The Anti American empire

In foreign countries, we regularly see protest banners in English, written by Americans and intended for American audiences, whereby if the American writing the protest banner influences the American seeing the protest banner on television, this will redistribute power in the foreign protest country – and, more importantly advance the power of some Americans over others. This is a symptom of the American Empire – which I suggest is better called the Anti American empire.

Moldbug observed that anti Americanism is more accurately described at ultra Americanism. Subjects of the American empire proudly announce that they implement American ideals better than those dreadful Americans in flyover country, and hope for a pat on the head from the New York Times.

Some time ago, the New York Times has published a list of its most upvoted reader comments of all time — and the winner was a Canadian commenter who set out to explain how much more progressive, and consequently wonderful, Canada is relative to the U.S.

That this was noticed by their masters, this slight pat on the head from the emperor, resulted in a huge outburst of patriotic Canadian pride.

And similarly, the American empire is better called the Anti American empire, in that it produces costs, but no benefits, for Americans. For example American tax law claims universal reach, which disadvantages any American citizen attempting to operate a business overseas, making him legally second class to a European. And similarly American corporations are disadvantaged, resulting in all sorts of overly clever scams whereby American corporations form overseas corporations. If America is going to claim universal reach for its laws, those laws should advantage Americans by protecting their freedom to do business, giving them more freedom to do business than natives of foreign countries, rather than less. In practice, American universal jurisdiction is based on the principle that Americans are evil capitalist exploiters who need to be prevented from oppressing the foreign masses.

And of course, Americans spend blood and treasure meddling in foreign regions.

By and large, the objective of these shenanigans is to install in power in foreign places regimes that hate and despise Americans in flyover country, and eagerly hope for a pat on the head from the New York Times. Hence, better called the Anti American Empire.

Reflect, for example, on the installation of Aristide. Aristide “won” the Haitian election, which was called at American insistence. When it became obvious he was going to lose the Haitian election that the American government had called, the American government demanded that the rules were changed, and changed again, until Aristide could win because no one else important was allowed to run. Then, after Aristide “won”, and the permanent Haitian government ignored the election outcome, the US government invaded Haiti, and installed Aristide.

There scarcely was and is anyone in the world more loudly, vociferously, and obnoxiously anti American than Aristide, who spent much of his career in Washington seeking American support for him to rule Haiti, rather than in Haiti seeking Haitian support for him to rule Haiti.

During decolonization, there were a pile of Marxist national independence movements, with names in English, composed of rubber stamp Harvard jargon, rather than referencing the names, history and culture of the countries whose independence they were supposedly seeking.

And similarly, when Cuba ridicules US presidents, it ridicules the evil stupid Bushitler and Ronald Raygun, while groveling for a pat on the head from Obama the Lightbringer.

I have often written favorably of the red empire of the bases, and contrasted it with the evil blue empire of the consulates. But they are both the American empire, and without the hard power provided by the empire of the bases, the empire of the consulates would find that their soft power was parasitic on the hard power of the bases, and their NGOs would be exiled or banned. Shut down the empire of the bases, as Trump proposes, and the Anti American empire withers on the vine.

If we really must intervene in the Middle East let us steal their oil and ravish their women. Three hundred thousand vets have suffered brain damage from explosions. It is not worth it unless they get their wicks dipped.

Trump proposes to cut loose all those countries that hate us, despise us, and cost us blood and money. Should he actually carry out this policy, which is completely within presidential power and requires no consent from judiciary or legislature, only the obedience of the military, the horror and outrage will be beyond belief, making the former Bush derangement syndrome, and the current Trump derangement syndrome seem like courteous and rational discussion. The only reason the media’s heads are not already exploding on television is that they really cannot believe the proposal.

While I don’t think the merely temporary government can achieve real and lasting change, it will be good to hear those blood vessels popping like firecrackers on New Years Eve.

Just as the Turkish empire really sucked for Turks, the American Empire really sucks for Americans, hence, the Anti American Empire. Not to mention that Aristide, the loudest Anti American on the block, was our proconsul in Haiti.

47 Responses to “The Anti American empire”

  1. […] The anti-American empire. […]

  2. […] The anti-American empire. […]

  3. k says:

    >If we really must intervene in the Middle East let us steal their oil and ravish their women. Three hundred thousand vets have suffered brain damage from explosions. It is not worth it unless they get their wicks dipped.
    Incredible double entendre

  4. […] facts and truth. Herds (viz). The schizoid empire. A Russian refuge. Soft power (plus outrage). The r/K social super-cycle (succinct version). […]

  5. This is the part of Moldbug I am still not 100% sure I agree. Are Prog values really more American than Western European? Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx, French Revolution, Lib-Eq-Frat, socialized healthcare, welfare state, no capital punishment, gun control, Continental Philosophy, the complete lack of National Review type conservative resistance movements (cuck or no cuck), and so on.

    I do understand that America fairly early had her own Progs like the John Brown abolitionist types but were they really as bad as the montangards?

    I have always considered the UK a distinctly moderate culture – look at the surprisingly reserved behavior of the left-wing Chartists of 1848 – and this inherited by America, although with some amount of religious idealism added.

    I think Moldbug does make a good point here, and it seems especially true after 1945, but to see the last 200 years as Prog values generated in America an exported into Europe is something I find difficult to stomach.

    My view may be skewed because I have always been a pro-America European and by that I mean pro Red Tribe because that was the ONLY American culture that looked authentic and interesting from here: Harley bikes, bolo ties, country-rock, Lynyrd Skynyrd, GNR, embroidered boots, all this cowboyish stuff, every self-respecting European male when feeling he is aging tends to borrow these stuff from America as a generic expression of youth, energy and masculinity.

    So my view may be biased, but still. Can anyone really prove that e.g. gun control or universal healthcare or similar Prog stuff was actually invented in America, somehow pushed on Europe and yet their implementation in America was somehow prevented?

    To be fair, this happens in music. Detroit invented techno, Chicago house music, and pushed it on Europe around 1990 while America resisted until about 2005. I don’t know why. But does this really happen in politics? This roundtrip? Invent in America, push it on Europe, comes back a generation later?

    • pdimov says:

      I don’t think that gun control in Australia can credibly be blamed on Europe.

      • jim says:

        Yes, you are right. Gun control in Australia was the endogenous Cathedral, local progressivism. Mass illegal immigration was however the American Cathedral, the voice of foreign masters, external progressivism.

    • jim says:

      I think Moldbug does make a good point here, and it seems especially true after 1945, but to see the last 200 years as Prog values generated in America an exported into Europe is something I find difficult to stomach

      If Moldbug says that he is wrong. American leftism did not rule the world until victory in World War II. Before World War II, Exeter Hall and the London School of Economics, British leftism, ruled the world.

      But I don’t think he says that.

    • pdimov says:

      “the complete lack of National Review type conservative resistance movements”

      That’s an interesting difference, but maybe not so weird. NR-type conservatism is characterized by

      – “the values of our founding fathers”
      – “Judeo-Christianity”

      and neither exists in Europe. So right-wing in Europe would be royalist or fascist, and the former of those was thoroughly eradicated after WW1 and the latter was and is being violently suppressed after WW2.

  6. Brit says:

    Where can I learn more about Aristide and Haiti?

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    Well Done B.

    Yes I realize you aren’t Ibn Khadun but well placed extract.

  8. […] facts and truth. Herds (viz). The schizoid empire. A Russian refuge. Soft power (plus outrage). The r/K social super-cycle (succinct version). […]

  9. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Moldbug is too US-centric. He sees the left blame all the world’s problems on the US, because it’s too right-wing, and the right praise the US as the world’s universal saviour, because it’s more right-wing than other countries, and comes up with his own, spectacularly counter-intuitive theory that the US is to blame for all the world’s problems because it is too left-wing.

    This theory is more accurate than the two mainstream theories he’s trying to supplant, but still ascribes far too much importance to national borders and westphalian states. The anglo left is a transnational religious movement. Its American adherents didn’t originate it and they became significantly more important than its British adherents in a fairly smooth transition for little more reason than America’s population grew much larger than Britain’s. If America disappeared from the world tomorrow, this religion wouldn’t cease to be the official religion in Britain, Canada, or Australia. It is naive there, not enforced by the US. Nor would it likely disappear in the most thoroughly colonised non-anglo outposts, like Germany, Scandinavia, and India. It might cease to be the official religion in places like Japan, and certainly in the third world proper where it is only a veneer on organised banditry anyway. In places like Russia and the PRC which already have competing official religions it would however be squashed out right away, as British Commonwealth, Germany, and the handful of others aren’t strong enough to make Russia or PRC show any restraint. But it’s not like the anglo left is exactly throttling the Russian and PRC governments right now.

    Moldbug greatly underestimated the intellectual independence of other denominations of Left that come to the same conclusions from somewhat different premises. Russian socialism, which is actually pre-WWII German socialism, and the movements it inspired were not as Moldbug claims merely muppets of the US State Department. The US State Department certainly saw them as enemy-of-my-enemy, and did its best to prop them up, but the State Department and broader anglo left were never sending them orders by telegram in the way the Kremlin was to its muppet organisations in the West, like CPUSA and the Harvard Crimson. In fact the Harvard Crimson adhered to the Kremlin line when it conflicted with the State Department line rather than vice-versa, suggesting that there actually was something to the Soviet subversion story, even if it was far from the whole story. Likely what happened is that Harvard Crimson was owned by anglo-leftist extremists who saw practical marxism-leninism as being closer to ideal anglo-leftism than the practical anglo-leftism of the US, and like FDR supported their enemy’s enemy.

    I don’t know much about Haiti but my guess is it’s a similar story. US anglo-leftists propped up a marxist-leninist dictator – who really is an ideological enemy, kinda – in order to avoid the even worse prospect of a competent non-ideological military government.

    • jim says:

      If America disappeared from the world tomorrow, this religion wouldn’t cease to be the official religion in Britain, Canada, or Australia. It is naive there, not enforced by the US.

      That is true. On the other hand, the unlimited illegal immigration policy was never popular and clearly was enforced by the US.

      Yes, it is true the Cathedral is transnational and would continue to function if the US disappeared tomorrow. On the other hand, it is also true that we have an American empire, and the latest orthodoxy always comes from America – which is then condemned for its failure to fully implement what a very short while ago it decreed should be implemented.

      • peppermint says:

        EuroCathedral seems to be run by Germany, considering how shaken Europe seems to be by the mass sexual assaults at the beginning of the current year

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        I don’t think it is true that the recent influx was enforced from the outside. If it had been, we would expect it to have affected the whole of Europe. Instead it only had a major effect on three countries – Austria, Germany, Sweden – which were also the only countries to choose to invite the immigrants. Almost no one made it to the UK, even though the UK is a huge economy in Europe with low unemployment, and apparently closer to the Cathedral power centre, because the UK has a border and enforced that border. Cathedral attempts to bludgeon the British public into joining in failed.

        Now what is true is that border states, which should have enforced the Schengen frontier, deliberately chose not to enforce that border because they feared negative publicity from the Cathedral, which will have meant in large part from the US. But they were only willing to do so as long as it was known that the immigrants would immediately pass through their countries to Austria, Germany, or Sweden. When it became clear that those countries might start refusing more people, who would then have nowhere to move on to, the borders were closed quickly and effectively and despite protests from the usual suspects. They wanted to avoid Cathedral when ding was the Cathedral wanted as essentially costless, but faced with even a moderate real cost to themselves they blew off the cathedral.

        My personal take on this, having had some look at it on the ground, is that Germany does not follow the sound and fury of day-to-day US politics much at all, nor react much to official actions of USG. Rather, Germany is about 10-20 years behind the English-speaking imperial metropole intellectually, and is simply coming to the same conclusions independently having started with the same premises, This Gleichschaltung of the influencers is really how the cathedral operates everywhere. There is no command centre issuing orders to the lesser branches, it is a decentralised conspiracy, and its ability to exercise military force is pretty limited. Now of course Harvard is more influential than the University of Kiel, and what it does matters more, but when a ‘good’ idea comes out of Cape Town University it too can spread through the Cathedral, even though South Africa is a backwater and Cape Town isn’t a famous university. This has nothing to do with the military strength of the South African government.

        Military pressure can matter in countries where the influencers are not yet all Cathedral guys. But the ability of the Cathedral to really exercise that power has been pretty sketchy. I would say their greatest successes have not come from exercising power but preventing it from being exercised – no WWIII in Europe in the late 40s/early 50s, which the US would have won, and surrendering China to the communists being the biggest.

        • pdimov says:

          “I don’t think it is true that the recent influx was enforced from the outside.”

          Of course it was. Transporting a few million people in such a short time is a nontrivial logistical operation and someone has organized and financed it.

          The average German may be naïve and misinformed by the media, but Merkel is neither of those things. Her decision to admit a million “Syrian” “refugees” was very unlike her past behavior. Absence of outside pressure is very improbable.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Then why did Merkel do it but not Cameron? I don’t see how you can explain this in terms of external pressure. There’s no obvious reason the UK should be subject to less of it; a few advantages (nuclear weapons) aside, the general consensus is that the UK is diplomatically weaker than Germany right now.

            The simplest explanation to me is that both Cameron and Merkel, as Cathedral centre-right leaders, wanted to do it. Cameron couldn’t because the dissident-right party UKIP can destroy his governing Conserative Party. Merkel on the other hand could ally with the left and dare her voters to switch to dissident-right AfD, which is much weaker than UKIP. In other words domestic factors were dominant, not external.

            Note also how Sweden finally closed its borders once the dissident-right Sweden Democrats started leading in the polling, ahead of both the left- and right-wing Cathedral parties.

            Cathedral needs to boil the frog, i.e. displace native voters slowly enough that they don’t get frightened and shut the whole thing down. This whole refugee swamping seems like a huge misstep. German-Germans have a TFR of around 1.3; they could have invited in 100,000/year, frightened no one, and still created a large dependent underclass in just a couple of decades.

            note: I accidentally posted this as a separate comment to the OP. Could the admin please delete that post?

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Forgive the double [triple] post. But it occurs to me that the electoral and government system is vital here. Right now Merkel is the leader of a left-right coalition government. It’s not just that her voters have nowhere to go, but that she or people very much like her will remain in power unless left wing voters jump ship too. Very similar situation in Sweden.

            The UK on the other hand has a first past the post electoral system that usually produces a decisive result where the highest polling party gets disproportionately more seats than its vote share. A shift of 10ppt from Cameron’s Conseratives to UKIP would make it impossible for Cameron to win an election and probably wipe out half of the party’s MPs. Therefore refugee swamping is a no-go. A shift of 10ppt from Merkel’s CDU to the AfD would just see the centre-left and centre-right parties swap places in the grand coalition government and business as usual.

            Cameron won a majority government with much less than a majority of votes but the price for this is a much more precarious position in government.

          • pdimov says:

            “Then why did Merkel do it but not Cameron? I don’t see how you can explain this in terms of external pressure.”

            I can’t explain this difference in terms of external pressure.

            UK had already absorbed most of the first wave of refugees and had already stopped admitting them, hence the existence of the Calais camp. I don’t know why Cameron is successful in resisting the Cathedral sobbing for the poor Calais refugees.


            But the recent influx is most definitely the result of external pressure. The man himself explains this in plain text:


            This is what he had to say in response to Orban accusing him of engineering the “crisis”:

            “His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Soros, a naturalized American, said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

            I agree with you that

            “This whole refugee swamping seems like a huge misstep.”

            and have no explanation for that either.

          • B says:

            This only makes sense if the Euro leadership thought that their society could withstand the massive loss of productivity and increased costs associated with having their native population replaced with feral Muslims. If we think there’s a conscious plan at work, we have to assume they are drinking their own Kool-Aid re: the possibility of turning Syrians into Germans or Brits. But these are highly intelligent people, as smart as any of us, with access to better information. They couldn’t possibly believe something so stupid.

            What the hell is going on?

            Ibn Khaldun explains:

            The fifth stage is one of waste and squandering. In this stage, the ruler wastes on pleasures and amusements (the treasures) accumulated by his ancestors, through (excessive) generosity to his inner circle and at their parties. Also, he acquires bad, low-class followers to whom he entrusts the most important matters (of state), which they are not qualified to handle by themselves, not knowing which of them they should tackle and which they should leave alone. (In addition,) the ruler seeks to destroy the great clients of his people and followers of his predecessors. Thus, they come to hate him and conspire to refuse support to him. (Furthermore) he loses a number of soldiers by spending their allowances on his pleasures (instead of paying them) and by refusing them access to his person and not supervising them (properly). Thus, he ruins the foundations his ancestors had laid and tears down what they had built up. In this stage, the dynasty is seized by senility and the chronic disease from which it can hardly ever rid itself, for which it can find no cure, and, eventually, it is destroyed.

            The reason for this is that a tribe that has obtained royal authority and luxury is prolific and produces many children, and the community grows. Thus, the group grows. Furthermore, a greater number of clients and followers is acquired. The (new) generations grow up in a climate of prosperity and luxury. Through them, (the dynasty) gains in numbers and in strength, because a great number of groups form at that time as the result of the numerical increase. When the first and second generations are gone and the dynasty starts to become senile, its followers and clients cannot do anything on their own to put the dynasty and its royal authority on a firmer basis, because they never had authority of their own but were dependent on the men of (the dynasty) and (merely) supported it. When the roots are gone, the branches cannot be strong on their own, but dis­appear completely, and the dynasty no longer retains its former strength.

            People, meanwhile, continue to adopt ever newer forms of luxury and sedentary culture and of quiet, tranquility, and softness in all their conditions, and to sink ever deeper into them. They thus become estranged from desert life and desert toughness. Gradually, they lose more and more of (the old virtues). They forget the quality of bravery that was their protection and defense. Eventually, they come to depend upon some other militia, if they have one.

            In a dynasty affected by senility as the result of luxury and rest, it sometimes happens that the ruler chooses helpers and partisans from groups not related to (the ruling dynasty but) used to toughness. He uses (these people) as an army which will be better able to suffer the hardships of wars, hunger, and privation. This could prove a cure for the senility of the dynasty when it comes, (but only) until God permits His command regarding (the dynasty) to be executed.

            It should be known that attacks on people’s property remove the incentive to acquire and gain property. People, then, become of the opinion that the purpose and ultimate destiny of (acquiring property) is to have it taken away from them. When the incentive to acquire and obtain property is gone, people no longer make efforts to acquire any. The extent and degree to which property rights are infringed upon determines the extent and degree to which the efforts of the subjects to acquire property slacken. When attacks (on property) are extensive and general, extending to all means of making a livelihood, business inactivity, too, becomes (general), because the general extent of (such attacks upon property) means a general destruction of the incentive (to do business). If the attacks upon property are but light, the stoppage of gainful activity is correspondingly slight. Civilization and its well-being as well as business prosperity depend on productivity and people’s efforts in all directions in their own interest and profit. When people no longer do business in order to make a living, and when they cease all gainful activity, the business of civilization slumps, and everything decays.

            It should be known that all these (practices) are caused by the need for more money on the part of dynasty and ruler, because they have become accustomed to luxurious living. Their expenditures increase, and much spending is done. The ordinary income does not meet (the expenditures). Therefore, the ruler invents new sorts and kinds of taxes, in order to increase the revenues and to be able to balance the budget. But luxury continues to grow, and spending increases on account of it. The need for (appropriating) people’s property becomes stronger and stronger. In this way, the authority of the dynasty shrinks until its influence is wiped out and its identity lost and it is defeated by an attacker.

            Many a politically conscious person among the people of the dynasty becomes alert to it and notices the symptoms and causes of senility that have affected his dynasty. He con­siders it possible to make that senility disappear. Therefore, he takes it upon himself to repair the dynasty and relieve its temper of senility. He supposes that (senility) resulted from shortcomings or negligence on the part of former people of the dynasty. This is not so. These things are natural to the dynasty. Customs (that have developed in the dynasty) prevent him from repairing it. Customs are like a second nature. A person who, for instance, has seen his father and the older members of his family wear silk and brocade and use gold ornaments for weapons and mounts and be inaccessible to the people in their salons and at prayer, will not be able to diverge from the customs of his forebears in this respect. He will not be able to use coarse dress and apparel and mingle with the people. Custom would prevent him (from doing that) and expose him if he were to do it. Were he to do it, he would be accused of craziness and insanity for his brusque disregard of custom. There is the danger that it would have bad consequences for his government

            It should be known that, as we have stated, the dynasty can be founded and established only with the help of group feeling. There must be a major group feeling uniting all the group feelings subordinate to it. This (major group feeling) is the family and tribal group feeling peculiar to the ruler.
            When the natural luxury of royal authority makes its appearance in the dynasty, and when the people who share in the group feeling of the dynasty are humiliated, the first to be humiliated are the members of the ruler’s family and his relatives who share with him in the royal name. They are much more humiliated than anyone else. Moreover, luxury has a greater hold on them than on anyone else, because they have a share in royal authority, power, and superiority. Thus, two agents of destruction surround them,
            luxury and force. (The use of) force eventually leads to their being killed.

            The ruler, then, must impose duties on articles sold in the markets, in order to improve his revenues. (He does so,) because he sees the luxury of the urban population testifying to their prosperity, and because he needs the money for the expenditures of his government and the salaries of his soldiers. Habits of luxury, then, further increase. The customs duties no longer pay for them. The dynasty, by this time, is flourishing in its power and its forceful hold over the subjects under its control. Its hand reaches out to seize some of the property of the subjects, either through customs duties, or through commercial transactions, or, in some cases, merely by hostile acts directed against (property holdings), on some pretext or even with none.
            At this stage, the soldiers have already grown bold against the dynasty, because it has become weak and senile it, as far as its group feeling is concerned. (The dynasty) expects that from them, and attempts to remedy and smooth over the situation through generous allowances and much spending for (the soldiers). It cannot get around that.
            At this stage, the tax collectors in the dynasty have acquired much wealth, because vast revenues are in their hands and their position has widened in importance for this reason. Suspicions of having appropriated tax money, therefore, attach to them. It becomes common for one tax collector to denounce another, because of their mutual jealousy and envy. One after another is deprived of his money by confiscation and torture. Eventually, their wealth is gone, and they are ruined. The dynasty loses the pomp and magnificence it had possessed through them.
            After their prosperity is destroyed, the dynasty goes farther afield and approaches its other wealthy subjects. At this stage, feebleness has already afflicted its (former) might. (The dynasty) has become too weak to retain its power and forceful hold. The policy of the ruler, at this time, is to handle matters diplomatically by spending money. He considers this more advantageous than the sword, which is of little use. His need for money grows beyond what is needed for expenditures and soldiers’ salaries. He never gets enough. Senility affects the dynasty more and more. The people of (other) regions grow bold against it.
            At each of these stages, the strength of the dynasty crumbles. Eventually, it reaches complete ruin. It is open to domination by (any) aggressor. Anyone who wants to attack it can take it away from those who support it.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I don’t find it at all hard to believe that Cameron and Merkel don’t think there’s any long-run difference between Syrians and Germans. In any case, PR man Cameron and childless cohabitor Merkel don’t necessarily strike me as long-run kind of guys.

            • jim says:

              You saw that look of absolutely visceral disgust on Merkel’s face when someone handed her the German flag.

              I am pretty sure that if an AIDS infested tranny projectile vomited all over her, she would lick it up and think it was chocolate.

              The look of visceral disgust tells me that she wants everything that flag stands for destroyed – the german people, the german race, classical music. In her gut she absolutely wants to see German cities destroyed like Detroit was. She wants every German and everything German to die with her when she dies, to be physically erased and absolutely forgotten. She wants the death of every German and the utter destruction of anything memorable that any German ever made.

          • pdimov says:

            “You saw that look of absolutely visceral disgust on Merkel’s face when someone handed her the German flag.”



          • Irving says:

            According to a Croatian neighbor and friend, the migrants in Prague were paying for meals and public transportation in Euros. That they had money in the first place is suspicious enough, but Euros? I wonder where they could’ve gotten there hands on those..

          • Irving says:

            As far as internal causes go, a look at this video from Germany might clarify some things:


            Notice how all of the anti-immigration protesters are men and the pro-immigration protesters are mostly women.

            • jim says:

              Naturally: German men failed the emancipation shit test, so now German women are looking for men manly enough to rape them.

  10. A Pint Thereof says:

    Reminds me of a remark by Slavoj Zizek (although I suspect it isn’t original) that everyone in the world should be able to vote in American presidential elections except the American people themselves.

  11. Leonard says:

    It is very interesting that foreigners create signs in English. I’d suggest in this connection that the attempt is not merely to appeal to the State Department, but more broadly to the “international community”. (Yes I am aware of Moldy’s aphorism here, but I think it is sometimes useful to distinguish between the State Department proper (the USA bits of it) and its far-flung empire.) The reason that foreigners attuned to the Cathedral use English is that English is the lingua franca of the “international community”. Of course, the reason for that is that New England conquered the world.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Not really an “of course”, but it does indeed bolster the anti-Anglo, pro-papist side, “Leonard”.


  12. ron says:

    “If we really must intervene in the Middle East let us steal their oil and ravish their women. ”


    • peppermint says:

      Take the oil, maybe. If hippies hadn’t rallied against nuclear power when futuristic carbon-neutral power infrastructure was offered to them, and the activists hadn’t managed to gum things up to the point where boomers who think only in dollars now believe it costs too much, oil would not be as interesting as a resource.

      They want Star Trek San Francisco gleaming spires with nuclear power and coffee selling guys who are on a first name basis with nuclear engineers. But also they must signal. Which is why we can’t have nice things.

      Raping middle eastern women is totally out of the question. Our armies should be held to the same standards as the Nazi armies, not to mention, we do not need more mulatto children in the world. Maybe rape their women with IVF embryos from certified White eggs.

      • Crikey! says:

        Better for Middle Eastern women to be pregnant for 9 months with a 50% white baby, preventing their impregnation by arab males. Better that the next generation in the Middle East be 50% like us, than 0%.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Us” … Anti-whites aren’t invited.

          Take this muddy sort of talk to the places where “assimilation” has been the policy for centuries, instead of mere decades, if you’re looking for likeminded people, that is to say, if you’re not trolling…


        • peppermint says:

          yeah, ask the French Haitians how producing mixed-race abominations works out for the master race

          • jim says:

            Well, if we attempt to rule the middle east, raping the women will produce offspring competent to overthrow us. However, provided we suppress Islam before that happens, that will not be such a bad outcome.

          • peppermint says:

            “If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot.” — Prophet Brigham Young

            • jim says:

              I rather like Xenophon’s ten thousand, who impregnated every concave surface from Greece to Asia and back again to Greece.

          • B says:

            I read the March of the 10K, don’t remember this part.

            In general, if you’re marching across enemy territory with your enemies on all sides waiting for you to lose cohesion and discipline, taking a break for some mass raping and pillaging is not conducive to staying alive.

            • jim says:

              As usual, your recollection of the source differs from my own.

              Xenophon preferred to feed his troops by the market economy, which the peasants brought food and supplies to the army. Frequently however, the locals denied him supplies, and his men had to forage off the countryside.

              Sometimes the locals would do a scorched earth strategy, and take the supplies to a few well defended heavily fortified central points, in which case he would of course attack those forts. But often his forces had to spread out to forage, which, as you say, created a risk of being defeated in detail in guerrilla warfare.

              An army marches on its stomach, and the stomachs of the ten thousand were indeed their vulnerable point – because of the frequent necessity to spread out to rape and pillage, loot and burn.

          • B says:

            Foraging is done by foraging parties which are of necessity a minority of your army, and move with urgency. If your army devolves into a mass of bands spreading out to loot and rape, you don’t need to worry about being defeated in detail by guerrilla warfare, you need to worry about an actual army showing up and wiping out your unruly mob.

            Anyway, I don’t remember Xenophon writing about rape specifically. Mind bringing a quote?

  13. spandrell says:

    There was no Turkish empire. There was an Ottoman Empire, the property of the house of Osman. It was never intended to benefit Turks per se, to the extent that Turks even were a thing at all before the 1880s.

    The Roman Empire was to a point the common work of the city of Rome, but generally speaking Empires are built by an army for the benefit of themselves as a narrow ruling class.

  14. Mackus says:

    >> Just as the Turkish empire really sucked for Turks
    This is actually very interesting topic for me, as I am currently trying to analyses causes of collapse of various empires in period around world war one (Qing, KuK, Russia, Ottomans, Germany)
    Could you please elaborate?

    • Jim Russell says:

      Turks were seen as dumb plebs who were only good for plowing the lands. There’s a saying in Ottoman Turkish, “etrak-ı bi-idrak”, which roughly translates as “obtuse turks”. The Ottoman Sultans were already less than 1% genetically Turkic by the mid-15th century. Ruling elite were muslim converts, recruited as Christian boys from the Balkans. While other millets like the Orthodox Christians, Armenians and the Jews were quite prosperous, doing trade, pre-industrial manufacturing etc., Turks were mostly lowly farmers. Ottoman statesmanship and culture of the ruling elite was an amalgamation of Persian, Arabic, Byzantine, and Turkic cultures. For example, while the syntax of the Ottoman language is borrowed from Turkish, it constitutes less than a third of the Ottoman vocabulary and amounts to a language of the commoners.

      • Let me elaborate that comment as a Turkish historian.

        “Turks were seen as dumb plebs who were only good for plowing the lands.”

        Mostly true.

        “There’s a saying in Ottoman Turkish, “etrak-ı bi-idrak”, which roughly translates as “obtuse turks”.”

        True, but this mostly applied to nomadic Turks, who resisted taxation and the attempts of forced settlement.

        “The Ottoman Sultans were already less than 1% genetically Turkic by the mid-15th century.”

        Not that early, in the mid-15th century, Ottoman dynasty was still marrying with girls from other Turkish families (at least sometimes).

        “Ruling elite were muslim converts, recruited as Christian boys from the Balkans.”

        True. But:

        First, technically they are slaves and came from non-noble families (except two grand viziers who were related to the last Byzantine emperor), so that the Sultan could easily kill them and confiscate most of their belongings. Second, Turkish members of ruling elite backed the wrong horse after the death of Mehmed the second. Third, many of the Turkish members of the ruling elite were part of ancient Turkish families, killing them, ousting them, or confiscate their belongings means rebellions.

        “While other millets like the Orthodox Christians, Armenians and the Jews were quite prosperous, doing trade, pre-industrial manufacturing etc., Turks were mostly lowly farmers. ”

        After the 19th century, many Christians and Jews became rich traders. But, at the area of pre-industrial manufacturing, Muslims and Non-Muslims are almost on the same level.

        “Ottoman statesmanship and culture of the ruling elite was an amalgamation of Persian, Arabic, Byzantine, and Turkic cultures.”


Leave a Reply