I'm told "we" have a vital interest in defending Taiwan from China. Perhaps we do. Japan certainly seems to. I do like Japan. But then again, "we" also seem to have a vital interest in not quite letting Japan off the leash. I hear they are months from developing nuclear capability if necessary, and quietly they want the world to know it. But their spirit is kept tamped down, birthrates in stable decline, militarism legally contained by a document "we" wrote for them, and economy safely mired in legacy corruption by the grandsons of war criminals "we" elevated to be their rulers. What if instead of being a charismatic but hobbled slave occasionally trotted out to justify "our" imperial ambitions, Japan was free? Somehow I doubt "we" have an interest in that. But maybe you and I do.

The question facing us from dozens of similar chokepoints around the world is simple: how much do we, meaning you and I here, benefit from the systemic hegemony of this American system we live under?

"We" need to increase high skill immigration to aggressively brain-drain the rest of the world to cement our own hegemony and prevent the emergence of any independent competitor.

"We" need to sabotage China's semiconductor and AI development industries to prevent their ability to resist our own globally dominant AI-enhanced narrative control system and its enforcement by autonomous weapon systems.

"We" need to keep Russia out and Germany down in Europe, to prevent the emergence of another major pole of high-energy civilization independent from our global control system.

"We" need to fight disinformation to prevent the emergence of politically significant alternative centers of narrative truth that could disrupt our perfect political order.

The case can be made fairly clearly how "we" benefit from these imperatives. But how do you or I benefit from them? I'll save the wallowing in the rhetorical question. I don't think we do benefit from them. I think there was a time in the past when we did, but that time has passed, our golem has escaped our control, and now we are in the position of resistance against these kinds of narratives.

What I most want to communicate is the horror of this thing. This is not a human institution anymore. It is some kind of lovecraftian imposter civilization that has projected itself into the minds of people and reduced them to slobbering thralls. It does not represent our interests. It is a monster that has come to oppress us. This thing is not us.

I want us, the real us, you and I, to first at least be able to think freely of this thing and its distortions. Maybe we can't escape it physically, but most of the danger is spiritual. It kills you by getting your soul, not your body. If we could think freely, we could look for a way to free life. If we cannot think freely of this thing, there is no hope for free life.

>>143
Three questions that must always be addressed when questioning what to do in life:

1. Who are you?
2. What are your interests?
3. How do you achieve power (to achieve interests)?

You rightly point out that in identifying the American state, its interest in securing geopolitical dominance is clear and there are a great many positions in Washington DC discussing question 3.

Question 1 is really what you are asking. Who are "you and I?"

If you are an American citizen, there is indeed material benefit to having your nation dominate the globe (and you will be presented many well-paid opportunities to help partake in this).

If you are an English speaker, there is benefit to securing the position of the Anglo-Saxon behemoth in the world (do you want your native language to become peripheral or less prestigious?).

On the other hand, as you point out, if you are a xenophile (whether it be a Japanophile, Russophile, Teutonophile, etc), US foreign policy is indeed quite negative.

As a member of human civilization, it may also be unwise for all of our species to concentrate into one singular way of thinking and values, and in that sense US foreign policy is also quite negative.

Carroll Quigley argued that in the medieval period states were united under the identity of their ruling Monarch's dynasty, moved into ethnic/national identities following the French Revolution, and since WW1 have transformed into ideological states.

Whether China or other future powers really view themselves as ideological states is dubious imo, but it does seem that the US has retained this Cold War perspective, at least officially.

However, that raises the question of what is in your interest if you do not subscribe to the American ideology. Similar to what you do if your state is hostile to your ethnic identity, or if you have a monarch who you view as illegitimate.

However, the reality is also that people truly have multiple identities and interests (citizenship, phenotype, language, religion/ideology, ethnos, etc), so this question is complex and it really comes down to what you prioritize as your main identity and interests precisely (this is sometimes imposed on you by others btw).

>>438
>If you are an American citizen, there is indeed material benefit to having your nation dominate the globe (and you will be presented many well-paid opportunities to help partake in this).

>If you are an English speaker, there is benefit to securing the position of the Anglo-Saxon behemoth in the world (do you want your native language to become peripheral or less prestigious?).

While I suppose I am a limited xenophile in the case of some of the abused "allies" and enemies of America, it is really on these two points where I most disagree.

How, precisely, is it in my interest as an American for the American empire to dominate global politics? That is only true if we identify the interests of the American state with the American people. You have not argued that. It is often asserted, but something often believed and little proved becomes a great place to set up a fraud. I will give my counter-argument:

The global power of the American empire props up a class and institutional behemoth which is parasitic on America and the American people. The counter-terrorist imperialism that oppressed the Iraqi in 2003 oppresses me today. Imperialism furthermore papers over very serious problems with American society and economy using cheap imports and cheap money and cheap power. This allows these problems to get worse, and allows the system to continue to shirk its supposed duties to people like me (and presumably the rest of you) who would benefit from that rectification. Furthermore, even if we are benefitting financially or whatever with plentiful and valuable dollars, the exchangeability of dollars for benefit in real terms (land, women, cattle, good food, children, safe neighborhoods, comradery, security, freedom, etc) is highly questionable. I see those things being very expensive in America, often directly because of the problems that imperialism causes or papers over.

As for language, in a naive first-order way I suppose I benefit from being able to speak to more of the world, but one does not always benefit from being in the biggest and most dynamic petri dish. Life isn't just exchange, it is also crucially dependent on isolation. I don't want to be on one big civilizational boat with all the rabble of the world. I want to be on a boat with primarily my own culture. Language is a two-edged sword. Being the one nation whose native language is spoken by everyone else can easily put one at a disadvantage. English is a panopticon such that everyone in the world knows and can police what the Anglo is thinking. This is not obviously to our benefit.

>However, that raises the question of what is in your interest if you do not subscribe to the American ideology. Similar to what you do if your state is hostile to your ethnic identity, or if you have a monarch who you view as illegitimate.

Indeed. That is the question. What do we do given that we live under an (insane) ideological state that is indifferent and abusive to us, and in any case not aligned with our interests. I say start by noticing and talking to each other, and begin the work of building our own culture separate from the insanity that could be in our interests.

>Furthermore, even if we are benefitting financially or whatever with plentiful and valuable dollars, the exchangeability of dollars for benefit in real terms (land, women, cattle, good food, children, safe neighborhoods, comradery, security, freedom, etc) is highly questionable. I see those things being very expensive in America, often directly because of the problems that imperialism causes or papers over.

Considering this further, I think it may be that the American system is optimized for dual-citizens, especially those with citizenship of the US and a US ally.

There is real material benefit to a US dominated financial system for American citizens, but mostly in the way that:

1. US-centered financial dominance enables higher US wages, which also enables US-centered technological dominance, which keeps this circle flowing.

2. Having technological and financial dominance brings in the most interesting and energetic people and ideas flowing in the US, which benefits average US citizens as they are able to interact and learn from the world's most gifted.

However, as you mentioned, wealth does seem to bloat at the top of the pyramid, so normal people are left in conditions worse than average for the Western world. However:

3. Higher US wages allows for US citizens to live lives of higher material quality in the periphery of the empire.

Land: 100 acre properties with medieval castles widely available in France, Italy, for well under $1 mil
Cattle, food, etc: Everything is cheaper abroad with an American wage.
Women: Beautiful women around the world will date you if you are an American citizen. Sex tourism works for a reason.

Obviously these specific points are negating if you plan on actually living in the US itself, although this is paralleled in some respects from urban to rural parts of the US. Probably the benefits of dual-citizens over uniquely American citizens has been slowly growing since the US switched from the Anglo-Saxon folkstate to the constant immigrant "melting pot" identity in the late 19th century.

However, I would still be skeptical of moves to oppose the American Empire from within as a US citizen given that, on average, imperial structures can often produce real material benefits to their citizens. Americans also already benefit from the fact that they can live and work anywhere they want within a massive continent-sized nation. Imagine if all the rest of the Anglosphere were attached with freedom of movement? Would it not benefit the average American to be able to live and work freely from London, New York, San Francisco, or Sydney at any given time? What about the Moon, which the American empire could rightfully establish its own settlements on given enough willpower. These would all be the direct benefits of being part of a massive empire, and the US is probably the empire that has done the least with the amount of power it has over history. (This is probably the result of the average American's cultural distrust of empire and lack of attention to anything outside of US borders) If friendly forces were put in control of the US, would it not be more beneficial for us to have such a vast portion of the world under friendly control?

(Continued)

I understand the argument that empire is largely a distraction from domestic issues, or that weakening the empire would expose the current ruling elite to much-needed criticism. There may, however, be better ways to flip internal power dynamics than reducing all the territorial achievements of the American Empire throughout its history. Do we want future Americans to live with a sphere of influence akin to Russia's today? Russia barely has any imperial expansiveness anymore and they are still taking in a constant flow of Central Asian, Caucasian migrants and has a largely parasitic and ineffectual elite. Moreover, Russia today has a far less unique culture than it did during the Soviet period, and is slowly morphing into some kind of extension of right wing Western culture. Empire is better for cultural insulation from outside forces and hegemony for those in power, which would obviously be in the interests of ourselves were we in power.

>As for language, in a naive first-order way I suppose I benefit from being able to speak to more of the world, but one does not always benefit from being in the biggest and most dynamic petri dish. Life isn't just exchange, it is also crucially dependent on isolation. I don't want to be on one big civilizational boat with all the rabble of the world. I want to be on a boat with primarily my own culture. Language is a two-edged sword. Being the one nation whose native language is spoken by everyone else can easily put one at a disadvantage. English is a panopticon such that everyone in the world knows and can police what the Anglo is thinking. This is not obviously to our benefit.

It is true that the global production of English language material is higher than that of US-based material in the 21st century. A country like Russia or Brazil is arguably in a better position to establish hegemonic dominance over a linguistic sphere of influence given these states occupy commanding positions over medium-sized linguistic Sprachraums. However, America remains so culturally potent that I would argue against the notion that American culture is being negatively impacted by global influences. In any case, I would argue that no other society is really able to "police" another unless the target society has a weak elite. Foreign media can always be rooted out if needed.

>Indeed. That is the question. What do we do given that we live under an (insane) ideological state that is indifferent and abusive to us, and in any case not aligned with our interests. I say start by noticing and talking to each other, and begin the work of building our own culture separate from the insanity that could be in our interests.

Yes even in the universal empire, it is entirely possible to establish unique subcultures, and perhaps this is even easier to do than in other societies given the diversity of existing subcultures that exist in the US.

> As a member of human civilization, it may also be unwise for all of our species to concentrate into one singular way of thinking and values, and in that sense US foreign policy is also quite negative.

This is the unfortunate thing. We largely seem to have collapsed into one singular materialistic way of thinking and values. How much more God-fearing (or in accordance with the Dao?) is the People's Republic of China compared to the United States of America now? There's still some Confucian social technology left to burn through, but not much more.

I really liked this essay for having helped clarify my own perspective. It's lengthy, goes into a long history of the Chinese in Singapore, etc. No prizes for guessing where I grew up:
https://www.thinkchina.sg/wang-gungwu-what-does-it-mean-be-ethnically-chinese-singapore

"How are they [people of Chinese descent] "Chinese"? Who is Chinese? What does it mean to be Chinese?

Citizens of the People's Republic of China; that's one definition. People who identify with Chinese civilisation; that's another definition. People who identify with their ancestry and genealogy, their dialect group, their religion or religious practices — whether it’s Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Christianity, whatever they choose, or even other local spirits and gods that the Chinese pray to — they can all identify as Chinese in one way or the other."

The prescription can be applied to how one feels about one's relationship to human civilizations which seem to all be suffocating under the yoke of this "imposter civilization", if it can even be described as civilized. Just replace the word "Chinese" with whatever civilization you prefer, and after cognitive separation, the next step is doing something from that civilization that you like.

N.B. Much as Europe, China had a large diversity of dialect groups and customs, at least, in imperial times, like Occitan, Sardinian and other subcultures that didn't reach nation-state status. Michelet described it as follows: L'immensité du monde chinois se révèle comme une autre Europe au bout de l'Asie. (The immensity of the Chinese world emerges like another Europe at the end of Asia.) I know the places where I like the gardens and music. I want gelato instead of glutinous rice balls in fermented glutinous rice somewhat often.

>>932
>How much more God-fearing (or in accordance with the Dao?) is the People's Republic of China compared to the United States of America now?

Yeah it's pretty bad. Our core populations are just busted. You can see this on the street with what would have been normal people last generation strung out on drugs, or bad ideology, or whatever. I think it's because we've had our actual social fabric, culture, identity, and right to organized existence dismantled for political reasons but let's not get too radical just yet. Point being we are not being served by this thing we live under.

> I think it's because we've had our actual social fabric, culture, identity, and right to organized existence dismantled for political reasons but let's not get too radical just yet.

Agreed that it is not yet time.

> As for language, in a naive first-order way I suppose I benefit from being able to speak to more of the world, but one does not always benefit from being in the biggest and most dynamic petri dish. Life isn't just exchange, it is also crucially dependent on isolation. I don't want to be on one big civilizational boat with all the rabble of the world. I want to be on a boat with primarily my own culture. Language is a two-edged sword. Being the one nation whose native language is spoken by everyone else can easily put one at a disadvantage. English is a panopticon such that everyone in the world knows and can police what the Anglo is thinking. This is not obviously to our benefit.

One example of the panopticon at work:
The International Dunhuang Project site in German at http://idp.bbaw.de/ is still up, one can, for instance, view the history of the project. However, due to a cyberattack, much of this digitized information from the Silk Road is not currently accessible. The study of the Silk Road may be at odds with the narrative of certain third-world nationalists.

Also see:
https://twitter.com/britishlibrary/status/1722323954168181184

>>604

>A country like Russia or Brazil is arguably in a better position to establish hegemonic dominance over a linguistic sphere of influence given these states occupy commanding positions over medium-sized linguistic Sprachraums.

The Grimm Brothers saw language as the repository of a people's culture. And so linguistic spheres of influence have effectively become cultural spheres of influence. I don't think the issue here is necessarily the size of the speech community, but rather the competence of the culture industry. For instance, one can consider the global reach of the culture industries of Greater Seoul and Greater Tokyo. Seoul has chosen to import American marketing methods which gives the Korean Wave (Hanlyu) a certain virality, though not necessarily vitality, since their associated ills (progressive liberal ideology) have been imported simultaneously. Tokyo hasn't imported progressive liberalism to the same extent, but as OP mentioned their spirit is tamped down by American empire. They still have their impressive anime and video game fandoms to a large extent though.

In both cases the national elite marshals national resources towards cultural production. Well, this is at least possible if the national metropolis is the centre of cultural production, and there is clear agreement on what constitutes the nation. Even issues such as North Korea are trivial as long as the national narrative is compatible with the American one.

For the Slavs and the Germans there is a bigger problem. They aren't quite unified, partly because the memory of Russian or Prussian aggression is part of the narrative control system. And so neither modern Germany nor Russia possesses the requisite 'means of cultural production'. Less thorny but still problematic chokepoints exist for Scandinavia and Copenhagen, Lusitania and Lisbon. The list goes on.

The way to surmount these obstacles seems to be to begin by reorganizing certain boundaries in people's minds. To use the German case as an example, there was historically no linguistic boundary between the territories of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands and the other German-speaking territories. There is still no genetic border there, as is plain to see from the physiognomy of the nationals. The somewhat arbitrary political borders remain, and "European integration" is wooden language for borg-mediated divide-and-conquer.

Of course, recourse to actual history and biology is only the beginning. A practical approach to break down and redraw the language and cultural borders requires tooling. For example, the naturalistic Interslavic zonal auxiliary language is perhaps a better attempt at this than any others that I've seen. In the framing of the creators:

>Interslavic, one might say, begins where Old Church Slavonic ends.

Usability is a key feature of the design, discarding archaic features of Old Church Slavonic, coining neologisms, allowing internationalisms in certain cases, and perhaps most importantly, an etymology-based orthography that allows for the underlying diasystem to be made clear. To illustrate this with an example from the creators:

>If we write this [the word for five] as pęť, a Russian can easily recognise his own пять, a Serb his own pet and a Pole his own pięć.

Naturally, the diacritics can be omitted when the meaning is clear, which is most of the time. It appears to be quite usable, the Discord seems fairly active, and one could imagine similar methods for Internorse and so on, that would allow us to promote our narrative at the expense of the borg's.

(As a linguistic aside, Stephen J. Walton's article, 'Ivar Aasen and the Genesis of the New Norwegian Written Language' briefly outlines Aasen's methodology for a continuation of Old Norse. Unfortunately, his dialectal survey did not reach beyond the territorial borders of Norway, but an extension of his work is possible.)