The diagram above should also include a "z" axis sloping backwards as in a perspective drawing to create a cube effect, entailing the "altruist/symbiotist" vs "predator/parasite" (or "mutualism" vs. "parasitism" for short) duality of sociobiology.

A look at trade-offs and constraints

The real heart of any real social or political analysis is to identify trade-offs and constraints. I have already done this to some extent in my discussion so far, but here is the place to really focus and drive important points home.

In the prior four sections, I identified major opposing variables that trade off against each other, natmely environmental vs. genetic, centralized vs decentralized, and mutualism vs. parasitism.

Now the next big question is why different societies, at different points in their history, tend to oscillate back and forth between these parameters. Some societies go real extremes at both ends. Allied with this question is how a society can become more stable avoid being pushed to an extreme. For example, a society that wants to stay overweighted in a libertarian racial nationalist mode (or 19th century classical liberal), may want to identify strategies to avoid getting shoved into an highly authoritarian mode. As mentioned, over the last two hundred years America has gone from being "genetic bottom up" to the diametric opposite of "environment top down" as the "Neo-Jacobin Welfare-Warfare Gobal Superstate that wages perpetual war for perpetual peace."

AUTHORITARIAN CONSTRAINTS AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM:

I have listened to just about all the lectures hosted at www.mises.org. It is interesting to hear certain speakers talk about "the great libertarian revolution" and talk about libertarianism almost like some kind of religious awakening.

I believe that libertarians are correct that generally speaking, the more one can decentralize decision-making nodes towards where action is unfolding, the more responsive and realistic the decision-making. I generally buy into the pro-decentralization thesis of Huberth and Peters In Search of Excellence, namely that with greater decentralization one generally gets greater transparancy, accountability, and innovativeness. On a political level, one achieves greater individual liberty.

In my own mind, if your objective is to increase honesty, productivity, individual liberty, and the general prosperity and happiness of a society, the arguments for maximizing decentralization are strong that this leaves a very big and obvious question in my mind, namely, what kinds of people knowingly and deliberately push for centralization. I think the following is a good starting list of forces --or "constraining factors" that operate agains decentralization:

a) War. Throughout history, war or the threat of war has always been a tremendous centralizer.
b) Authoritarian personalities
c) Power-driven sociopathic personalities
d ) Genetic and cultural distance. In my discussion of the environmental vs. genetic viewpoints, I talk about a basic axiom of Right Wing 101 that the more genetic and cultural distance increases between peoples, the more they are likely to act towards each other in a predatory or parasitic manner, conversely, as this distance decreases, the probability rises that they will act as allies and altruists. A corrolary of this axiom is that as cultural and genetic distance increases between peoples, the more likely it is that one group will imposes authoritarian structures on the other. On the other hand, the more similar they, they more likely that they will accept forms of decentralization.

In summary, no matter how logical and humane it may be for a society to try to decentralize, maintain decentralization, or the desirability of protecting human liberty, the aforementioned list of factors are always pushing against all human across the planet towards greater centralization.

LEFTIST CONSTRAINTS AGAINST RIGHT WING STRATEGIES

A) Time preference
B) Quantity strategy trumps quality
C) Multi-racial and multi-ethnic demographics
D) History of deeply rooted class conflict
E) "Collectivist" personalities For example, women tend to vote a standard deviation to the left of men. People tend to recreate the world around them to share their characteristics. Women are heavily predisposed by their biological makeup to serve as child bearers and nurturers. To put it crudely, once women get the right to vote, the state begins to grow boobs and turn into socialistic "nanny" government.
F) Liberal-minority coalition politics According to American Enterprise Institute studies, "minorities" tend to vote about one standard deviation to the left of straight white males. This includes homosexuals, blacks, and Jews.
G) Life-cycle considerations. Everything needs some kind of incubation.
H) Superior ability to solve problems through learning strategies

You will never get rid of the left, because it is too intrinsic to the human condition. In fact, there is a bigger paradox, there the radical left and radical are often closer to each other on certain issues than the so-called "center."



SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALL THE PERSPECTIVES

As mentioned previously, there is no one ideological perspective that has all the answers. Each of them has it own set of strengths as well as vulnerabilities. Ultimately there are no free lunches. Anytime we move in a particular policy direction, we usually sacrifice something valuable somewhere else. Wise and honest statesmen openly address these tradeoffs, whereas demogogues will glorify one particular policy direction while demonizing competing policy options.

In management science, the discipline for analyzing trade-offs is called "constraint analysis." In computer science, it is called "linear programming. The constraint analysis worldview typically breaks everything down into "process flows" in which we seek to identify the most constrained areas of operation, and analyze various costs and methods for freeing up these constraints.

Col John Boyd once defined strategy as: "The art of connecting yourself to as many other independent power centers as possible, while isolating your enemy from as many independent power centers as possible."

In political science, as we move in a particular policy direction, we accept new power connections and constaints while simultanously trying to minimize old connections and constraints.

From a long term racial nationalist viewpoint, connections to power centers include sources of genetic enrichment, industrial base development, and indigenous cultural improvement. For example, during the early 19th century, America kept itself open only to northern European immigration. This included peoples with the best long term historical track records on the planet for innovation, scientific progress, human rights, and libertarian institutions. In the 1960's, America started to choke off European immigration in general, and opened the floodgates to Third World peoples whose long term historical track records show heavy leanings towards docility, barbarism, collectivism, conventionality, and totalitarianism. America also made its national policy openly subservient to the Jewish lobby (see High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, and Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper, also Viper's Venom and Rattler's Revenge by Col Donn de Grand Pre), a people with a long historical track record for being regarded as crooked and subversive. (Please also see my discussion of Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology in my "mutualism vs. parasitism" section). In addition, America shifted its industrial policy away from steadily improving the quality of its domestic manufacturing base (please note economic charts in my Critical Issues discussion), and instead started offshoring its skilled jobs and industry while ignoring exploding debt and focusing on financial services, speculative manipulation, and fraudulent economic reporting. Lastly, Negro rap has become a major source of young white cultural identity while America's controlled national media routinely assassinates indigenous Western culture and white values.

Obviously in its national grand strategy, America has accepted some radically new power centers and connections while divesting old ones.

I will briefly summarize the trade off advantages and disadvantages of each perspective:

Environmental top down:

Advantages: The environmental viewpoint provides the rulers of a society a formula to generally disregard racial, ethnic, and tribal differences in an effort to unite disparate peoples into a large de facto empire. In the short run, this can have enormous advantages in terms of creating a larger underlying economic base or military machine. Also, by eliminating borders within the empire, citizens can enjoy the advantages of free trade and free movement of labor among each other. Last, but not least, there is a very primitive and powerful appeal to many people to be part of something bigger and more powerful than ones neighbors even if the process of empire-building implies the sacrifices of personal liberties and increasingly obnoxious domestic interventions of Orwellian government.

On an organizational level, centralization enables people at the top to move massive resources quickly and with greater secrecy. This can be a big advantage in a military conflict, hence countries tend to centralize in time of war. Also, centralization can offer economies of scale and the ability to spread specialized staff expertise over a larger organization, and avoid duplication of plant and equipment..

This has analogies to a business product-market strategy that seeks mass volume even at the price of reduced quality. It also has analogies to businesses who leverage up. In the short run adding debt enables them to achieve faster growth, but in the long run they stand a much greater chance of losing control and going bankrupt if business conditions go in the wrong direction.

Multi-culturalists want us to believe that pulling together many different racial and ethnic groups helps people become more cosmopolitan, worldly-wise, and sophisticated in their problem solving capabilities.

Jacobins seek to remake the world through the use of indoctrination. Government and mass media control are two of their favorite tools to accomplish this end.

Disadvantages:

Even when they are run by honest, self-disciplined people, central planning systems are typically overwhelmed with a flood of information from lower levels. Furthermore, pepole at the top are often too divorced from the grass roots to understand what is not being reported to them, so actually they often know too much in one area and too little in another at the same time. Information flows tend to become overly filtered and distorted from system politics, dogma, and preconceived notions.

Centralization typically reduces checks and balances. It usually increases opportunities to hide accountability and abuse subordinates. and transparency. The mega-state is usually tempted to use its crushing military and police power to stifle dissent and sweep problems under the rug rather than come to grips with them in service to the people. In worst case scenarios, the government becomes a tyranny, and looks for ways to exploit and otherwise war against the people rather than serve their needs.

Specialized sources of staff expertise typically reach a rapid point of diminishing returns in addressing grass roots issues compared to people at lower levels. Worse yet, staff personnel typically "wag the dog" by aggrandizing their departmental needs at the expense of the overall organization. Bureaucracy tends to grow like a cancer regardless of its usefulness, and become a nesting ground for people who seek to deny responsibility and shift blame, and are more concerned with job security and maintaining appearances than grappling with fundamental issues and taking necessary risks.

On an economic level, one reason why central planning systems often fail is that it is almost impossible for a large economy to efficiently adjust pricing without a free market, which is the ultimate in a decentralized system. A highly decentralized system is itself an information processing system.

On a governmental level, has relatively few checks and balances to avoid making blunders or preventing rulers from making increased power grabs on the road to tyranny. When it is of the environmental type, this is referred to as neo-Jacobinism or liberal fascism if the government leaves a private sector in tact, and communism if it takes over the whole economy. this kind of system is more likely to experience massive government growth, which implies more bureaucracy, more taxes, and ultimately debauchment of the currency in a last ditch effort to finance its imperial system. The empire is also more likely to engage in forms of police state repression to maintain control as the failures of government become more evident.

On a cultural level, because environmental systems lack any racial, ethnic, or tribal roots, they tend to become a crazy quilt of competing moral and ethnical standards and are more vulnerable to extreme corruption. The overriding culture designed to appeal to everyone becomes relatively superficial, plastic, cynical, and phony.

Often in an effort to deflect attention from the fact that it is undermining real rights and underlying genetic interests, the ruling elite will offer phony or counterfeit rights. For example, in the place of a real ability to challenge the government or a ruling elite, such as alien domination of media or central banking, the elite will claim that the society is much freer in terms of enjoying pornography, exotic sexual practices, and vulger forms of expression such as the right to talk dirty in public. Also, it may be harder for the dominant population to protect itself against infiltration, whether by covert elite groups that attemtp to take over major areas of business or install central banking systems, or by relatively less skilled illegal immigrants, who displace the indigenous working class and become a permanent restive faction.

Because they are less stable, environmental top down ideological systems are often the sheeps clothing of narrow special interests who dominate the strategic bases os the society, such as central banking, media, and government, but do not want to openly declare their own racial, ethnic, or tribal roots for fear of arousing a rebellion.

Historically environmental top down systems tend to be the most dangerous, because the top rulers tend to view people as interchangeable reprogrammable units rather than as peoples with unique and respectable ethnic heritages, and hence are more likely to waste human lives.

Historical examples include the Soviet Union and Mao's China. They also include the United States since the War Between the States, and France under Napoleon. In ancient times they include Greece under Alexander the Great and Imperial Rome.

Environmental bottom up

Advantages: With minimal government and taxation and maximum free trade, this can be a small businessman's utopia — in theory at least. Unconstrained about worrying about the source of cheap labor, unconstrained by government taxes and regulation, this approach offers the fastest business growth opportunities.

Decentralized systems tend to be more innovative and responsive to grass roots conditions than forms of central planning. They are more compatible with entrepreneurial personalities who are concerned with fundamental issues, balancing risks with returns, and sourcing and exploiting grass roots opportunities.

In the Hayekian spontaneous order concept, having decision-making authority responsibility at a grass roots level vastly multiplies the number of people who can make decisions and organize at a level closer to grass roots. The free market, which is a highly decentralized system, is itself an efficient information processoor.
Decentralized systems tend to put decision-makers closer to the process flow decision points, increasing accountability and transparency.

People enjoy maximum personal liberty and right of free expression. It is a wonderful party — for as long as it can last.

Environmental theorists argue that one needs to be devoid of racial and nationalistic feeling in order to enjoy true liberty because these things involve greater levels of "control" which get in the way of "freedom." (In the genetic bottom section which follows I provide the counterargument that ethno-racial bonds may be necessar in the defense of liberty in the real world.)

Disadvantages: On an economic level, decentralized systems place much more responsibility on a local or individual level for individuals to wisely save, plan for the future, and make astute career and business choices. They are forced to create their own safety nets on a local level.

Cultural/Social disadvantages: Without any racial, ethnic, or tribal roots, it is much harder for these societies to maintain a stable and coherent set of ethical standards. It is harder to protect themselves against infiltration and takeover by alien mafia groups, or protect themselves against a massive influx of desperately poor Third World peoples who want the jobs, but do not share their libertarian values.

As a practical matter, it is usually much harder for people to unite to defend libertarian values and challenge grabs for power if they lack shared racial, cultural, and religious values. On a military level, anarcho-libertarian societies may be forced to become more centralized in order to meet the threat of a large foreign invader.

Once in a while anarcho-libertarians display an ideological blindness that reminds me of the inability of the bees to see the Death's Head Moth inside their hive that I mention in my mutualism vs. parasitism seciton. An excellent example comes from the way so many of them get absolutely giddy with Frederich Bastiats' famous saying "When goods do not cross borders, Armies do."

Well, it is true that playing Mr. Nice guy and opening up ones borders to complete free trade may appease some enemies — for a while. But even in a best case scenario, a genetic theorist can immediately identify two enormous dangers behind the complete free trade and open borders policy.

First, if you are dealing with cunning trading partners, they can focus their national resources upon dominating highly strategic industries on a global level. Under free trade comparative advantage theory, once they become dominant in these industries, there is no reason why they cannot completely suck these industries out of your country, grass roots industrial and entrepreneurial infrastructure — everything. Then what kind of position do we put ourselves in if we get into some kind of falling out with the countries that now hold these industries? Even if we are not at war with them, in a national emergency where we suddenly need these lost industries, they are in a tremendous position to squeeze us for concessions.

Viewed in this way, the costs of reduced economic efficiency that come up front from various forms of protectionism get paid for on the back end by avoiding situations where our enemies can suck our lifeblood out of us. Protectionism hence becomes a very rational kind of anti-theft insurance — insurance against theft of national soverignty.

In additionn to the aforementioned external danger, there is a quiet and insidious internal danger if open borders means an influx of alien populations as well as a free trade in goods. Under such a scenario, which America is experiencing right now with its massive influx of illegal Third World immigrants, our country might fill itself up with so many alien population groups that we suffer the massive social disorder described in Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation or the bloody conflict described in Thomas Chittum's Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America. Yes, you may be able to buy international peace for a while with complete free trade and open border policies, but what good does that do if you set yourself up with covert as well as open forms of civil war?

When we accept alien peoples, are doing more than simply bringing in low cost willing workers. We are giving away citizenship rights and incremental shares of control of America's future to alien interests. On a biological level, we are also undermining our own genetic interests and even suffering biological replacement, as I discuss in my environmental vs. genetic section.

Last, but not least, on a capital investment level our business leaders are seduced away from the rightt long term focus when they stoop to exploit low cost human labor when they should instead always prefer reinvesting in advanced automation. This has always provided the key to the continuing industrial revolution. Even going back to earliest phases of the industrial revolution, it was always easier in the short run to rationalize exploiting low cost human labor than to invest in machines. Even today with the advent of mobile robotics, there is still that two, five, or seven year crossover point in the economic analyses where it is cheaper to squeeze humans up front rather than to wait for the long term payback from the new machines. Business leaders have to maintain that longer term vision and discipline if wer are going to survive as a first world country.

In game theory literature the problem of The Tragedy of the Commons.

Libertarian multi-racialists and multi-culturalists claim that free trade and "diversity" makes America stronger, when all the economic data shows the exact opposite trend in the last few decades. No doubt many libertarians are lumping many disparate things together, such as the concept of the free flow of products and ideas with notion of free flow of alien peoples across borders. No doubt many of them have been indoctrinated with visions of a multi-racial, multi-cultural utopia with Star Trek and other fantasy science fiction films that blur these distinctions. But where can anarcho-libertarians find historical evidence that refutes the exact opposite thesis, for example the vision from hell that Dr. David Duke offers in his chapter about his trip to multi-racial, multi-cultural India in his book My Awakening?

Historical examples of viable anarcho-libertarian societies: It is hard to come up with any examples that reflect sustainable, viable, self-sufficient societies in the world today. The closest examples I can think of today are societies that are in fact dependant subcultures of a larger benevolent society, or reflect artificial societies undergoing a period of transition.

In regard to latter, that is, "transitional libertarianism," I am reminded of how astronauts in training can experience simulated weightlessness inside a plane cabin for a couple of minutes as their aircraft crests out of a climb and goes into a dive. Similarly, if you know where to crash the right parties and banquets, you can score free ordoerves. But none of this means that people can become truely weightless flying within a couple of miles of earth, or that generally speaking food is free.

In my earlier discussions, I mentioned how Nordic peoples tend to be instinctively libertarian of all European peoples. Medieval Iceland and pre-Christian Norway, Ireland, and Scotland comprise examples where Nordic and Celtic peoples went for centuries with almost no government at all and did not seem to miss anything. However, these were not completely anarcho-libertarian to the extent that they had a healthy sense of "folk consciousness." Power and authority was very decentralized, but it was not abolished. In the Nordic societies, folk consciousntraditions included the pre-Christian indigenous religion of Asatru, folklore, tribal history, and Common Law. Law enforcement was highly decentralized. Often individuals would settle scores with duels.

Today, the anarcho-libertarian movement is heavily infiltrated by Jewish intellectuals who scream that all forms of white folk consciousness is "racist." At the same time, these hypocrites defend racial consciousness for their own people, the Jewish State, and non-whites.

During the Middle Ages, when Germany was a majority Nordic society and was highly decentralized. and mostly Nordic, as were other major areas of Europe such as northern France and northern Italy, principalities which consumed less than 5% of GDP,. and were ruled by self-restrained monarchs that were content to leave business and lawmaking alone, and where there was considerable commerce and free movement between principalities, these were often de facto anarcho-libertarian systems.

Another example of a transitional subculture might include America in the 19th century, when the homogeneous Anglo-Saxon culture was being altered by other European or Jewish immigration, but the old libertarian institutions still had momentum before the installment of the income tax, central bank, and other instruments of self-aggrandizing Federal government. Americans had little central government, no income tax, and most government functions were handled on a local level. Late 18th and most of 19th century America was probably the closest the world has ever come to an idealized anarcho-libertarian society. Most pioneer communities in 19th America that were settled by compatible European peoples, such as the Egnlishmen, Scotsmen, Germans, Swedes, and Norwegians who settled in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and elsewhere in the Mid-West were heavily anarcho-libertarian in nature.

Since the War Between the States, Anglo-Saxon Americans had lost the alternative military capacit to challenge the Federal governemnt, and were beginnign to lose the ethno-racial capacity to seriously challenge centralization as well, but it was still a nice life during the transition period. A dependent subculture might include a tax haven or a trading post society somewhere that is a protectorate of a larger society that provides military protection, police, and administrative services, such as the old Hong Kong or the Isle of Mann, Guernsey Islands, and Bermuda. When one looks around the world today, one can see bits and pieces of the anarcho-libertarian program, but nowhere can one see the full blown program like 19th century America.

Hawaii does not have tax advantages, but it has a high degree of multiracialism, with one third of the population white, one third Japanese American, and the remainder a mixture of Hawaiian, Samoan, Filipino, black, and othe nonwhite minority. However, it has a certain degree of artificiality. As James Chittum points out in Civil War II, just wait until the U.S. Government goes bankrupt and withdraws its troops and government spending, and American tourism starts to dry up, and see how Hawaii shakes out then.

Post Communist Russia, which has dropped its tax rate to 15%, allows more freedom of expression against Zionism that the U.S., but still has many centralized government features and forms of ethnic nationalism.

In the real world, being an anarcho libertarian often means criticizing excessive government power, certain factional self-interests, and business regulation in a way that avoids ruffling certain racial and ethnic feathers, to include identifying the 500 pound Jewish supremacist gorilla in the middle of the American living room that dominates Amierca's national media, central bank, and foreign policy.

Genetic Top Down:

Advantages: These societies are centralized like the environmental top down societies, except that they are racially and ethnically much more homogeneous. Typically one paricular racial or ethnic group makes up over 80% of the total population.

On an organizational level, the advantages are identical to centralization in the environmental top down category. Central planning enables societies to mobilize massive resources quickly, and move with greater speed and secrecy, achieve economies of scale, and spread specialized staff expertise over a larger organization level, avoid forms of duplication, etc..

On a cultural level, these societies can offer a deep sense of tribal solidarity, and a long historical and cultural memory. This tends to foster a vastly greater sense of cohesion, and greater coherence and uniformity in ethnical standards. Therefore, they are less likely to suffer from massive decadence and corruption like environmental systems.

Genetic theorists believe that the most critical learning areas for society, such as improving knowledge of science and industry to build the industrial base, or evolving better managerial science techniques to improve organizational efficiency, do not require having a hodgepodge of diferent racial and ethnic groups jumbled together. You can become more "cosmopolitan" an "culturally enriched" by subscribing to National Geographic, getting on the internet, taking foreign language classes, or by taking vacations abroad without importing aliens into your living space and redistributing to them political rights and a portion of your society's wealth and local job opportunities.

Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America discusses the advantage of retaining a homogeneous society, where over 75-85% of the population consists of a dominant racial/ethnic group. It is less likely that the country will eventually split apart (Balkanzie) over irritations created by competing genetic interests.

In other words, a genetic theorist might respond to the famous maxim "When goods do not cross borders, armies do." by the French libertarian economist Friederich Bastiat with a comment to the effect that: "Perhaps true for a while, but if too many alien peoples cross with the goods, you may eventually get a civil war, and if too many strategic industries leave your country with free trade, you may eventually invite aggressive war against you."

In The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson discusses how racial homogeneity reduces civil strife and enables countries to achieve their highest cultural pitch. Having people of the same ethno-racial group as the overall population control the strategic bases of society, such as media, banking, government, and military, reduces the chances that people in charge will viciously exploit the population at large, and conversely increases the chance that they will have a long term sense of caretakership. It also reduces the chances that the society can be infiltrated and taken over by alien mafias.

Robertson argued that bloodlines trump everything else in his story about how Joseph Stalin tore up the Marxist-Lenninist rule book the moment Hitler's Panzer's started closing in on Moscow. He reopened churches, restored officer ranks, and reorganized military units by race and ethnicity on the grounds that homogeneity increases unit cohesion and fighting effectiveness. Disadvantages: Again, on an organizational level, centralization in this category has the same general disadvantages as in the environmental category.

On a racial level, one typically finds a quality vs.quantity trade-off. Racially homogeneous organizations tend to be more cohesive, but then one becomes constrained by the population and birth rate of ones country in terms of increaing manpower. Conversely, with an environmental ideology, it may be easier to patch together man different peoples to create greater numbers, but the overall level of efficiency may decline due to internal strife and competing interests. Historical examples:

The U.S. under the Abraham Lincoln dictatorship. America was still overwhelmingly white and of Anglo-Saxon origin. It's population was still fairly racially and ethnically conscious. Germany, Japan, and Italy during World War II.

The Jewish state of Israel. While Israel is officially a "democracy," one might argue that in reality it fits the genetic top down category to the extent that it is a homogeneous "Jewish state," it is really run by the Mossad, and it has a highly socialistic and militarized economy that is heavily dependent on foreign aid reflects and which reflects a high degree of central planning.

Genetic Bottom Up

Advantages: On an organizational level, the advantages and disadvantages are identical to the environmental bottom up category. The advantages include greater entrepreneurship, spontaneous order, and transparency, as already discussed in the environmental category.

They believe that many traits in other people that they need to avoid in order to prosper have a genetic basis. As mentioned elsewhere, as basic tenant of Right Wing 101 is that as genetic (and cultural and ethnic) distance increases, the probability that relationaship will flip over from being mutualist/altruist to predatory/parasitic also increases with time. Furthermore, in regard to mutualism vs. parasitism duality, in white populations about 5% is born sociopathic. (The percentage is likely vastly higher with Jewish populations, or exotic groups like Thugs). Part of the solution to these kinds of problems is to create national borders and military defense forces, and building prisons to put dangerous SOBs away for a very long time. Therefore, indoctrination can go only so far so save the world. instead, people need to spend considerable time finding ways to work with people wish similar racial and ethnic characteristics and hence shared core values.

On an economic level, the significant difference is that while libertarian racial nationalists genuinely want to maximize laissez faire policies, to include maximizing free trade, they are also heavily constrained by their need to defend strategic industries, prevent aliens from seizing control of the strategic bases of their society, and their need to maintain the demographic homogeneity of the dominant population of their society.

On a social/political level, genetic theorists argue that throughout history, it has been much easier for people to effectively rebel against varous forms of tyranny and oppression if they have shared racial, ethnic, and religious roots. For example, at the start of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord, the overwhelming majority of New Englanders could trace ancestors in America back at least three generations, they were all overwhelmingly of Anglo-Saxon/Nordic stock (in fact mostly from eastern England which is the blondest area of the British Isles), they were overwhelmingly Protestant (in fact, originally Puritan in the 1600's), and had a long historical memory of English rights that included the Parliamentary cause and Cromwell's very middle class New Model Army during the English Civil War.

Put another way, if you are a Continental soldier shivering in the cold, or Highland rebel getting rained on in the heath, when the time comes to approach some farmer for food and shelter who you have never met before, it is more likely you will receive assistance and not get turned in to the authorities if you have shared ethno, racial, religious bonds. Conversely, it is much harder for the authorities to buy off and divide parts of the population against your rebel movement.

Throughout history, when conquerors try to reduce and subjugate a population, they typicall try to alienate peoples from their indigenous traditions, mix them up ethnically and racially, and encourage vulgarity and immediate gratification rather than a longer term focus on honor and duty. As an example when Julius Caesar conquored Gaul and Briton, he tried to kill off the Druidic priesthood of the Celts and replace their indigenous deities with Roman gods. In regard to Israeli interrogators with Palestinians in occupied territories, or Ameican interrogators with Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, we see cases where they have tried to break down racial, tribal, and ethnic pride by stripping their prisoners naked and forcing them to engage in animalistic sexual acts. In the days of the old west, Indians complained about Americans who went out of their way to push fire water on them, and in more recent history Palestinians have complained about how Israelis have placed pornography on their TV channels during family viewing hours. As another example, when the Soviet Army invaded Germany in World War II, the Jewish communist propagandist Ehrenberg, who worked directly for Stalin, explicitly called on the radio for all Red Army soldiers to rape all German women to break their racial pride.

An important political advantage of libertarian racial nationalism is that historically it has provided a political formula for internal prosperity without engaging in aggressive war or imperialism. Therefore it is easier to maintain moral high ground and goodwill among other countries. The basic plank of 19th century classical liberalism in America, Britian, and other European countries entailed an internal focus on development science, technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure, limited government, maximal free trade, while protecting white genetic interests.

Today America is a very schizoid nation, where it wants all the advantages of a multi-racial, multi-cultural empire that it enjoyed in the 20th century, while at the same time craving the local initiative and dynamism that characterized the relatively homogeneous White Anglo Saxon Protestant society of the 19th century. This is a particularly evident in the debate over the character of its military.

William S. Lind wrote a recent article "Off With His Head!" about retired generals who want to sack Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He criticizes generals for being stuck like dinosaurs in in Second Generation tactical approach, while overinvesting in flighty technology to replace people.

I do not think the generals who resist change and stay with second generation warfare are stupid. In my opinion, both Lind and the Generals are right. Lind is correct that their tactical capabilities stink. On the other hand, I believe that these generals are right that realistically speaking, given the social realities in today's U.S. military, ti is too heavily constrained to implement Third Generation Warfare in most major ground units..

From my own experience as an officer in charge of racially integrated units in the Marine Corps, I was amazed at the incredible amount of dead wood that is carried on shoulders of relatively few whites, and how many problems are simply swept under the rug to keep up appearances and avoid charges of "racism." Much of the time of officers and senior enlisted involves babysitting nonproductive people. Very little time is left over to master anything particularly advanced. Meanwhile, they help support the illusion that the multi-racial, multi-cultural military works. In fact, I believe that delivering illusion rather than effective battlefield performance against a first rate enemy has been a major priority.

I do not think a military organization that is saturated with nonwhites and serves alien interests is capable of effective third generation warfare, or at least not on the level of Rogers Rangers, or the Dutch Kommandos in the Boer War, units who fought under Rommel and Guderian in World War II. It takes too much energy to babysit the troops, compensate for the incompetence. It is a herculean challenge just to function on a second generation warfare level. Of course the Pentagon is investing trillions in technology to replace humans. It has no choice. The underlying human social does not work. That is the problem.

The U.S. military is in fact highly segrated in areas, but it is done in a de facto, quiet level. In the Air Force, Marine Air Wing, find more whites, area of officer corps, nonwhites screened out by technical aptitude scores.

When the U.S. military finally starts to openly and honestly reorganize itsellf along racial, ethnic, and regional lines the same way that Stalin's Red Army started reorganizing itself as Hitler's panzers closed in Moscow, I think that will be a better time reopen the Third Generation Warfare debate. At that point we will know that the U.S. military is ready to start getting really serious again.

Disadvantage: This requires quite a lot of continuous grass roots work to maintain this kind of system. Basically you have two major problems: an alpha male problem, and a greed problem.

The alpha male problem comes when a country grows and becomes prosperous and parts of the country want more independence, even to the point of wanting complete autonomy or secessionism. Most rulers naturally react aggressively, similar to the way men tend to become aggressively towards very masculine men when their mates are most fertile, except here they are defending special privileges, territory, and part of their economic base rather than their mates. It is very rare that rulers of a society will separatists greater autonomy with the same maturity that Sweden let Norway go in 1905, or Britain let Canada and New Zealand go in the 19th century.

The greed problem comes from the fact that business leaders have to work extra hard to maintain the racial and cultural homogeneity of their population.

People on a grass roots level have to simultaneously combat consolidation of political power into tyranny, and erosion of demographics into alien control. They also have to make sure that their business and banking leaders do not place their greed for deals before their loyalty to race.

The political problem is quite a bit more complex than environmental bottom up libertarianism, where people are mostly concerned with preserving individual rights, and checking the creation of excessive special privileges in government and business. All of this applies to libertarian racial nationalism, plus a broader objective of achieving popular soverignty. This involves the ability of a people to control its own destiny by retaining control of the levers of political and economic power as well as maintaining its ethnic, racial, and cultural identity.

Maintaining viable libertarian racial nationalist systems may require asanctioning secession, similar to the way Sweden gave independence to Norway in 1905, or Great Britian granted independence to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the 19th century. This takes more self-restraint than most business and political leaders typically possess. America flunked the test under Abraham Lincoln.

Historical examples: America through most of the 18th and 19th centuries.

"Sovereignty" is obviously a more complex concept that individual rights, because it brings many more factors into play, many of which are self-reinforcing, interactive, or iterative in nature, and is hence is more difficult to measure. There are many factors that come together: religious values, ethno-racial cohesion, preservation of indigenous culture, and entrepreneurial infrastructure, that in turn must mesh with such factors as control of trade, control of borders, control of industry, control of military, and control of government to produce this final outcome called "soveriengty."

A good example to illustrate the nature of soverignty is to look at extreme examples in which one country may have all the symbols of sovereignty but almost none of the real substance, versus a people that has all the substance but almost none of the symbols.

As good example of "all hat and no cattle," as Texans might put it, on soverignty issues, might be various "postage stamp" or "banana republic" countries. Such countries typically have all of the outward symbols of soverignty, such as a flag, a military, a post office (typically with very colorful stamps), a goverenment building, a customs building, and so on. However, in terms of substance, these countries are typically poor little basket cases with no influence at all. The pattern for many decades with certain central American and Carribearn countries of this sort was whenever the head of an American-run company in the country said "jump," all the people answered "how high!" and whenever the Marines landed, everyone rolls over. To put it bluntly, these countries are a joke, as is the soverignty exercised by their peoples.

On the other end of the scale, a good example of overweening substance and very few superficial symbols is the global Jewish community prior to the formal creation of Israel in 1948. Suddenly an army and air force spring out of nowhere, and a tiny country on the Mediterranean holds the worlds second most powerful country (the U.S.) with a tight grip until present.

The America at the time of when Alexis DeTocqueville visited President Andrew Jackson was another instance of downplayed symbols. America was about the same size as France, with vastly more resources and growth potential, yet had ten times fewer bureaucrats per capita, almost Navy, and very few government buildings in Washington, D.C.

Getting back to the Jewish example, here there is an example of a tremendous amount of "invisible" soverignty that can be suddenly mobilized seemingly out of nowhere, but much of it is kept tucked away inside community organizations, bank accounts, stock portfolios, and strategic positions in media, finance, and industry.

I


Weaknesses:

Environmental bottom up:

Libertarians like the Bastiat quote: "When goods do not cross borders, armies do." They see free trade as an alternative to war. This, like so many insights, is true up to a certain point, and then becomes untrue in other ways. The problem is that if you have totally free trade,that includes allowing alien peoples entry into ones country, this might help to buy a period of relative peace on an international level, but eventually internal social frictions from the increasing number of disparate peoples inside ones own borders may build to the point that one gets civil war in the place of international war. Thomas Chittum writes about this in Civil War II, the coming Break Up of America. Alan Benoist wrote a brilliant article for the Conservative Review that I have reproduced titled:

A lot of these issues are not black and white: For example, political correctness denounce "racism." Really stupid, and intellectually dishonest. Real purpose is to jam out and suppress lines of thought.

Austrians view jobs as the tip of the iceberg of "entrepreneurial infrastructure" and concept of entrepreneurial calculation.

b) Governments frequently move from one box to another based on circumstances and time preferences. One example of moving from genetic top down to environmental top down involved military policy in Nazi Germany.
Conversely, we could see this go the other way in Stalin's Red Army. Once the Wehrmacht was closing in on Moscow, Stalin tore up the Marxist Lennist rule book.

c) When a society remains in within one of the style boxes for too long, to the exclusion of the rest, it creates severe social stresses and distortions that frequently cause a boomerang effect.

d) The degree of tribalism and authoritarianism in a society depends heavily on its cultural and genetic mix.

e) Barring major demographic/genetic changes, over time, societies tend to revert to type over time.

f) Genetic top down and geneticl bottom up reflect more natural and stable conditions of human societies. However, there are many anomalies.
Nordic peoples are anomalous.
Disruptions: Industrial Revolution

g) Predator and Parasite issues. eferred to as "criminality") is an important issue. When government becomes a predator on other people, we call it imperialism. When it become a predator on its own people, we call that tyranny. When groups act like parasites, we typically call them criminals, conspirators, and monopolists.



I think that in the long run, for Nordics, libertarian racial nationalism has the best fit with their character traits.

A big problem in America is that the libertarians tend to know a lot about economics or centralization vs. decentralization political issues, but most of them are terribly ignorant regarding racial/genetic issues. In contrasts, the racialists tend to be obsessed with continually waving the bloody shirt over how their own people are being trespassed upon, but most of them are weak on business and economics. One reason why the white racialist viewpoint has been heavily suppressed, apart fromt the lack of most melting pot white Americans of a sense of indigenous roots, combined with a Jewish supremacist media that exploits and exacerbates this situation every way it can, is the feeling by the community that "nationalism" means even more taxes and regulation. That is actually not necessarily true, particularly over the long run. An environmental top down society that is falling into chaos will be far more expensive to business over the long run than a libertarian racial nationalist approach, and certainly cheaper than a national socialist approach.

Libertarians believe that once government gets above 5-10% of GDP, it become more of predator or parasite than an altruist and symbiotist. I completely agree, which is why I think the work of mises.org, Lew Rockwell.

Constraint analysis:

A lot of political behavior occurs becuase people do not have money, ignorance, or stupidity. Often the issue is not what is ideologically right, so much as what people have the economic resources, and religious motivation to fight for. Americans today taxed 10 times more than American revolution, but we have acquired a new species of domestic parasite leaders who are much more adept at managing the herd than government of George III.

The libertarain literature is so overwhelming that decentralization yields max results one might argue why not maximize. Opposing constraints include: a) biological need for authority b) threat of takeover by a predator if an organization gets so small or open that it can not defend itself c) ease of infiltratin and takeover by alien mafia groups.

IMPORTANT CONSTAINTS TO POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR

Predator vs. Counterpredator Ecological Concept.

When the caribou multiply, we need to ask what has happened to the wolf population. Similarly, when America goes overboard into internationalism, we need to ask what has happened to nationalists.

Every time a policy trend in a particular direction, need to ask why the faction that opposes it has weakened.

Economic constraints:
Ability to get a good job
Atomization from urbanization
Financial takeover --favors abilities of Jews.
Media consolidation.

Decision rules:
Defending honor of people -- everyone uses a hornet strategy
Fighting by proxy-develop a counter strike capability. Backup nation with a nation system, to include internal adminstration of justice.
Expanding outward loyalties from inner racial-ethnic core.

Traction issues:
How much "folk identification" does it take to get Joe Sixpack off his rear end? Two litmus test issues: parasite blocking and long term industrial investment.

7-S interaction issues:
Most conservatives fail to understand that one must need to have all the pieces in place, working together, rather than focusing on a few shallow issues. The goal must always to create a viable nation within a nation from the grass roots up. During busing crisis in late 1960's, ultimate objective of Irish Americans is creation of Celtic ethnostates in North America, to include counterstrike capability against murderers of JFK. Obvious after War Between the States that main interest of U.S. Government is empire, not survival of white ethno-racial groups.

Where is the critical mass point? Feedback loops between tangibles and intangibles. For example, in an industrial policy, need to motivate entrepreneurial and other industrial leaders to take a longer term viewpoint, reinvest in domestic workers and plant and equipment. But then, why should they do this if they do not have a sentiment for their own people, or worse yet, have been brainwashed to feel that it is "racist" or "supremacist" to favor their own kind?

Napoleon once remarked "The moral is to the physical as three to one." There is a similar analogy in economics. How does one jump start a society that has drifted in decadence, its leadership elite greedy, alien, or cynical?

Hard industrial investment is great, but in the long run better to have it without government coercion. This implies strong grass roots cultural organizations that preserve a sentiment for ones own people, and racial homogeneity. Hence, while it is great to have industry at a third of GDP, a mistake over the long run to rely purely on government protectionism, which can breed serious corruption. To inspire leaders to invest in own kind, need grass roots cultural and political organizations, which is back to indigenous cultural concepts. Hence, a hard investment issue also has an important intangible cultural, racial, and political dimension.

Also, degree of honest entrepreneurial development.

"OBE" OR "OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS"

This is a phrase I heard quite serving in military operations sections. Another phrase is "Leap Through Your Tail" Exercise. Other synonyms are "reactive management," "crisis managment," "putting out fires," etc. In these situations people do not what it fair and wise in the long run, but whatever quick fix helps them put out immediate fires. In essence they are in a reactive mode.

One of the principles of war taught as part of the acronym MOOSE MUSS is the principle of the offensive. The idea is to take the initiative to keep your enemy continually in a reactive mode to break down his ability to implement coherent and wise policies. In maneuver (what Lind calls Third Generation) warfare, the idea is to have a superior operational tempo compared to ones enemy so that he is incapable to exploiting ones exposed flanks while one is executing daring maneuvers designed to chop up his forces and collapse him from the rear forward.

In many Third world countries, the societies are so corrupt and inefficient that the leaders essentially have a full time job simply to figure out ways to stay in power from day to day, and few resources to engage in long term planning. Tom Chittum summed it up on page 34 of Civil War Two when he described the replacement of Mexico's old dominant single party system PRI (Partido Revolucionary Institucionado): "Enter the drug and gun mafias. They evolved in a Darwinian world where the one rule was that you shot and shot and shot until shot dead yourself."

Another huge constraint on grass roots political behavior is when a couple has to support children. Their risk profile usually drops precipitously when it comes to dissent to reform a system compared to their desire to keep a low political profile and earn a steady living to support a stable home environment.

"UP THE ANTE" AND "WHADDAYA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?"

In this framework, we view political and economic issues from the standpoint of an ecological model. Here, issues are decided not so much on facts, logic, and merit, but rather the balance of forces between "predators" on one side of the argument, and "counterpredators" on the other side. The side that "wins" ups the ante of threatened force or terror until the other side backs down.

This is another constraint. It works like this. Everyone nods in agreement that honesty, transparency, decentralization of decision nodes, and libertarianism.

Then the government starts acting in bad faith, and encroaching on civil liberties across the board. It starts doing extremely nasty things, like agent provacateur actions, legal terrorism, routine assassinations of dissidents.

In essence, one side ups the ante to where people on the opposing side must risk virtually everything: careers, health, even their lives.

When we get to the level of risking ones life, then religion and blood ties become major fault zones that help define the "to be or not to be" of political action. When you face possible death to fight for ones convictions, religious motivations are a "make or break" issue.

Another important consideration is counterstrike operations require proxies. Hit men, militia etc. need logistical support. Here, secure tribal and family lines can be critical.

Soon you become convinced that these trends will not go away simply when new faces ostensibly take the helm after ritualistic, sham elections. The real ruling elite is rotten to the core, malevolent, criminal, and even parasitic on society. They will continue their encroachments and destructive until they are either stopped by force, or they succeed in destroying the overall society.

You figure out quickly that to create a counterstrike capability, you need people capable of evading government authorities.

You discover

You discover that people connected by bloodline and tribal bonds are more likely to support each other in extreme situations, particularly when the government is able to offer lucrative cash prizes to informants.

The upshot here is that the boundaries between centralization and decentralization in this situation have nothing to do with what is wise, fair, and just, but where common citizens are finally able to create a viable counterstrike capability to keep government terror in check.

 

 

 

 

The layer cake analytical approach applied to economics

A huge philosophical disconnect between macro and micro economics in our university. The answer is simple; universities are federally funded. They justify Big Government and Central Bank intervention.

As a result, we get some very weird anomolies in political and economic theory. As an example, in business theory, it is really great when big corporations break themselves apart. But in political theory, the idea of getting rid of central planning bodies, like central bank, or breaking apart the U.S. into separate countries, is beyond the pale. It is almost treasonous. But imagine if someone called it treason to break apart the old AT&T?

Take Austrian viewpoint, then layer on top of it genetic constraints, then special privileges, before you know it, wind up with a distorted mess that looks surprisingly close to reality.

Layer cake approach to politics; as you add government, increase opportunites for overt and covert forms of theft. Government above 5-10% of GDP is ponzi scheme.

A good analogy involves crisis of control as companies grow in size. Typically the style and motivations of top management change. Very large "imperial conglomerates" the top management motivation has very little to do with increasing shareholder wealth, deliver qualities with increasing quality and declining price, and everything to do with augmenting personal power.

The layer cake approach applied to religion from the genetic viewpoint

Start with indigenou customs, reflecting long term genetic sculpturing factors. As Arthur Keith points out, religion has a strong instinctive componant, therefore of strong interest to genetic theorists. Often an overlap, so that religion becomes a code word for an ethno-racial group. For a long time, "Protestant" basically meant "Nordic." Religion also significant — what people are willing to fight for.

Layer on top Christianity, which is a universalistic religion invented and marketed by Jews, an alien people.

I would like to create a "Layer cake" model for religion, except here, instead of using Austrian economics, I want to start with the naturalistic views espoused by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and restated by Hans Gunther in The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans.

Here is how it goes:

The problem with organized religions is that as one keeps adding more layers to the cake, in terms of more theology, more priest es, more obligations on worshippers, you begin to run into all the exact same issues that libertarians make about political leaders; ie. the opportunties for parasitic exploitation and running protection rackets under the guise of relition increase geometrically.

Not surprisingly, America First Books carries the writings of Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and Gunther (and other thinkers of the enlightenment),because I feel that these kinds of thinkers are vital to create a bedrock to begin the layer cake analytical approach.

As a personal note; been active with the revitalization of Asatru. Not trying to convert others; find their own religiosity.

Progressive Spectrum Analysis:

This is similar to the layer cake approach, except here we have issues that involve. The layer cake tends to look at historical changes, and ask what they mean, similar to a geologist who analyzes what a sequence a faulting. Here we take a political issue, and as we move it along a policy perspective, we ask how it is being perceived from different viewpoints.

The tarriff or protectionist issue is a good example: As we go from zero tarriffs, to 5% tarriffs (low), to 10-15% tarriffs, (moderate), 30% (heavy), to over 50% tarriffs (severe), each of these percentages on our "tarriff meter" has huge implications in terms of various poitical and economic ideologies. As an example, the vote to institute the Morrill Tarriff in 1861 which hiked tarrifs above 50% was the major factor in the outbreak of the bloodiest war in American history. Tarriffs, currently at below 5% under so-called "free trade" ideology, will become a big issue with a giant impact on relations with Asian and other trading partners when Americans start trying to rebuid their domest industries again.

Explaining Weird Anomalies:

As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Often the radical right and radical left are closer on certain issues than the center:
One example, Communist Party in Russia allied with Russian Nationalists over Israel. They both despise greedy capitalists.

Used skillfully, leftist rhetoric can be used to make the same points that right wingers have made, except to stay "leftist" they have use what I call "reverse negative imaging." The analogy here is the way you can look at a negative of a photogropah and understand what it is all about, despite the fact that all the colors and shades are reversed.

Another resolution of this anomoly is the fact that honest people ofboth the left and right tend to both despise criminals. Frankly, as one follows national politics, quite often the real issue is not left or right, but the fact that we are talking about exceptionally deceitful, greedy people who promote their special interests and special privileges to the ruthless exclusion of others. Sadly, American national politics is more often than not really about criminal politics. This is one reason why I really like investigative reporters like Michael Collins Pipers and Greg Symanski of the American Free Press who stay on the bad guys like bull dogs. We just do not have enough journalists like them around.

Interestingly enough, Gore Vidal, with solid leftist credentials, keeps making a lot of excellent points that libertarians and racial nationalists have been making.

Libertarian Racial Nationalism as a "dominant strategy"

Earlier I said that there is no one "ism" that has dominion on truth, and that all ideologies have strengths, weaknesses, and tradeoffs. That is all true. However, I also feel that if a society is going to be overweighted in a particular ideological direction, libertarian racial nationalism, also known as 19th century ical liberalism, is the best way to go. This is for several reasons:

Libertarian racial nationalism offers the best ideological formula that enables countries around the world to enjoy domestic stability, and yet at the same time live in relative peace.

Emotionally, I am actually anarcho-libertarian. Intellectually, I realize that this simply is not the real world. The anarcho-libertarian model is too vulnerable to predator and parasite attack.

A number of people on the radical right don't like my libertarian bias. Among other things, they are mad at the Jews for what they feel they have done to our country, and want a united America and strong centralized government that can grab the Jews by the throat and take vengeance.

I differ in that my prime goal is to see my own people (Nordics, and closely related whites) get culturally, morally healthy again rather than attack the Jews, and stopping the self-destructive power of the liberal fascist federal government. I think that the sanest thing is for America to break apart as peacefully as possible.

I welcome your support and contributions. Hopefully we can amass more information on the Internet to help develop this viewpoint further. As mentioned, I think the libertarians and racial nationalists are doing great work, now we need to bring the two camps together.


My position is that I do not know what the right answer, so I will try to get the truth out there. Let me give an example: lets take the premise that Nordics need to be united with other whites, or Protestants united with white Catholics. One of the big problems in American politics is that no rightist political movement can agree on a coherent strategy. Some insists on a focused strategy, others on an individualized strategy. More often than not, they are working at cross purposes.

The second problem, is that no one knows how to get people to act. As mentioned earlier, often people do not act unless one taps into extremely deep seated motivatiions, such as religion to find that "grim resolve."

I definitely believe in racial and ethnic unity at a localized level. However, at a regional or national (continental level) it becomes much more complicated. Instead of pan-white unity at all costs, maybe it takes one group of whites to walk out on other whites to really radicalize the rest. Maybe after the hyperinflation, and a possible civil war, the political map of America will look like the political map of Europe following the late Middle Ages. That would not necessarily be a bad thing. As Dr. Raico points out, the right of exit is crucial to prevent monopoly power. If the North American continent has dozens of separate countries, each with its own currency and internal policies, that creates more exit points and competition to restrain tyranny in any particular country.

[Business travel kit carried by George Rogers Clark, 1778]

NOTES

As another more subtle example, societies can often end up doing similar things out of a practical sense of necessity even if the ideological explanations are very different.

The right wing, biological, or "folkish" concept of group commonality is qualitatively different from socialist "collectivism," although quite often in the real world there can be happenstance overlaps because of the instinctive tendency of even Communists to group together by race and ethnicity.

There are many cases where Communists have defended their interests by race and ethnicity even though they refused to admit it publicly.Communist Chinese fought border battles against their Russian socialist comrades in the 1960's and against brother Vietnamese socialists in the 1970's. Also in the 1970's, Vietnamese Communists invaded their fellow Cambodian egalitarians and also expelled half breed children of U.S. servicemen. Officially, all of this had nothing to do with race and ethnicity, of course, but rather with conflict over "revisionism" between brother theorists in their common struggle against global imperialism, or whatever.

As another example, in America both the radical leftists and rightists condemn short-sighted, greedy capitalists who underinvest in domestic industry and local talent and send vital jobs and strategic industries offshore to alien countries. The leftists condemn class-conflict treason that hurts workers in America, and the rightists condemn treason against nationality, culture, heritage, ethnic group, race, and national defense. Once you can get a left winger's concept of "faction" to overlap a right winger's concept of a tribal unit, both the radical left and radical right can begin to sound very similar. So for example in the 1920s, once authoritarian German nationalists were able to satisfy authoritarian German Marxists with their view that the exploitive ruling class was made up of Jews, they were able to click their beer mugs and march together.

Often policy is not what it "should be," but rather what it "can be" given the imposition of various constraints. Often not a black and white, but rather as one moves in a policy direction, one begins to accumulate more "risk factors."

Constraint analysis:

Decentralizing society is great, except that a a society fragments, it becomes more vulnerable to a focused military attack by an imperial aggressor. For example, 15th century Ireland before English invasion, or 5th century BC Greece before Persian invasion, or 13 colonies before British invasion of War of Independence. Therefore, size of potential aggressors can be a constraining factor on the degree of decentralization.

Conversely, centralizing society runs into constraints: Many of them involve subtle increases in exposure to "risk factors." Greater risk of tyranny, greater risk of corruption.

Genetic constraints:

Genetic viewpoin t sometimes harder to propagate, since it tends to be more agitative.

What issue find the "non-negotiable self." What issues make your blood boil? Often nation hood is defined who is willing to risk all, fight and die for what. So for example parts of Northern Europe did not think that individual interpretation of scripture and church decentralization was a big deal, but other parts were willing to die over that issue --oula --there are your national boundries.

Canada is seperate from America because in the mid 1770's, the same issues did not get blood boiling in Quebec the same way it did in Massachusetts. It is really that simple. It is not that people in Quebec did not care, but they did not care enough to risk their lives.

"Come out you black and tans, come out fight me like a man!"

A negative constraint : The number of people willing to die for something.


Not a question of "when goods do not cross borders, armies do." In real world, people practice own economic nationalism on own level.

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.