World Power - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Ahovking
#14185993
No, China is becoming a Global Power, Even if china doesn't try and modernize and just continues to be the worlds factory, china will eventually become the worlds largest economy because of its overwhelming large population. Because of this fact, china has been thrusted upon the world stage. I believe china doesn't want to be a "america" nor does it want the Responsibility of being the worlds policeman. China seems to try and minimize any Responsibility it has, China doesn't want to be a global power and have that Responsibility to influence other nations and be Responsible for their action.

In short China doesn't want to be a Global power however i believe china does want to be the "only" economic and military power in Asia but outside of Asia only be an Global economic power, not a economic and military Global power like the united states. I believe with 75% serenity that if america pulled out of Asia and allowed china to fully dominate Asia, conflict between the two powers could be avoided a possible 100-200 years.
User avatar
By Varax
#14189608
Far-Right Sage wrote:The dream for a sustainable and effective African independence and a strengthened African Union in the early part of this century has died with Libyan independence, and now the massive Chinese economic expansion in this continent is soon to be shown as little better for the native inhabitants than Western hegemony has been.

This dream for "sustainable and effective African independence" is nothing more than that, a dream. Africa is not going to be independent in any tangible form nor is it going to develop much due to the lack of human and physical capital that the native populations there posses. Expecting this absent real power relations would be unrealistic. Furthermore I don’t subscribe to this notion that all groups innately “deserve” to be respected at all - respect is earned by one’s strength. Those fascists who think that these frankly weak and low IQ populations will amount to much are ignoring reality. In addition, this attitude seems to have nothing to do with historical reality at all. Fascist tradition clearly shows a desire for imperialistic goals - Italy under Mussolini absorbed Ethiopia and attempted to turn the Mediterranean into an "Italian Lake". National Socialist Germany invaded its neighbors with the goal of ethnic cleansing in search of lebensraum and the Japanese Empire was just that, a mighty Empire attempting to bring East Asia under its control. Imperialism is not only justifiable but an inevitable outcome of disparate power relations. Further it makes sense to support the dominion of the strong over the weak since anything else would be ahistorical. What are your goals really Sage?

Frankly I don’t understand why you are so concerned with the independence of Africa since due to its own weakness it will only continue to fall under the peripheral control of various Empires. The fact that China is moving in when western hegemony weakens is proof of this. You can replace one oppressor with another, but not the reality of the oppressor. Not really. It has never been my opinion that the weaker groups should be favored over the stronger. Consider the very existence of the United States if you will, it was the direct result of European colonialism coupled with the utter ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populations (though disease had a large role in this as well). As a result a weaker civilization was replaced by objectively stronger one and the nation we live in now is born as a result. That is what happens due to demographic displacement couple with objectively superior economic systems/levels of development.

Africa is useless.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#14192776
Alpha/S. wrote:This dream for "sustainable and effective African independence" is nothing more than that, a dream. Africa is not going to be independent in any tangible form nor is it going to develop much due to the lack of human and physical capital that the native populations there posses. Expecting this absent real power relations would be unrealistic. Furthermore I don’t subscribe to this notion that all groups innately “deserve” to be respected at all - respect is earned by one’s strength. Those fascists who think that these frankly weak and low IQ populations will amount to much are ignoring reality.


On the subject of deserving to be respected, I have never been of the belief that any group in the world "deserves" to be respected simply because they exist. Respect is earned through struggle, and it is the struggle of certain political forces and leaderships within Africa that have moved toward the realization of this goal which earned respect, whether Qaddafi, Nkrumah, Lumumba, Barre, or even Savimbi - and it is that which is partially the subject of what I was discussing. Interestingly enough, the countries of these former great leaders for the African people have in many cases been the largest target for outside exploitation, or simply outright destruction of the power in question which could not be co-opted and refused to be exploited. Libya was brutally attacked in a campaign which targeted everything from schools and municipal centers to its water infrastructure, with its Great Manmade River project previously renowned as a continental wonder and gem of engineering in the Sahara, even among Western observers; now it is a tribalist cesspool and moving toward a failed state. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia have become the worst conflict zones in the world in a chain of events following Lumumba's assassination by the CIA and Belgian intelligence, and Barre's own death in exile in Nigeria after Washington quickly pulled support for him as the Cold War drew to a close. Modern Ghana has become a notorious puppet state which cares more for taking its dictates from international finance than Nkrumah's vision for Pan-Africanism in the wake of decolonization, and Angola has become little more than a gussied up resource market for the Chinese as even the former Angolan communists have chosen not to resist the global model.

I feel that sometimes when I attempt to write here from a more analytical point of view, my comments are taken as championing or direct support for what is being discussed. I do respect the Africans' struggle to achieve real, legitimate independence in the post-colonial era, but this does not mean I don't understand that it is a long way off. Many remarkable things have been achieved toward the realization of this end, many coming from the former Libyan Jamahiriya whether in the form of the first African satellite launched to avoid the need for routing through a European network or the several conferences orchestrated by Tripoli to discuss moving toward a standard, singular gold-based African dinar currency. Of course, much of that has been undone in the past several years as the current neocolonialist era unfolds and the U.S. and China wage a proxy conflict in Africa, but this doesn't render it impossible. Africa may have disappointingly low human capital for its large population, but it does have an incredible resource wealth, much living space, and nowhere to go but up if foreign meddling is kept at bay through the quest of real leaders with stated visions and ruthless measures to ensure the success of said visions, rather than the rotating empty suits which predominate in the West and areas of the developing world in which it maintains hegemony.

Alpha/S. wrote:Those fascists who think that these frankly weak and low IQ populations will amount to much are ignoring reality. In addition, this attitude seems to have nothing to do with historical reality at all. Fascist tradition clearly shows a desire for imperialistic goals - Italy under Mussolini absorbed Ethiopia and attempted to turn the Mediterranean into an "Italian Lake". National Socialist Germany invaded its neighbors with the goal of ethnic cleansing in search of lebensraum and the Japanese Empire was just that, a mighty Empire attempting to bring East Asia under its control. Imperialism is not only justifiable but an inevitable outcome of disparate power relations. Further it makes sense to support the dominion of the strong over the weak since anything else would be ahistorical. What are your goals really Sage?


Believe me, I have always found the collective struggle you highlight more than worthwhile and what's more it shall forever be enshrined and stand as a clear as crystal testament to our resolve; I had close family lost and injured in the war. Yet in a recent discussion concerning Venezuelan politics and the renewed interests of nationalists in the global-south, I wrote a small tidbit concerning my honest feelings about why fascists through the International Third Position (not the British movement we saw arise in the 80's out of the white nationalist and rather contrived National Front, but the Third Position as an intellectual and political umbrella movement internationally) must indeed be interested in the cause of peoples everywhere, on each continent, demonstrating through force and action a desire of liberating themselves from the domination of the degenerate influence of finance and the worldwide neoliberal project and establishment of organic, culturally rich, and harmoniously totalitarian effectively hierarchical societies conducive with the fascist vision for civilization's progress. It is no coincidence that Bulgarian fascist Volen Siderov of ATAKA wrote effectively in defense of a third world socialist following Chavez's passing - "President Chavez served as an example for Bulgarian patriots as a statesman who served the people's interests and not the interests of oligarchy". It is also no surprise or coincidence that more and more Russian fascists in the wake of the calamity wrought upon Russia by the introduction of liberalism into the country in the 90's, in line with Aleksandr Dugin's writings and the Neo-Eurasianist school of thought, along with some policy proposals of the thoroughly Strasserist National Bolsheviks, have called for increased cooperation between Russian nationalists and the peoples throughout the Caucasus along with European nationalists against the tide of liberal-capitalism emanating from the New World and the Chinese model. A large part of this naturally involves directly supporting nationalist struggles in the developing world, whether it be Ba'athist Syria against the imperialist designs on that country, the Azawad Liberation Front in Mali, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation rooted in Chiapas/Mexico who cannot be called rightist but are interested in developing that country entirely apart from the model laid out by the liberal establishment in Mexico City, or the Hindu Tamils of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, among others.

My point is that while I in many respects would love nothing more than to return to continue the eternal struggle from the second where we left off, that would be poorly conceived as I have seen radically new developments in this world over the course of my life. What basically must be understood is that while, yes, fascism was undoubtedly imperialist at a time when imperialism was at its height, neoliberalism since 1991 has become globalized and internationalized, and fascists have very little hope of shaking off that putrid, undignified, unbecoming yoke without global organization of fascists, left-nationalists, right-socialists, Third Positionists (which in the majority of cases is fascists' presentation in the modern era), conservative revolutionaries, and Radical Traditionalists to address what is in fact a global problem - Plainly, the neoliberal model for globalization. We must keep our eye on the ball, as this is a message of so much more than supremacy, but namely the vital supremacy of peoples within their own land for those with the fortitude to fight for it.

My goals, in shorthand have always been some form of:

- An end to globalism (which I use as shorthand for globalization under neoliberalism)

- An end to the political hegemony as well as that in academia and cultural spheres to the equally materialist, (faux in the case of the former, real in the case of the latter) egalitarian, anti-national, spiritually empty, and internationalist creeds of capitalism and Marxian socialism, to be supplanted by corporatism in tandem with a Prussian-based model of guild socialism as envisioned by Otto Strasser

- An end and peeling off of the idea that is the modern "West", with its philosophic and intellectual base deriving from the Enlightenment, in favor of the rebirth of a truly European civilization for Europeans - European in religion, European in social customs, and entirely pagan in its moral outlook, closer to what was seen in Rome of the ancient Latin people or in classical Germania during the same period than a mentality of what Nietzsche accurately described in Zarathustra as a "slave morality" which developed after 2,000 years of Christian saturation.

Consult The Genealogy of Morals for a better glimpse into what has developed as my lifelong perspective on this issue:

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:"And we are the first to admit that anyone who knew these "good" ones only as enemies would find them evil enemies indeed. For these same men who, amongst themselves, are so strictly constrained by custom, worship, ritual, gratitude, and by mutual surveillance and jealousy, who are so resourceful in consideration, tenderness, loyality, pride and friendship, when once they step outside their circle become little better than uncaged beasts of prey. Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise. Deep within all the noble races there lurks the blond beast of prey, bent on spoil and conquest. This hidden urge has to be satisfied from time to time, the beast let loose in the wilderness. This goes as well for the Roman, Arabian, German, Japanese nobility as for the Homeric heroes and the Scandinavian vikings. The noble races have everywhere left in their wake the catchword "barbarian."


Only through struggle which itself defines life can the imposition of an alien ideology upon the races of the world be reversed, and that inevitable, necessary, holy war, unity must develop to utterly pulverize the world's worst elements responsible for the state of affairs today. Only then can independent societies develop upon their own trajectory through a blood-bound people with a unified consciousness, totalitarian in political structuring, yet cosmic in aim. Only then can the requisite holes be poked through and the true drive toward understanding and exploration of this universe and what lies beyond be realized.

Alpha/S. wrote:Frankly I don’t understand why you are so concerned with the independence of Africa since due to its own weakness it will only continue to fall under the peripheral control of various Empires. The fact that China is moving in when western hegemony weakens is proof of this. You can replace one oppressor with another, but not the reality of the oppressor. Not really. It has never been my opinion that the weaker groups should be favored over the stronger. Consider the very existence of the United States if you will, it was the direct result of European colonialism coupled with the utter ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populations (though disease had a large role in this as well). As a result a weaker civilization was replaced by objectively stronger one and the nation we live in now is born as a result. That is what happens due to demographic displacement couple with objectively superior economic systems/levels of development.

Africa is useless.


It is not my chief concern, but can I inquire as to why you seem hostile to the idea? The development of Africans by Africans for Africans should not threaten Europeans and European-descended peoples elsewhere in the world. Between various races and peoples, there will always some form of inequity - a relationship partly based in exploitative or predatory concerns, but that does not mean that Africa is devoid of purpose beyond their role in all that. Those people have a journey to go down the same as anyone else, and if they can crush liberalism's grip in their own territorial space while trading with the world and continuing to improve the quality of life for their inhabitants, then why should they not be cheered on?

For a further peek into my thoughts on the relationship between fascists of a truly revolutionary quality of any age and social upbringing in the developed world with those seeking national empowerment in the global-south - http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=142564

I will borrow a page from Rei's playbook by referring to my own quotation, pertinent to the subject as it is:

Far-Right Sage wrote:In the era we now find ourselves living in, one should seek to better serve the collective interest by consolidating and cleaning up one's own homeland before attempting largescale external power projection. Many in the far-right today reject excessive and vulgar imperialism because, frankly, it is counterproductive in an age in which the greatest focal point of resistance should be the anti-globalization effort, which finds natural bedfellows in the anti-colonial liberation movements and regimes which sprung up from the era of decolonization.

This is not a particularly new development, although it is being discussed more and more openly in a post-Cold War world. One of the greatest faces of anti-colonial nationalism in the developing world is of course Gamal Abdel Nasser and the German resources, men and the expertise they brought with them, which were allocated to Nasserite Egypt are staggering. Johannes Von Leers, Alois Moser, Karl Luder, Wilhelm Boeckler, Ludwig Heiden, and many more. Egypt at the time was naturally the greatest barrier to Israeli expansionism, and what is particularly interesting is the mindset of many brilliant German men involved in bolstering Nasser's security apparatus. They did not travel to Egypt merely to attain safety in exile which they could have enjoyed in good health in Franquist Spain like Hans Ulrich-Rudel, Argentina, Paraguay, or a number of other locales. Nor did they seek to assist the Arab cause entirely out of anti-Jewish sentiment, but quite like the Arab revolutionaries of the 60's up until today, they viewed the Jewish outpost in the Middle East as an unjust colonialist stain and forward base of a far larger and despised enemy; an enemy of course they had sought to defeat previously.

There is much to get into and I don't wish to wildly hijack the discussion, but this affinity between the German people and the former subjects of the Muslim world far predates the National Socialist movement, by the way. It is a relationship rooted in common interests, the only rational manner in which any alliance can sustain itself and justify its existence. It has its roots in a shared Anglo-French colonialist exploitation which predates even Wiilhelmine Germany, and indeed German unification. A common theme in Hitler's warnings to outsiders who would do the people harm, particularly the French who became drunk off imperial hubris as if it was a goblet of Merlot, was to focus their minds away from the Napoleonic era in which the German states were backwater fiefdoms to be kicked around in no less humiliating a manner than the British and French African and Asian colonies.

Of course there is always a distinct line. I do not consider Berlin's annexation of ethnic German enclaves within the arbitrarily established Polish and Czech borders to be imperialism. The campaign against the Soviet Union was certainly imperialistic, and one which I certainly would have supported at the time for reasons of security, resource enhancement, and ideological neccessity. Today, I believe more can be gained from a measure of cooperation with the Russians in a number of arenas, after a small bit of key territory is returned.

So yes, I do believe as a representative of the far-right that more is to be gained from standing in opposition to imperialism today and espousing pan-nationalist sentiments which can fan the flames of anti-globalist fury from Riga to Kathmandu. This is particularly logical because the greatest pushers of imperialist agitation today are liberal regimes.

Again, there is historical precedent, although this seems to have all been forgotten today in the rush to portray our people as cartoonish villains despite the fact that many actions taken were done so in a move of resistance against the oppressive political, social, and economic conditions and precedents set in Europe and its dominions throughout the centuries.

Brilliant anti-colonial rhetoric [is needed] which instills pride in a people and at the same time uplifts the lowest members of society to economic and social conditions formerly unattained while the great unitary collective State stands with its back to the wall like a magnificent glistening animal against the conditions of a money-grubbing, morally degenerate, deteriorating world around it.

As we move beyond the war and into a new and uncertain phase in an emerging century, this type of stuff will continue to remain powerful and potent for a reason; it speaks to an inner consciousness which can not be erased as a result of political conditions perpetually in flux. It speaks to men of all races at a time when members of certain cultures slated for systematic sanitization and obliteration and men and women of the agrarian backbone and working classes realize the contempt members within our own government have for their toil and, as they perceive, an impudent desire to stand proud and independent.

Marxist publications may tell you otherwise, but anti-colonialism has a home on the right because the post-Enlightenment right was born in the bloody and heroic spirit of mass revolution
Last edited by Far-Right Sage on 14 Mar 2013 11:49, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#14192781
Africa is useless.


Education and social stability are key. Even India is useless at this point, and we know indians can be extremely clever and organised when they have cause to be, but there is too much instability and too little education on the national scale.

What makes Africa especially challenging, is that it is a massive continent with so many more varied and interacting groups one must civilise one by one. Too make it even more difficult, it has an exploding population, the fastest growth in the world. This never helps while it is happening. A young, immature population is a volatile, uppity one.
User avatar
By Varax
#14200512
First of all Sage I want to thank you for giving me such a thoughtful and dignified response. It appears this discussion will inevitably bring us deeper into an exploration of our core values than I had originally intended - but I have been meaning to discuss them at some greater length and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. In doing so perhaps much else may be revealed.

Far-Right Sage wrote:On the subject of deserving to be respected, I have never been of the belief that any group in the world "deserves" to be respected simply because they exist. Respect is earned through struggle, and it is the struggle of certain political forces and leaderships within Africa that have moved toward the realization of this goal which earned respect, whether Qaddafi, Nkrumah, Lumumba, Barre, or even Savimbi - and it is that which is partially the subject of what I was discussing. Interestingly enough, the countries of these former great leaders for the African people have in many cases been the largest target for outside exploitation, or simply outright destruction of the power in question which could not be co-opted and refused to be exploited. Libya was brutally attacked in a campaign which targeted everything from schools and municipal centers to its water infrastructure, with its Great Manmade River project previously renowned as a continental wonder and gem of engineering in the Sahara, even among Western observers; now it is a tribalist cesspool and moving toward a failed state. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia have become the worst conflict zones in the world in a chain of events following Lumumba's assassination by the CIA and Belgian intelligence, and Barre's own death in exile in Nigeria after Washington quickly pulled support for him as the Cold War drew to a close. Modern Ghana has become a notorious puppet state which cares more for taking its dictates from international finance than Nkrumah's vision for Pan-Africanism in the wake of decolonization, and Angola has become little more than a gussied up resource market for the Chinese as even the former Angolan communists have chosen not to resist the global model.

I feel that sometimes when I attempt to write here from a more analytical point of view, my comments are taken as championing or direct support for what is being discussed. I do respect the Africans' struggle to achieve real, legitimate independence in the post-colonial era, but this does not mean I don't understand that it is a long way off. Many remarkable things have been achieved toward the realization of this end, many coming from the former Libyan Jamahiriya whether in the form of the first African satellite launched to avoid the need for routing through a European network or the several conferences orchestrated by Tripoli to discuss moving toward a standard, singular gold-based African dinar currency.

I had a feeling you would mention the likes of Libya but first of all I think a point of clarification is in order. While I consider Africa as a whole to be weak it is worth noting the various intricacies and regional that no doubt exist in the continent. With regards to Mediterranean Coast such states as Libya are clearly much different from the Sub-Saharan portions in terms of demographics, culture and development potential. North Africa is more tied to the Arab world and the Mohammedans to their credit are higher in IQ than the Sub-Saharan portions. However as we can clearly see throughout history there is tension between the Mohammedans and European civilization. While it is no doubt worth noting how liberalism has exasperated this - particularly its worst crime being the demographic destruction of European nations this central conflict predates modern liberalism and if it we are dealing in hypotheticals this would certainly not abate absent liberalism. Instead, lacking liberalism with simply allow us to once again push back at attempts of covert invasion. Qaddafi along with his ilk have been on record stating that the Muslims in Europe will “turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” The cause of men like this are fundamentally incompatible with my own. Even if you want to talk purely in terms of African independence it is also important to note that Qaddafi lost which seems to reinforce my notion about power relations. However, I do not view the Arab world as being useless - though I think it is worth noting where it is held back both by foreign aggression and its own Islamic fundamentalism. That was not what I was primarily addressing here though, and that seems to be a topic for another conversation.

Sub-Saharan Africa however, is quite different.

Ibid wrote:Of course, much of that has been undone in the past several years as the current neocolonialist era unfolds and the U.S. and China wage a proxy conflict in Africa, but this doesn't render it impossible. Africa may have disappointingly low human capital for its large population, but it does have an incredible resource wealth, much living space, and nowhere to go but up if foreign meddling is kept at bay through the quest of real leaders with stated visions and ruthless measures to ensure the success of said visions, rather than the rotating empty suits which predominate in the West and areas of the developing world in which it maintains hegemony.

Of course Africa is rich in natural resources - this is self-evident. The central issue here is precisely the low human capital without which those resources will be continually underutilized. It is up to humans to make those resources worthwhile after all, for without the knowledge and ability to make use of them they sit idle. This is precisely while imperialism occurs so readily here in the first place - the native populations lack the human capital to make use of the resources and are weaker compared to external forces. So, the likes of Europe, America, China, etc. simply come in and take those resources by means of imperialism. And why not, really? This is an argument that favors imperialism, not against it.

Ibid wrote:Believe me, I have always found the collective struggle you highlight more than worthwhile and what's more it shall forever be enshrined and stand as a clear as crystal testament to our resolve; I had close family lost and injured in the war. Yet in a recent discussion concerning Venezuelan politics and the renewed interests of nationalists in the global-south, I wrote a small tidbit concerning my honest feelings about why fascists through the International Third Position (not the British movement we saw arise in the 80's out of the white nationalist and rather contrived National Front, but the Third Position as an intellectual and political umbrella movement internationally) must indeed be interested in the cause of peoples everywhere, on each continent, demonstrating through force and action a desire of liberating themselves from the domination of the degenerate influence of finance and the worldwide neoliberal project and establishment of organic, culturally rich, and harmoniously totalitarian effectively hierarchical societies conducive with the fascist vision for civilization's progress. It is no coincidence that Bulgarian fascist Volen Siderov of ATAKA wrote effectively in defense of a third world socialist following Chavez's passing - "President Chavez served as an example for Bulgarian patriots as a statesman who served the people's interests and not the interests of oligarchy". It is also no surprise or coincidence that more and more Russian fascists in the wake of the calamity wrought upon Russia by the introduction of liberalism into the country in the 90's, in line with Aleksandr Dugin's writings and the Neo-Eurasianist school of thought, along with some policy proposals of the thoroughly Strasserist National Bolsheviks, have called for increased cooperation between Russian nationalists and the peoples throughout the Caucasus along with European nationalists against the tide of liberal-capitalism emanating from the New World and the Chinese model. A large part of this naturally involves directly supporting nationalist struggles in the developing world, whether it be Ba'athist Syria against the imperialist designs on that country, the Azawad Liberation Front in Mali, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation rooted in Chiapas/Mexico who cannot be called rightist but are interested in developing that country entirely apart from the model laid out by the liberal establishment in Mexico City, or the Hindu Tamils of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, among others.

My point is that while I in many respects would love nothing more than to return to continue the eternal struggle from the second where we left off, that would be poorly conceived as I have seen radically new developments in this world over the course of my life. What basically must be understood is that while, yes, fascism was undoubtedly imperialist at a time when imperialism was at its height, neoliberalism since 1991 has become globalized and internationalized, and fascists have very little hope of shaking off that putrid, undignified, unbecoming yoke without global organization of fascists, left-nationalists, right-socialists, Third Positionists (which in the majority of cases is fascists' presentation in the modern era), conservative revolutionaries, and Radical Traditionalists to address what is in fact a global problem - Plainly, the neoliberal model for globalization. We must keep our eye on the ball, as this is a message of so much more than supremacy, but namely the vital supremacy of peoples within their own land for those with the fortitude to fight for it.

Ah, now we come to the real heart of the matter. Do I simply think we can simply return to the struggles of WW2 where we left off? Hardly, nor has that ever been my position. Very far from it in fact. My point in illustrating that conflict is merely to point out that fascism and blatant imperialism is not only compatible - but is going to happen if such forces where in power. I am no reactionary - I have no illusions about returning to the world that was. The 1930s and 40s are gone and past. That is not the era we live in.

But let me ask you something, what do you think would happen should fascists come to power in advanced Western nations? I certainly do not favor some kind of all out war of conquest - the global realties make that impossible and it would end quickly and badly. Nuclear deterrent means that any rational cost-benefit analysis would involve avoiding an open all out war with other major powers. It is important here that we divide the world into “tiers” if you will, regarding their levels of development/strength and also their levels of potential development so that we can extrapolate a relevant scenario. When we take this approach it becomes clear that Africa is the loser not only with regards to Europe, but also compared to the entire rest of the world.

Tier 1: East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews and Europeans which all average at or above 100 IQ - these consist of world’s current most developed countries and will continue to be relatively more developed in the future.
Tier 2: Southeast Asia, Latin America, Arab world, India… most of the world falls into here, weaker than tier 1 but certainly has potential.
Tier 3: Sub-Saharan Africa - worst level of development in the world and lowest IQ/human capital.

Tier 1 will continue to consist of the world’s most powerful nations and are currently becoming more economic interdependent due to global capital. The incentive for war between them is diminished and they are unwilling to fight openly due to nuclear deterrent so much of the conflict takes other forms such as proxy wars and asymmetrical warfare. Proxy wars again occur in the weaker countries between client states. In our hypothetical scenario much of this would continue to be the case due to power relations and modern realties. It is thus better for Tier 1 on the whole to form bonds of mutual respect and cooperation than resort to open destructive warfare. This is in the interests of humanity as a whole though competition between them will continue and is important to push ourselves further. In fact I think the rise of East Asia will provide a necessary kick in the West’s complacency eventually and at the same time the dysfunctions of the current liberal system will be truly caving in itself since it is out of answers.

Now I stated that this would inevitably draw us into a further exploration of our core values so out of respect I will get more into that now. What are my goals? I seek simply the best path towards advancing human civilization in keeping with reality - by whatever means. I evaluate all on this basis and I see the present system of liberalism in the West faulting at the cracks and drowning itself. European civilization - which I previously mentioned is top tier, is being weakened because of this monstrous betrayal. As a member of this civilization I am compelled out of necessity to find whichever means is best to not only completely stop this degradation but push forward and build something new and far more advanced. This I believe acts in both my own interests and that of the society I am a part of. If I side with you on a number of issues it is because I broadly feel much of what fascists such as yourself say align with this - thus I lend credence to it.

Now, however, I suspect my own vision for the world differs in many ways from yours. The technocratic authoritarian model I espouse I do so precisely as the most expedient model for such development. But, what, in many ways would such a vision entail? Certainly not autarky, nor some kind of pan-nationalism. I have no intention of denying global realities here. My vision of the US would have us annexing Canada, Greenland and renewing its strength as it builds a new North American Empire. For Europe I would support a new Union, not the disastrous current EU - but I far better model that enforces the best of European civilization. China’s rise I do not lament - good for them, in fact I think China’s ascendancy will do much to undermine the malaise in the West and as I stated I expect this to give the West a kick it needs. Much of China’s current rise and the rational policies it pursues are consistent with global historical patters of economic development. Furthermore, a new more technocratic “Beijing model” will be seen as attaining more legitimacy globally. Also, I do not advocate racial or cultural purity - I believe this reactionary approach is ahistorical and it is not truly possible to isolate and freeze this at certain period in time as they are subject to change constantly. However, it should be controlled in a way that results in the strongest outcomes. Again this goes back to my notion of tiers. Tier 1 populations for instance I have no problem with intermingling so long as it is done sensibly. I think we can both agree that certain individuals of European/East Asian origin can be quite impressive no?

Eventually between the most developed nations I see continued cooperation and development going forward with real tangible goals with regards to space development for instance. It is too big for any one nation to take on and space cooperation is already a reality and this will continue in the future. Also the rise of the internet and eventually humans becoming increasingly interconnected possibly via neural networks will only push this further. So it is very much a global world view. However, the patterns of development will continue to be uneven and need to necessarily factor cultural/racial differences as well. All of this important. So while Tier 1 one people will be pushing forward along with some of Tier 2 - where will Africa be? It may improve a bit from its current state, but it will still be lagging well behind the entire rest of the world. Africa is frankly to be reduced to a resource colony in my view. The more advanced nations will continue to push forward their own interests and Africa being weaker is not in the position to be treated as an equal but precisely as an imperial domain for those who are in a position to use it as such. So extract the resources and perhaps more thoroughly colonize it to get the most out of it - or maybe leave it behind. Either way I see no reason to entertain the idea of African independence - it is simply irrelevant to my goals.

Ibid wrote:It is not my chief concern, but can I inquire as to why you seem hostile to the idea? The development of Africans by Africans for Africans should not threaten Europeans and European-descended peoples elsewhere in the world. Between various races and peoples, there will always some form of inequity - a relationship partly based in exploitative or predatory concerns, but that does not mean that Africa is devoid of purpose beyond their role in all that. Those people have a journey to go down the same as anyone else, and if they can crush liberalism's grip in their own territorial space while trading with the world and continuing to improve the quality of life for their inhabitants, then why should they not be cheered on?

Part of my “hostility” is because I’ve been down this road before. Back when I was a leftist I thought it was terribly noble to support these “poor exploited people” in their supposed struggle against the tyranny of imperialism. My hostility is partly due to the fact that I recognize this mentality from when I followed such leftist goals and I frankly want nothing to do with them anymore. This leads to a gateway towards such weakness mongering which leads to a “third world” mentality which often goes part in parcel with the inane notion that “hope lies in the proles”. I completely reject this as appeals to the lowest common denominator. Thus I reject notion of Africa for Africans for two important reasons:

1. It is ahistorical absent real power relations. Imperialism is going to occur one way or the other.
2. It is directly contrary to my goals.

On the second point, consider the experience of South Africa and Rhodesia. Due to European colonization these countries where able to surpass the development of the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa quite handedly - which proves a lot of what I’ve been saying. However, thanks to the betrayals of liberalism, European control was surrendered and the Europeans in those territories have seen what they’ve built become usurped and now they are actively discriminated against by the likes of the ANC and Mugabe. This is to be expected - but who do you think expect me to side with in such a scenario? By supporting imperialism is side with the forces of strength of the weak degenerating factors, I’d much rather side with European extracts in places such as Africa just as I side with US in the Americas which is also a product of European colonialism. Here too we see the idiocy of liberalism in the demographic destruction of once great cities such as Detroit. When I think of what has happened as a result of this it makes my blood boil. Now do you understand my “hostility”?

Igor Antunov wrote:Education and social stability are key. Even India is useless at this point, and we know indians can be extremely clever and organised when they have cause to be, but there is too much instability and too little education on the national scale.

I wouldn’t place India in the same category as Sub-Saharan Africa. India is not as poor in terms of human capital, political strength and has a growing economy. India clearly has potential and while it was once a part of the British Empire it has successfully become a power in its own right. It has a nuclear arsenal and a developing space program. This is much different from the situation in Africa. It is worth noting how Africa can improved to be sure, but my main point is that it lags behind the entire rest of the world essentially and will continue to be a resource colony/doormat as a result.
By I-stat
#14201056
I am new to the forum and I am sort of amazed at the view people have about India here.

I hate to take this IQ example here but, when you talk of national averages, you have to exclude India and China due to their numbers in population which cannot be paralleled in this world. As a result of these huge numbers, their numbers are mostly skewed at a national level which offers other nations a huge advantage.

Some people use the GDP per capita and dismiss India . But, the world needs to sustain a GDP per capita growth in India and China. We need the trade potential and resource pool to support the growth of Indian and Chinese GDP per capita ( excluding domestic consumption from the discussion here). So expecting India's GDP per capita to grow from $1500 to $15000 is unreasonable. But even a $1500 to $3000 increase can result in a shift of GDP that will put India in the top 5 nations for overall GDP ( if you consider IMF and World Bank estimates).

India has a near 30% population under poverty line ( again there is a lot of debate here on how to calculate poverty within India on a relative scale). That 30% is still like near 300 million people. But do not forget where it came from, a near 65% under poverty . It's like they lifted an entire US population out of poverty in just about 65 years.

They have an established space program and a nuclear arsenal. They have invested in their education big time. They have one of the top competing B school programs in this world today ( Indian School of Business http://www.isb.edu). IBM , Microsoft , Intel all have development programs in India. Patents filed by Scientists in IBM India have surpassed that of IBM USA last year.

Ludicrous to put India and Africa in the same bracket. Will China be a world power, I believe it already is. Having said that, India along with China will be dominant countries in the world in the next 3-5 decades.
By I-stat
#14201060
Igor Antunov wrote:
Education and social stability are key. Even India is useless at this point, and we know indians can be extremely clever and organised when they have cause to be, but there is too much instability and too little education on the national scale.

What makes Africa especially challenging, is that it is a massive continent with so many more varied and interacting groups one must civilise one by one. Too make it even more difficult, it has an exploding population, the fastest growth in the world. This never helps while it is happening. A young, immature population is a volatile, uppity one.



From Wiki

Education

India has made huge progress in terms of increasing primary education attendance rate and expanding literacy to approximately three-fourths of the population. India's literacy rate had grown from 52.2% in 1991 to 74.04% in 2011. The right to education at elementary level has been made one of the fundamental rights under the eighty-sixth Amendment of 2002, and legislation has been enacted to further the objective of providing free education to all children.However, the literacy rate of 74% is still lower than the worldwide average and the country suffers from a high dropout rate. Further, there exists a severe disparity in literacy rates and educational opportunities between males and females, urban and rural areas, and among different social groups.

___

Technically speaking , thats nearly 200 million people in 20 years. The trend is only going up. What is India's problem is the uniformity of this growth and the disparity between Urban and rural areas which I believe the government is addressing.

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]