As a European, I admire this honesty. Since WWII, America has always wanted to dominate Europe and treat it like a vassal, but Trump was the first president to be open about it. Everyone before him at least pretended that America and Europe were equals. But Europe has only itself to blame for being an irrelevant geopolitical dwarf. The US-Europe relationship can best be described as that of a domineering mother and her son, who is content to spend his whole life dependent on her because life is easier that way. In a way, I almost wish the US would annex Greenland just to fully expose how weak Europe is. But what's the alternative for Europe? Federalization is impossible. Too many different countries, ethnicities, interests... Europe is not a melting pot like America. America's only real rival is China, but China is too risk-averse, which is why I can't imagine it ever becoming #1. Just take Venezuela for example. China spent over $100 billion propping it up, only for it to fall under America's thumb overnight.
„But Europe has only itself to blame for being an irrelevant geopolitical dwarf“, well the post WWII order was set up so that Europe could not become sovereign. That’s what NATO is fundamentally about. For decades the US tolerated insufficient military spending from EU countries in exchange for foreign policy sovereignty, now all of a sudden it’s a problem because Europe is no longer a strategic priority, South East Asia is. I am not making excuses for the EU‘s impotence but to blame the vassals of an empire for being vassals is non sensical.
Are we really still debating this? I remember the "empire" talk back in 2001 with Colin Powell. (Powell said we didn't have an empire, because only Mongols or Austrians do, or something.)
Of course we have an Empire. We've had one since we touched the Mississippi.
I used to think this claim was overblown and disinfo to try and divide white people, like sports teams but for politics. But sadly, it is very much true. White solidarity will be difficult if instead of stopping the replacement in Europe, Europeans would rather complain about Americans, or, rather than doing anything about the replacement, simply blame it on America.
America is the only empire. China and Russia have a few outposts but no power to really back them up. Only America can project its power globally whilst China and Russia are regional at best, they are not at top alongside America like Andrew Tate says.
Gotta love how Jefferson, the man responsible for doubling the size of America and fighting the Barbary pirates, is held up as some kind of non interventionist.
You make a good argument as always, but it's difficult to reconcile this position with anti-immigration. Empire means we're going to inevitably incorporate a diverse array of people under our state, even if we don't become an explicitly colonial empire. If by empire, you mean we exert influence over countries within our sphere of influence without directly controlling them, maybe it's reconcilable, but empire inevitably means lots of different people under a single flag.
Edward Luttwak, in his book *The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire* argued that Rome's Imperial period was divided between what he called the "Principate phase" and the "Dominate phase." In fact he attributed many of the Late Empire's problems to the change from the former to the latter.
The concept of the Principate is that the imperial power rules through local forces and remains in the background.
It's a low-cost, low-footprint approach and has served imperial powers well over the millennia: from the Persian Empire to the British in India (and likely elsewhere as well but India's the one I know about), this model was followed any number of imperial powers.
However--just as the central government here in the States has done--the desire of those at the center to enhance their power and prestige invariably results in the imperial power overthrowing or subverting the local proxies and replacing "hidden-hand" rule with direct rule.
Unfortunately this is far more costly and high-profile, and leads to a great deal more pushback from the locals.
I expect that if we ever decide to take this empire business seriously--not just cosplaying as we did from the Spanish-American War to the post-WW2 era--we will certainly start off with a Principate phase.
Thank you. When you get we have been empiring since 1840, everything makes sense. Lens through the glass darkly. Now, choose - are you on the team or not? Funtimes.
I think the term "empire" is too loaded and toxic for people to honestly have a discussion over it. America First Foreign Policy is a mouthful, but should be more palatable. Less drugs and more oil is good for domestic policy, and so far a sensible foreign policy decision.
If anything, could we perhaps reduce our military presence in Europe and shift some to South/Latin America under the "Donroe Doctrine"?
I used to think we should draw down some of our presence in Asia, but we've created our own problem of making China ascendent so I've changed my mind on that.
The era of empires is over. It began with Europe losing its imperial possessions throughout the 20th century (e.g. Britain and France), now Russia is gradually coming to the realization that it can't maintain its prior empire (the Ukraine war), and the US will gradually face the same issues. Iraq, Afghanistan are the most recent examples. You may draw arbitrary distinctions between the Middle East and Latin America, but what about Vietnam, for instance? Same story and same lesson. Empires just generally are a thing of the past.
Russia is already learning that empires are a thing of the past, to its surprise. Its quick and reflexive attempt to re-dominate Eastern Europe (e.g. Ukraine) isn't working out all that well, contrary to expectations. This is a canary in the coal mine. China's bitter lessons will probably be along the same lines in the future.
Chris Cuomo nails it: "Here's my problem. This is *exactly* what Trump campaigned against. There is a big group of MAGA people who are quiet right now, when they should be going crazy! And when you start explaining why *this* intervention is OK, while other ones were not, when you start explaining yourself, you're losing. "
He produces work for TAC and Chronicles. Does he do this for free? As for other sources of income, probably. But don’t know for sure. Guess it’s up to him (or, maybe not up to him) whether he wants to be transparent about it.
I'm not the one defending the rights of Somalis and other nonwhites to live here and murder/grape everyday. That would be Fuentes, leader of the revolution. Sounds like he's the one with Stockholm syndrome. Unless he's just a traitor, or doesn't even think of himself as white. Still haven't pointed out where Scott was wrong, because you can't. Backing the arrest of a guy who dumps loads of human garbage into America makes me a masochist. Got it, sunshine.
Listen, what you (and Scott for that matter) need to accept is that we have entered a new era. Call it whatever you want. Post-Truth. Post-Modern. Post-Enlightenment. Doesn’t matter. The artificial Age of Reason (abstraction) is over. Marshalling facts and logic in the ‘market place of ideas’ has ended. We have returned to the natural state of myths and stories—infused with tribal passions, rituals, chants, etc. I think Scott rightly chastises the MAGA populists. But that won’t change anything. I despise the likes of Candace Owens and others too. However, I’ve come to terms with the fact that her and other slopulists have tremendous reach and influence. Is what it is. Understanding this explains why I won’t waste my time or yours trying to debate you with empirical evidence or rational claims. It’s pointless. All that would happen is me presenting my side while you present yours. And, in the end, nothing will change. I won’t convince you, nor will you convince me. But I do know this: you and I (Scott as well) are natural allies, and we ought to be united. The problem that separates us is Scott’s implied view. What he, and others like him are suggesting is that there is some sort of peaceful settlement. A modus vivendi, if you will. A world in which Whites like us will remain subject of the Jews (who actually ‘get it’), yet, at the same time, be considered equal among other races and ethnicities. Put simply, we will have a voice at the table. This is wishful thinking. The horse is out of the barn. Anti-Whiteism is the reigning ideology (held with religious fervour by many) and won’t be abandoned anytime soon; the incentives underwriting it are too compelling to dismiss. Grasping onto this modus vivendi mindset as a compromise is reasonable. But, ultimately, it won’t last. Unfortunately, no one will be satisfied with this arrangement and violence/segregation will ensue. That’s the realist take. Therefore, it’s time to tribe up. Scott needs to adapt. He needs to prepare his mind for what happens next. For what happens when the modus vivendi project fails. Time to strengthen his mind and his rhetoric. Last thing, frustration and disagreement aside, we are brothers in this struggle and I wish you well. Peace.
As a European, I admire this honesty. Since WWII, America has always wanted to dominate Europe and treat it like a vassal, but Trump was the first president to be open about it. Everyone before him at least pretended that America and Europe were equals. But Europe has only itself to blame for being an irrelevant geopolitical dwarf. The US-Europe relationship can best be described as that of a domineering mother and her son, who is content to spend his whole life dependent on her because life is easier that way. In a way, I almost wish the US would annex Greenland just to fully expose how weak Europe is. But what's the alternative for Europe? Federalization is impossible. Too many different countries, ethnicities, interests... Europe is not a melting pot like America. America's only real rival is China, but China is too risk-averse, which is why I can't imagine it ever becoming #1. Just take Venezuela for example. China spent over $100 billion propping it up, only for it to fall under America's thumb overnight.
I appreciate your honesty. Too many Euros will say all this, and then somehow exculpate Euro leadership for this situation.
Euros have always worried we might awaken to our destiny, instead of the rescue missions of the 20th Century.
„But Europe has only itself to blame for being an irrelevant geopolitical dwarf“, well the post WWII order was set up so that Europe could not become sovereign. That’s what NATO is fundamentally about. For decades the US tolerated insufficient military spending from EU countries in exchange for foreign policy sovereignty, now all of a sudden it’s a problem because Europe is no longer a strategic priority, South East Asia is. I am not making excuses for the EU‘s impotence but to blame the vassals of an empire for being vassals is non sensical.
Are we really still debating this? I remember the "empire" talk back in 2001 with Colin Powell. (Powell said we didn't have an empire, because only Mongols or Austrians do, or something.)
Of course we have an Empire. We've had one since we touched the Mississippi.
The entirety of Europe depends on our military might and foreign aid, despite how much they thumb their noses at us and bitch and complain.
I used to think this claim was overblown and disinfo to try and divide white people, like sports teams but for politics. But sadly, it is very much true. White solidarity will be difficult if instead of stopping the replacement in Europe, Europeans would rather complain about Americans, or, rather than doing anything about the replacement, simply blame it on America.
I like both you and Tom Woods quite a bit. One of you should appear on the other's podcast and hash this out. Would be a great discussion.
America is the only empire. China and Russia have a few outposts but no power to really back them up. Only America can project its power globally whilst China and Russia are regional at best, they are not at top alongside America like Andrew Tate says.
Gotta love how Jefferson, the man responsible for doubling the size of America and fighting the Barbary pirates, is held up as some kind of non interventionist.
You make a good argument as always, but it's difficult to reconcile this position with anti-immigration. Empire means we're going to inevitably incorporate a diverse array of people under our state, even if we don't become an explicitly colonial empire. If by empire, you mean we exert influence over countries within our sphere of influence without directly controlling them, maybe it's reconcilable, but empire inevitably means lots of different people under a single flag.
Edward Luttwak, in his book *The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire* argued that Rome's Imperial period was divided between what he called the "Principate phase" and the "Dominate phase." In fact he attributed many of the Late Empire's problems to the change from the former to the latter.
The concept of the Principate is that the imperial power rules through local forces and remains in the background.
It's a low-cost, low-footprint approach and has served imperial powers well over the millennia: from the Persian Empire to the British in India (and likely elsewhere as well but India's the one I know about), this model was followed any number of imperial powers.
However--just as the central government here in the States has done--the desire of those at the center to enhance their power and prestige invariably results in the imperial power overthrowing or subverting the local proxies and replacing "hidden-hand" rule with direct rule.
Unfortunately this is far more costly and high-profile, and leads to a great deal more pushback from the locals.
I expect that if we ever decide to take this empire business seriously--not just cosplaying as we did from the Spanish-American War to the post-WW2 era--we will certainly start off with a Principate phase.
Thank you. When you get we have been empiring since 1840, everything makes sense. Lens through the glass darkly. Now, choose - are you on the team or not? Funtimes.
Is hasn’t always been an empire, but certainly has been since around 1900.
I think the term "empire" is too loaded and toxic for people to honestly have a discussion over it. America First Foreign Policy is a mouthful, but should be more palatable. Less drugs and more oil is good for domestic policy, and so far a sensible foreign policy decision.
If anything, could we perhaps reduce our military presence in Europe and shift some to South/Latin America under the "Donroe Doctrine"?
I used to think we should draw down some of our presence in Asia, but we've created our own problem of making China ascendent so I've changed my mind on that.
The era of empires is over. It began with Europe losing its imperial possessions throughout the 20th century (e.g. Britain and France), now Russia is gradually coming to the realization that it can't maintain its prior empire (the Ukraine war), and the US will gradually face the same issues. Iraq, Afghanistan are the most recent examples. You may draw arbitrary distinctions between the Middle East and Latin America, but what about Vietnam, for instance? Same story and same lesson. Empires just generally are a thing of the past.
You might want to inform China and Russia that empires are a thing of the past.
Russia is already learning that empires are a thing of the past, to its surprise. Its quick and reflexive attempt to re-dominate Eastern Europe (e.g. Ukraine) isn't working out all that well, contrary to expectations. This is a canary in the coal mine. China's bitter lessons will probably be along the same lines in the future.
Only because the Empire and its vassals dumped all their old ammo into Ukraine.
Chris Cuomo nails it: "Here's my problem. This is *exactly* what Trump campaigned against. There is a big group of MAGA people who are quiet right now, when they should be going crazy! And when you start explaining why *this* intervention is OK, while other ones were not, when you start explaining yourself, you're losing. "
https://youtu.be/ic1wkVc5iTs?si=uLGLpwwKeLCGBXCW&t=319
Russians are drunken incompetents.
You’ve lost the plot. Then again, you’re a paid propagandist anyhow, so not that surprising.
Btw, what is the American Dream? I want you to articulate it because I want you to experience the cognitive dissonance as you express it. Pathetic.
"You're a paid propagandist...". Receipts, please.
He produces work for TAC and Chronicles. Does he do this for free? As for other sources of income, probably. But don’t know for sure. Guess it’s up to him (or, maybe not up to him) whether he wants to be transparent about it.
Wow. I get paid by TAC and Chronicles to write for them. Great investigative work man.
Any others we ought to know about?
So, writes for people you don't like equals gets paid to lie. Let's try again. What did Scott say that wasn't true and why isn't it true?
Figure it out for yourself. As you beg for crumbs and plead with your abusers to mollify their rage and resentment against you.
I'm not the one defending the rights of Somalis and other nonwhites to live here and murder/grape everyday. That would be Fuentes, leader of the revolution. Sounds like he's the one with Stockholm syndrome. Unless he's just a traitor, or doesn't even think of himself as white. Still haven't pointed out where Scott was wrong, because you can't. Backing the arrest of a guy who dumps loads of human garbage into America makes me a masochist. Got it, sunshine.
Listen, what you (and Scott for that matter) need to accept is that we have entered a new era. Call it whatever you want. Post-Truth. Post-Modern. Post-Enlightenment. Doesn’t matter. The artificial Age of Reason (abstraction) is over. Marshalling facts and logic in the ‘market place of ideas’ has ended. We have returned to the natural state of myths and stories—infused with tribal passions, rituals, chants, etc. I think Scott rightly chastises the MAGA populists. But that won’t change anything. I despise the likes of Candace Owens and others too. However, I’ve come to terms with the fact that her and other slopulists have tremendous reach and influence. Is what it is. Understanding this explains why I won’t waste my time or yours trying to debate you with empirical evidence or rational claims. It’s pointless. All that would happen is me presenting my side while you present yours. And, in the end, nothing will change. I won’t convince you, nor will you convince me. But I do know this: you and I (Scott as well) are natural allies, and we ought to be united. The problem that separates us is Scott’s implied view. What he, and others like him are suggesting is that there is some sort of peaceful settlement. A modus vivendi, if you will. A world in which Whites like us will remain subject of the Jews (who actually ‘get it’), yet, at the same time, be considered equal among other races and ethnicities. Put simply, we will have a voice at the table. This is wishful thinking. The horse is out of the barn. Anti-Whiteism is the reigning ideology (held with religious fervour by many) and won’t be abandoned anytime soon; the incentives underwriting it are too compelling to dismiss. Grasping onto this modus vivendi mindset as a compromise is reasonable. But, ultimately, it won’t last. Unfortunately, no one will be satisfied with this arrangement and violence/segregation will ensue. That’s the realist take. Therefore, it’s time to tribe up. Scott needs to adapt. He needs to prepare his mind for what happens next. For what happens when the modus vivendi project fails. Time to strengthen his mind and his rhetoric. Last thing, frustration and disagreement aside, we are brothers in this struggle and I wish you well. Peace.