the main street, a shallow river trickled through what we
called a swamp, but would nowadays be termed a wetland (it sounds
better).  We could catch fish there in the summer, and skate on
its ice in the winter.  During summer vacations, school buses
took us to Red Cross swimming lessons in Walden Pond--where
Thoreau's cabin site was still marked--or we could drive to
Revere Beach to swim in Boston Harbor.  For a day of fun, there
were steamships from Boston to Nantasket Beach for swimming or
amusement rides.
     There were only 120 million people in the entire country
then.
     Well, the old town has changed.  The dairy farm was sold to
make room for a large shopping mall.  The wetlands were drained,
and the river reduced to an underground pipeline, to make room
for a second mall.  Walden Pond has long been so polluted with
human sewage that it is closed to swimming--the same is true of
Boston Harbor beaches.
     The town's population is at least 15,000 nowadays, or about
five times what it was in "the good old days".  The point is that
the land area remains the same size, but five times as many
people try to live in the space we knew and loved as youngsters. 
And now here's an example of what Malthus was talking about, in a
simple everyday example.
     Suppose you're having a family dinner and you've baked a pie
for dessert.  If there are six in the family, everybody gets a
good slice.  If a seventh person shows up unexpectedly, it's
possible to do some tricky cutting and offer each diner a seventh
instead of a sixth--a little skimpy, but still adequate.
     But suppose there are two extra people.  In that case Mom
says she isn't hungry or is on a diet or some such alibi, and
cuts seven slices, going without dessert herself.  We all had
Moms who made such small sacrifices.
     Okay, now suppose you have thirty people for dinner--five
times as many as you have food for.  Figure it out for yourself.

POPULATION PROBLEMS IN A NUTSHELL

     There are one billion people too many on this planet.
     The best figures available tend to show that two billion is
the maximum number the Earth can sustain if the quality of life
is to be acceptable.  Yet in South America (Latins are predomi-
nately Catholic and therefore opposed to birth control, abortion,
or common sense like Malthus' observations) the population grows
so rapidly that the vast tropical rain forest is being cut down
at an alarming rate.  Loss of the Amazon rain forest will alter
the whole world's climate and ecosystems in a way that cannot be
projected, much less prevented.  The changes will be catastrophic
--but try telling that to people who have too many children to
feed and house, and are stupid enough to argue that "nobody needs
a jungle".
     In brief, the human race is fornicating itself into extinc-
tion, and nothing can possibly improve significantly until one
person out of every three now alive dies without being replaced
at the world food table.  But just try telling that to the Pope.

WHAT ELSE COULD BE WRONG?

     Very simple.  It is an absolute and unquestionable fact that
fully one half of the world's population is below average in
intelligence.  The figure is the same for each and every country,
without exception.
     Okay, so I'll prove it--and here's the proof.  What is the
definition of the word "average"?
     It's a mathematical or statistical concept which determines
the midpoint in any population--and if you calculate a midpoint,
one half must fall above and one half below the average--obvious.
     Okay, what does that mean in the world of politics?
     It means that elections are decided by the stupid.
     It means that laws are made and enforced by and for the
stupid.
     It means that intelligence counts for nothing, because the
majority of those voting don't understand what the intelligent
are talking about.  And by intelligent, I mean those smart enough
for college work--with IQs of 120 or higher.
     Let me give you an example.  In the first three articles in
this series, I proved that Social Security (and therefore that
virtually every major government program) is blatantly unconsti-
tutional--that our Federal Courts are so corrupted by party
politics that Judges refuse to address that question--and, worst
of all, that we have had no valid Constitution for at least 150
years.
     Suppose you want me to prove it here and now, in a half-
dozen well-chosen sentences of less than ten words each.  I can't
--simply because it took about 30 pages, single spaced, to prove
it there, and stupid people don't want to read 30 pages of
anything except sex novels.  They want the news in headlines with
the important events summarized in 10-second sound bites, so as
to have lots of time for the latest scores and sports action.
     Why?  Because they're stupid.
     Who caters to the stupid?
     Well, our politicians--the mass media--the academic airheads
who dictated the Conventional Unwisdom that is leading our
country to economic collapse--and our government-controlled
schools--to start the list.
     In any rational society, laws would be made exclusively by
the wise, leaders would be only the wisest men and women in the
nation, there would be a mere handful of laws, based upon
universal principles easy for all to understand, applied by
Judges who are both wise and unprejudiced--and only those with
IQs of at least 110 would have the right to vote.  
     If these standards be reasonable, by which one of them does
ours qualify as a rational society?

FALLACIES OF THE STUPID

     The list is virtually endless, but let's look at just a few
of the most important ones, because they impinge on our lives in
the most nefarious ways each and every day.
     It should be common knowledge that most Americans (or other
people worldwide) will choose a pleasant lie over an unpleasant
truth.  By making that choice, they believe they have done the
right thing, and they don't want any intelligent person to point
out their mistakes.
     They won't trouble their brains to read this article, but
I'll point out some of them, anyway.  I list them in no particu-
lar order of importance--I believe they're all valid observa-
tions.

NOBODY WANTS EQUALITY

     We were all taught to respect the idea that we are all
equal, at least under law.  But nobody would be satisfied with
that idea, even if it were true.
     Why?
     Because equality means you're exactly the same as your worst
enemy.  He has exactly the same rights you have, and you have no
more political power than he does.
     Nobody wants to be equal to his worst enemy.  And so Bible-
belt fanatics persist in trying to shove Christianity into public
schools by hook or by crook--heterosexual fanatics persist in
passing laws to punish homosexuals--gun control fanatics persist
in destroying the priceless right of the Second Amendment--
ignoramuses who view "drugs" as evil persist in passing more and
more stupid laws to prevent even moderate use of substances which
clearly have great medicinal value--and so on.
     Fanatics want to be "more equal" than the people they hate,
for one reason or another.  But a Libertarian (of which I am
proud to be one) believes that government must adopt the princi-
ple of laissez faire--letting people DO WHAT THEY WANT, as long
as they do no injury to OTHERS (what injury they might do to
themselves is their own fault, and society is NOT to blame!).
     Bad habits might be deplored, but to outlaw them is to put
Mrs. Grundy in the driver's seat, where she is absolutely out of
place.  Mrs. Grundy wants to PROHIBIT things which many people
like, simply because she feels superior for not liking the same
things.  She is stupid, and a bigot to boot.

NOBODY IS SATISFIED, EVER

     I hold it to be self-evident that nobody is happy with what
he already has (except for those rare individuals who have seen
the fallacy in pursuing what erroneously passes for wealth).
     All too often a person says that if he could only make so
much money he'd be satisfied.  He goes on strike and gets the
money he demanded.  And then it's not enough.  He strikes again
to get more.
     Or a young man says that if he could get a new Ford he'd be
happy.  He gets a new Ford.  And then he wants a Mercury instead.
Or a newlywed couple say they'll be happy in a nice apartment. 
But don't worry--in a year they'll want a house.  Perhaps because
all their friends have houses, and they have to keep up with
them.
     The love of money might not be the root of all evil, but
it's at least the seed.  The greed shown by many Americans
indulging themselves in conspicuous overconsumption has unfortu-
nately caused the peoples of underdeveloped nations to want the
same things--increasing demand for more and more consumer goods
at prices which are excessive to begin with, and are inflated
even more by the increased demand.
     In "the good old days", a loaf of bread cost about ten cents
if a supermarket brand, or fifteen cents if a "name" brand.  Now
a loaf of bread costs more than a dollar at a bakery thrift shop. 
Twenty cents used to buy a quart of milk, or a can of soup, or a
gallon of gas.  A new family car, of sturdy steel and easy to fix
oneself, used to cost well under a thousand dollars.
     In what way are today's prices an indication of improvement
in our economic well-being, according to the Conventional
Mistakes of our lunatic economists?  Only that people have more
dollars to spend.  But the dollar is worth less, so nobody bene-
fits, except those who live on over-extended credit--of which our
government is the prime example.  And the more world population
increases, the worse everything gets.
     Malthus understated his case.

THE FALLACIES OF ECONOMICS

     Most Americans appear to be suckers for anyone with a degree
in anything.  A prime example of this is their gullibility for
anything labeled "economic" in any terminology.  The government
issues monthly fiction called things like "cost of living index"
or "consumer price index", etc., but they all boil down to hot
air and wishful thinking.  I submit as fact, which few will
accept, that the so-called science of economics is 90% garbage
which should be tossed in the garbage can.  Here's why.
     There are basically two types of science: descriptive and
experimental.  Some sciences are both.  A botanist like Luther
Burbank, for example, first learns to classify and identify
plants (descriptive), and then learns by experiment to develop
new and/or improved varieties by selective reproduction
techniques.
     But some sciences do not lend themselves to experimentation. 
Geology is one.  A geologist describes earthquakes but does not
try to control or cause one--he's lucky to be able to predict
aftershocks from a major tremor.  Similarly, a meteorologist
describes hurricanes and tornadoes but cannot control them--
prediction is the best he can hope for.
     Economics is also a descriptive science--which applies
useful terms to human behavior in acts of getting and spending
money--and may lead to meaningful predictions.  But it is of
value only if it is studied in a context of conservative common
sense (which is not common), or a practical application like
business administration.
     Unfortunately for all of us, economists for more than 60
years have fooled Americans into believing that theirs is an
experimental science, and that the economy can be controlled.
That delusion has been so deeply ingrained in Americans' mind-set
for 60 years that eradicating the error is a virtually impossible
task.  Nevertheless I'll give it a try.

THE ECONOMY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED

     What is "the economy"?  It's the sum total of each and every
consensual contract between each and every person, in the course
of doing business of any kind--from buying a hamburger at
McDonald's to selling a thousand shares of blue chip stocks on
Wall Street.  There are literally millions of such transactions
each and every day, and it is absolutely impossible to even list
them, much less make decisions about their effect on other
transactions.  The fact is that the staggering number of economic
transactions in a single day would surpass the capacity of the
largest computer to extract and manipulate data.
     So economists do what they think is almost as good.  They
use statistics and propaganda.
     We used to joke that there are three grades of lies: little
white lies, big black lies, and statistics--the joke being that
statistics can be used to prove anything the statistician wants
to prove.  He simply "adjusts" his "data" and sets up the numbers
to give him his desired results.
     Does this sound familiar?  The government issues some
damfool economic summary, predicting that next quarter will be
much better or worse than this one.  The prediction turns out to
be wrong.  So the government "revises" its index to "reflect"
more "accurately".  And millions of Americans (the stupid ones)
smile in satisfaction at the wisdom of our leaders.
     There would be another problem if economics were a truly
experimental science: the only way one could control the economy
would be to regulate EVERYTHING (and don't think they're not
trying it already)!  That would mean tinkering in everybody's
business, laying down thousands of laws and rules governing how
one runs his company--and punishing people who either don't know
all the rules, or have the attitude that our stinking, lousy,
meddling government should get the hell off our backs and LEAVE
US ALONE!
     Economists are the greatest (worst) meddlers in the world,
and the tragedy is they meddle in order to "prove" a theory that
by the rules of logic cannot be proved.  Economists appear to
believe that a free market is not to be trusted.  Libertarians
hold that ONLY a free market is to be trusted--not self-serving,
empire-building bureaucrats on a power trip.  Laissez faire
again.

WHAT ECONOMISTS NEVER TELL YOU

     Every true science has laws which can be demonstrated time
and again by students anywhere at any time.  For example, in
physics a student performs simple experiments (in the beginning)
to prove the laws of magnetism or gravity.  Economics has no
"hands on" test for anything it preaches, but presumes its laws
to be carved in stone by the finger of God.  And many courses in
economics omit facts which should be common knowledge to anyone
interested in his personal economic security.  Here's one such
example.
     Let's assume you had a million dollars to spend last year,
so you invested it in an original Picasso oil.  Art experts
appraised the work as worth more than two million--but you got a
bargain.
     Your original Picasso is hanging on your dining-room wall so
you can admire it, and you are so happy with it you aren't at all
interested in selling it.  It's given you a million dollars'
worth of pleasure so far, perhaps.
     Question: how much is your Picasso worth now?
     Answer: not a dime.
     Why?  Because you don't want to sell it.
     The value of anything is determined only when it is traded,
and its value is exactly what the seller will take and the buyer
will pay.  As a matter of fact, art values are totally fictitious
--because collectors are notorious for putting an art work such
as a Picasso on the auction block every few years, bidding the
price up above others at the sale, and buying it back.  There's a
commission on the sale price, but that's all it costs them.  In
return, it is now a matter of record that the painting increased
in value by so many thousands of dollars between auctions.  That
proves it's a good investment, right?
     Well, is it?  Here's a well-known anecdote reputed to be a
true-life story.  After the Communist revolution in Russia, many
of the old wealthy families (who could not leave the Soviet Union
and take their wealth with them) were down on their uppers, and
in a bad way for basic things like food.
     So one day a man of prior wealth decided to sacrifice part
of it, by bartering his beautiful Faberge egg--an artifact for
which the Age of the Tsars was noted.  It was hand-painted,
decorated with precious gems, and had cost a fortune in the old
days.  The man covered his priceless egg in a protective cloth
and carefully took it by horse and buggy to a farm on the
outskirts of Moscow where he hoped to exchange it for food.
     When he told the farmer what he wanted and what he offered,
the farmer sneered and offered a sack of potatoes.  The former
nobleman was shocked at the offer--until the farmer beckoned his
customer to the door of an adjoining room.
     The table, the shelves, and the floor of the next room were
littered with a vast collection of Faberge china--all beautiful,
and all useless to the farmer, who could not sell them any more
than the nobleman could.  The nobleman took the sack of potatoes.
     And you think you have security because you've invested in
comic books--having paid, perhaps, a hundred dollars for a copy
of the first Batman story in "new" condition?  Well, the person
who paid ten cents for it, and kept it carefully for future
collectors, made a killing on his investment--but as a general
rule most art collectors are loaded with expensive, yet worth-
less, items they can never recoup their investment on.
     One man I met has a collection of miniature elephants in
many sizes, materials, and poses.  He honestly believes them to
be worth what he paid for them, plus a profit.  But if a Faberge
egg could be worth a sack of potatoes, how much could an elephant
statue demand?  Think about it.
     There is an excellent paperback book called "Economics in
One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, a journalist like myself, whose
style and illustrative examples are a pleasure to read.  I will
not steal his thunder, but I should like to give him credit for
two points which I must re-argue in my own discussion.
     To paraphrase Hazlitt, economists are prone to "prove" their
theories by showing you only one side of a two-faced coin--the
side favorable to their theory, and the only one they want you to
think about.  In that way they are like magicians who show the
audience an impressive box of sturdy construction, which they
open to show full of money--but fail to show that the box has no
bottom, and the money is on a spring inside a special table the
box is set upon.
     In arguments over various hare-brained proposals, economists
like to show you the "heads" of a coin--namely, WHO GETS WHAT--
and argue, using every propaganda trick in the book, to show how
"good" their proposal is.  But they never show you the "tails"
side, which is WHO LOSES.
     The true science of mathematics is based upon the law that
you cannot get something for nothing--but the pseudo-science
economics pretends you can.  During the hard times of the 1930's,
truth-telling mathematics offered only unpleasant reality, but
New Deal economics promised pie in the sky--something for
nothing--a pleasant lie.  So stupid people chose the pleasant
lie, and voted for Franklin Delano Rooselvelt four times.  And
here we are now, seeing what was on the other side of the New
Deal coin.
     Economists occasionally "prove" their wisdom by the propa-
ganda fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (meaning "after that,
therefore because of that").  For example, say that three months
ago the "Fed" lowered interest rates, and the economy improved.
"Hooray!" they say, "lowering the interest rates caused the
improvement".
     First, and in passing, let's stop to think if we really give
a damn about the Fed's raising or lowering of the interest rate. 
What the hell has it ever meant to you?  Only what you heard
somebody say on the news, I'll bet.  When the news tells you
everything is great, do you really believe it?  If so, what's
your IQ?
     But let's get back to the fallacy of "after that, therefore
because of that".  The fallacy is to leave out all other events
and facts that might indicate the true cause.  An example more
easily seen as a fallacy is that of a superstitious farmer who
plants corn after the new moon and before the full moon.  If he
gets a good crop, he says it's because he planted his seed after
the new moon and before the full moon (ignoring weather, fertili-
zing, etc.).  
     The economic fallacy of concern to us is the failure of our
government to admit the obvious fact that if something is "free"
to some people, it's being paid for by others.  Or, as a simple
variation, it will be paid for in the future by the next genera-
tions.  Social Security, as shown in the first article in this
series, was "sold" by Franklin Delano Roosevelt by golden rheto-
ric dwelling on its short-term "benefits".  Roosevelt himself
ignored the real (long run) cost of those "benefits", and the
final price will be the total economic collapse of the United
States in a few decades or less.

OTHER OMISSIONS IN ECONOMICS

     Economics mentions barter more or less in passing, and
quickly dismisses it as irrelevant--a mere holdover from primi-
tive times in economic history.  The fact is that barter is still
the basis for every transaction, but most people don't bother to
perform the rituals of asking price, offered price, and negotia-
tion--in fact, they've never tried "dickering" over the price, or
think it's not dignified.  Barter demands aggressiveness which we
regard as antisocial, but is absolutely necessary if and when
money is worthless.
     When is that?  Well, in Australia today there are some
tribes in the Outback who still don't use money.  They exchange
goods or services for goods or services, by mutual agreement. 
People from "civilization" who go into the Outback and may need
to obtain food while there are well advised to have trading
goods, like the Dutch who bought Manhattan Island for 24 dollars'
worth of jewelry.

BUTTER AND GUNS

     One of the classic illustrations used in economics is the
real (practical) problem of striking a bargain between parties in
a barter system--the usual example being that of exchanging
butter for guns.  In a barter economy, a gunsmith who needs
butter for his kitchen, and a dairy farmer who needs a shotgun to
shoot crows, must somehow meet face to face to agree on how much
butter is a fair trade for one gun.  Obviously, if a gunsmith
doesn't need butter or a farmer doesn't need a gun, they can't do
business.
     In the dim past, when communities were isolated and trading
was done by traveling merchants, the problems of doing business
were greatly eased by the mercantile invention of money.  It was
the merchant, acting as a go-between, who offered the gunsmith or
the farmer so much symbolic paper or coinage for each man's
goods, and sold each customer what he needed in a monetary
exchange.  The barter was limited to how much money was agreeable
in each separate transaction, not how many pounds of butter for a
gun.
     Money is truly one of the great human inventions, but it was
not the work of a political bureaucracy!  It was only later that
politicians saw the enormous potential in controlling the money
used, and governmental control of money has been universal ever
since.
     That control is the power, and the weakness, of economics--
for if a government collapses, the money in circulation becomes
trash.  It happened in the South after the Civil War, with the
demise of the Confederacy and therefore Confederate money.  It
happened in Germany after World War I, when a wheelbarrow-full of
paper money might be needed for a loaf of bread.
     As part of economists' meddling in matters they do not
understand--like the Sorcerer's Apprentice who conjured a broom
to carry water--they seek to control both the supply of money and
the value of money.  Basically, they want inflation.  Inflation
is good for debtors (which is most of the people), and bad for
creditors (who are held to deserve a little loss, by the morality
of Robin Hood).  Deflation, which nobody really wants to see,
would be a bonanza for creditors and the final straw for debtors
--they would have to pay back more real value than what they
borrowed, rather than less.
     In any rational society, money would be absolutely rock hard
and absolutely beyond the power of any political scheme to change
it a hair.  If one were to borrow ten dollars now, he would have
to pay back the full value of ten dollars, plus agreed interest
for the time borrowed.  If you think that's unfair because you
borrow money, how would you feel if you were the lender?
     There is one, and only one, way I can see that could create
such a rock-hard, non-manipulable monetary system--and it has
been suggested by a number of theoreticians with common sense,
who were therefore called crackpots.  That is, to establish a
money system in which the minimum unit of coinage (one cent, for
example) would be deemed equal to exactly one minute of time
spent at minimal labor.
     Obviously, there can never be one second more or one second
less than sixty minutes in an hour.  Therefore in this system,
the minimum wage would be sixty cents per hour, and all higher
units of money and all contracts would be negotiated in terms of
money at that rate of exchange.  All market prices would be nego-
tiated using this system of hard money as its basis, so that a
person earning the minimum wage could afford a modest lifestyle
(my first job paid me fifteen cents an hour).
     Of course, some people would want to borrow an hour's worth
of work time, and pay it back with fifteen minutes--that's
inflation.  But the short answer to all demands of that nature
must be NO.

WALL STREET

     Stock markets are the biggest gambling casinos in the world.
That's not their public-relations image, but it's the truth. 
Wall Streeters like to pretend they're doing a profound and
patriotic service in helping little Americans buy a piece of the
nation in stocks and bonds.  I submit that such claims are an
earthenware container of organic fertilizer.
     Wall Street is a complex mechanism for manipulating wealth--
in the form of symbolic paper--and its attraction for high
financiers is the lure of a quick killing by buying low and
selling high.  If financiers guess wrong they may jump out
windows--or take a flight out of jurisdiction with embezzled
funds to evade criminal prosecution.  The little Americans who
lose their shirts when the market crashes never know what hit
them.  It happened in 1929, and is due to happen again--despite
the best efforts of economic "experts" to keep it from happening
by more and more controls.
     The fact is that Wall Street is a bubble perilously close to
bursting.  Our economists can't control Wall Street, so how the
hell can they pretend to control anything else?  I'll tell you
how--by bluff and bluster.
     We all know that Social Security will be bankrupt in about
thirty years, and Medicare in about ten, and that our economists
created the mess by meddling in the free market system instead of
letting banking and insurance institutions offer retirement
pensions by consensual contracts.  Now our "experts" admit that
Social Security is in trouble, and their God-given superiority
has advised them exactly how to prop it up.
     Invest in Wall Street--the world's biggest gambling casino!
     And stupid Americans continue to trust them!  How long can
their brains hibernate before they wake up and smell the coffee?

SUMMARIZING FOR THIS TIME

     The Medicare Program will go bankrupt in perhaps ten years,
and Social Security will go down the tubes perhaps twenty years
later--if we're lucky.  These blatant swindles are the legacy of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and for proof of this statement please
read my previous articles in this series.
     The collapse of our country will be the result of numerous 
interlocking factors, which I have here tried to separate for
individual consideration by thoughtful readers.  The factors are:
     1) The overpopulation of the planet, by about 50% of what it
     should be.
     2) The domination of politics by a two-thirds majority of
     people below IQ 120, who are the least qualified to make
     intelligent political decisions.
     3) The facts (few) and fallacies (many) in the so-called
     science of economics which have contributed to, and continue
     to maintain a moribund national economy which gets worse as
     time passes.
     4) A bit about the psychology of the American people, and
     the propaganda tricks which are used to deceive them.

HOW AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE

     There are two options--neither one desirable--but I cannot
say with certainty which will prevail because I broke my crystal
ball last week, and my Tarot cards are out for repair.
     One possibility is that political revolution will come
first, if apathetic Americans can be galvanized to take decisive
action to force reconstruction of our corrupt bureaucracy at all
levels.  A proposal for the first step is a Constitutional
amendment to bring the American people back into the political
process in a meaningful way.  See THE TIME BOMB IN OUR CONSTITU-
TION for details on our plan to restore freedom and civil rights
in a country which is shown to be a de facto police state, though
not recognized by the mentally retarded majority.
     The second possibility is more likely, in my opinion--
namely, that Americans are too cowardly to take action until
economic collapse becomes a reality.  That collapse will come
with the end of Social Security and the sudden termination of all
welfare programs which bleed all Americans to support the present
corrupt regime.
     With the collapse of government programs and, therefore, the
entire government, the so-called "Domino Effect" will cause a
remorseless chain reaction worldwide.  First, American money will
instantly become as worthless as Faberge eggs, and Wall Street
must crash almost immediately.  With the collapse of Wall Street,
all foreign exchanges must follow as the panic spreads, and our
so-called leaders--a pack of congenital idiots--look, for the
first time, for lifeboats on the S.S. Titanic.  There aren't any,
because the Titanic is unsinkable, right?
     So, must we all sing hymns as the ragtime band plays
"Nearer, My God, to Thee"?

BUT WAIT!  IS THAT A SHIP ON THE HORIZON?!  CAN WE BE SAVED?!

     Maybe.
     It's the U.S. Congress, and if the crew is intelligent
enough to see what needs to be done--and has the courage and
integrity to do it--they might yet be able to keep us afloat and
tow us to shore safely.
     The problem is that the crew of the U.S. Congress has been
on a binge for sixty years, getting drunk with power--that's
always been our problem.  Will there be any heroes on board the
Congress who'll sober up in a hurry and do what has to be done?
     I'll have the script for our eleventh-hour rescue in my next
article.
     But will anybody in Washington read it?

                                      Kirk Brothers

How America will collapse (by 2025)

Four scenarios that could spell the end of the United States as we know it — in the very near future

By Alfred McCoy

How America will collapse (by 2025)



This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.

A soft landing for America 40 years from now? Don’t bet on it. The demise of the United States as the global superpower could come far more quickly than anyone imagines. If Washington is dreaming of 2040 or 2050 as the end of the American Century, a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends suggests that in 2025, just 15 years from now, it could all be over except for the shouting.

Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.

Future historians are likely to identify the Bush administration’s rash invasion of Iraq in that year as the start of America’s downfall. However, instead of the bloodshed that marked the end of so many past empires, with cities burning and civilians slaughtered, this twenty-first century imperial collapse could come relatively quietly through the invisible tendrils of economic collapse or cyberwarfare.

But have no doubt: when Washington’s global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.

Available economic, educational, and military data indicate that, when it comes to U.S. global power, negative trends will aggregate rapidly by 2020 and are likely to reach a critical mass no later than 2030. The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, will be tattered and fading by 2025, its eighth decade, and could be history by 2030.

Significantly, in 2008, the U.S. National Intelligence Council admitted for the first time that America’s global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its periodic futuristic reports, Global Trends 2025, the Council cited “the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way, roughly from West to East” and “without precedent in modern history,” as the primary factor in the decline of the “United States’ relative strength — even in the military realm.” Like many in Washington, however, the Council’s analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the U.S. would long “retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally” for decades to come.

No such luck. Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world’s second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America’s current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation.

By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire. It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington’s last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China’s global network of communications satellites, backed by the world’s most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe.

Wrapped in imperial hubris, like Whitehall or Quai d’Orsay before it, the White House still seems to imagine that American decline will be gradual, gentle, and partial. In his State of the Union address last January, President Obama offered the reassurance that “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.” A few days later, Vice President Biden ridiculed the very idea that “we are destined to fulfill [historian Paul] Kennedy’s prophecy that we are going to be a great nation that has failed because we lost control of our economy and overextended.” Similarly, writing in the November issue of the establishment journal Foreign Affairs, neo-liberal foreign policy guru Joseph Nye waved away talk of China’s economic and military rise, dismissing “misleading metaphors of organic decline” and denying that any deterioration in U.S. global power was underway.

Ordinary Americans, watching their jobs head overseas, have a more realistic view than their cosseted leaders. An opinion poll in August 2010 found that 65 percent of Americans believed the country was now “in a state of decline.”  Already, Australia and Turkey, traditional U.S. military allies, are using their American-manufactured weapons for joint air and naval maneuvers with China. Already, America’s closest economic partners are backing away from Washington’s opposition to China’s rigged currency rates. As the president flew back from his Asian tour last month, a gloomy New York Times headline  summed the moment up this way: “Obama’s Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage, China, Britain and Germany Challenge U.S., Trade Talks With Seoul Fail, Too.”

Viewed historically, the question is not whether the United States will lose its unchallenged global power, but just how precipitous and wrenching the decline will be. In place of Washington’s wishful thinking, let’s use the National Intelligence Council’s own futuristic methodology to suggest four realistic scenarios for how, whether with a bang or a whimper, U.S. global power could reach its end in the 2020s (along with four accompanying assessments of just where we are today). The future scenarios include: economic decline, oil shock, military misadventure, and World War III. While these are hardly the only possibilities when it comes to American decline or even collapse, they offer a window into an onrushing future.

Economic Decline: Present Situation

Today, three main threats exist to America’s dominant position in the global economy: loss of economic clout thanks to a shrinking share of world trade, the decline of American technological innovation, and the end of the dollar’s privileged status as the global reserve currency.

By 2008, the United States had already fallen to number three in global merchandise exports, with just 11 percent of them compared to 12 percent for China and 16 percent for the European Union. There is no reason to believe that this trend will reverse itself.

Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the U.S. was still number two behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400 percent increase since 2000. A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the U.S. hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to “change” in “global innovation-based competitiveness” during the previous decade. Adding substance to these statistics, in October China’s Defense Ministry unveiled the world’s fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said one U.S. expert, that it “blows away the existing No. 1 machine” in America.

Add to this clear evidence that the U.S. education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank to 12th place in 2010. The World Economic Forum ranked the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened. By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists.

Such negative trends are encouraging increasingly sharp criticism of the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. “Other countries are no longer willing to buy into the idea that the U.S. knows best on economic policy,” observed Kenneth S. Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. In mid-2009, with the world’s central banks holding an astronomical $4 trillion in U.S. Treasury notes, Russian president Dimitri Medvedev insisted that it was time to end “the artificially maintained unipolar system” based on “one formerly strong reserve currency.”

Simultaneously, China’s central bank governor suggested that the future might lie with a global reserve currency “disconnected from individual nations” (that is, the U.S. dollar). Take these as signposts of a world to come, and of a possible attempt, as economist Michael Hudson has argued, “to hasten the bankruptcy of the U.S. financial-military world order.”

Economic Decline: Scenario 2020

After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant lands, in 2020, as long expected, the U.S. dollar finally loses its special status as the world’s reserve currency. Suddenly, the cost of imports soars. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad, Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget. Under pressure at home and abroad, Washington slowly pulls U.S. forces back from hundreds of overseas bases to a continental perimeter. By now, however, it is far too late.

Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace. Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues. Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.

Oil Shock: Present Situation

One casualty of America’s waning economic power has been its lock on global oil supplies. Speeding by America’s gas-guzzling economy in the passing lane, China became the world’s number one energy consumer this summer, a position the U.S. had held for over a century. Energy specialist Michael Klare has argued that this change means China will “set the pace in shaping our global future.”

By 2025, Iran and Russia will control almost half of the world’s natural gas supply, which will potentially give them enormous leverage over energy-starved Europe. Add petroleum reserves to the mix and, as the National Intelligence Council has warned, in just 15 years two countries, Russia and Iran, could “emerge as energy kingpins.”

Despite remarkable ingenuity, the major oil powers are now draining the big basins of petroleum reserves that are amenable to easy, cheap extraction. The real lesson of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was not BP’s sloppy safety standards, but the simple fact everyone saw on “spillcam”: one of the corporate energy giants had little choice but to search for what Klare calls “tough oil” miles beneath the surface of the ocean to keep its profits up.

Compounding the problem, the Chinese and Indians have suddenly become far heavier energy consumers. Even if fossil fuel supplies were to remain constant (which they won’t), demand, and so costs, are almost certain to rise — and sharply at that. Other developed nations are meeting this threat aggressively by plunging into experimental programs to develop alternative energy sources. The United States has taken a different path, doing far too little to develop alternative sources while, in the last three decades, doubling its dependence on foreign oil imports. Between 1973 and 2007, oil imports have risen from 36 percent of energy consumed in the U.S. to 66 percent.

Oil Shock: Scenario 2025

The United States remains so dependent upon foreign oil that a few adverse developments in the global energy market in 2025 spark an oil shock. By comparison, it makes the 1973 oil shock (when prices quadrupled in just months) look like the proverbial molehill. Angered at the dollar’s plummeting value, OPEC oil ministers, meeting in Riyadh, demand future energy payments in a “basket” of Yen, Yuan, and Euros. That only hikes the cost of U.S. oil imports further. At the same moment, while signing a new series of long-term delivery contracts with China, the Saudis stabilize their own foreign exchange reserves by switching to the Yuan. Meanwhile, China pours countless billions into building a massive trans-Asia pipeline and funding Iran’s exploitation of the world largest percent natural gas field at South Pars in the Persian Gulf.

Concerned that the U.S. Navy might no longer be able to protect the oil tankers traveling from the Persian Gulf to fuel East Asia, a coalition of Tehran, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi form an unexpected new Gulf alliance and affirm that China’s new fleet of swift aircraft carriers will henceforth patrol the Persian Gulf from a base on the Gulf of Oman. Under heavy economic pressure, London agrees to cancel the U.S. lease on its Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia, while Canberra, pressured by the Chinese, informs Washington that the Seventh Fleet is no longer welcome to use Fremantle as a homeport, effectively evicting the U.S. Navy from the Indian Ocean.

With just a few strokes of the pen and some terse announcements, the “Carter Doctrine,” by which U.S. military power was to eternally protect the Persian Gulf, is laid to rest in 2025. All the elements that long assured the United States limitless supplies of low-cost oil from that region — logistics, exchange rates, and naval power — evaporate. At this point, the U.S. can still cover only an insignificant 12 percent of its energy needs from its nascent alternative energy industry, and remains dependent on imported oil for half of its energy consumption.

The oil shock that follows hits the country like a hurricane, sending prices to startling heights, making travel a staggeringly expensive proposition, putting real wages (which had long been declining) into freefall, and rendering non-competitive whatever American exports remained. With thermostats dropping, gas prices climbing through the roof, and dollars flowing overseas in return for costly oil, the American economy is paralyzed. With long-fraying alliances at an end and fiscal pressures mounting, U.S. military forces finally begin a staged withdrawal from their overseas bases.

Within a few years, the U.S. is functionally bankrupt and the clock is ticking toward midnight on the American Century.

Military Misadventure: Present Situation

Counterintuitively, as their power wanes, empires often plunge into ill-advised military misadventures. This phenomenon is known among historians of empire as “micro-militarism” and seems to involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories, however briefly and catastrophically. These operations, irrational even from an imperial point of view, often yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the loss of power.

Embattled empires through the ages suffer an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle. In 413 BCE, a weakened Athens sent 200 ships to be slaughtered in Sicily. In 1921, a dying imperial Spain dispatched 20,000 soldiers to be massacred by Berber guerrillas in Morocco. In 1956, a fading British Empire destroyed its prestige by attacking Suez. And in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires.

Military Misadventure: Scenario 2014

So irrational, so unpredictable is “micro-militarism” that seemingly fanciful scenarios are soon outdone by actual events. With the U.S. military stretched thin from Somalia to the Philippines and tensions rising in Israel, Iran, and Korea, possible combinations for a disastrous military crisis abroad are multifold.

It’s mid-summer 2014 and a drawn-down U.S. garrison in embattled Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is suddenly, unexpectedly overrun by Taliban guerrillas, while U.S. aircraft are grounded by a blinding sandstorm. Heavy loses are taken and in retaliation, an embarrassed American war commander looses B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters to demolish whole neighborhoods of the city that are believed to be under Taliban control, while AC-130U “Spooky” gunships rake the rubble with devastating cannon fire.

Soon, mullahs are preaching jihad from mosques throughout the region, and Afghan Army units, long trained by American forces to turn the tide of the war, begin to desert en masse. Taliban fighters then launch a series of remarkably sophisticated strikes aimed at U.S. garrisons across the country, sending American casualties soaring. In scenes reminiscent of Saigon in 1975, U.S. helicopters rescue American soldiers and civilians from rooftops in Kabul and Kandahar.

Meanwhile, angry at the endless, decades-long stalemate over Palestine, OPEC’s leaders impose a new oil embargo on the U.S. to protest its backing of Israel as well as the killing of untold numbers of Muslim civilians in its ongoing wars across the Greater Middle East. With gas prices soaring and refineries running dry, Washington makes its move, sending in Special Operations forces to seize oil ports in the Persian Gulf. This, in turn, sparks a rash of suicide attacks and the sabotage of pipelines and oil wells. As black clouds billow skyward and diplomats rise at the U.N. to bitterly denounce American actions, commentators worldwide reach back into history to brand this “America’s Suez,” a telling reference to the 1956 debacle that marked the end of the British Empire.

World War III: Present Situation

In the summer of 2010, military tensions between the U.S. and China began to rise in the western Pacific, once considered an American “lake.” Even a year earlier no one would have predicted such a development. As Washington played upon its alliance with London to appropriate much of Britain’s global power after World War II, so China is now using the profits from its export trade with the U.S. to fund what is likely to become a military challenge to American dominion over the waterways of Asia and the Pacific.

With its growing resources, Beijing is claiming a vast maritime arc from Korea to Indonesia long dominated by the U.S. Navy. In August, after Washington expressed a “national interest” in the South China Sea and conducted naval exercises there to reinforce that claim, Beijing’s official Global Times responded angrily, saying, “The U.S.-China wrestling match over the South China Sea issue has raised the stakes in deciding who the real future ruler of the planet will be.”

Amid growing tensions, the Pentagon reported that Beijing now holds “the capability to attack… [U.S.] aircraft carriers in the western Pacific Ocean” and target “nuclear forces throughout… the continental United States.” By developing “offensive nuclear, space, and cyber warfare capabilities,” China seems determined to vie for dominance of what the Pentagon calls “the information spectrum in all dimensions of the modern battlespace.” With ongoing development of the powerful Long March V booster rocket, as well as the launch of two satellites in January 2010 and another in July, for a total of five, Beijing signaled that the country was making rapid strides toward an “independent” network of 35 satellites for global positioning, communications, and reconnaissance capabilities by 2020.

To check China and extend its military position globally, Washington is intent on building a new digital network of air and space robotics, advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, and electronic surveillance. Military planners expect this integrated system to envelop the Earth in a cyber-grid capable of blinding entire armies on the battlefield or taking out a single terrorist in field or favela. By 2020, if all goes according to plan, the Pentagon will launch a three-tiered shield of space drones — reaching from stratosphere to exosphere, armed with agile missiles, linked by a resilient modular satellite system, and operated through total telescopic surveillance.

Last April, the Pentagon made history. It extended drone operations into the exosphere by quietly launching the X-37B unmanned space shuttle into a low orbit 255 miles above the planet.  The X-37B is the first in a new generation of unmanned vehicles that will mark the full weaponization of space, creating an arena for future warfare unlike anything that has gone before.

World War III: Scenario 2025

The technology of space and cyberwarfare is so new and untested that even the most outlandish scenarios may soon be superseded by a reality still hard to conceive. If we simply employ the sort of scenarios that the Air Force itself used in its 2009 Future Capabilities Game, however, we can gain “a better understanding of how air, space and cyberspace overlap in warfare,” and so begin to imagine how the next world war might actually be fought.

It’s 11:59 p.m. on Thanksgiving Thursday in 2025. While cyber-shoppers pound the portals of Best Buy for deep discounts on the latest home electronics from China, U.S. Air Force technicians at the Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) on Maui choke on their coffee as their panoramic screens suddenly blip to black. Thousands of miles away at the U.S. CyberCommand’s operations center in Texas, cyberwarriors soon detect malicious binaries that, though fired anonymously, show the distinctive digital fingerprints of China’s People’s Liberation Army.

The first overt strike is one nobody predicted. Chinese “malware” seizes control of the robotics aboard an unmanned solar-powered U.S. “Vulture” drone as it flies at 70,000 feet over the Tsushima Strait between Korea and Japan. It suddenly fires all the rocket pods beneath its enormous 400-foot wingspan, sending dozens of lethal missiles plunging harmlessly into the Yellow Sea, effectively disarming this formidable weapon.

Determined to fight fire with fire, the White House authorizes a retaliatory strike. Confident that its F-6 “Fractionated, Free-Flying” satellite system is impenetrable, Air Force commanders in California transmit robotic codes to the flotilla of X-37B space drones orbiting 250 miles above the Earth, ordering them to launch their “Triple Terminator” missiles at China’s 35 satellites. Zero response. In near panic, the Air Force launches its Falcon Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle into an arc 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and then, just 20 minutes later, sends the computer codes to fire missiles at seven Chinese satellites in nearby orbits. The launch codes are suddenly inoperative.

As the Chinese virus spreads uncontrollably through the F-6 satellite architecture, while those second-rate U.S. supercomputers fail to crack the malware’s devilishly complex code, GPS signals crucial to the navigation of U.S. ships and aircraft worldwide are compromised. Carrier fleets begin steaming in circles in the mid-Pacific. Fighter squadrons are grounded. Reaper drones fly aimlessly toward the horizon, crashing when their fuel is exhausted. Suddenly, the United States loses what the U.S. Air Force has long called “the ultimate high ground”: space. Within hours, the military power that had dominated the globe for nearly a century has been defeated in World War III without a single human casualty.

A New World Order?

Even if future events prove duller than these four scenarios suggest, every significant trend points toward a far more striking decline in American global power by 2025 than anything Washington now seems to be envisioning.

As allies worldwide begin to realign their policies to take cognizance of rising Asian powers, the cost of maintaining 800 or more overseas military bases will simply become unsustainable, finally forcing a staged withdrawal on a still-unwilling Washington. With both the U.S. and China in a race to weaponize space and cyberspace, tensions between the two powers are bound to rise, making military conflict by 2025 at least feasible, if hardly guaranteed.

Complicating matters even more, the economic, military, and technological trends outlined above will not operate in tidy isolation. As happened to European empires after World War II, such negative forces will undoubtedly prove synergistic. They will combine in thoroughly unexpected ways, create crises for which Americans are remarkably unprepared, and threaten to spin the economy into a sudden downward spiral, consigning this country to a generation or more of economic misery.

As U.S. power recedes, the past offers a spectrum of possibilities for a future world order. At one end of this spectrum, the rise of a new global superpower, however unlikely, cannot be ruled out. Yet both China and Russia evince self-referential cultures, recondite non-roman scripts, regional defense strategies, and underdeveloped legal systems, denying them key instruments for global dominion. At the moment then, no single superpower seems to be on the horizon likely to succeed the U.S.

In a dark, dystopian version of our global future, a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral forces like NATO, and an international financial elite could conceivably forge a single, possibly unstable, supra-national nexus that would make it no longer meaningful to speak of national empires at all. While denationalized corporations and multinational elites would assumedly rule such a world from secure urban enclaves, the multitudes would be relegated to urban and rural wastelands.

In “Planet of Slums,” Mike Davis offers at least a partial vision of such a world from the bottom up. He argues that the billion people already packed into fetid favela-style slums worldwide (rising to two billion by 2030) will make “the ‘feral, failed cities’ of the Third World… the distinctive battlespace of the twenty-first century.” As darkness settles over some future super-favela, “the empire can deploy Orwellian technologies of repression” as “hornet-like helicopter gun-ships stalk enigmatic enemies in the narrow streets of the slum districts… Every morning the slums reply with suicide bombers and eloquent explosions.”

At a midpoint on the spectrum of possible futures, a new global oligopoly might emerge between 2020 and 2040, with rising powers China, Russia, India, and Brazil collaborating with receding powers like Britain, Germany, Japan, and the United States to enforce an ad hoc global dominion, akin to the loose alliance of European empires that ruled half of humanity circa 1900.

Another possibility: the rise of regional hegemons in a return to something reminiscent of the international system that operated before modern empires took shape. In this neo-Westphalian world order, with its endless vistas of micro-violence and unchecked exploitation, each hegemon would dominate its immediate region — Brasilia in South America, Washington in North America, Pretoria in southern Africa, and so on. Space, cyberspace, and the maritime deeps, removed from the control of the former planetary “policeman,” the United States, might even become a new global commons, controlled through an expanded U.N. Security Council or some ad hoc body.

All of these scenarios extrapolate existing trends into the future on the assumption that Americans, blinded by the arrogance of decades of historically unparalleled power, cannot or will not take steps to manage the unchecked erosion of their global position.

If America’s decline is in fact on a 22-year trajectory from 2003 to 2025, then we have already frittered away most of the first decade of that decline with wars that distracted us from long-term problems and, like water tossed onto desert sands, wasted trillions of desperately needed dollars.

If only 15 years remain, the odds of frittering them all away still remain high. Congress and the president are now in gridlock; the American system is flooded with corporate money meant to jam up the works; and there is little suggestion that any issues of significance, including our wars, our bloated national security state, our starved education system, and our antiquated energy supplies, will be addressed with sufficient seriousness to assure the sort of soft landing that might maximize our country’s role and prosperity in a changing world.

Europe’s empires are gone and America’s imperium is going. It seems increasingly doubtful that the United States will have anything like Britain’s success in shaping a succeeding world order that protects its interests, preserves its prosperity, and bears the imprint of its best values.

  • Alfred W. McCoy is the J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, “From the Cold War to the War on Terror.” Later this year, “Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State,” a forthcoming book of his, will explore the influence of overseas counterinsurgency operations on the spread of internal security measures here at home. More: Alfred W. McCoy






New Global world order

The Post American Vision

We can all say with absolute certainty that economic collapse is certain, all indicators point towards collapse, without any doubt, and more then likely this event will occur in the next few years or sooner. I’d like to speculate on the world that will unfold in the years post an economic collapse of the American nation, and its effect globally.

Let’s get started, the American homeland will suffer through a depression never before seen in the industrialized, starvation, crime, governments at all levels will have either collapsed, or in the process of collapse. Major cities will erupt into urban warfare zones, as police struggle to maintain law and order. The economy will have all but destabilized, and unemployment will skyrocket to 50-65% range. Crime will be rampant, and armed civilian check points common.  Most communities will be segregated along ethnic border lines, and inter ethnic violence growing exponentially. Governments will be forced to cut entitlement spending, and resulting civilian ethnic warfare will bring the nation to a standstill. Mexico’s civil war will bleed into the american southwest, we expect most Mexicans to return home during this time period due to lack of opportunities and unavailable employment in the united states. Cities will continue to separate themselves by race, and states will also separate themselves based on core identity. The federal reserve will be declared insolvent, and the federal government ineffective, federal armed forces will mobilize to protect cities wherein they reside, and major bases will become safe zones, but otherwise the army will lack the manpower to enforce law and order on Americas 315 million people, they will play a wait and see campaign, combined with support missions for overseas units.

States with standing guard units will abolish the federal power structure within their respected states, and move to secure there own interests. High population states like new York and California will collapse into violence, while states like Oklahoma and north Dakota will unify under the banner of freedom from federal tyranny. Effectively the federal government will have collapsed at this point, military commanders overseas will attempt to redeploy to the homeland to support efforts to stabilize major cities, although this will prove ineffective in the end. A reorganization of the government, a constitutional convention, and a rebuilding effort will be undertaken by the surviving population. We expect tens of millions of deaths, possibly a hundred million if the collapse lasts more then a year, either way the nation will be changed forever, new ideas, an emphasis on the community an one’s own ethnic kin will become common place.

Its during this time a second war with Mexico will be fought, primarily a war of occupation that will evolve into a war of ethnic cleansing as new the American government seizes power, and total extent of Mexico’s complacency in Americas fall from power is revealed to the remaining American population. Conflict will last no more then a couple weeks as Mexico’s government will have already fallen from internal threats. The new ideology of America will determine the fate of central america, including Mexico’s fate, but occupation and annexation is certain for the territories to the south, it remains to be seen the fate of its population.

Inter nation conflict and civil unrest will be occurring in every european nation as nationalists and socialists battle over control of europe.  Two camps will eventual remain, the islamist’s transplants and the pro-european nationalists, but a war between britain and france is highly likely.  Russia will likely be battling its own internal islamic threats as well as its nationalist elements, destabilization and reorganization will likely occur. Eastern europe will also be involved in internal conflicts ranging from civil unrest to full rebellion as we have seen recently in greece.  

Most of South america will formally unite under the banner of socialism, and a new socialist union of states will be formed, eventually American nationalists will also engage in warfare with these nations , a gorilla war and puppet government campaign will result as US interest will become the priority, and allowing a new enemy state to develops in our hemisphere would not be tolerated. Occupation and ethnic cleansing is expected.

The main war for this global conflict will be in asia. We know china is preparing to challenge America militarily, so conflict with china is also certain, but not likely until no other choice is available, and they are militarily ready to challenge our armed forces, and supporting allies in the region. Such a scenario is likely to occur only after America has been weakened militarily through massive budget cuts, overly extended campaigns across the globe, and economic collapse. This scenario has a high degree of certainty that it will be fulfilled within the next 10 years. The conflict will involve japan, south korea, Taiwan, india, most south east asian nations, all in an alliance with the United States.  China will be allied with pakistan, north korea, and various islamic nations in opposition against allied forces.  This conflict will be the second time, nuclear weapons are used against civilian populations, india, pakistan, china mainland, will be hit the hardest with causalities in the hundreds of millions. Mainland japan, and US also should expect losses in the tens of millions, this depends on the effectiveness of missile defense systems, and if china is capable of deploying nuclear subs within reach of the US mainland.  This war will involve all sides deploying ground troops mainly in asia/india, and various islands in south china sea, ground troops on allied sides should expect use of advanced robotic systems to support human soldiers. UAV, robotic ground units, stationary robotic suppression systems, and other technologies should be expected in wide use during such a war. Heavy fighting within urban areas, and gorilla warfare in surrounding combat zones of conflict, china should also expect internal threats in addition to external.

In the initial stages of the war we can expect south korea to be overrun by the north, Taiwan to fall within a matter of days, and japan to lose partial control over some of its islands. We also expect crimes against humanity during this war. Americas ability to engage in this war initially will be limited to naval air power and its various bases in asia, although china will target these location in a first strike nuclear exchange resulting in heavy loss by the United States. As the war unfolds, indias ability to fight a war on 3 fronts will be challenged, as pakistan forces launch attacks from the west, china attacks from the north, indian enemies to the east, and internal threats destabilize the nations major cities along ethnic-religious lines. India will suffer massive losses also in the hundreds of millions. It is also certain nuclear detonations will destroy most of India’s cities.

Japan will also suffer initial losses but American bases should minimize these losses. Taiwan will also suffer major losses, and will primarily be fighting for its independence from china’s occupation forces, same goes for south korea, all sides will be involved in a gorilla warfare campaign throughout asia. 

This global war will peak with Russia entering on the side of America along with Iran and most of Europe. The global conflict will involve fronts, in south america, asia, europe and the middle east. We expect islamist nation to declare war on israel, and america to support israel economically, but not with military forces. War in europe will involve either the united states at war with Brittan or France. Most major cities around the world will be destroyed during world war 3. The planets human population will be depleted to just over 4 billion, starvation will become common place, and all nations will be unable to assist in the rebuilding of anything other then their own nations, so most nations will remain in a state of ruin for decades to come.

We expect the world will reorganize with a new euro-centric alliance between America, Europe, and Russia. Much of the globe will return to a pre industrialized state. Trade, technology, information, will be restricted, to the new global super power, “northern alliance.” A Euro-American-Russo alliance. Other than japan and small parts of asia, most of the planet will be unable to rebuild.  In a world destabilized by diversity, free trade globalism, and entitlement spendings, no such place will exist for them post collapse. Tribalism will be the new law of the land, the UN will have been found useless, liberalism ignorant of the reality of human differences, a new order for the ages will have been founded.