Today, Europe, the birthplace of the most magnificent civilizations to have graced this Earth, inspires only contempt. A prominent recent example was that of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama in a lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg[1] of The Atlantic. In it, Obama blames European leaders for the chaos that followed his launching a war against Libya:
“Free riders aggravate me,” he told me [Goldberg]. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong,” Obama said, “there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” he said. He noted that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, lost his job the following year. And he said that British Prime Minister David Cameron soon stopped paying attention, becoming “distracted by a range of other things.”
Obama is of course not the first American president to have expressed frustration with the soft, war-averse, welfare-addled, nagging, and comfort-addicted smugly “post-historical” Eloi the Europeans have become since the Second World War. But his annoyance at Great Britain and France is striking insofar as these two are the last Western European nations to make any pretense of being even middle powers. The rest – Germany, Italy, Spain, et al – don’t even try.
From an Imperial-American perspective like Obama’s, that makes dealing with Europeans useless, frustrating, and downright boring. This was evident in Obama’s first term when he decided to skip a soporific European Union summit in Madrid and decided to cancel the established practice of yearly EU-U.S. summits. Obama is bored by Europe. And who could blame him? He can see that European leaders – a contemptible bunch – saw him mainly as an opportunity for a photo-op to appear fashionable in their respective media.
And Obama does not have the same ties of blood and civilization which bound previous American presidents to Europe. He is a self-described half-African “mutt” raised in Muslim Indonesia and minority-majority Hawaii. Obama is in a sense the first post-American, nay, the first “cosmic” President of the United States.[2] He is the first president whose wife could use the aura of the presidency in favor of an African rap video to promote college education, even as that bubble appears close to bursting under the sheer weight of student debt, again and always in the name of the lie of equality and the absurdity of universal upward social mobility.
Obama is also the first non-white president, the first “post-European” president. He writes in his autobiography of having dumped his white girlfriend on racial grounds and of being alienated during a trip to Europe: “And by the end of the first week or so, I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine.” No surprise then that Obama gets along better with Jay-Z and Beyoncé than he does with European leaders. Contrast Obama’s repeated snubs of British leader Gordon Brown with the, admittedly mostly sentimental, rapport between fellows Anglos Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
But Imperial-American distaste for Europe goes beyond Obama’s personal preferences. Francis Fukuyama commented on Europe’s decadence with a fine line in his famous “end of history” article: “the countries of postwar Western Europe . . . those flabby, prosperous, self-satisfied, inward-looking, weak-willed states whose grandest project was nothing more heroic than the creation of the Common Market.”[3] Well said.
Fukuyama seems to imply that it is precisely the fact of democracy – or at least of consumer, bourgeois, welfare, death-fearing comfort-craving democracies – which is the source of European weakness. Comfort and self-indulgence lead mechanically to Europe’s decline: The fall of the colonial empires, the collapse of the birthrate to sub-replacement levels, the end of conscription, and the decline of military spending to almost negligible levels. Europe is today irrelevant and European leaders, while conscious of Europeans’ catastrophic demographic decline in the world and therefore of political power, have no other plan than to cling ever-more-strongly, like a security blanket, to the European Union and its universalist ideology. As though a superpower could be made of a confederacy of weaklings. Mark my words: France will be an Islamic Republic long before the European Union becomes a Weltmacht.
But this begs the question: Why has Europe grown so weak whereas the American Empire, also a kind of democracy, remains so strong? Contrary to some, I am rather bullish on the prospects of the American Empire, at least in the medium term.
Individualism, egalitarianism, and the multiculturalizing of America have of course led to problems for the power structure: American capitalism and the welfare state are addicted to debt; the myth of equality promotes unsustainable student and mortgage debt (especially the imperative of lending to minorities regardless of their income, for to discriminate would be “racist”); average educational performance is declining; and finally, patriotism has become so weak that the military is unable to find recruits, while those that do volunteer are increasingly, as a special report of drafted by U.S. generals solemnly reported, “too fat to fight” or indeed too stupid to fight.
Despite all this, the ability of the American Empire to absorb shocks and adapt to these trends is remarkable. Partly, this is due to the fact that America is more plutocratic than Europe’s democratic little nation-states. Americans, until Donald Trump, at least, had basically no effective say in their political process and acquiesced to things like collapsing wages. The U.S. Army no longer has soldiers, but these were passé anyway, and can be more than made up for, at least concerning the Islamic World, with drone terror and assassination bombers.
The American Empire’s power, I believe, is a reflection of two powerful trends: 1) The power of cognitive elitism. 2) The debilitating effects of individualist-egalitarianism in other countries, carefully promoted by the American Empire in, at the risk of sounding too fancy, an anarcho-tyrannical foreign policy.
Sure, America is getting dumber and dumber. But the country, or, at least, its globalist hubs on the west and east coasts, are attracting the “best and brightest” from across the world too in a world-wide brain drain. If a nation’s innovation is determined, not by the middling, but by the “smart fractions,” then this gives America a decisive edge, even as the American average slides to Mexican levels of cognitive ability, socio-ethnic cohesion, and civic virtue.
The power of the United States in the world and I do not just mean the government, is then truly remarkable. (Judeo-)American power is measurable in the numerous industries and power networks the United States possesses which are really in a class of their own:
• Aerospace and military power with the Military-Industrial Complex and the U.S. Armed Forces.
• Cultural power with Hollywood, pop music, prestigious print media (The New York Times), and the Ivy Leagues (U.S. academic societies setting the trends across the Western world).
• Cultural and espionage power with Silicon Valley, notably Facebook and Google, the latter enjoying a very close symbiotic relationship with the U.S. military and ruling class (e.g. former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is working for Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon).
• Economic power through the sheer size of the economy, Wall Street, and the dollar’s role as a global reserve currency.
These attributes, along with being one of the top two economies in the world, give the American Empire incredible power in the world, of which European nations are merely cultural and political satellites. The European democracies, when they are not obsessed with filling their bellies, are distorted by multiculturalist ideology and Imperial-American power. European societies are as much victims of brainwashing by the Hollywood-Ivy League establishment as Texans or Virginians are. Craven European governments, usually satisfied with the mere appearance of power in the media limelight, also enjoy a quick taste of power through collaboration with the American Empire, whether this is through NATO conference calls or participation in the Five Eyes, a global surveillance network which puts the Stasi to shame.
In fact, one should not think of the American Empire as simply an American phenomenon, but rather the reflection of the power of globalist oligarchs who have, for all intents and purposes, captured the American political process (e.g. George Soros, Carlos Slim, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Rupert Murdoch) and use the American state as a vector for that power. These oligarchs have no loyalty to America. Their holdings typically go beyond America. Indeed, the Empire’s power nodes to some extent also go beyond America (e.g. London’s The Economist enjoys a niche of a certain influence and is incidentally owned by the multinationals Cadbury and Schroders, and the Rothschilds).
To know who rules America, look at who owns the media and who finances the politicians, particularly their favored candidate, Hillary, who while largely-financed this year by decidedly-privileged Middle Easterners, demanded that white Americans “recognize our [sic] privilege.” You can bet she will never tell those bankrolling her campaign who just happen to be of Middle-Eastern extraction to “recognize their Jewish privilege.”
Notice that Hillary, in terms of industries, has largely been financed by feminists, banks, Hollywood and other media, and universities, that is to say, by the very illusion-making cultural industries who have made it their duty to brainwash Americans with the lie of equality and induce self-hatred in European-Americans. As though the ideological power of egalitarianism has metastasized and has taken on a life of its own, reinforcing itself still further by seizing the political process itself. This is rather symbolic, just as the Democratic Party’s success reflects the strength of the lie of equality in the minds of Americans, so their leading candidate is actually materially financed by the purveyors of that lie.
The power of the historic American nation-state is founded upon a divine alignment of fortuitous factors: America’s isolation and therefore security from the rest of the world, with (mostly) harmless Canadian and Mexican neighbors; the sheer size and wealth of the North American continent; the fact of having been founded by representatives of European civilization, the most dynamic in the world, and more specifically by Englishmen, the most dynamic people of that civilization, with their particular laws and customs.
The rest is history. After the founding, America grew in wealth and power at an astonishing exponential rate. Americans were democratic, individualist, self-starters, but they were, unlike postwar Europeans, not faithless and depressed.
The oligarchs have hijacked the American state and core European-American nation, and harness their power to its own ends, creating the American Empire.
America is also weakened by individualist-egalitarianism, but she is just big enough to dominate the world, at least until China really makes her appearance (hence the importance of the Chan Zuckerberg Project). There is much talk of the “BRICS,” but really, for the most part, these are not credible rivals. Russia, while sovereign and influential in her regional sphere of influence under President Vladimir Putin, is experiencing a typical slow European demographic decline. India is overrated geopolitically. Brazil’s future “will always be bright,” as General Charles de Gaulle said. Meanwhile, South Africa is obviously an affirmative-action BRIC.
The American Empire is just big enough to be hegemonic if it systematically corrupts other nations with the individualist-egalitarian poison, through a powerful strategy of, in Gregory Hood’s inspired expression, “geopolitical dysgenics.” This can be considered a kind of very sophisticated “divide and rule” strategy, dividing societies even within themselves, and thus rendering them harmless. Europe’s weakness is no accident, but the fruit of the consistent policies – sometimes conscious, sometimes not – of the American Empire, aimed at destroying or subverting all potential rivals.
This began with Woodrow Wilson, who famously conditioned German surrender in the First World War on the destruction of the Prussian military and autocratic monarchy in the name of “democracy.” (Of course, German “democracy” was not extended to allowing the Germans to choose their own system of government, or rejecting unjust debt obligations under the Treaty of Versailles, or allowing Austrian or Sudeten German self-determination, or . . .) Prussiandom, like the Samurai ethos, is odious to the bourgeois, as is all martial spirit of honor and sacrifice.
A nation whose people does not recognize even the notion of “betters,” who put individual caprice before common good, who praise comfort above all, and whose politics can be summed as “belly-worship,” is harmless. Hence, why the American Empire has been so assiduous in promoting this: Through a relentless barrage of fashionable media and academic propaganda, through economic incentives, and when all else fails – as in Germany and Japan – by “equalizing” these too-proud nations through live incineration, atomic explosions, or hordes of communists rapists. After the Second World War, the United States consciously handed over Eastern Europeans over to communist tyranny, conveniently reducing the Western Europeans to American imperial dependents. In the case of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, or Syria, wrecking the nation by fomenting ethnic civil war is another tried-and-tested technique.
Thus, America is disintegrating through egalitarianism and individualism. But the Empire remains hegemonic because these forces are paralyzing all potential rivals even more. Fukuyama hinted at this too, after noting the impotence of Europeans remarking we were “likely to see the ‘Common Marketization’ of world politics [. . .]. Indeed, as our experiences in dealing with Europe on matters such as terrorism or Libya prove, they are much further gone then we down the road that denies the legitimacy of the use of force in international politics, even in self-defense.”
The American Empire has acquired sufficient momentum, one could even say “escape velocity,” by achieving just enough scale to be qualitatively superior to rivals and sucking up the best and brightest of the world into globalist industries and power networks. In this, a European nation-state – that “masterpiece of history” – is but a small fry. Of course, China is just around the corner. If that super-nation of 1.4 billion achieves even modest South Korean economic performance, her economy would already be twice the size of America’s. And the Chinese, healthily ethnocentric and controlling their own media, are not displacing themselves through African or Islamic colonization and are open to notions of improving the race.
I am greatly enjoying the Trump phenomenon. But I do have one fear: That actually his policies – of pausing Muslim immigration, stopping (obviously dysgenic) illegal Mexican immigration, and a pro-American foreign policy – would merely put the American Empire on a more sustainable footing. But I don’t want to be a killjoy: We’re riding this wave and if we win in America, I’ve no doubt Europe too would soon be free. And central to that must be an explicit rejection of individualist-egalitarianism.
A new set of values must become hegemonic: One which rejects our slow decline and gradual extinction, in favor of the systematic promotion of the growth and flourishing of our nations, one which praises quality over quantity, public good over private interest.
[1]Jeffrey Goldberg is a well known Zionist and Israel-firster, notable for having served in the Israeli Defense Forces. Obama previously gave a lengthy “policy” interview with the Jewish liberal “explainer” Ezra Klein of Vox. Obama certainly knows the spectrum of respectable opinion in America well.
[2]For this reason, I assert: The cosmic actor Obama will be much more fondly commemorated by the globalist media masters than, say, the hapless, white, ostensively Christian cuckservative George W. Bush, who after he had done their dirty work in destroying anti-Zionist Iraq, was soon dropped like a hot potato. This was embodied in his humiliation by Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, an indignity Obama has never been subject to.
[3]I am struck by the similarity between Fukuyama’s contemptuous expression on postwar Europeans and that of Belgian Rexist leader and SS-Standartenführer Léon Degrelle: “The small, miserable Europe of today, of this impoverished Common Market, cannot give happiness to men.”
