Still a Republic If You Look at the Details

Metternich, Volume IV page 54

March 23, 1823 . — Now, to recognise a Government one must know first of all know what it is; and to enter into negotiations with it one must have recognised it. It is, therefore, necessary that we should know first of all what the Government will be.

Not all of you can investigate those details, especially Americans.  Here we are home to the dumbest, most thoroughly incompetent “nationalists” in all the West.

Such woeful circumstances force us to import illegal British immigrant labor to do the job the American paleocon/altright/whatever are incapable of doing.  For today’s purposes that job is making a coherent argument that America is an informal empire.

Responding to our article on Regionalism, Imperial Energy has made as good an argument as can be found for America running an “informal empire”.

One should probably look at it as an adaptive feature – a camouflage. It avoids all the usual signs (on the surface) of being an empire, yet it is one.

Following Moldbug’s “Modern Structure” we can talk of the “Global Structure” which is a a maze of bureaucracies, NGO’s, charities, media, corporations, trade agreements and “international law”.

Central organisations would be the UN, World Bank, IMF and NATO. Then you have such thing as “Bilderburg” or the “tri-lateral commission.”

The three key organizing principles of the Empire is 1: Security organised, directed and carried out by the American military. 2: Dollar as a world reserve currency. 3: Progressive values and “international law”.

From Brezenski to Kissinger to Obama, their goal is to create these “international institutions” that transcend the nation-state or ethnic-groups or a particular religion.

They claim to be “Universalist” but what they do not, or do not appear, to acknowledge is that these things are “parochial.”

Things like “human rights” and the “responsibility to protect” are rejections of the “Westphalian” order where nations do not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. These doctrines allow America and its allies to judge and interfere in any country for pretty much any reason.

But of course, it does not look like straight-up imperialism of yore – because of the informal, hidden, bureaucratic nature of the thing.

America, in short, is an empire without any emperor. Kissenger once joked that “who do we call in Europe?” But the same thing can now be said of America. This is not the same with Russia (Putin) or with China (Xi).

Moldbug was always at his weakest when he didn’t break from paleocon orthodoxy and this is a textbook example of one of those mistakes by him.

Facts are facts, and when we look at them in detail we find neither formal nor informal empire.  Sometimes a spotted owl is really a camouflaged Bilderburg spy satellite; other times a spotted owl is simply a spotted owl.

To figure out what kind of bird we have in hand we have to deep dive into the gears of its machinery, whether those gears be mechanical or biological.

Viewing the mechanics of American foreign policy and how past empires worked, what we see is why the latter insisted on strict, overt measures of colonial management:  Informal empire doesn’t exist anymore than “partial pregnancy”.

Empire is all holding direct military control over the conquered territory or it is not empire at all.

Or, to put the problem with “informal empire” existing at all in mathematical terms, given discrete phenomena E(mpire) and R(epublic), if E is expanded over the political distribution as if it were continuous phenomenon I(nformal Empire), I becomes incompatible with the definition of E, turning I into R entirely.  And vice versa.

This is an unsolvable definitional problem.  And without a definition of “informal empire”, informal empire cannot exist.  Of course, you likely don’t believe this is an overwhelming problem if you’re inclined, at this moment, to endorse the definition.  But you will realize the scale of the problem after reading on.

In Europe great sport has been made for decades labeling America a type of empire by almost everyone across their political spectrum:  The far left, center left, center, center right, and far-right almost all agree America is running a criminal empire of some kind.  In general, there is grudging acknowledgement American empire does not hold its sway in the direct fashion.  But that there is an informal empire somewhere is taken for granted.

But what type of criminal empire depends on the accuser’s political priorities which they see America standing in opposition to:  To the European Left America is a corporate-Nazi hegemon, to the far Right it is a Liberal interloper in European affairs.

Here we come to the first indicator this definition of “informal empire” can’t be logically expanded from a mere slogan to a conversation about the real world without the it breaking down:  Those who accuse America of informal empire cannot agree what ideology it adheres to.

Only run of the mill Republican voters have some vague idea that America is not an empire of any kind because we don’t grab territory – “collateral damage” be damned! – as classic empires did in the good old days when the only international right was right of conquest.

But the objection of Republican voters, weakly articulated as “American Exceptionalism”, is equally wrong. There is nothing “exceptional” about American power, it is obeying a great power law. What makes it not empire is that the needs of modern Capitalism have allowed to emerge an entirely new type of international power other states voluntarily remain in; one that is not empire, formal or informal.

The “Progressive values” Imperial Energy points to are not among the principle reasons this voluntary alliance exists.  Internationally, they are primarily of most interest to Western Europe.  Most other are at best indifferent.  Our humanitarian values are, anyway, diplomatically and militarily applied too inconsistently for them be a core organizing principle because post-WWII Republican Presidents have tended to downplay them in favor of more concrete strategic interests.  Democratic Presidents also are more likely to give empty words against “human rights” violations than to substantively intervene for their sake.

Only Capitalism and its consistent security requirements explains the durability and voluntary nature of our alliances.

If we exclude hard power, we’re left with the features of American “soft power” that Imperial Energy argues constitute “informal” imperialism.

First, the international organizations he lists:

  • The United Nations
  • World Bank
  • IMF
  • NATO

The glaring problem with this is the fact Russia and China are members of the UN, World Bank, and the IMF.

Russia and China are former enemies and potential enemies that Moldbug concedes are independent of USG.

If international organizations are informal levers of control over our “informal” imperial vassal states, why do genuinely sovereign states, Russia and China, hold seats on them?

The answer:  America isn’t an informal empire.  Certainly, the UN – where either “American vassal state” Russia or China can unilaterally veto any resolution we put up for a vote – and other international forums don’t qualify as informal body of American imperialism.

At first “informal empire” seemed so easy to treat as a serious definition.

We just extend our discrete variable, E, to be continuous variable I sitting intermediate between E and R.

Except that you’ve just extended I over the non-puppet regimes of Russia and China and, in doing so, just discretely converted your continuous I variable into a R(epublic) not an E(mpire).

The debris of this logical train wreck is what one (and Moldbug) find your illegal-immigrant self sweeping up when your conductor was a paleocon/altright hack pundit like Pat Buchanan who, in Scaramuccian terminology, was too busy sucking his own cock to operate the train.

Oops.

If you were inclined towards defining America as an “informal empire” you now see the basis of that argument falling out of your hands like confetti.  You may, of course, try grabbing those scraps back into your hand.  But you won’t look persuasive running around the field in circles looking for them.

At a minimum the given definition of “informal empire” needs to be returned to the drawing board for a serious redesign session.

Or, one can face reality and admit the American paleoconservative and altrightists who wasted years arguing America is an empire are pseudo-intellectuals who don’t know what they’re talking about because they didn’t get their definitions right from the beginning, as Metternich two centuries ago said must be done correctly whenever discussing Government.

Oops.

But we are not finished.

Let’s take the concept of international organizations and see whether international bodies can even serve as informal levers of power in an “informal empire”.

An “informal empire” too must have a sort of centralized “directional flow” in terms of sovereign-vassal relations:  If the “informal” American empire exerts informal pressure on its compliant vassal states, Russia and China, through international organizations the command signal should have a traceable “direction” emanating from the top of America’s informal imperial palace through the international forum which then moves down to our Globalist puppets in Moscow and Beijing.

Given the way international institutions have been arranged by Progressives, American soft/informal power is in practice diluted because decision making on those bodies is pooled with potentially hostile powers such as Russia and China and minor powers such as Iceland who are given a greater say than they would have under any kind of imperialism.

If sovereignty, including American sovereignty, is pooled then international organizations in most cases cannot be considered American informal control mechanisms because there are too many other seat holders who have power over those “mechanisms” to stop or dilute our initiatives.

A mere “informal empire” must conserve the “informal levers” to itself just as much as a formal empire must conserve control of formal levers.  But international bodies do not concentrate voting power with America, they are pooled across multiple sovereign nations, some of which are hostile to America.  As an informal lever of imperial power, international bodies are inadequate.

This raises the question why do American globalists want to dilute “informal” American soft power if Progressive Presidents can, at best, only exercise “informal” power very ineffectively through those bodies?

International organizations are substantially a hindrance of American will by design.  The “Blue Empire” enjoys transferring as much sovereignty as possible to international organizations because they adore corrupt bureaucracies and world government promises to bring forth the most most corrupt bureaucracy of all time.

The problem with using “Blue Empire” internationalism as an example of informal American Imperialism is that to the extent Progressives succeed in handing off American jurisdiction over to global organizations they undermine the ability of America’s Executive Branch to execute its own diplomacy to the benefit of other allies and enemies.  Even global initiatives of Progressive Presidents wind up bogged down for decades with bureaucratic paperwork, Congressional hearings, challenges in Federal Court, confused under peer-reviewed jargon in academic journals, diplomatic negotiations, university seminars, objections by potentially hostile powers, payoffs to Liberal special interest groups, and haggling with even more globalist-minded European allies.

An informal empire should at least have a clear line of command and control.  With such a mess of interest groups holding up Progressive diplomacy for decades, no command hierarchy can be traced that isn’t the result of multiple compromises by non-American interests.

Under these conditions calling America an “informal empire” is an insult to informality by confusing it with anarchy.

And that’s when Progressives hold the Presidency.  When a Republican holds it, American Progressives lose control of the hard power (military, economic) and our voting rights at international forums.

As for the dollar, its popularity does not indicate informal imperialism.  Sovereign, independent, entities purchase the dollar voluntarily because we are the guarantor of the First World’s economic and physical security.  Dollar purchases are also made by China (the largest of all dollar purchasers) and Russia.

If the dollar is a vehicle for “informal empire” its pricing should not involve the say of independent sovereign states.  Unless China and Russia are “informal” American vassal states.  Are they?

For the same reason, trade and any other international business agreements are not related to informal empire because America trades with the sovereign states of China and, still to some degree, Russia.

Charities and NGOs receive billions in funding from too many different governments for them to be collectively considered American.

Bilderburg and the Trilateral commission are only meeting societies no different than any other Progressive get-together; substantively no more important than elite university seminars because they have no force of international law or treaty.

That leaves us with internationalist ideology, blamed by the altright for being imposed on Europe by America.

The paleocon/altright stupidly links America to a European racial heritage (which is correct) but won’t accept American ideology as anything but a disruptive alien force upon Europe.

However, American political theory cannot be separated from European political theory because America is the result of European politics and ideology. The Founders all looked to examples from European history, culture, religion, philosophy, and governance to structure their project around and compare it to.

Since the Constitutional Convention, it is debatable whether European ideas have ultimately held more sway over America because the academic exchange of ideas has gone both ways.  Comte is the actual founder of Progressive ideology; his ideas were adopted by Lester Frank Ward.  Keynes heavily influenced Progressive thinking.  Does this mean Progressivism is a form of informal European imperialism over America?

Modern Internationalist ideology itself was formed largely by Europeans during the interwar years.

According to the definitive history of the creation of the European Union, The Great Deception – The Secret History of the European Union (available at Amazon), the intellectual basis for the European Union was built on the failed League of Nations.  After WWII its connection to the League was hidden because European advocates of what became the European Union did not want it associated with this failure.

From pages 71 and 72 –

However the most fundamental misconception about how the European Union came into being stems from the myth that its intellectual genesis emerged after the Second World War.  All the essential ideas which lay behind the moves to unite Europe at that time had in fact been conceived in the 1920s, before the rise of Hitler, as a way to prevent a recurrence of the First World War.  In that sense they had already failed in their original purpose, in that they had been unable to prevent the Second World War.

The history proceeds to outline how the French government and other Supranationalists such as Paul-Henri Spaak advanced the precursor organizations of what is now the European Union that were designed by the diplomat Jean Monnet.

While it is true that for about the first 15 years after WWII US diplomats such as George Kennan and Dean Acheson advocated for proceeding with Monnet’s blueprint as a way to economically unite Europe in the face of Soviet expansion, many more initiatives that led to the official creation of the European Union in 1993 took place after the 1960s when America became less interested in the project.  Especially important was the 1980s Delors Commission which laid the foundation for the Maastricht Treaty, and the launch of the euro currency in 1999.

The EU could have evolved in a number of more Democratic ways in the decades after the European Coal and Steel Commission was launched.  The decision to turn it into an anti-Democratic Bureaucracy was made by European internationalists of their own free will, not “informal” imperial coercion by the United States.

Moreover, the electorates of Western Europe have seen their politicians openly acknowledge they were globalists.  Senior EU officials such as Romano Prodi, Jose Manuel Barraso and Jean-Claude Juncker have publicly bragged about the EU being a, in their words, “post-Democracy” project.  European voters have gone to the ballot box decade after decade voting for admitted internationalist politicians with full knowledge of what their plans were.  The support for internationalism in Western Europe is substantially a reflection of the globalist inclinations of Western European voters themselves, not an example of informal empire tricking them into voting for national suicide.

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Still a Republic If You Look at the Details”

  1. Empire, tyranny, dictatorship all rely on absolutism. There’s no opt out.

    Informal empire is as sensical as ‘benevolent tyranny’ and ‘Democratic dictatorship’.

    The marriage of such opposite terms is consummated exclusively by the propaganda machines of dictator’s and tyrant’s. Such as the DEMOCRATIC people’s republic of Korea, or the Bolivarian REPUBLIC of Venezuela.

  2. Entertaining as always.

    Illegal immigrant?

    Instead of doing following the usual procedure and defining terms, perhaps putting the matter in the following way might make things clearer.

    Instead of talking about “informal empire” or “World Government”, we could talk instead of “global, bureaucratic oligarchy.”

    Or, putting the matter a little more rhetorically, we can speak of the “triumph of the Tranzi” (Transnational Progressive).

    If we call the Tranzi what they call themselves, then we should not consider them “American” but “globalist” or “cosmopolitan” or “universalist”. This is because the Tranzis believe, value and work towards is not a world-order based on sovereign nations, but a world order that is run by the gamut of bureaucracies that we mentioned previously.

    As our old friend Prince Metternich said:

    Is it necessary to give a proof of this last fact ? We think we have furnished it in remarking that one of the sentiments most natural to man, that of nationality, is erased from the Liberal catechism, and that where the word is still employed, it is used by the heads of the party as a pretext to enchain Governments, or as a lever to bring about destruction. The real aim of the idealists of the party is religious and political fusion, and this being analysed is nothing else but creating in favour of each individual an existence entirely independent of all authority, or of any other will than his own, an idea absurd and contrary to the nature of man, and incompatible with the needs of human society.

    The project is the destruction of national sovereignty (which also includes American sovereignty) but this is exactly what the American Tranzis want. Even Brzezinski, at the end of the Grand Chessboard, says pretty much the same thing. What the American Tranzis aims for is to create a stable of “international institutions” that will survive by themselves long after the assumed decline of America as a global hyper-power.

    Now, let us examine the principles of Tranzism:

    Fonte summarises, in his own opinion, what the principles of “Tranzism” are:

    “TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM
    The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:
    1: The ascribed group over the individual citizen.
    2: Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness
    3: The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups.
    4: The “demographic imperative.”
    5: The redefinition of democracy and “democratic ideals.” (Form V Reality IE).
    6: Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West.
    7: Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship
    8: The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool.”

    Next, Fonte describes the Ruling Elites social base and institutions:

    “The social base of transnational progressivism constitutes a rising postnational intelligentsia (international law professors, NGO activists, foundation officers, UN bureaucrats, EU administrators, corporate executives, and politicians.)”

    http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html

    We both agree that this is the opposition correct?

    If so, then we can, of course, argue about the origins, development and practice of the Tranzis.

    We would be more than happy to drop “American Informal Empire” and talk about the “Tranzi Empire”. However, there is no doubt that, as Thom Yorke of Radiohead said that while Radiohead is like the “UN” he (Yorke) is “definitely America”.

  3. Illegal immigrant?

    It was unavoidable.

    Unlike other segments of the labor force, there is an actual supply shortage of remotely capable American “Nationalists”.

    Nigel Farage was too expensive to smuggle into Canada and then across their border with Maine so we had to turn to you.

    As for the Tranzis,

    They do desire a global governmental bureaucracy. Something along the lines of the European Union, but with less Democratic representation in regional parliaments to hold them to account (if regional parliaments are even allowed to exist) and planet wide.

    The thing is that these embryonic structures of world government in-waiting are not yet mature enough to constitute a real government. But they have enough jurisdiction to interfere with the functions of other governments, including the United States since even the US would be subsumed into a world government if the Tranzis got everything they wanted. Most of the actions of international bodies involve transferring bits and pieces of power from sovereign states to the global forums, but not to a degree that would give those forums genuine political power.

    When actual power is desired, they want and need the military and/or economic assets of the United States like they did in the 1999 Kosovo War.

    American hard power is the result of Hamiltonian Nationalism. And it is the Hamiltonian assets that are the real reason our allies put up with our diplomatic nonsense and follow us under a Regionalist power system.

    American “Tranzi”/soft power is popular in much of Western Europe’s political circles, but not elsewhere. American allies in East Asia, Middle East tyrants, and parts of Latin America care little for how closely we adhere to Supranationalist principles. They ally with us, as Regionalist theory predicts, because we guarantee their economic and physical security with Hamiltonian assets.

    So one must distinguish the Hamiltonian power (hard power) of American diplomacy with concurrently operating, incompatible, Wilsonian Internationalism (soft Tranzi power) that interferes with the functioning of Hamiltonian Nationalism.

    A similar conflict about sovereignty over foreign policy occurs in Europe between national heads of state and the global objectives of the EU.

  4. To put this another way, the political structures America inherited from Hamilton and Lincoln are in conflict with the New Deal Structure Moldbug has written about and where his points were usually at their strongest.

    His mistake was not differentiating Hamilton-Lincoln with FDR’s system, instead he wrongly tries to connect the former as Progressive forerunners.

  5. “When actual power is desired, they want and need the military and/or economic assets of the United States like they did in the 1999 Kosovo War.

    American hard power is the result of Hamiltonian Nationalism. And it is the Hamiltonian assets that are the real reason our allies put up with our diplomatic nonsense and follow us under a Regionalist power system.”

    We are in almost complete agreement.

    However, it is important to acknowledge that the American elites worked to make this happen and still want it.

    The Neocons do sound a discordant note and argue for the retention of the nation-state but their ends are the same as the Tranzis.

    Like with so much of the “Modern Structure” it is paradoxical and counter-intuitive. So, the Tranzis are attempting to create a permanent World Government that would be an “Anglo-American” empire without being an empire.

    It is chutzpah, like the so called Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. As one Muslim scholar points out, this reflects the particular assumptions of a Christian/Enlightenment culture.

  6. “His mistake was not differentiating Hamilton-Lincoln with FDR’s system, instead he wrongly tries to connect the former as Progressive forerunners.”

    He was critical of Lincoln, but did he take a whack at Hamilton?

  7. The Neocons do sound a discordant note and argue for the retention of the nation-state but their ends are the same as the Tranzis.

    Not quite. They want America to dispense with asking international bodies for their permission to export Democratic projects. Neoconservatism would actually be an American Empire of a kind.

    Transnational Progressives would, if they could, end up dissolving the United States itself replacing it as a territory of a world government. In this sense Left-Liberal goals would not result in an American Empire, but a global Bureaucratic Dictatorship without a national identity. Though, I suppose in practice such a planetary government would end up being run by Americans, Europeans, and East Asians.

    The Neocons are too America-centric to the Progressive objective of a world government because Neocons want to disempower international bodies Progressives have spent decades empowering. Hence why Neocons are still hated by the Left for being “Conservative” despite Neocons and Tranzis still sharing similar goals.

  8. He was critical of Lincoln, but did he take a whack at Hamilton?

    Not specifically, but it works out to the same thing.

    Lincoln and his Republicans inherited Hamilton’s policies, Northern constituency, and philosophy from Henry Clay’s Whigs; Clay’s Whigs (the Northern Branch of it, anyway) copied Hamilton’s National System. If Lincoln had not been assassinated he would have governed as a Hamiltonian like the 1865-1932 Republican Presidents did.

  9. However, it is important to acknowledge that the American elites worked to make this happen and still want it.

    They wanted what to happen?

    Preserving American hard power is Hamiltonian, which Progressives need but simultaneously undermine with their domestic policies and by transferring power to international bodies.

    Setting up a world government is obviously an American Progressive priority, but it’s also the priority of European elites.

  10. We agree….. Perhaps the only thing missing is that the Neocons claim to want to rip up things like the UN.

    Still this “global Bureaucratic Dictatorship” would be seen as “America’s gift to the world” and it would be seen by other powers as a American ploy – an informal American empire.

  11. We agree….. Perhaps the only thing missing is that the Neocons claim to want to rip up things like the UN.

    Either that or reduce its importance.

    But the Neocons aren’t that relevant to the setup of international politics. They’re hated by American Progressives and there were none in Obama’s administration.

    Still this “global Bureaucratic Dictatorship” would be seen as “America’s gift to the world” and it would be seen by other powers as a American ploy – an informal American empire.

    Actual world government is far from becoming a reality because of the many transitional steps that would be required. How do we get China and Russia, among others, to join?

    The most complete system of what Progressives want is the European Union. And as I explained for years on Moldbug’s blog, and other outlets, and never got a straight counterargument to anywhere, the EU is an interwar idea that was driven by Europeans, not Americans.

  12. “Actual world government is far from becoming a reality because of the many transitional steps that would be required. How do we get China and Russia, among others, to join?”

    They cannot – not without overthrowing those governments.

    “The most complete system of what Progressives want is the European Union.”

    Agreed.

    “And as I explained for years on Moldbug’s blog, and other outlets, and never got a straight counterargument to anywhere, the EU is an interwar idea that was driven by Europeans, not Americans.”

    There is no doubt that European Progs wanted this. However, you should not overlook the fact that it developed with USG’s blessing and support and could have vetoed the whole thing if it wanted to. Also, you should consider the role that Wilson played after the end of WW1.

  13. They cannot – not without overthrowing those governments.

    International bodies (aside from the EU) such as the UN, WTO, are embryonic governments that lack sufficient power to actually govern. Hence, Russia, China and smaller authoritarian states can afford to send their representatives to humor Westerners about global warming and other nonsense without sacrificing their own sovereignty.

    However, you should not overlook the fact that it developed with USG’s blessing and support and could have vetoed the whole thing if it wanted to.

    According to The Great Deception the proposal for the European Coal Commission was written by the French immediately after WWII and given to American authorities. America approved it because of fears Western Europe might fall to Soviet Russia if Europe wasn’t economically developed fast enough.

    We continued to support its early development for about 15 years after the war. Afterwards we lost interest and the EU developed on its own initiative. But there was no reason why the EU had to take an anti-Democratic direction. The other post-WWII European organizations founded by America, such as NATO, didn’t encroach on our European allies sovereignty. The EU’s founders could have easily created something along the lines of a democratically elected Europe wide legislature, judiciary, and executive similar to America.

    Instead they doubled down on unelected bureaucracies such as the EU Commission (which holds the real power in Europe, not the EU Parliament) and the European Court of Justice. The specific details of how what is now the EU would operate were chosen by European politicians.

    Also, you should consider the role that Wilson played after the end of WW1.

    We still never joined the League. Also, according to The Great Deception there were proposals for a world government being debated in London and other European cities before WWI.

  14. Ok, here is a question/project for you.

    Let’s assume that there is a Hamiltonian Restoration in America.

    Now, starting with Wilson and working forward, what carnage and chaos do you lay at the door of specifically American Progs/Tranzis.

    Perhaps, you could do it as a “talking points” towards a future Presidential apology.

  15. Perhaps, you could do it as a “talking points” towards a future Presidential apology.

    Ask not for an apology lest ye apologize.

    Will there be an apology from Western Europe for being entirely or almost entirely at fault for the European Union? I would be very interested in one since I’ve seen the blame for it incorrectly directed at the United States (although the accusation is primarily made by Americans, not Europeans).

    It’s unfortunate Moldbug didn’t do his job explaining American-European relations correctly – and if I’m not impressed with Moldbug on this point I’m certainly not impressed with the even more feeble exegesis of the hapless American Altright/paleocon “right” about it.

    But it remains a fact Western Europe has had six decades to work on the specifics of how the EU would operate. During this time it was always within the power of European leaders to either make the EU more Democratic in nature or restrict Monnet’s original blueprint to center around trade and economic issues only. Instead, European politicians have been fighting – on their own initiative and will, not America’s – to make the EU as anti-nationalist as possible.

    And the European voter has been on board with dissolving the nation state. Their politicians have almost all said they were internationalists, they governed as internationalists, and so they have the consequences of internationalism. And they still haven’t learned their lesson. The French were given a choice between remaining in the euro or Le Pen and they voted 2-1 for the euro. The British almost blew Brexit by voting in a Corbyn-SNP coalition government; they avoided that fate narrowly thanks to, of all things, Scottish and Ulster Unionists.

    This was all self-imposed by the Europeans on to themselves and I expect a full apology from Western Europe.

  16. We are reading Kissinger’s White House Years (a fascinating book from a fascinating man) and, well, you see the whole “USG is an informal empire” thing all over the place. Just read the parts about France and De Gaulle and you can see it….. You will read about the State Department “Intergrationists”.

    See also:

    https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/may-1968-the-french-color-revolution/

    http://28sherman.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/reactionary-future-nails-one-sm-review.html

    Kissinger does not directly say it, but it is clear that Wilson truly fucked the dog when it came to Europe after the war (see Diplomacy and Does American Need Foreign Policy.)

    Recently, we had Obama telling the British to “stay in the EU” – how about that for informal empire?

    Then there is America pushing the British out of their Empire…….

    We could go back and forth like this, of course. But there is no point playing a “blame game”. We asked you about the “apology” just to see if you took the opportunity to shit all over the progressives.

  17. Just read the parts about France and De Gaulle and you can see it….. You will read about the State Department “Intergrationists”.

    As I said, American diplomats going back to Kennan and Acheson endorsed European integration, but it was entirely Western Europe’s decision for how the EU integrated. It could have also been integrated as a strictly market-trade organization, a more Democratically responsive legislature, or otherwise.

    The decision to launch anti-nationalist projects such as the euro, Maastricht, and Shengen was made by Western Europe. The decisions were applauded by State but not made by it.

    See also:

    There are errors in those blog entries. Muslims were already immigrating on De Gaulle’s watch. And De Gaulle was not as opposed to EU integration as may be commonly believed according to The Great Deception.

    Recently, we had Obama telling the British to “stay in the EU” – how about that for informal empire?

    Wrong.

    Suggestions do not qualify as empire.

    We asked you about the “apology” just to see if you took the opportunity to shit all over the progressives.

    I asked you about the “apology” just to see if you would take the opportunity to acknowledge Western European politicians are responsible for the EU.

    As I expected you tried to deflect the blame for this outcome back on America in order to excuse/coverup the fact the EU is a Western European project.

  18. As for the US exporting this form of government on the French, the initial design for the EU itself was written by the French diplomat Jean Monnet (based on ideas circulating in the 1920s) and endorsed by the French government well before De Gaulle assumed the Presidency.

    To deny Monnet’s EU is Western European is simply a self-serving and delusional attempt to not take responsibility for one’s own actions.

    And then there’s this not insignificant issue with the French having invented the frameworks for both Communism (Jacobinism) and then Progressivism (Positivism).

    If you want to show the flow of Liberal ideology was America-to-Europe you’re going to have to do much better than two American altright revisionist blogs.

  19. I’m noticing that I’m answering your questions (or vague insinuations) directly and you’re not answering my responses directly and/or changing the subject.

    I pointed out on the previous article that the Delors Commission in the 1980s was where the preparations were made to launch the euro and Maastricht in the 1990s.

    I then asked, if the EU is an American project as you’ve suggested, whether the Delors Commission was a Reagan initiative.

    I never got a response to this point (and a number of others). I assume you didn’t respond because you had no response.

    If this is not the case, please explain how the Delors Commission was the fault of the Reagan administration, as it would have to be if America was actually calling the shots when it comes to EU governance (or governance of the EU’s precursors).

    If you respond try not to change the topic this time.

  20. What we agree with you on:

    “To deny Monnet’s EU is Western European is simply a self-serving and delusional attempt to not take responsibility for one’s own actions.”

    There is no doubt that the EU “project” has been eagerly embraced by European Elites and that the blueprints for such a thing are heavily European.

    “I asked you about the “apology” just to see if you would take the opportunity to acknowledge Western European politicians are responsible for the EU.”

    Perhaps it was a mistake for us to focus on “moral responsibility.”

    We have no interest in defending the EU or its elites at all.

    “As I said, American diplomats going back to Kennan and Acheson endorsed European integration, but it was entirely Western Europe’s decision for how the EU integrated. It could have also been integrated as a strictly market-trade organization, a more Democratically responsive legislature, or otherwise.

    The decision to launch anti-nationalist projects such as the euro, Maastricht, and Shengen was made by Western Europe. The decisions were applauded by State but not made by it.”

    This does not do justice to thing. It vastly underplays the role that the Progs/Tranzi elites from across the pond have played starting with Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations.

    The two wars saw America play the central role in killing off any kind of opposition to what it wanted: World Empire and “domination” over Europe.

    The other thing you really need to factor into your analysis more is the Form V Reality divide. Of course every U.S official will say that that it is the business of each country to run its own business – in public. However, things are quite different in reality – in private, between diplomats and government officials.

  21. “And then there’s this not insignificant issue with the French having invented the frameworks for both Communism (Jacobinism) and then Progressivism (Positivism).

    If you want to show the flow of Liberal ideology was America-to-Europe you’re going to have to do much better than two American altright revisionist blogs.”

    Can we not talk about it as being a two-way street, an expansionary feedback loop?

  22. “If this is not the case, please explain how the Delors Commission was the fault of the Reagan administration, as it would have to be if America was actually calling the shots when it comes to EU governance (or governance of the EU’s precursors).”

    We need to take a much broader historical view of this.

    When we talk about causality, we can talk about ultimate and proximate causation and sustaining causes.

    Let’s set aside the question of “ultimate” causation for the moment (for it has more to do with with war-making and state-making which began long before America came on the scene) and focus on proximate and sustaining causes.

    Two major proximate causes of the success of the EU, or the necessary causes for its very existence, was the role that Wilson played after WW1 and USG after 1945.

    In short, they eliminated any opposition and “selected” (but did not invent) a new set of elites, government forms, means and ends in broad outline. Then, the “European project” started to grow and develop and develop in ways that was not under strict, formal USG control. However, we claim that it was sustained and supervised – largely by the State Department.

  23. This does not do justice to thing. It vastly underplays the role that the Progs/Tranzi elites from across the pond have played starting with Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations.

    I don’t see where you’re going with this.

    Wilson certainly supported it but we never joined the League. In Europe it had many defenders who were not stooges of US “Imperialism”. Ideas for a world government were already circulating in Europe before WWI (See The Great Deception for details).

    The two wars saw America play the central role in killing off any kind of opposition to what it wanted: World Empire and “domination” over Europe.

    Both wars were Germany’s fault for starting them and then dragging America into it. We, for our part, didn’t know Germany would end up wounding Europe so badly that there would be a power vacuum we would end up filling.

    And you haven’t addressed whether America qualifies as an “Empire” in the first – sovereign Russia and China are sitting on major tranzi organizations that are supposed to be central to US “Imperialism”.

    The other thing you really need to factor into your analysis more is the Form V Reality divide. Of course every U.S official will say that that it is the business of each country to run its own business – in public. However, things are quite different in reality – in private, between diplomats and government officials.

    When diplomats say America is an empire are they using a real definition or just boasting? To an older diplomat such as Kissinger being called an Imperialist was a high compliment in their younger years and probably still is in their own view.

    Can we not talk about it as being a two-way street, an expansionary feedback loop?

    Apparently not since certain parties are straining to downplay the role Western Europeans have played in this.

    When we talk about causality, we can talk about ultimate and proximate causation and sustaining causes.

    The point of the articles was to define the United States’ world power as an entirely new sort of power, one that is not Imperialistic.

    The existence, or origin, of American power doesn’t address the definitional subject.

    Two major proximate causes of the success of the EU, or the necessary causes for its very existence, was the role that Wilson played after WW1 and USG after 1945.

    In short, they eliminated any opposition

    The opposition eliminated itself in both cases. There was no reason for Germany to start both wars and if they hadn’t this situation wouldn’t have emerged in the first place.

    and “selected” (but did not invent) a new set of elites, government forms, means and ends in broad outline.

    The alternative to us setting up post-WWII organizations was having a Soviet Atlantic Wall staring across the English Channel at you.

    Also, again, the subject was not the existence of American power but whether that power qualifies as empire.

    Then, the “European project” started to grow and develop and develop in ways that was not under strict, formal USG control. However, we claim that it was sustained and supervised – largely by the State Department.

    Which proves my point “informal” empire doesn’t exist. Empire is only empire if it is formal and direct occupation and management of a province’s territory. Nothing as loose as “informal” Empire is suitable because the “subjects” can ultimately decide whether they want to follow orders or not.

    The EU’s later features – euro, founding treaty of Maastricht, Shengen free movement of peoples – are central characteristics that make the EU anti-Nationalist. All of these features were optional decisions that could have been rejected in favor of a less objectionable system. If they were put forward by Europeans after even you concede the EU project was not under USG control then this is not a US responsibility at all.

    Also, it was never under strict USG control and the EU doesn’t behave like any of the post-WWII European organizations we directly founded and managed. We greenlighted Monnet’s proposal to get Western Europe economically back up on its feet before the Soviets could expand further West, but we would have also approved a plan that was narrowly tailored to economic and trade issues.

    Whatever cheerleading for integration to go forward at State does not qualify as control – Europeans have been promoting socialized medicine to Americans since before Hillarycare in the early 1990s, but their support for an American policy doesn’t Europeans “controlled” or “imposed” the policy on America.

    What sustained it was European politicians who freely chose an anti-Democratic model and freely opted to adhere to that system for 7 decades when they could have just as easily had a Democratic system if they had wanted it.

    Also, the topic is defining Empire and whether America qualifies as one.

    The serious objections I raised to it – Russia and China sitting on outlets that are supposed to be Imperial organizations, etc. etc. – haven’t been addressed.

  24. On a different topic:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-28/gold-standard-resulted-%E2%80%9Cfewer-catastrophes%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-ft

    “Klein writing in FT Alphaville draws on research from former economics advisor to President Obama, Christina Romer:

    Imagine you can choose between living in two kinds of societies:
    Dynamic world prone to wild swings and big crashes, but ultimately more growth in the long run
    Safe and stable world with greater consistency, less volatility, and much lower risk of catastrophe
    You might think that Americans and Europeans effectively decided to move from option 1 to option 2 between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries. Depending on your politics, you might attribute this to the stultification of modernity, or the triumph of the enlightened welfare state.
    Regardless, you would be wrong.
    The growth of government as a service provider and guarantor of financial security — backed by fiat money — has actually coincided with faster trend growth and greatervariance around that trend line. Moreover, the likelihood of particularly bad events has increased since the escape from the “golden fetters”.”

    You would still support 1 because it provides more energy right?

  25. On a different topic:

    No different topics.

    If the UN and related global bodies are not features of “informal empire” because Russia and China hold seats on them then you need to come up with a better definition of “informal empire”.

    The one you gave is not getting the job done.

    That is going to be quite a task if the new definition excludes most existing international forums.

    Of course, you could concede informal empire doesn’t exist instead of banging away at the square peg you insist is round.

  26. Ok.

    What is Empire?

    Empire comes from the word emperor which comes from the Latin “Imperator” (victorious Commander).

    We all know about the “Roman Empire” and the Emperors; however, what many do not know is that the “empire” was still the “Republic”.

    Julius Caesar never made himself king (“Rex”) and nor did Augustus Caesar.

    Augustus was a “king” and this was obvious to everyone outside Italy, but Augustus was still only a “first citizen”.
    Now, what is the essence of monarchy?

    Monarchy is rule by one.

    Aristocracy is rule by the few, and democracy is rule by the many.

    Prior to Caesar, Rome was an aristocratic Republic where power was shared among an elite that had both legal and customary procedures for how the state would be run.

    Prior to Caesar, this system was long in crisis but by the time Augustus defeated all his enemies, a revolution had been enacted.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roman_Revolution

    Rome went from an Aristocratic Republic (that also had “clients” and colonies) to an informal, monarchical empire.

    Now, what we reactionaries mean when we talk about Form V Reality is that the political formula of the regime (what type of regime it is and why it is legitimate)does not match the reality of the regime – who holds power and how that power is used.

    The form is the same, but the substance is very different.

    In the same way that the Soviet Union and Communist China could claim to be a “democracy” in Formal terms, while in Reality they are one-party oligarchies, America claims to be a “democracy” or a constitutional republic at home, and not an “empire” abroad.

    But Form does not match Reality.

    You write:

    “Empire is all holding direct military control over the conquered territory or it is not empire at all.”
    While we are not completely sure what you mean by “direct military control” (martial law?), this definition appears to be too restrictive.

    Again, if we look at the Roman Empire as our paragon, then we learn that Rome had a complex system of directly ruled provinces, client states and buffer states.

    For example, there were cases where a client king would choose to give his kingdom to Rome after his death; furthermore, Rome (West and East) could also choose to “recognize” a new King or use diplomacy to install one they liked.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_client_kingdoms_in_Britain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_state

    The provinces were not under direct military; Rome used a mixed system of either direct appointments coming from the Emperor or “elected” senators who went out to govern the provinces.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Government_and_military

    For more about Augustus and how his system took shape see:

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-age-of-augustus/349F7B2553A427B31762F2A42669846F

    Now, what about America?

    America is the last superpower standing.

    Wilson, and then FDR, destroyed the Republic via their Progressive transformations.

    Wilson and the Progressives used their “weight” and forced upon the Europeans a system that was utopian and “presumptuous” and destined for destruction.

    Kissinger, who studied Metternich’s pivotal role in creating a conservative, Post Napoleonic system, is quite clear that what Wilson did (the imposition and cultivation of Progressive Idealism), was completely contrary to what Metternich (a conservative) would have done.

    Both Kissinger, and Hans Hermann Hoppe are clear about the role that Wilson played. (See Kissinger’s Diplomacy and Hoppe’s Democracy).

    There is also this:

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/call-me-unaccountable-woodrow-wilson-and-george-bush/
    And this:

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/1919-betrayal-and-birth-modern-liberalism-10650.html

    After WW2, USG eliminated the German and Italian Fascist threat. It conquered Germany and De-Nazified the country and did the same with Japan Japan and Germany were under military occupation but USG installed a new, democratic socialist system of government and USG has stationed troops on both Germany and Japan to this very day.

    Japan is USG’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”

    As for Britain, it was essentially bankrupt and exhausted and it thus allowed itself to be “bought out” by their American cousins.

    The British strategy, as Luttwak once pointed out, had been to side with the Americans on every major issue since the late 19th Century as Britain knew that with a rising Germany there was no choice for Britain but to enlist American support.

    After the war, the Americans were in charge and Britain resigned itself to be America’s most staunch ally.

    The French, under De Gaulle, were not happy, as the hated Anglo-Saxon had now triumphed over them. De Gaulle tried to “rebel” against USG (as Kissinger makes clear in the White House Years and the above posts) and create a European system that would have given Europe more independence from America – but he was defeated by American “diplomacy” and American subversion.

    As for the European Union, yes the Europeans came up with the blueprints and have been implementing it. However, the sovereign decides the exception, and it is the State Department that is the closest thing USG has to being the sovereign in intentional affairs and State wanted and wants the European Union.

    The real test is when either the European Union or a country within it does something that goes against the State Department’s wishes.

    With Brexit, we had Obama coming and interfering in the elections by making threats:

    Start at 2:40. “It is our view that we have a better ability to pursue our common interests by for example imposing sanctions on Russia, without the British role in the EU I don’t think it would have been as strong.”
    This is the opinion of a State Department official, notice the use of the term “we”.

    Of course, examples of this could be multiplied.

    As for the UN and having Russia and China on it, this is a consequence of both Tranzism and a legacy of the Cold War.

    Again, the Tranzi vision is to have a “supera-national” system, a “community of nations”. The Soviet Union was not initially seen as a “threat” at the start, or throughout, the Cold War. Much the same could be said about China.

    It was this crazy view of the left about the Soviet Union that gave rise to Neoconservatism.
    Thus, the reason why Russian and China are members of the Security Council is because they were “grandfathered” in (USG booted Taiwan for China).

    Consider also the fact that Hillary Clinton received huge sums money or “contributions” from states around the world such as Morocco.

    This is patron-client system, one that is ubiquitous, Clinton is both receiving tribute, protection money and money that can buy influence.

    So, what is an empire?

    The necessary conditions for an empire are that a “centre” and “periphery” must exist.

    One way to understand this type of relationship is with Feudalism.

    The King and his Lords.

    The King is the King and his Lords are required to be loyal to him; the Lords are expected to:
    1: Raise, train, equip and supply a certain amount of soldiers for the King. (Bit like with NATO).

    2: Provide a certain amount of revenue to the King. (Think of the Petro-Dollar system and various trade deals.)

    3: Keep the King’s peace and execute his laws. (Think of the UNDHR, but then consider how all the Satellites of the Cathedral respond to what Harvard or the New York Times is saying on some issue. Consider how gay marriage suddenly became a thing. )

    Earlier, you claimed that France not joining the Iraq War was proof that America is not an empire.

    However, it is central to the neoreactionary critique that political conflict, due to unsecure power, between the High and the Middle or the Elites and their Essentials is ever-present and drives politics and culture. Indeed, it is often the case (see below) that the Middle powers (France in this case) will want to resist the High in their wars.

    (See https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/the-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-5a-the-european-minotaur-of-war-i-the-origins-nature-and-development-of-the-minotaur/)
    In return for this “obstruction”, the High will use the Low against the Middle.

    Just consider the role that Muslim terrorists now play in France – keeping France locked in to USG’s war across the Muslim world.

    After Bataclan, for example, France sent its aircraft to Syria and helped the Americans with their war.
    Now, what we want to do is to turn this “informal empire” into a real, formalised, empire with a real emperor (we can call him the Chief Executive.)

  27. Now, what we reactionaries mean when we talk about Form V Reality is that the political formula of the regime (what type of regime it is and why it is legitimate)does not match the reality of the regime – who holds power and how that power is used.

    The form is the same, but the substance is very different.

    This falls short because you lack a definition of informal empire with solid enough explanatory power.

    You have various examples and circumstances that are inconsistently relevant to some allies, but not others (see below). Unless you can formulate a comprehensive definition consistent across multiple cases then you won’t be able to distinguish informal empire with a non-Imperial alliance system between genuinely sovereign, independent states such as Metternich’s Concert of Europe.

    It is your prerogative to brainstorm a geopolitical standard that will work as an informal empire, but it’s not there yet.

    I also strongly suspect you won’t be able to come up with a consistent standard because it will end up including some countries that you don’t want classified as part of America’s “informal empire”.

    Now for your particular examples,

    Wilson and the Progressives used their “weight” and forced upon the Europeans a system that was utopian and “presumptuous” and destined for destruction.

    Kissinger, who studied Metternich’s pivotal role in creating a conservative, Post Napoleonic system, is quite clear that what Wilson did (the imposition and cultivation of Progressive Idealism), was completely contrary to what Metternich (a conservative) would have done.

    Both Kissinger, and Hans Hermann Hoppe are clear about the role that Wilson played. (See Kissinger’s Diplomacy and Hoppe’s Democracy).

    Again, our WWI allies willingly adopted internationalism and they did so as sovereign states.

    Along with advocating for the League of Nations Wilson also strongly insisted on giving Germany a generous peace deal. Generous terms were rejected by our Great War Allies.

    If Wilson was acting as an informal emperor imposing his will on unwilling subjects why were Britain and France able to reject Wilson’s peace terms to Germany?

    The answer is clearly that he was not an “informal emperor” to begin with.

  28. Continued,

    After WW2, USG eliminated the German and Italian Fascist threat. It conquered Germany and De-Nazified the country and did the same with Japan Japan and Germany were under military occupation but USG installed a new, democratic socialist system of government and USG has stationed troops on both Germany and Japan to this very day.

    First, you’ve sort of been implying America planned to crush German power since Wilson.

    But Wilson offered generous terms to Imperial Germany that, if they had been agreed to by Britain and France, would have almost certainly prevented Hitler from gaining power in the first place. Without Hitler there would have never been a Second World War, or at least not one that forced Britain and France to ally again to counter Germany.

    To the extent any nations except Germany were responsible for Germany’s destruction in the Second World War wasn’t this actually the fault of Britain and France for rejecting Wilson’s peace terms for far harsher measures?

    Second, given the fact Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor and soon after Germany declared war on the United States, why do you feel our post-war occupation of them was illegitimate?

    Would you prefer if we had surrendered to the Axis after Pearl Harbor?

    Japan is USG’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”

    But how do derive imperial coercion from this?

    We maintained forces in Japan and Germany primarily to block Communist expansion. Since the disappearance of the Soviet threat our deployment in Germany is greatly reduced from what it was when we had multiple tank divisions facing off against Soviet armor in East Germany.

    We have a more robust presence in Japan officially to protect them from North Korea; unofficially because of China.

    If the Japanese and Germans are both happy with the arrangement (Donald Rumsfeld offered to further reduce our presence in Germany even further but his offer was turned down by then Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber because Bavaria profits from our bases) then mutual benefit, not informal empire, is all that is needed to explain the continued relationship.

    Or, at least, if our deployments in Germany and Japan are mutually beneficial it is not necessarily proof for your case the relationship is informal empire instead of sovereign powers allying for common purposes.

    As for Britain, it was essentially bankrupt and exhausted and it thus allowed itself to be “bought out” by their American cousins.

    The British strategy, as Luttwak once pointed out, had been to side with the Americans on every major issue since the late 19th Century as Britain knew that with a rising Germany there was no choice for Britain but to enlist American support.

    After the war, the Americans were in charge and Britain resigned itself to be America’s most staunch ally.

    Decolonization was a disaster and largely the fault of American Progressives (and Eisenhower who was, despite his numerous other virtues, was too tolerant of their policies both domestic and overseas).

    But was there a way decolonization could have been handled that didn’t lead to a mess?

    The French, under De Gaulle, were not happy, as the hated Anglo-Saxon had now triumphed over them. De Gaulle tried to “rebel” against USG (as Kissinger makes clear in the White House Years and the above posts) and create a European system that would have given Europe more independence from America – but he was defeated by American “diplomacy” and American subversion.

    I’m going to read again The Great Deception’s chapter on De Gaulle and get back to you about his views on European integration.

    However, the sovereign decides the exception, and it is the State Department that is the closest thing USG has to being the sovereign in intentional affairs and State wanted and wants the European Union.

    Wanting something to happen is not the same as making it happen.

    European Liberals and politicians have been asking America to adopt socialized medicine since before Hillarycare in the early 1990s, but it wouldn’t be accurate for me to say Europeans imposed Obamacare on the United States.

    Obamacare was ultimately an American policy decision we had the freedom to accept or reject among many many other options just as the central features of the European Union such as the euro currency, Shengen free movement zone, and Maastricht were policies European policy makers freely chose in the 1980s over other options that would have been much less antagonistic to the nation-state.

    The real test is when either the European Union or a country within it does something that goes against the State Department’s wishes.

    With Brexit, we had Obama coming and interfering in the elections by making threats:

    And since there was no American punishment against Britain for defying the State Department’s wishes we can infer America is not an informal empire.

  29. Continued,

    Again, the Tranzi vision is to have a “supera-national” system, a “community of nations”. The Soviet Union was not initially seen as a “threat” at the start, or throughout, the Cold War. Much the same could be said about China.

    There are many problems with this.

    First, there was hope of peace with the USSR only for a very brief time after WWII.

    By the late 1940s up the 1970s Progressives like Truman, JFK, and LBJ energetically pushed back against Soviet expansion.

    They clearly did see them and China as a threat.

    We were powerful enough that once we saw that Russia and China apparently did not get the message they were American vassal states (China, a permanent UN member with unilateral veto power, actually attacked UN forces during the Korean War) we could have left the UN and formed a separate international forum system that would have been more agreeable with “informal empire”.

    That we didn’t exclude Russia and China from major international forums and still do not despite them being independent and sovereign is proof those forums are not venues where we exercise “informal empire”.

    If these international bodies were part of an informal empire the Russians and Chinese would have either left them long ago or have been converted into vassal states by now.

    That Russia and China both choose to sit on them proves those organizations are not part of informal imperialism.

    It was this crazy view of the left about the Soviet Union that gave rise to Neoconservatism.

    Neoconservatism is not relevant to the functioning of transnationalism because they didn’t build it.

    During the second half of the Cold War neoconservatives were a small, subordinate wing of the Realist wing of the Republican Party’s foreign policy establishment led by Realists such as Kissinger, George Schultz, and others.

    During the 1990s Bill Clinton ignored neocon advice about humanitarian intervention in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere (it is a well known fact a reluctant Bill Clinton had to be pressured into bombing Kosovo in 1999 by Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder after Clinton had ignored the Balkan conflicts for most of his Presidency).

    After the Second Iraq War was botched the Republicans lost Congress in 2006 and the neocons were sidelined even by the Bush 2 administration.

    Ever since the Second Iraq War the Progressives have despised the Neocons. They were shut out of power within Obama’s transnationalist administration because Progressives did not need anything from the Neocons, they remain widely hated by American Progressives for the war, and because Neoconservatism is still too free market and hostile to international law to be compatible with the inner party.

    Consider also the fact that Hillary Clinton received huge sums money or “contributions” from states around the world such as Morocco.

    That’s mostly just simple corruption.

    She (and her husband) also did many business deals with China and Russia, but neither China or Russia are in a patron-client relationship with the United States.

    1: Raise, train, equip and supply a certain amount of soldiers for the King. (Bit like with NATO).

    Switzerland, Sweden and Finland are not NATO members. By this definition they are not part of America’s informal empire, thus providing more evidence I was correct predicting you won’t be able to create a standard definition of informal empire because empire is a boolean condition.

    Also, NATO members who do supply troops outside Europe (keeping NATO forces IN Europe does not indicate informal empire since there are other, non-imperial, explanations for why Europeans would support NATO) often send mere tokens that we do not need because America does the serious operations by itself.

    2: Provide a certain amount of revenue to the King. (Think of the Petro-Dollar system and various trade deals.)

    #2 doesn’t apply to America because China is a major supporter of the petro-dollar system. Russia may also have some petro-dollar assets remaining on its books.

    3: Keep the King’s peace and execute his laws. (Think of the UNDHR, but then consider how all the Satellites of the Cathedral respond to what Harvard or the New York Times is saying on some issue. Consider how gay marriage suddenly became a thing. )

    Another nice example of how the directional flow of ideas has always been both-ways between America and Europe instead of us imposing ourselves on the Continent – the pioneers of gay marriage were the Scandinavians in the 1990s when American Progressives barely paid attention to the issue. This only became a thing here during Bush #2’s reelection campaign in 2004 against John Kerry. I never heard Bill Clinton bring it up in the 90s.

    Just consider the role that Muslim terrorists now play in France – keeping France locked in to USG’s war across the Muslim world.

    After Bataclan, for example, France sent its aircraft to Syria and helped the Americans with their war.
    Now, what we want to do is to turn this “informal empire” into a real, formalised, empire with a real emperor (we can call him the Chief Executive.)

    This is total nonsense.

    The overwhelming majority of French Muslims are second and later generation Muslims whose ancestors started arriving in France in the 1950s, well before Middle Eastern terrorism was a concern.

    We also do not need reinforcements from France’s depleted, underfunded military to fight wars in the Middle East.

    And what forces does France have over there anyway? Aside from a fondness for Lebanon, sales of Leclerc tanks to Saudi Arabia, and some small bombing runs against ISIS?

  30. You read Kissinger’s arguments here:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HhfceQZ3pmoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Diplomacy&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Diplomacy&f=false

    See in particular pages 48-50 and page 240 and 377.

    He claims at one point that the Europeans were “desperate” and had to accept what Wilson wanted.

    Wilson fueled the forcing out of the Monarch:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wDgpjGqUGS0C&pg=PT932&lpg=PT932&dq=wilson+removal+of+the+German+monarchy&source=bl&ots=8koGdQssPG&sig=ydfkNNZoSQdUlCAGMl9yFO442yc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-857kjM7WAhVFZlAKHbbzB2YQ6AEITjAG#v=onepage&q=wilson%20removal%20of%20the%20German%20monarchy&f=false

    Churchill:

    “Reflecting in 1945 on what had led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill wrote: “This war would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany.””

    Hoppe:

    “World War I began as an old-fashioned territorial dispute. However, with the early involvement and the ultimate official entry into the war by the United States in April 1917, the war took on a new ideological dimension. The United States had been founded as a republic, and the democratic principle, inherent in the idea of a republic, had only recently been carried to victory as the result of the violent defeat and devastation of the secessionist Confederacy by the centralist Union government. At the time of World War I, this triumphant ideology of an expansionist democratic republicanism had found its very personification in then U.S. President Wilson. Under Wilson’s administration, the European war became an ideological mission – to make the world safe for democracy and free of dynastic rulers. When in March 1917 the U.S.-allied Czar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate and a new democratic-republican government was established in Russia under Kerenski, Wilson was elated. With the Czar gone, the war had finally become a purely ideological conflict: of good against evil. Wilson and his closest foreign policy advisors, George D. Herron and Colonel House, disliked the Germany of the Kaiser, the aristocracy, and the military elite. But they hated Austria. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has characterized the views of Wilson and the American left, “Austria was far more wicked than Germany.”

    https://mises.org/library/introduction-democracy-god-failed

  31. On Empire.

    Can la Wik help us here?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

    “An empire is defined as “an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government, usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire or Roman Empire”.”

    So, from this definition an empire does not require a “sovereign” but it could also be a “government”.

    Later on we have:

    “Characterizing some aspects of American foreign policy and international behavior as “American Empire” is controversial but not uncommon. This characterization is controversial because of the strong tendency in American society to reject claims of American imperialism. The initial motivations for the inception of the United States eventually led to the development of this tendency, which has been perpetuated by the country-wide obsession with this national narrative. The United States was formed because colonists did not like being under control of the British Empire. Essentially, the United States was formed in an attempt to reject imperialism. This makes it very hard for people to acknowledge America’s status as an empire. This active rejection of imperialist status is not limited to high-ranking government officials, as it has been engrained in American society throughout its entire history. As David Ludden explains, “journalists, scholars, teachers, students, analysts, and politicians prefer to depict the U.S. as a nation pursuing its own interests and ideals.”[39] This often results in imperialist endeavors being presented as measures taken to enhance national security. Ludden explains this phenomenon with the concept of “ideological blinders”, which he says prevent American citizens from realizing the true nature of America’s current systems and strategies. These “ideological blinders” that people wear have resulted in an “invisible” American empire of which most American citizens are unaware.[39]”

    This is evasive, hypocritical and Orwellian.

    So America is not an empire because there is a “strong tendency in American society to reject claims of American imperalism” or because of its “national narrative” (Mosca’s “political formula”).

    What about the claim that “journalists, scholars, teachers, students, analysts, and politicians prefer to depict the U.S as a nation pursuing its own interests and ideals”? Does this mean that USG is no empire because the Cathedral thinks so?

    This is not a good counter-argument.

    What would “rule over” mean?

    We have already outlined that it would involve three things:

    1: Ruling over its military or armed forces (NATO).
    2: Ruling over its economic and revenues systems (dollar, but also trade deals and regulations and other things like a Global War on drugs.)
    3: Law, morality and ideology. (The Cathedral.)

  32. America even has something close to the Roman “Proconsuls”

    From La Wik:

    “The existence of “proconsuls,” however, has been recognized by many since the early Cold War. In 1957, French Historian, Amaury de Riencourt, associated the American “proconsul” with “the Roman of our time.”[55] Expert on recent American history, Arthur M. Schlesinger detected several contemporary imperial features, including “proconsuls”: Washington does not directly run many parts of the world. Rather, its “informal empire” was one “richly equipped with imperial paraphernalia: troops, ships, planes, bases, proconsuls, local collaborators, all spread wide around the luckless planet.”[56] “The Supreme Allied Commander, always an American, was an appropriate title for the American proconsul whose reputation and influence outweighed those of European premiers, presidents, and chancellors.”[57] US “combatant commanders … have served as its proconsuls. Their standing in their regions has usually dwarfed that of ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state.”[58] Harvard Historian Niall Ferguson calls the regional combatant commanders, among whom the whole globe is divided, the ‘pro-consuls’ of this ‘imperium.'[59] Günter Bischof calls them “the all powerful proconsuls of the new American empire. Like the proconsuls of Rome they were supposed to bring order and law to the unruly and anarchical world…“[60] In September 2000, Washington Post reporter Dana Priest published a series of articles whose central premise was Combatant Commanders’ inordinate amount of political influence within the countries in their areas of responsibility. They “had evolved into the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Empire’s proconsuls—well-funded, semi-autonomous, unconventional centers of US foreign policy.”[61] The Romans often preferred to exercise power through friendly client regimes, rather than direct rule: “until Jay Garner and L. Paul Bremer became US proconsuls in Baghdad, that was the American method too.”[62]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

    Niall Ferguson’s “proconsuls”

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SUPqNg0TQEwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=proconsul%20&f=false

    Combatant Command:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_combatant_command

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42077.pdf

  33. Finally, we have:

    “The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ […] ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do’.[2]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

    So why not just formalize the empire then?

  34. “First, you’ve sort of been implying America planned to crush German power since Wilson.

    But Wilson offered generous terms to Imperial Germany that, if they had been agreed to by Britain and France, would have almost certainly prevented Hitler from gaining power in the first place. Without Hitler there would have never been a Second World War, or at least not one that forced Britain and France to ally again to counter Germany.

    To the extent any nations except Germany were responsible for Germany’s destruction in the Second World War wasn’t this actually the fault of Britain and France for rejecting Wilson’s peace terms for far harsher measures?”

    Yes, it is highly likely that the progressives (early Tranzis) wanted not only to do this but to carry out a global revolution and remake the world. The prog vision is “messianic”.

    It was not just a matter of generous terms, France was concerned about its own security because it understood it could not defeat Germany in a new war; thus, as Kissinger argues, because it could not have a balance of power system that would have contained Germany, it had to go for a policy that weakened it.

    The whole thing was a major cluster-fuck and Wilson was the architect.

  35. “Second, given the fact Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor and soon after Germany declared war on the United States, why do you feel our post-war occupation of them was illegitimate?”

    We are not saying it was illegitimate – that is neither here nor there, and in fact it was a necessary policy – we are just arguing that it is imperalism.

    “Would you prefer if we had surrendered to the Axis after Pearl Harbor?”

    Of course not; however, Japan hit America because of America’s oil embargo.

    “Japan is USG’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”

    But how do derive imperial coercion from this?”

    Japan was conquered:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender

    (Look at the flag on the deck – same one that Commodore Perry had!)

    “On September 2, 1945, Japan formally surrendered with the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. On September 6, US President Truman approved a document titled “US Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan”.[8] The document set two main objectives for the occupation: (1) eliminating Japan’s war potential and (2) turning Japan into a democratic-style nation with pro-United Nations orientation. Allied (primarily American) forces were set up to supervise the country, and “for eighty months following its surrender in 1945, Japan was at the mercy of an army of occupation, its people subject to foreign military control.”[9] At the head of the Occupation administration was General MacArthur, who was technically supposed to defer to an advisory council set up by the Allied powers, but in practice did not and did everything himself. As a result, this period was one of significant American influence, described near the end of the occupation in 1951 that “for six years the United States has had a free hand to experiment with Japan than any other country in Asia, or indeed in the entire world.”[10] Looking back to his work in Japan, MacArthur described the Japanese reactions as acting similar to “a boy of twelve” and were at odds of putting away their troubled past.[11]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan

    A “free hand to experiment”……

    “We maintained forces in Japan and Germany primarily to block Communist expansion. Since the disappearance of the Soviet threat our deployment in Germany is greatly reduced from what it was when we had multiple tank divisions facing off against Soviet armor in East Germany.”

    Yes, but it was also for economic reasons as well. As for Germany, why after the Cold War does NATO even need to exist? Why are the troops still in Germany? Why is USG (Victoria Nuland) fucking with Ukraine? Why incorporate the Baltic states?

    “We have a more robust presence in Japan officially to protect them from North Korea; unofficially because of China.”

    True.

    “If the Japanese and Germans are both happy with the arrangement (Donald Rumsfeld offered to further reduce our presence in Germany even further but his offer was turned down by then Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber because Bavaria profits from our bases) then mutual benefit, not informal empire, is all that is needed to explain the continued relationship.”

    Again, for us neo-reactionaries there the Form and Reality distinction. How sure can we be that Herr Stoiber is telling the truth?

  36. “Wanting something to happen is not the same as making it happen.”

    True, but there is the “formal” way of doing empire and there is also the “soldier’s way” of doing empire and the “priestly” way of doing empire. Tranzism is a “priestly” empire and that is why it will not be “command and control” and formalized.

    It all has to look like it is about sweetness and light.

  37. “First, there was hope of peace with the USSR only for a very brief time after WWII.”

    Yes, hope by the one world government progressives.

    “By the late 1940s up the 1970s Progressives like Truman, JFK, and LBJ energetically pushed back against Soviet expansion.

    They clearly did see them and China as a threat.”

    That’s true, but there was still massive Cathedral (universities, media and State) momentum to pursue insane policies towards them.

    “We were powerful enough that once we saw that Russia and China apparently did not get the message they were American vassal states (China, a permanent UN member with unilateral veto power, actually attacked UN forces during the Korean War) we could have left the UN and formed a separate international forum system that would have been more agreeable with “informal empire”.”

    Not vassal, but one world government. The Tranzis do not want and do not think of themselves and wish not to be seen as imperialists, they think of themselves as building a “community of nations” or whatever, but this is the heart of their “informal empire”.

    “That we didn’t exclude Russia and China from major international forums and still do not despite them being independent and sovereign is proof those forums are not venues where we exercise “informal empire”.”

    Disagree. The Tranzis do not see anything wrong in principle with the UN and are still acting on the assumption that Russia and China will come back into the fold like little lost sheep one day. The EU fools always talk about the “Euro project” and “more Europe” it is the same as ” Communism is still to be perfected” and the answere to problem with communism is “more communism”.

    “If these international bodies were part of an informal empire the Russians and Chinese would have either left them long ago or have been converted into vassal states by now.”

    They do not because it is not in their interest.

    “That Russia and China both choose to sit on them proves those organizations are not part of informal imperialism.”

    They sit on them because they can veto USG which puts USG in a bind because if it, as Michael Leeden says, throws some “shitty little country against the wall” then it looks bad.

  38. He claims at one point that the Europeans were “desperate” and had to accept what Wilson wanted.

    Kissinger wrote the Europeans were desperate during the war.

    After the armistice he writes they were in a better position to negotiate with Wilson.

    He also describes the League as a compromise between America, Britain, and France, not something we imposed on Europe.

    The main objection by the French to the League was that it wasn’t strong enough. The French were looking to a military alliance with America and Britain. When neither America nor Britain were willing to make that kind of promise, Wilson offered the League to the French as a way to guarantee their security.

    The French objected to the League on grounds that it wasn’t militarily powerful enough, not that it would infringe on their sovereignty. Wilson refused to create a League of Nations’ army because he knew that would be rejected by Congress. The defensive provisions were watered down.

    So the French accepted the League reluctantly as better than nothing, but not because it was forcefully imposed on them by Wilson. If the French had their way the League would have been even more supranational than it was.

    Wilson fueled the forcing out of the Monarch:

    The Kaiser didn’t have to stay (and may not have been able to given how unpopular the Monarchy became because of the war’s failure) to prevent WWII.

    If the peace terms were not so harsh against Germany because of French demands, Hitler would never have come to power and the war would never have happened.

    WWII was at least as much France’s fault as America.

    It was not just a matter of generous terms, France was concerned about its own security because it understood it could not defeat Germany in a new war; thus, as Kissinger argues, because it could not have a balance of power system that would have contained Germany, it had to go for a policy that weakened it.

    French reasoning is not relevant.

    The point is that France shouldn’t have been able to get harsh terms imposed on Germany in the first place over Wilson’s objections if America was acting as an informal empire.

    That the terms were harsh shows we were not acting as an informal empire.

  39. This is evasive, hypocritical and Orwellian.

    I know that.

    That’s why I didn’t base my argument on it.

    What would “rule over” mean?

    We have already outlined that it would involve three things:

    1: Ruling over its military or armed forces (NATO).
    2: Ruling over its economic and revenues systems (dollar, but also trade deals and regulations and other things like a Global War on drugs.)
    3: Law, morality and ideology. (The Cathedral.)

    This is not a remotely good enough definition:

    1: Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland are not NATO members. Under your definition all three countries are therefore not part of America’s “informal empire”.

    Question: Do you agree Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland are NOT subjects of “Informal American Empire”?

    If you believe Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland ARE subjects of American empire WHY does YOUR definition exclude them?

    2: Economic and revenue ties are not part of informal American empire because clearly independent states like China are economically linked to them.

    3: International Law includes independent states like Russia and China.

    So why not just formalize the empire then?

    Because there’s no definition for it that is consistent.

    As for comments by US officials that America is an empire, that’s just boasting because they know what else to call.

    There’s never been a serious definition for what type of world power America is and why this type of power is not empire of any kind aside from my Regionalism article.

    We are not saying it was illegitimate – that is neither here nor there, and in fact it was a necessary policy – we are just arguing that it is imperalism.

    You haven’t made the argument yet because you haven’t excluded other non-imperial explanations for the actions of Germany, Japan, and other nations where we maintain soldiers.

    Their tolerance for us could also be because it is mutually beneficial to them (in which case it is not empire of any kind because there is no overriding of their sovereignty on part).

    They could ask us to leave, but don’t. Saudi Arabia asked us to move our bases off their territory and we complied with their request.

    Also, if Germany and Japan want us on their territory then what right do neoreactionaries have to say we should not maintain troops there against the will of Germany and Japan?

    As for Germany, why after the Cold War does NATO even need to exist? Why are the troops still in Germany? Why is USG (Victoria Nuland) fucking with Ukraine? Why incorporate the Baltic states?

    NATO is non-imperial and voluntary – anyone in it is there because they want to be there. Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland don’t want to be in NATO, so they aren’t because we respect our allies sovereignty.

    Because the Germans haven’t request our troops to leave – why should we withdraw soldiers from Germany if the Germans want them there? The Baltic states are in NATO because they wanted to join.

    Do neoreactionaries want the Baltic states to exercise their sovereignty or not?

    Again, for us neo-reactionaries there the Form and Reality distinction. How sure can we be that Herr Stoiber is telling the truth?

    If the neoreactionaries have some special insight that the rest of the political spectrum lacks they should be able to tell us what Stoiber’s great secret was.

    Who knows what politics is going on here behind the scenes.

    If the neoreactionaries have some special insight that the rest of the political spectrum lacks they should be able to tell us what is really going on behind the scenes.

    If the neoreactionaries have no particularly unique insight (which has been my conclusion for years) into world affairs other than having a different suite of pet issues & dogmas than mainstream political opinion, then they don’t deserve to be taken any more seriously than anyone else.

  40. Not vassal, but one world government. The Tranzis do not want and do not think of themselves and wish not to be seen as imperialists, they think of themselves as building a “community of nations” or whatever, but this is the heart of their “informal empire”.

    They can’t operate an “informal empire” so long as independent Russia and China are part of their international bodies – whether the Progressives realize it or not.

    The Tranzis do not see anything wrong in principle with the UN and are still acting on the assumption that Russia and China will come back into the fold like little lost sheep one day. The EU fools always talk about the “Euro project” and “more Europe” it is the same as ” Communism is still to be perfected” and the answere to problem with communism is “more communism”.

    They don’t really think this or else they would ask Russia to join.

    That Russia chooses to remain on the UN (and IMF, WTO, a many other international bodies) but not join the EU shows they don’t view the UN as an imperialistic threat to Russian sovereignty.

    They do not because it is not in their interest.

    It is not in Russia and China’s interest to preserve their sovereignty against American imperialism?

    They sit on them because they can veto USG which puts USG in a bind because if it,

    If the UN is an informal empire they wouldn’t be allowed to veto in the first place.

  41. The presence of Russia and China on our “informal imperial” forums is an unresolvable problem for your position, as I predicted it would be due to the all or nothing nature of imperialism.

    If the UN, WTO, etc, were really informal levers of imperial power either Russia and China would have walked from them long ago, America would have somehow pushed them out of those bodies by now, or we would have left to form new bodies limited only to obedient states.

    You can either keep spinning in circles explaining how their presence is compatible with informal empire despite their presence clearly being incompatible with your explanation, or you can try defining informal empire without including international bodies as part of it.

    If you take a new tack and choose the latter option you water down the meaning of empire (even informal empire) to the point where it becomes clear why informal empire doesn’t exist – informal empire gives too much freedom and independence to constituent members to keep informal empire cohesive enough to still qualify as empire. That’s why the direct method was traditionally preferred; no indirect control mechanism guaranteed cooperation like direct imperial measures.

  42. Ferguson defines an empire in the following terms: “An empire consists of the imposition of power on foreign peoples over a relatively protracted time frame.”

    Start at 5:15 mark. This is an adequate definition. It cover some of the key “cases” like Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan. He does not define power, but our definition of power is formally “command and or control” and informally making other people do what you want. As such America fits this definition perfectly.

    The issue of the UN security council concerns you greatly, so let’s address it.

    You write:

    “If the UN, WTO, etc, were really informal levers of imperial power either Russia and China would have walked from them long ago, America would have somehow pushed them out of those bodies by now, or we would have left to form new bodies limited only to obedient states.”

    Disagree. The reason is that both parties are obviously gaining something from staying in the UN. Furthermore, the reason why the “Blue gov” stay in and want Russia and China to stay in is probably for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, because they expect/hope that they Russian and China will go “blue”. Thus, keeping them in keeps that hope alive. After all, you keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

    It benefits RU and CH because, at least in the past, USG was too powerful to ignore and also, and this is crucial, they can veto USG’s resolutions. So, if USG wants to invade a country , they will have to do so without the Security Council giving it support. Now, when this happens, the Cathedral can scream about how the “Red Gov” Republicans are acting “illegally”. Thus, Russia and China (mostly Russia) can inflict a political/propaganda defeat on America.

    Naturally, this assume that USG uses the UN to try to gain legitimacy for its actions if it can and of course it tries to do so. Thus, if all these free and independent sovereign states vote in favor of USG, then it looks like USG is acting in a “legal” fashion.

    Again, form matters. Caesar or Augustus never said they were kings, but they were. They had to maintain the form – for political reasons.

    It is similar to how every single President (Trump excluded) has said that USG is not at war with Islam or that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” This is nonsense right? However, it is clear that the reason they do not want to do this is because they do not want to piss off their Muslim client states and “allies”.

  43. It is unlikely that our formal arguments will sway you and perhaps we should address why you take this very typical view of America – though some do dissent from it.

    Firstly, do you think it would be in USG’s self-interest to call itself an empire?

    Would it be in USG’s self-interest to act more like the British empire?

    Do you think it is possible that an empire that pretends to not be an empire might work to its own advantage?
    (Like the way Christians repackaged “creationism” as “intelligent design” in order to get around the constitution.)

    Do you not think that the nature of politics requires political players to act in a Machiavellian way?

    The arguments of Moldbug and Ferguson make clear that this issue is not one of just semantics. The actions of USG have proven counter-productive even to its own self-interests.

    Do you think USG and America would benefit if it was more like and acted more like the British empire of old?

    Thank you for this long exchange.

  44. It is unlikely that our formal arguments will sway you and perhaps we should address why you take this very typical view of America – though some do dissent from it.

    Let’s try to define the two sides of this debate by their objectives:

    1) It is a historical fact that there have been mutually beneficial, voluntary, alliances between sovereign states in support of common interests that left individual allies free, or largely free enough, to act selfishly against the broader wishes of the alliance if they felt it necessary (e.g. Metternich’s Concert of Europe built around support for the Monarchical principle).

    2) It is a historical fact that there have been imperial systems that imposed the will of one state onto other subject states.

    My objective is to prove American power is an example of the first kind built around defense of Capitalism.

    Yours is to prove that America is an informal empire.

    To persuade to me that I am wrong you need to come up with:

    A) A definition of informal empire that explains how all of our allies qualify as informal imperial subjects.

    Then,

    B) Exclude the possibility that the functioning of America’s alliance system is not an example of a voluntary alliance system.

    My definition of Regionalism explains our alliance comprehensively.

    The problem for you is that you do not have definition of informal empire that comprehensively explains our alliances, only a definition that applies to some nations but not others.

    Until you come up with a comprehensive standard for what constitutes informal empire and how it has greater explanatory power than my definition of Regionalism I (and others who may be viewing the debate neutrally) will not be persuaded by your position.

  45. Let’s take Ferguson’s definition and show why it is not a comprehensive standard that explains America’s world power.

    “An empire consists of the imposition of power on foreign peoples over a relatively protracted time frame.”

    This is an adequate definition. It cover some of the key “cases” like Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    This definition is not adequate for your case because it excludes from our list of “subjects” nations where we have no troops stationed such as non-NATO members Switzerland, Sweden and Finland.

    There are also nuclear armed states where we have no troops that we cannot impose our will on because their of their nuclear arsenals – France, Israel and India. Allowing these countries to develop nuclear weapons in the first place goes against Imperial principles because it gives them leverage to defy us at some point if they wish.

    Then we come to the supposed informal control mechanisms,

    He does not define power, but our definition of power is formally “command and or control” and informally making other people do what you want.

    Your definition contradicts this statement of yours:

    It benefits RU and CH because, at least in the past, USG was too powerful to ignore and also, and this is crucial, they can veto USG’s resolutions. So, if USG wants to invade a country , they will have to do so without the Security Council giving it support. Now, when this happens, the Cathedral can scream about how the “Red Gov” Republicans are acting “illegally”. Thus, Russia and China (mostly Russia) can inflict a political/propaganda defeat on America.

    Naturally, this assume that USG uses the UN to try to gain legitimacy for its actions if it can and of course it tries to do so. Thus, if all these free and independent sovereign states vote in favor of USG, then it looks like USG is acting in a “legal” fashion.

    Thwarting America at the UN is incompatible with your definition of “informal empire” of “making other people do what you want” because both Russia and China have used it to thwart transnational objectives.

    For example Russia can’t be punished at the UN for invading Ukraine as USG would have liked to.

    We were also unable to sanction Russia and China through the UN during the Cold War when both Democrats and Republicans largely agreed on pushing back Communist expansion.

    Democrat Presidents would have sanctioned rogue states like North Korea and Iran more harshly at the UN if Russia and China weren’t on it.

    Aside from security issues, more human rights and environmental resolutions favored by Progressives could get through the UN much more easily without Russia and China either vetoing such resolutions or using a veto threat to water down transnational resolutions down to impotent memos.

    Allowing Russia and China to sit on the UN too often hinders Progressive objectives to be consistent with “imposing our will on others”, not even if imposed only informally.

    The problem, again, is you don’t have a comprehensive definition of informal empire that satisfactorily covers situations that contradict it such as the UN’s setup.

  46. why you take this very typical view of America – though some do dissent from it.

    My view is not typical at all – my definition of Regionalism as a great power system of foreign policy is novel and used by no other American.

    I would be persuaded to drop my argument if you could exclude the possibility our alliances are voluntary and define informal empire without the definition contradicting important facts (see above).

    Firstly, do you think it would be in USG’s self-interest to call itself an empire?

    No, most importantly because it is a voluntary alliance system, second because no one has a proper, non-contradictory definition for informal empire.

    Would it be in USG’s self-interest to act more like the British empire?

    No because it violates Regionalism’s principle of concentration of force.

    To be like the British we would have to stretch our own resources thin occupying foreign nations.

    It is better, where possible, to keep threatened allies armed enough to defend themselves entirely and concentrate our deployments on more vulnerable allies.

    Occupation is also unnecessary because current allies will generally side with us because we guarantee their economic security.

    Do you think it is possible that an empire that pretends to not be an empire might work to its own advantage?

    It’s a mix of tradeoffs.

    On one hand it forfeits the certainty of direct measures of control to keep up appearances (leaving the “Imperial” system vulnerable to defiance).

    On the other it may be good for propaganda, but the “subjects” may not believe it.

    Do you not think that the nature of politics requires political players to act in a Machiavellian way?

    Up to a point. Too much coercion leads to counter-alliances to prevent hegemony of one power becoming so great it infringes on the sovereignty of lesser powers (e.g. John Mearsheimer’s counter-balancing theories from the 1990s).

    The arguments of Moldbug and Ferguson make clear that this issue is not one of just semantics. The actions of USG have proven counter-productive even to its own self-interests.

    That American power has been misused does not mean it is an empire.

    If I am 100% correct America is history’s first non-imperial, Regionalist world power, I acknowledge it has, like all power systems, been misused.

    What I’m describing is how Regionalist power systems work – not whether mistakes were made wielding that power (such as decolonization).

    Do you think USG and America would benefit if it was more like and acted more like the British empire of old?

    No.

    The need for securing Capitalism ensures we can maintain long-term, stable, alliances that do not require Imperial deployment of assets to force nations into our alliance system.

  47. My objective is to prove American power is an example of the first kind built around defense of Capitalism.”

    Agreed. However, there is a large ambiguity, perhaps incoherence, in your work. Firstly, is your Regionalism supposed to be taken as normative or as descriptive? If normative, then no problem. However, if you are claiming that it is as an actual descriptive account of American foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson and after 1945, then this is grossly misinformed and incomplete because it does not take into account the role of Progressivism.

    In the main, we are largely in agreement with your foreign policy approach – it is excellent. However, it is your descriptive account and conceptual approach to American power that we question.

    The descriptive is that USG has acted NOT in a Capitalist way but in a Progressive manner. It is the “priests” who run the show (Harvard) and not the “merchants” or the “soldiers.”
    The conceptual is our disagreement over “empire.” The empirical is over who the Elites are and what their ends are.

    (We set out our position here:
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-3c-the-age-of-crisis-crime-chaos-conflict-and-the-centralising-power/
    And here:
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/tranzi-supremacist-social-darwinist-sorcerers/
    See also this:
    https://darkreformation101.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/the-dark-reformation-part-2-the-problem-with-democracy/)

    “Yours is to prove that America is an informal empire.

    To persuade to me that I am wrong you need to come up with:

    A) A definition of informal empire that explains how all of our allies qualify as informal imperial subjects.”

    Here is a short outline of our analysis.

    USG suffers from Imperium in Imperio (state within a state).

    (See:
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/a-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-3a-the-age-of-crisis-the-science-of-the-state-and-the-rules-for-rulers/)

    The division extends throughout the state and the country into now nearly everything. We can look at things from many perspectives: ideology, institutions, structure, ends and castes.

    Our claim is that the ruling caste in America is the “priest” from Harvard. The key institutions are the Ivy League universities, the media outlets such as the New York Times, the State Department and the Judiciary. The second most powerful caste group is the “merchant”. However, the most powerful merchant group is what David Priestland calls the “soft merchant”. Essentially, and especially after the end of the cold war, this merchant sub-caste is the stock-jobber on Wall Street – financial capitalism. The third caste in the third position is the “soldier” and their key institution is the Department of Defence and West Point.

    (See this for caste analysis:
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/30/a-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-4c3-american-fascism-a-feast-of-fascism/

    The following concerns FDR and the triumph of the “Tranzi”
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/a-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-4c4-american-fascism-the-triumph-of-the-trazi-and-the-march-of-the-minotaur/ )

    Now, the structure, strategy and policy of USG suffers from Imperium in Imperio: chaos, incompetence, delusion, ignorance and self-interest. The primary fault is with the structure which has led to the “priests” dominating the state. The “realists” and even, at times, the neoconservatives have acted as friction or the adults of American foreign policy.

    (See:
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/imperial-circular-30092017-state-collapse-and-reaction/ )

    The soldiers, meanwhile, have dutifully carried out their orders – however insane – from the priests and they have held the whole thing together this long.
    (See:
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/imperial-circular-or-six-homeworks-for-professor-cassidy/ )

    As we claimed earlier, the object of the priests ( Tranzi) is world government (with the UN seen as the model).
    The Tranzi goal is to use USG to create this World Government. Their dream is that the UN would operate more or less like the EU. However, they have to use the resources of America to make it happen. So, in a way, the Tranzi have to ACT like an empire to make this happen. That is, they have to act in an imperialist manner. However, they claim to not be imperialists but anti-imperialists.

    Tranzis are speaking in an Orwellian way, however.

    The neoreactionary concept of Form V Reality is that the actual structure, nature and purpose of political power does Not match the constitution or the “official” “narrative” or “formula” of the regime. So, Progressives will claim that their beliefs about HBD (nurture) are based on pure science and reason while the claims made by those who think HBD (nature) is true are “racists”. This is a Form V Reality or Orwellian mismatch. It is the same when Progressives defend democracy or claim that America is a democracy – again, another Form V Reality mismatch.

    So America is not an empire, yet it behaves in an imperial way and for an imperial purpose. However, it is not, in the final analysis, to create an actual, formal or otherwise, American Empire, but World Government.

    “Then,
    B) Exclude the possibility that the functioning of America’s alliance system is not an example of a voluntary alliance system.

    My definition of Regionalism explains our alliance comprehensively.”

    There are conceptual and empirical problems with your position here. Conceptually, what does it mean for one sovereign state to “voluntarily” enter into an alliance with another state? Secondly, what empirical evidence constitutes that a “voluntary alliance” has been entered into?

    Conceptually speaking, the neoreactionary position is that the Form V Reality distinction is ubiquitous and that one must study politics in a Machiavellian way; that is, one must discount what players SAY and focus on what they DO and WHY.

    So, USG’s “allies” can say that they are “sovereign states” and in a “voluntary alliance” until the cows come home, but this is “Formal speak” that does not prove in any way that this is the Reality. Indeed, the standing presumption is that when a political player asserts A, they really mean –A.

    For example, when Bush, Obama and Clinton say that “Islam is a peaceful religion”, this should be read as “Islam is not a peaceful religion” but we will not say this for political reasons.

    We regard your claims as similar to what a Russian Communist high up in the Kremlin might say about the voluntary nature of the Warsaw Pact. The “Form” is “voluntary” but the reality is quite different.

    We follow your analysis, and not Moldbug’s, when it comes to Communism V Progressivism (Tranzism) and thus one difference when it comes to “informal empire(s)” is that Communism is Top Down, Command and Control, but with Tranzism you have endless, looping bureaucracy and informal networks of power. This is a result of the fact, as you say, the caste backgrounds are different.

    Prog (Tranzi) are upper-middle class “liberal arts” or law students and Communists are “Prole” or lower class “technical” or “scientific” students.

    “The problem for you is that you do not have definition of informal empire that comprehensively explains our alliances, only a definition that applies to some nations but not others.”

    We hope we have explained this by now, and how it explains the “alliances”. It is indeed an “alliance” but the main alliance is an alliance of “globalists” or “Tranzis” but it is also held together because of the self-interest of “merchants” (financial elites).

    “Until you come up with a comprehensive standard for what constitutes informal empire and how it has greater explanatory power than my definition of Regionalism I (and others who may be viewing the debate neutrally) will not be persuaded by your position.”

    We agree with your Regionalism as a normative claim or strategy, but it is not superior to our explanatory theory of the actual ruling Elite and the structure of power in the West.

  48. American foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson and after 1945, then this is grossly misinformed and incomplete because it does not take into account the role of Progressivism.

    I excluded analysis of Progressive foreign policy because it is an entirely different diplomatic system than Regionalist foreign policy.

    I view the Progressive vs Regionalist divide in foreign policy as the result of two incompatible structures co-existing at the same time – Hamiltonian government (Old Structure) vs the New Deal (Modern Structure). I have not written about FDR’s parallel system yet in favor of focusing on Hamilton.

    To achieve its transnational schemes the Progressive system requires the economy and military that Hamilton’s Nationalism brought into existence. On the other hand, the Progressive system is incompatible with Hamiltonian policy because transnationalism would stretch our resources too thin, interfere with Hamilton’s Constitutional design for having diplomacy be handled by the President by transferring power to international bodies, and if given free reign would dissolve the US itself as a political entity.

    Hamiltonian diplomacy, however, does not require Progressivism to work at all and would in fact operate much more effectively without them. Every NGO, university, and other FDR structure could be dissolved and our alliance structure would still exist because what keeps our diplomacy system stable – despite numerous mistakes on our part usually caused by Wilsonian diplomacy – is the need for a military guarantor of international commerce.

  49. Now, the structure, strategy and policy of USG suffers from Imperium in Imperio: chaos, incompetence, delusion, ignorance and self-interest. The primary fault is with the structure which has led to the “priests” dominating the state. The “realists” and even, at times, the neoconservatives have acted as friction or the adults of American foreign policy.

    I agree that our foreign policy problems suffer substantially from Imperium in Imperio with the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian structures simultaneously co-existing over the state apparatus while being inherently antagonistic. And, again, I have not dealt with Wilsonianism and how it operates yet.

    You are, however, underestimating the abilities of Hamiltonian diplomacy to direct policy against Progressive wishes.

    Foreign policy Realism as it was practiced during the Cold War is closest to my vision of American Regionalism but more purely Hamiltonian, i.e., with an even more complete disregard of Progressive strains of thought.

    The Hamiltonian structure, for all of the interference it gets from Progressive structures, is still very powerful because Hamilton invested so much diplomatic authority with the President. If the President is Republican and not in agreement with Progressive foreign policy desires, the Progressive structure have very limited ability to resist the President’s desires on foreign policy. This divide is most apparent with Trump but it has also been observed during every Republican President starting with Eisenhower.

    Merkel would have preferred for the decision whether to pull America out of the Paris climate accords rest with Harvard. But she had to ask Trump to do it because he retains immense diplomatic and military powers thanks to Hamilton’s influence on the Constitution.

  50. So America is not an empire, yet it behaves in an imperial way and for an imperial purpose. However, it is not, in the final analysis, to create an actual, formal or otherwise, American Empire, but World Government.

    This is the Progressive end goal, certainly.

    But I disagree that the Progressive structure is mature enough to qualify as an informal empire.

    Whether Progressives can exercise their diplomatic will depends heavily on who the President is. If the President disagrees with their diplomatic proposals the Left is stuck in limbo.

    International organizations do not yet have enough sovereignty to pursue a purely transnational objective without the support of member states.

    This leaves the Left in power in a sense that they have rudimentary structures of a world government in place but cannot use them to govern an informal empire.

  51. There are conceptual and empirical problems with your position here. Conceptually, what does it mean for one sovereign state to “voluntarily” enter into an alliance with another state? Secondly, what empirical evidence constitutes that a “voluntary alliance” has been entered into?

    Conceptually speaking, the neoreactionary position is that the Form V Reality distinction is ubiquitous and that one must study politics in a Machiavellian way; that is, one must discount what players SAY and focus on what they DO and WHY.

    So, USG’s “allies” can say that they are “sovereign states” and in a “voluntary alliance” until the cows come home, but this is “Formal speak” that does not prove in any way that this is the Reality. Indeed, the standing presumption is that when a political player asserts A, they really mean –A.

    I’ve been asking you to define what qualifies as involuntary and I can’t get a straight answer out of you.

    If you count “involuntary states” as those we militarily occupy – such as was the case with the Warsaw Pact nations – this excludes those nations we don’t occupy. Thus, France, India, and Israel are independent, sovereign nations.

    If NATO membership is what counts then Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland are independent from our informal empire.

    Do you agree these states are all independent?

    If not, why not?

    What features do you list as ones that make other nations subjects of informal empire?

  52. We hope we have explained this by now, and how it explains the “alliances”. It is indeed an “alliance” but the main alliance is an alliance of “globalists” or “Tranzis” but it is also held together because of the self-interest of “merchants” (financial elites).

    This is wrong.

    The alliance system exists because we guarantee the operation of international commerce – for all kinds of business not just financial elites.

    The appeal of transnationalism is not widespread enough to explain why our alliances are so broad – only Western Europeans share a transnational vision with American Progressives.

    Other non-Liberal allies such as Japan, India, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, would not follow us if that were all we had to offer them.

    What they look to us for is military security, not global warming resolutions, and we would be able to provide this security (and hence maintain a Regionalist foreign policy longterm) without the existence of Progressivism at all.

  53. In sum:

    Hamiltonian Nationalism is entirely sufficient to maintain American world dominance under Regionalism without Progressive diplomacy.

    But Progressive diplomacy cannot exist without the hard power provided by Hamiltonian Nationalism.

    So the “informal empire” would not disappear in the absence of the Progressives, if anything America would become more dominant if Hamiltonian policies were allowed to run unencumbered by Progressive deadweight.

  54. We want to give you the last word after your summary. However, there are a few points that we want to make and then perhaps we can call time.

    1: We highly recommend you read, if you have not done so, Kissinger’s White House Years. There, especially in the early chapters, you see how the State Department, in league with the media and others, aim to undermine the Presidency. It is scandalous. It seems plausible to suppose that this is just the same today or even worse (though State has been knocked down a little bit since Trump).

    2: On the subject of voluntary/involuntary. What we would want to draw attention to is the conceptual difficulty of actually making sense of this concept as it applies to modern states and in states in general. The analogy clearly is between a person and a state, but this is potentially misleading. An absolute, monarchical state comes closet to what we might think sovereignty is. However, in a “democracy” this is from clear. When it comes to the Modern Structure and the mini-modern structures elsewhere, it is even more difficult to apply because of how much Progressive penetration has occurred.

    This is a good concept:

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/09/onward-to-a-hol.html

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/09/hollow-states-and-a-crisis-of-capitalism.html

    (Add in the Cathedral though.)

    However, we would argue that USG is as penetrated by outside states and non-states as well. This includes not only corporations, but states like Saudi Arabia and China (investing and buying up treasuries). The progressives are to blame for this.

    Finally, perhaps we split the strategic/propaganda difference and talk about World Government and lay the blame on Progressives for all the mess.

    We would have no problem with a more dominant America and a more formalized “imperial” system. For instance, we think Erik Prince’s idea for Afghanistan is sound.

  55. There, especially in the early chapters, you see how the State Department, in league with the media and others, aim to undermine the Presidency. It is scandalous. It seems plausible to suppose that this is just the same today or even worse (though State has been knocked down a little bit since Trump).

    Every post-WWII Republican President – and senior State Dept loyalists selected by the President like Kissinger, obviously – has had to deal with disobedient nonsense like this from lower level State officials. Trump is just the most dramatic example of the State-GOP President divide.

    However, we would argue that USG is as penetrated by outside states and non-states as well. This includes not only corporations, but states like Saudi Arabia and China (investing and buying up treasuries). The progressives are to blame for this.

    Finally, perhaps we split the strategic/propaganda difference and talk about World Government and lay the blame on Progressives for all the mess.

    I’m not denying the culpability of Progressives for all sorts of gross diplomatic malfeasance.

    What I’m arguing is that I don’t believe the power they’ve been abusing is imperial in nature because I don’t believe empire can exist in any “intermediate” state: Empire is an all or nothing condition.

    Especially in the Modern Structure where various NGOs, bureaucracies and other Progressive outlets are a convoluted mess without a clear hierarchy (hierarchy in terms of its operation and functions, not in terms of class or status).

    So,

    1) America is the first Regionalist power in history.
    2) Regionalism is neither formal empire nor informal empire.
    3) Progressives have grossly misused American the power that comes with the advantages Regionalism provides America in foreign affairs.

    There is no disagreement about #3.

    We would have no problem with a more dominant America and a more formalized “imperial” system.

    Again, I prefer Regionalism because formal Empire spreads resources too thin directly occupying and managing overseas provinces.

    And the provinces wouldn’t want to be managed by us given how chaotic our own domestic politics are.

  56. Well, with that let’s wrap up.

    Thanks for taking the time to correspond and for your work.

    Your regional system is good and the onus is now on us to explain why a “formal imperial system” is better.

    Best.

  57. The exchange was much appreciated on my end – the question of how Hamilton’s structure relates to “American Imperialism” was inevitable and I got more of an challenge from you than I would have gotten from almost any American.

  58. According to chapter 7 of The Great Deception De Gaulle was skeptical of Suprnationalism but did not block it from proceeding apace.

    The reason he kept Britain out of the EEC was to give France time to negotiate as many agricultural subsidy benefits as possible because 25% of France’s GDP was agriculture. De Gaulle feared that without those subsidies France would be vulnerable to a Communist takeover.

    Once the CAP was negotiated on France’s terms De Gaulle had no objection to further expanding the EEC to Britain and other applicants.

  59. The rest of us are going for a new article.. hope all is well!

    PS:
    Interested in your thoughts on Trump being a student of sun tzu and how you read in to his strategy re Mueller, Clintons/Obama et Al, sessions and all the rest of the palace intrigue.

  60. Thanks.

    Actually I’m doing great, I was sidetracked by business.

    Mueller apparently hasn’t come up with anything so there is no need for Trump to deal with him. The Clintons are out of power and so is Obama. Sessions is still hanging in there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.