I've been mulling around this idea for a while now but was never able to display it so succinctly. Various movements like the Free State Project in New Hampshire, white nationalists in PNW as well as ethnic/ religious groups such as the Amish and Mormons will probably be the future power blocks in America (even though the Amish aren't a hard power per say, they have economic/ political clout).
Also the concept of the nation state as we understand it with clear, defined borders is definitely not the historical norm for the vast majority of history. A street gang in Chicago may exercise quite a degree of sovereignty over a neighborhood block that the central state has to expend an inordinate amount of effort in suppressing. I've also noticed something similar when living out in the country in East Texas, where everyone in the country is related to everyone else; and extended kinship circles count for far more than legalise on paper. Law enforcement was exceptionally weak in effectiveness, and most problems had to be solved extra judicially.
I don't think the nation states will suddenly collapse overnight like the Soviet Union did. I think we're far more likely to experience a gradual decline over the next century, akin to how the Roman empire limped on for several centuries after their peak.
Likewise. There remains a sense of regionalism and “people hood” in much of the American South. Including a tradition of defending the land against a brutal, dishonest invader named the US of A.
This may not be a bad thing, either. Something over been turning over in my mind is whether a giant state (empire) can ever be truly accountable to its people. I think that smaller states might be less corruptible because their people are closer to seats of power and the state has fewer resources. Maybe.
Absolutely agree. Centralization tends to lead to unaccountability, bureaucracy, and corruption (see the EU or the US). A series of thought-provoking essays known as The Federalist Papers were published by several prominent political thinkers during the American Revolutionary Period discussing this very issue of centralization vs decentralization.
This is one hell of a thesis, Blue Vir. A rather curious position. I'm surrounded by Russians who expect a NATO invasion, and you are here surrounded by actual Western values which are pacifist and loving of their enemies. One proper counter-argument is that America can use its high-tech nuclear submarines and plentiful aircraft to support a ground-invasion mainly led by Poland and its neighbours - so the meat for the grinder would be offered by the Slavic "auxiliaries". And so a total war would be possible.
Second, the fact that Russia isn't mobilising is typically explained by the conjecture that Putin is a CIA spy sabotaging the war effort, not by the supposed fear of a communist pacifist uprising lmao
Third, how are you explaining the Ukrainian war effort which is abducting people off the street rather successfully, and with no clamour from the population?
Fourth, how did the US state fail in the war on drugs if the drugs are spread by the CIA, and the CIA is the American state?
Fifth, how are the Houthis a non-state actor if they occupy 90% of Yemen?
> "Western navies are forced to fire multi-million dollar intercept missiles to stop them, a clear asymmetry."
They are only "forced" to do this either by their pacifism (inability to genocide and settle Yemen with blond, blue-eyed kids), OR by using the Houthis as a tool to strangle China.
Overall, the thesis is rather bogus. America has total planetary control in all things that matter. The only resistance to it has been cultural - like in the Hindu acid attacks and openings of Barelvi mosques to the murderers of the blasphemers. That America has prohibited itself the use of arms larger than police actions in Iraq (with negligible bloodshed and no genocide) is not a factor against war as such.
See Azerbaijan, the DPRK, the Ukraine and Israel for examples of nation-states conducting successful modern military operations with state powers and national propaganda.
>One proper counter-argument is that America can use its high-tech nuclear submarines and plentiful aircraft to support a ground-invasion mainly led by Poland and its neighbours - so the meat for the grinder would be offered by the Slavic "auxiliaries". And so a total war would be possible.
This isn't a total war, at least for the US. This approach to a major war with Russia correctly identifies that the American population cannot be relied upon for conscription and fighting their own wars, so it substitutes them for Slavs.
I would argue that Slavs are a throw-back people, their nations (other than Russia) are homogeneous and rather small. This allows them to leverage nationalism and conscription (for now).
>Second, the fact that Russia isn't mobilising is typically explained by the conjecture that Putin is a CIA spy sabotaging the war effort, not by the supposed fear of a communist pacifist uprising lmao
I don't know much about Putin being a CIA asset so I can't comment on that. But my point isn't that pacifist uprisings would stop conscription, but that resistance to the government (no matter what form) does. Perhaps where you live in Eastern Europe it's just pacifists who are against conscription (keep in mind that conscription hasn't even been properly enacted yet in Russia, there's no personal cost for being pro-conscription), but in the West there are many groups, basically all young people who would be against conscription. Muslims, ethnic minorities, communists, anarchists, libertarians, right-wing types (there is no state-worshipping right-wing movement in the English speaking world) and people who are apolitical and just don't want to fight.
>Third, how are you explaining the Ukrainian war effort which is abducting people off the street rather successfully, and with no clamour from the population?
Similar to the last answer, but Ukraine is effectively a homogenous country. Even in Australia or America (Australians will do whatever Americans do) various ethnic suburbs outright refuse conscription, the general chaos would make it untenable. Perhaps it's different in Poland. Perhaps that's why globohomo hasn't "brought the world" to Poland. These homogenous countries are "throwback states", like how North Korea is a throwback state to 1960s Stalinism. The point is, at least in the West, essentially every group of young people will be against conscription and actively resisting it. There is no nationalism that recognises the government to draw from.
>Fourth, how did the US state fail in the war on drugs if the drugs are spread by the CIA, and the CIA is the American state?
The American state is massive and increasingly fractured. If the CIA is still trafficking drugs (which they used to, not sure if they still do) then that shows how broken the nation-state system is, and highlights a progression to neomedievalism as there is loyalty among CIA members to CIA, not the broader American state, which is against drugs.
>Fifth, how are the Houthis a non-state actor if they occupy 90% of Yemen?
The Houthis occupy a territory comprising around 70% to 80% of Yemen's population, and it's actually really small if you look at a map of Yemen. The vast majority of Yemen is still occupied by the recognised government. They are beginning to blur the line between state and non-state entity if you go by territorial control. I'll need to better define state.
>They [The West/America] are only "forced" to do this either by their pacifism (inability to genocide and settle Yemen with blond, blue-eyed kids)
I'll take this somewhat as a joke thinking in the limit. The West/America's unwillingness to genocide millions of people is a fundamental feature of our modern system. You can't do it, the vast majority of people in the West would find it absolutely horrible. Even if hypothetically the US could do that, the conditions and mindset of the US means it can't happen. No way around this.
>See Azerbaijan, the DPRK, the Ukraine and Israel for examples of nation-states conducting successful modern military operations with state powers and national propaganda
I don't know enough about Aszerbaijan, but the DPRK, Ukraine and Israel are throw-back state like I mentioned earlier. I could write a small piece or note on them.
" The West/America's unwillingness to genocide millions of people is a fundamental feature of our modern system. You can't do it, the vast majority of people in the West would find it absolutely horrible."
Sadly, you are wrong.
The day the USA stops sending bombs, parts, and equipment to israel is the end of their genocide in Gaza, invasion of Lebanon Syria West-bank. Our Military is active in israel.
We are geocoding Gaza now, or will be once israel restarts. Biden and now Trump could stop israel durring any of the period since they stopped killing their own with 'Hanabal Doctrine' on Oct7th.
Houthis, Hizballah, (and Iran) have put the rest of the world to shame, they directly aiding Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza, while you, me, most Arabs, Western peoples, .. are sucking Zionist-israeli's giant strap-on, belly crawling, castrated, "Yes Master, will you kick my testicles again?"
I so sick of the Zionists control world-wide, and the Thank-God for the Houthis, Hizballah, Hamas, and Iran for their Honor and virtues .. at least some men not slimy vile virtueless F-ing piles of vomit like we all are. Shame.
3 points. I've known from other reading that most of the fighting in the Russia/Ukraine conflict is being done by private paid militias. Our side,their side,anyone else who can pay,it's more complex on the ground than two official State forces. It's very medieval style with bands of "warlords" albeit high tech ones roaming about doing the real strategic fighting. Our media is not encouraged to tell us about this so they continue to make it sound like a World War Two planned battle run according to The Geneva Convention. 2nd point. I've come to the conclusion that the M.A.D threat that kept Western Europe in a sort of poker draw situation for my lifetime was fake all along. If it was real I reckon USA would have used it by now. If course they could be hoping to provoke Putin to lob a nuke first so he'll be THE BAD GUY. He is much smarter than me so he knows it's all my eye and Betty Martin too. 3rd point. I'm an old lady of 70 so I'm not expecting to be sent to the front line with a gun,but in this age of equality you never know. But what are MY COUNTRIES VALUES. What is MY COUNTRY. The UK I live in is a mixture. But a lot of it is not MY personal country and not one I'd want anyone to die to defend. Is the proposition that our grandsons,granddaughters,great nieces and nephews should potentially die to defend creeping suburbanization of the most depressing sort,litter strewn streets,wastelands of cracked concrete and tarmac and an urban townscape peopled by figures out of a Lowry painting,black clad,drab,dirty and down at heel. Is this the Shining Future the 18th Century Enlightenment promised at the end of the road it set us on. No more Rewards and Fairies. No more Roses just commercial tough rye grass.
The biggest thing I have to say is that most of what you're calling "nation states" are not that, but Empires ruling multiple nations. If you're going to be addressing, and writing about, a conversion of a system back to medieval style geopolitical relations, it will likely aid you to look at the situation more in those terms. It also helps address the internal schisms, power plays, and reformations that are seen within each empire.
>The biggest thing I have to say is that most of what you're calling "nation states" are not that, but Empires ruling multiple nations.
I agree with you that the countries that I'm talking about are mostly not nation-states anymore. It was a part of the point I was making though I might have not been clear enough. Essentially the nation-state institutions have somewhat remained while the nation-state condition has disappeared, which is what is causing things such as the "People's War" and other features of nation-states to silently become irrelevant. I would have to explore the "empire" idea, though I know where you're coming from.
Yeah. Empire, and the bloat that comes with the necessary increases across all institutions (from depts of education to DoD) has done a number on all of them. Add in the Schisms between the different nations within most of the Empires, and it's pretty bad. Some of them, such as Russia and China, have already gone through fairly extensive reforms.
But back to your point - yes, the condition has absolutely disappeared on what has made people's war able to be done. I have argued that this is because the fake and gay modern empires have actually done a good job destroying the nations within their own empires so that the people have no actual national identity to hold on to. This causes them to lose any real loyalty that you use to see in the times of the French Revolution and other such events.
This is not a new occurance, and has happened repeatedly in history when other Empires do the same such thing. The Romans had the same occur. The Spanish Empire I believe had the same as well.
Anyways, because of this, you can have tactical victories for money in certain areas, but lose wars. As we've seen numerous times. Because our fake and gay leaders simply are retarded, and don't understand the problems in their hubris.
“…because the fake and gay modern empires have actually done a good job destroying the nations within their own empires…”
Yeah, sure, it wuz th’ fake an’ gay what done it, not (say) the gutting of the working and middle class by political and economic policies that enriched the very few at the expense of everyone else. Nothing builds national loyalty like being systematically exploited!
You seem to be angry and under the impression that I'm not saying exactly the same thing, in different language and thus with different connotations. I'm implying that our rulers are of a different people than us, that they've deliberately destroyed our ability to form community identities that could lead to a nation in the traditional sense (think Scots and Scotland as part of the British Empire/Isles; there should be similar nations within the geography of the United States that arise naturally), but our Elites have a sense of community within their own, marry within their own, and, while there are power plays and other issues - they band together against the plebs.
So, because you have issues against my wording of 'fake and gay,' you still, at your core, seem to see America as purely an Economic Zone. The Lower Classes against the Rich. Marxist drivel. There is some of it, yes; yet it is more complicated, and Marx's solutions are abhorrent.
In regard to the Australian “national anthem” and lack of enthusiasm for “Advance Australia Fair” resulting in typically unenthusiastic and mumbled renditions, of such drivel as “Australians all let us rejoice…” , our son in about his third year of primary school, had cause to ask one day “ why does the national anthem say “Australians we are ostriches”.
Elocution, like singing isn’t a strong point in this country so “us rejoice” , sounded to him like “ostriches”.
Given most Australians live their lives with their heads stuck in the sand, we attributed this mishearing to prescience rather than poor hearing.
One point to add to what I also call the neo-feudalism of Mexico is that it is the same state or at least individuals in control of the state (governors, generals, secretaries )the ones trying to carve out their own area of control and become feudal lords, traditional drug lords are only ‘’ employees’’, its the state eating itself
Solutions to asymmetry? Fight fire with fire: utilize irregular units to conduct ground operations, give letters of marque to capable private individuals and enterprises, employ cost-effective weapons systems in conjunction with 1.) and 2.) and stop relying on expensive technological wizzbangs.
For the Houthi problem, are there really any grave obstacles to a private expeditionary force going in to target anti-ship weapons systems? The Saudis and the UAE already pay former US and European soldiers to carry out gangland hits in the country. Seems like the most cost effective solution ans there is no dearth of young, angry, and reckless men fresh out of the military willing to do the dangerous job.
>Solutions to asymmetry? Fight fire with fire: utilize irregular units to conduct ground operations, give letters of marque to capable private individuals and enterprises, employ cost-effective weapons systems in conjunction with 1.) and 2.) and stop relying on expensive technological wizzbangs.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Non-State actors have shown themselves to be the future of warfare. Ukraine makes extensive use of them (e.g Madyar's drone battalion and Azov), as did Russia with Wagner. Either way, if the United States does not utilise Non-State Actors it will be decomposed by them.
>For the Houthi problem, are there really any grave obstacles to a private expeditionary force going in to target anti-ship weapons systems? The Saudis and the UAE already pay former US and European soldiers to carry out gangland hits in the country. Seems like the most cost effective solution ans there is no dearth of young, angry, and reckless men fresh out of the military willing to do the dangerous job.
I am less confident in this case. I think the Houthis have managed to exploit a new type of warfare which is so ridiculously asymmetric that any relatively organised and skilled Non-State Actor can doom freedom of navigation through choke points at will, no matter what fancy navies want. The only way to stop it is a ground invasion of Yemen - not viable at the moment even if the USA & co. used effective mercenaries .
The major nation states and the rich states no longer use their own citizens for Armies.
They use other Nations or non-nation state actors. Saudi Funded Isis , America the Kurds and Russia funded Asad. Turkey funded their own faction. The US funds Ukraine to get at Russia, Russia and China fund the Yemenites. I would be surprised if the Eastern Powers start funding the Cartels to strike at America.
Blue Vir; you’re generalizing from one nation and even Continent to another. I don’t know the situation in Australia but America has assuredly reversed course on weak or even completely fraudulent senile leadership to vigorous leadership and most importantly a cadre of young men- completely reversing the dynamic. In any case geography alone forces America to be one nation like it or not. We’re an island on 2 sides, tundra to North, Desert to South.
Perhaps given real leadership Australian youth will remember they’re an island too -
Geography doesn’t negotiate.
Above all the admitted decline in nationalism and patriotism is THE CORE POLICY of Globalization- which both economically and politically , literally and physically is very old and dying. In America it’s just been tossed out and is retiring, selling the house around DC - a DC that happens to have record Google searches for Criminal Defense lawyers 😂.
Yes patriotism and the nation state in the West have become very weakened in many groups- of course ! The deliberate and public policy of all Western governments since 1945 is Nationalism = NAZIS, patriots are fascists and every other naughty word that can be screeched.
Well there was always strong resistance to that among the commons and they have a Champion as President.
… and we NEVER stopped singing the National Anthem.
(That’s your problem, not ours).
As for the economic part of globalization that too is all but dead, people decided they didn’t want to live among constant border invasions, crime, we wanted our own economy back - and above all all parties and factions not in government or connected wanted our sclerotic government out. And out they are, none of them can face an Audit, never mind a team of geniuses guided by experienced government staffers who remember their Oath, and told DOGE where to search and what to look out for…
America was officially globalist, in practice bureaucratic and Judicial Feudalism and the ensuing chaos, and has had reset on America- call it nationalism.
This essay isn’t wrong, it’s just that things changed the last few weeks. In America decades are happening the last month, decades of corruption and lies revealed are unraveling the 1945 system. You aren’t watching anything but America’s 1989 moment.
We still have America.
I hope Australia finds her way home. … you will discover you have to live somewhere.
I've been mulling around this idea for a while now but was never able to display it so succinctly. Various movements like the Free State Project in New Hampshire, white nationalists in PNW as well as ethnic/ religious groups such as the Amish and Mormons will probably be the future power blocks in America (even though the Amish aren't a hard power per say, they have economic/ political clout).
Also the concept of the nation state as we understand it with clear, defined borders is definitely not the historical norm for the vast majority of history. A street gang in Chicago may exercise quite a degree of sovereignty over a neighborhood block that the central state has to expend an inordinate amount of effort in suppressing. I've also noticed something similar when living out in the country in East Texas, where everyone in the country is related to everyone else; and extended kinship circles count for far more than legalise on paper. Law enforcement was exceptionally weak in effectiveness, and most problems had to be solved extra judicially.
I don't think the nation states will suddenly collapse overnight like the Soviet Union did. I think we're far more likely to experience a gradual decline over the next century, akin to how the Roman empire limped on for several centuries after their peak.
I personally think America will be sacked by the cartels and disgruntled castizos from today texas and california
I see small ethno-states appearing from the wreckage of failed multi-ethnic ones. Smaller, but solid states of people working together.
Likewise. There remains a sense of regionalism and “people hood” in much of the American South. Including a tradition of defending the land against a brutal, dishonest invader named the US of A.
This may not be a bad thing, either. Something over been turning over in my mind is whether a giant state (empire) can ever be truly accountable to its people. I think that smaller states might be less corruptible because their people are closer to seats of power and the state has fewer resources. Maybe.
Absolutely agree. Centralization tends to lead to unaccountability, bureaucracy, and corruption (see the EU or the US). A series of thought-provoking essays known as The Federalist Papers were published by several prominent political thinkers during the American Revolutionary Period discussing this very issue of centralization vs decentralization.
This is one hell of a thesis, Blue Vir. A rather curious position. I'm surrounded by Russians who expect a NATO invasion, and you are here surrounded by actual Western values which are pacifist and loving of their enemies. One proper counter-argument is that America can use its high-tech nuclear submarines and plentiful aircraft to support a ground-invasion mainly led by Poland and its neighbours - so the meat for the grinder would be offered by the Slavic "auxiliaries". And so a total war would be possible.
Second, the fact that Russia isn't mobilising is typically explained by the conjecture that Putin is a CIA spy sabotaging the war effort, not by the supposed fear of a communist pacifist uprising lmao
Third, how are you explaining the Ukrainian war effort which is abducting people off the street rather successfully, and with no clamour from the population?
Fourth, how did the US state fail in the war on drugs if the drugs are spread by the CIA, and the CIA is the American state?
Fifth, how are the Houthis a non-state actor if they occupy 90% of Yemen?
> "Western navies are forced to fire multi-million dollar intercept missiles to stop them, a clear asymmetry."
They are only "forced" to do this either by their pacifism (inability to genocide and settle Yemen with blond, blue-eyed kids), OR by using the Houthis as a tool to strangle China.
Overall, the thesis is rather bogus. America has total planetary control in all things that matter. The only resistance to it has been cultural - like in the Hindu acid attacks and openings of Barelvi mosques to the murderers of the blasphemers. That America has prohibited itself the use of arms larger than police actions in Iraq (with negligible bloodshed and no genocide) is not a factor against war as such.
See Azerbaijan, the DPRK, the Ukraine and Israel for examples of nation-states conducting successful modern military operations with state powers and national propaganda.
>One proper counter-argument is that America can use its high-tech nuclear submarines and plentiful aircraft to support a ground-invasion mainly led by Poland and its neighbours - so the meat for the grinder would be offered by the Slavic "auxiliaries". And so a total war would be possible.
This isn't a total war, at least for the US. This approach to a major war with Russia correctly identifies that the American population cannot be relied upon for conscription and fighting their own wars, so it substitutes them for Slavs.
I would argue that Slavs are a throw-back people, their nations (other than Russia) are homogeneous and rather small. This allows them to leverage nationalism and conscription (for now).
>Second, the fact that Russia isn't mobilising is typically explained by the conjecture that Putin is a CIA spy sabotaging the war effort, not by the supposed fear of a communist pacifist uprising lmao
I don't know much about Putin being a CIA asset so I can't comment on that. But my point isn't that pacifist uprisings would stop conscription, but that resistance to the government (no matter what form) does. Perhaps where you live in Eastern Europe it's just pacifists who are against conscription (keep in mind that conscription hasn't even been properly enacted yet in Russia, there's no personal cost for being pro-conscription), but in the West there are many groups, basically all young people who would be against conscription. Muslims, ethnic minorities, communists, anarchists, libertarians, right-wing types (there is no state-worshipping right-wing movement in the English speaking world) and people who are apolitical and just don't want to fight.
>Third, how are you explaining the Ukrainian war effort which is abducting people off the street rather successfully, and with no clamour from the population?
Similar to the last answer, but Ukraine is effectively a homogenous country. Even in Australia or America (Australians will do whatever Americans do) various ethnic suburbs outright refuse conscription, the general chaos would make it untenable. Perhaps it's different in Poland. Perhaps that's why globohomo hasn't "brought the world" to Poland. These homogenous countries are "throwback states", like how North Korea is a throwback state to 1960s Stalinism. The point is, at least in the West, essentially every group of young people will be against conscription and actively resisting it. There is no nationalism that recognises the government to draw from.
>Fourth, how did the US state fail in the war on drugs if the drugs are spread by the CIA, and the CIA is the American state?
The American state is massive and increasingly fractured. If the CIA is still trafficking drugs (which they used to, not sure if they still do) then that shows how broken the nation-state system is, and highlights a progression to neomedievalism as there is loyalty among CIA members to CIA, not the broader American state, which is against drugs.
>Fifth, how are the Houthis a non-state actor if they occupy 90% of Yemen?
The Houthis occupy a territory comprising around 70% to 80% of Yemen's population, and it's actually really small if you look at a map of Yemen. The vast majority of Yemen is still occupied by the recognised government. They are beginning to blur the line between state and non-state entity if you go by territorial control. I'll need to better define state.
>They [The West/America] are only "forced" to do this either by their pacifism (inability to genocide and settle Yemen with blond, blue-eyed kids)
I'll take this somewhat as a joke thinking in the limit. The West/America's unwillingness to genocide millions of people is a fundamental feature of our modern system. You can't do it, the vast majority of people in the West would find it absolutely horrible. Even if hypothetically the US could do that, the conditions and mindset of the US means it can't happen. No way around this.
>See Azerbaijan, the DPRK, the Ukraine and Israel for examples of nation-states conducting successful modern military operations with state powers and national propaganda
I don't know enough about Aszerbaijan, but the DPRK, Ukraine and Israel are throw-back state like I mentioned earlier. I could write a small piece or note on them.
" The West/America's unwillingness to genocide millions of people is a fundamental feature of our modern system. You can't do it, the vast majority of people in the West would find it absolutely horrible."
Sadly, you are wrong.
The day the USA stops sending bombs, parts, and equipment to israel is the end of their genocide in Gaza, invasion of Lebanon Syria West-bank. Our Military is active in israel.
We are geocoding Gaza now, or will be once israel restarts. Biden and now Trump could stop israel durring any of the period since they stopped killing their own with 'Hanabal Doctrine' on Oct7th.
Houthis, Hizballah, (and Iran) have put the rest of the world to shame, they directly aiding Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza, while you, me, most Arabs, Western peoples, .. are sucking Zionist-israeli's giant strap-on, belly crawling, castrated, "Yes Master, will you kick my testicles again?"
I so sick of the Zionists control world-wide, and the Thank-God for the Houthis, Hizballah, Hamas, and Iran for their Honor and virtues .. at least some men not slimy vile virtueless F-ing piles of vomit like we all are. Shame.
Iran stations their paramilitary forces among civilians
https://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2017/11/24/the-21st-century-leans-toward-aristocracy/
Correct Adunai.
3 points. I've known from other reading that most of the fighting in the Russia/Ukraine conflict is being done by private paid militias. Our side,their side,anyone else who can pay,it's more complex on the ground than two official State forces. It's very medieval style with bands of "warlords" albeit high tech ones roaming about doing the real strategic fighting. Our media is not encouraged to tell us about this so they continue to make it sound like a World War Two planned battle run according to The Geneva Convention. 2nd point. I've come to the conclusion that the M.A.D threat that kept Western Europe in a sort of poker draw situation for my lifetime was fake all along. If it was real I reckon USA would have used it by now. If course they could be hoping to provoke Putin to lob a nuke first so he'll be THE BAD GUY. He is much smarter than me so he knows it's all my eye and Betty Martin too. 3rd point. I'm an old lady of 70 so I'm not expecting to be sent to the front line with a gun,but in this age of equality you never know. But what are MY COUNTRIES VALUES. What is MY COUNTRY. The UK I live in is a mixture. But a lot of it is not MY personal country and not one I'd want anyone to die to defend. Is the proposition that our grandsons,granddaughters,great nieces and nephews should potentially die to defend creeping suburbanization of the most depressing sort,litter strewn streets,wastelands of cracked concrete and tarmac and an urban townscape peopled by figures out of a Lowry painting,black clad,drab,dirty and down at heel. Is this the Shining Future the 18th Century Enlightenment promised at the end of the road it set us on. No more Rewards and Fairies. No more Roses just commercial tough rye grass.
Agreed 100%
The biggest thing I have to say is that most of what you're calling "nation states" are not that, but Empires ruling multiple nations. If you're going to be addressing, and writing about, a conversion of a system back to medieval style geopolitical relations, it will likely aid you to look at the situation more in those terms. It also helps address the internal schisms, power plays, and reformations that are seen within each empire.
>The biggest thing I have to say is that most of what you're calling "nation states" are not that, but Empires ruling multiple nations.
I agree with you that the countries that I'm talking about are mostly not nation-states anymore. It was a part of the point I was making though I might have not been clear enough. Essentially the nation-state institutions have somewhat remained while the nation-state condition has disappeared, which is what is causing things such as the "People's War" and other features of nation-states to silently become irrelevant. I would have to explore the "empire" idea, though I know where you're coming from.
Yeah. Empire, and the bloat that comes with the necessary increases across all institutions (from depts of education to DoD) has done a number on all of them. Add in the Schisms between the different nations within most of the Empires, and it's pretty bad. Some of them, such as Russia and China, have already gone through fairly extensive reforms.
But back to your point - yes, the condition has absolutely disappeared on what has made people's war able to be done. I have argued that this is because the fake and gay modern empires have actually done a good job destroying the nations within their own empires so that the people have no actual national identity to hold on to. This causes them to lose any real loyalty that you use to see in the times of the French Revolution and other such events.
This is not a new occurance, and has happened repeatedly in history when other Empires do the same such thing. The Romans had the same occur. The Spanish Empire I believe had the same as well.
Anyways, because of this, you can have tactical victories for money in certain areas, but lose wars. As we've seen numerous times. Because our fake and gay leaders simply are retarded, and don't understand the problems in their hubris.
https://uncouthbarbarian.substack.com/p/the-polis-perspective
“…because the fake and gay modern empires have actually done a good job destroying the nations within their own empires…”
Yeah, sure, it wuz th’ fake an’ gay what done it, not (say) the gutting of the working and middle class by political and economic policies that enriched the very few at the expense of everyone else. Nothing builds national loyalty like being systematically exploited!
lol.
You seem to be angry and under the impression that I'm not saying exactly the same thing, in different language and thus with different connotations. I'm implying that our rulers are of a different people than us, that they've deliberately destroyed our ability to form community identities that could lead to a nation in the traditional sense (think Scots and Scotland as part of the British Empire/Isles; there should be similar nations within the geography of the United States that arise naturally), but our Elites have a sense of community within their own, marry within their own, and, while there are power plays and other issues - they band together against the plebs.
So, because you have issues against my wording of 'fake and gay,' you still, at your core, seem to see America as purely an Economic Zone. The Lower Classes against the Rich. Marxist drivel. There is some of it, yes; yet it is more complicated, and Marx's solutions are abhorrent.
In regard to the Australian “national anthem” and lack of enthusiasm for “Advance Australia Fair” resulting in typically unenthusiastic and mumbled renditions, of such drivel as “Australians all let us rejoice…” , our son in about his third year of primary school, had cause to ask one day “ why does the national anthem say “Australians we are ostriches”.
Elocution, like singing isn’t a strong point in this country so “us rejoice” , sounded to him like “ostriches”.
Given most Australians live their lives with their heads stuck in the sand, we attributed this mishearing to prescience rather than poor hearing.
One point to add to what I also call the neo-feudalism of Mexico is that it is the same state or at least individuals in control of the state (governors, generals, secretaries )the ones trying to carve out their own area of control and become feudal lords, traditional drug lords are only ‘’ employees’’, its the state eating itself
Thank you for an interesting and thorough article.
Great article
Solutions to asymmetry? Fight fire with fire: utilize irregular units to conduct ground operations, give letters of marque to capable private individuals and enterprises, employ cost-effective weapons systems in conjunction with 1.) and 2.) and stop relying on expensive technological wizzbangs.
For the Houthi problem, are there really any grave obstacles to a private expeditionary force going in to target anti-ship weapons systems? The Saudis and the UAE already pay former US and European soldiers to carry out gangland hits in the country. Seems like the most cost effective solution ans there is no dearth of young, angry, and reckless men fresh out of the military willing to do the dangerous job.
>Solutions to asymmetry? Fight fire with fire: utilize irregular units to conduct ground operations, give letters of marque to capable private individuals and enterprises, employ cost-effective weapons systems in conjunction with 1.) and 2.) and stop relying on expensive technological wizzbangs.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Non-State actors have shown themselves to be the future of warfare. Ukraine makes extensive use of them (e.g Madyar's drone battalion and Azov), as did Russia with Wagner. Either way, if the United States does not utilise Non-State Actors it will be decomposed by them.
>For the Houthi problem, are there really any grave obstacles to a private expeditionary force going in to target anti-ship weapons systems? The Saudis and the UAE already pay former US and European soldiers to carry out gangland hits in the country. Seems like the most cost effective solution ans there is no dearth of young, angry, and reckless men fresh out of the military willing to do the dangerous job.
I am less confident in this case. I think the Houthis have managed to exploit a new type of warfare which is so ridiculously asymmetric that any relatively organised and skilled Non-State Actor can doom freedom of navigation through choke points at will, no matter what fancy navies want. The only way to stop it is a ground invasion of Yemen - not viable at the moment even if the USA & co. used effective mercenaries .
All that is necessary to stop the Houthis is to cut off their arms supply (Iran).
It's not like the Houthis have the capacity to build their own ballistic missiles and attack drones.
Azovites and Madyar had since been fully integrated to Ukrainian armed serviced.
Madyar - Ukrainian marines
Azovites - National Guard (also Army's 3rd Assault Brigade/soon 3rd Assault Corps)
Great stuff!
Definitely, dive deeper.
A very good article.
The major nation states and the rich states no longer use their own citizens for Armies.
They use other Nations or non-nation state actors. Saudi Funded Isis , America the Kurds and Russia funded Asad. Turkey funded their own faction. The US funds Ukraine to get at Russia, Russia and China fund the Yemenites. I would be surprised if the Eastern Powers start funding the Cartels to strike at America.
Goes hard
Great
Blue Vir; you’re generalizing from one nation and even Continent to another. I don’t know the situation in Australia but America has assuredly reversed course on weak or even completely fraudulent senile leadership to vigorous leadership and most importantly a cadre of young men- completely reversing the dynamic. In any case geography alone forces America to be one nation like it or not. We’re an island on 2 sides, tundra to North, Desert to South.
Perhaps given real leadership Australian youth will remember they’re an island too -
Geography doesn’t negotiate.
Above all the admitted decline in nationalism and patriotism is THE CORE POLICY of Globalization- which both economically and politically , literally and physically is very old and dying. In America it’s just been tossed out and is retiring, selling the house around DC - a DC that happens to have record Google searches for Criminal Defense lawyers 😂.
Yes patriotism and the nation state in the West have become very weakened in many groups- of course ! The deliberate and public policy of all Western governments since 1945 is Nationalism = NAZIS, patriots are fascists and every other naughty word that can be screeched.
Well there was always strong resistance to that among the commons and they have a Champion as President.
… and we NEVER stopped singing the National Anthem.
(That’s your problem, not ours).
As for the economic part of globalization that too is all but dead, people decided they didn’t want to live among constant border invasions, crime, we wanted our own economy back - and above all all parties and factions not in government or connected wanted our sclerotic government out. And out they are, none of them can face an Audit, never mind a team of geniuses guided by experienced government staffers who remember their Oath, and told DOGE where to search and what to look out for…
America was officially globalist, in practice bureaucratic and Judicial Feudalism and the ensuing chaos, and has had reset on America- call it nationalism.
This essay isn’t wrong, it’s just that things changed the last few weeks. In America decades are happening the last month, decades of corruption and lies revealed are unraveling the 1945 system. You aren’t watching anything but America’s 1989 moment.
We still have America.
I hope Australia finds her way home. … you will discover you have to live somewhere.