What Have We Learned After Lockdown Month 4

Now we are into month four of the lockdowns we are seeing an amazing and outrageous shift in how we as societies view health care. Somehow the World Health Organisation and its insane policies have managed to completely invert how we view health care with potentially apocalyptic outcomes for our society as a whole.

They have managed to take the fundamental principles of health care being one of duty to care for the sick, attempt to find treatments and responsibility to nurture and heal the sick, into a dystopian nightmare of bullying, blaming, shaming and terrorising the public in an attempt to prevent illness from ever occurring in the first place. A stunning and dramatic inversion of everything we have known to this point.

We have even seen the outrage of some Doctors publicly opining that maybe people who have been out protesting for their rights should not be offered health care if they should become sick with Covid 19. This is an egregious breach of the Hippocratic Oath. There is a reason battlefield Doctors are not allowed to carry firearms on them and shoot enemy combatants in the head. Even the ENEMY troops they have a duty to treat. The fact we have reached such astronomical partisan heights that a trained Doctor would even put such an idea on paper is drastically dangerous and raises questions whether the physician class is tumbling into a similar spiral of fascism that it did in 1930's Germany with all its attendant horrors.

As part of the program we have seen Governments around the world shift their health care responses into ones of hard law enforcement. Since when has health care ever been an issue of law enforcement? Well we can point to only one obvious case in recent history, that of the equally misguided “War on Drugs”. This policy has proven to be such a catastrophic failure it’s amazing they would now be rolling this same model out onto the rest of the health care system.

They will, and ARE, finding that using such a model to deal with an outbreak of respiratory disease is having an equally catastrophic failure rate. Especially in the more open societies whose entire raison de'tre is to NOT be like the more closed societies of Asia, where many of these policies were first experimented with during previous respiratory outbreaks.

The failure of the academic class to see that their policies are radically failing, and choosing instead to double down on the failed policies rather than work on alternatives, is also a text book example of Einstein’s famous edict “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.  I have no doubt that given the hard jack boot approach, recently launched in Victoria, we are going to see a massive wave of the virus unchecked through the state now, as a result.

The shifting of health care into a bullying and shaming operation has deeply destructive consequences going forward for our community. They are destroying trust and faith in the Doctors and Nurses, who are supposed to be there to help people, with these acts. What began as a general piling on of the current accepted ‘other group we are allowed to hate’, namely those ‘dodgy right wing white people’, who were asking for the very clear right to continue on with their daily lives once steps had been put in place to deal with the outbreak, rapidly and inevitably shifted to the total terrorisation of the most marginal in our society, the refugees and ethnic minorities in our public housing system.

It is an inevitable road that one takes if one allows to start removing rights and attacking one segment of society that it rapidly piles up into a general social collapse, with the most vulnerable being the worst victims in the end. I am already aware of refugees who are exhibiting symptoms who refuse to get tested, as they are so terrified of what the outcomes will be since the operations at the Commission Flats were launched. And I will not pick on them for having this mistrust, as it was the people whose responsibility it is to maintain trust who squandered it. It is not the fault of already traumatised people that they have now had their faith in the health care system damaged.

It is unbelievable that we have let this institution unleash such damaging policies on our society without questioning them or holding any inquiry. One cannot just worship at the altar that ‘the experts must know what they are doing’ when one can see the failures of policy in front of ones own eyes.

The fact that we shifted the concept of disease control into one of blaming people for it is also so dangerous and just as ridiculous a stance to have in general. Disease comes into our society. It always has and it always will. It is actually no ones fault. It is not even Daniel Andrews fault. Daniel Andrews is at fault for being a racist, fascist nazocommie, for his destructive and ill thought through lockdown policies, but he is NOT at fault for there being a disease in our community.

Just as it is not your neighbour’s fault if your Grandparents happen to die from this disease. It is not the Muslim’s fault for having a cultural need to hold gatherings at a certain time. It is not the Africans fault, it is not the Jews fault. It is a DISEASE. It is not the Governments job to stop us from getting sick. It IS the Governments job to ensure we have a robust, well funded and well equipped health care system to look after us if and when we DO get sick.

It is not Trumps fault people are sick in the US, its not Boris’s fault people are sick in Britain, its not Bolsanaro’s fault in Brazil. Diseases happen we are not Gods. In fact the only way we could apportion any blame on any of this to a human agent is if you believe that it was released from a laboratory. But then that is the culpability of the people in that lab and not the various Governments around the world.

We have never treated the arrival of a new disease in our midst with such damaging reactions. Imagine where our society would be today if, when HIV first arrived on our shores, we decided to round up all the gay community and shove them in internment camps in order to try and stop the spread of the disease. I don’t remember the scenes of cops kicking in the doors of bath houses at that time either and demanding that they be shut down in order to prevent ‘unclean’ cultural practices that were accelerating the death toll in that particular pandemic.

We didn’t blame gay men en mass when they got sick with HIV either. Well one portion of society did and we would classify them as right wing extremist neo Nazis. Somehow the WHO has mainstreamed that approach to disease this time around. The Muslim community is now feeling extremely vulnerable, in countries where it was already suffering historic levels of pressure since 911, as a result of this Operation Shame that is coming along with the WHO’s response to Covid 19. 

We didn’t even really blame the Government that much at the time. Ironically the only people who really took a hit on criticism about handling of the AIDS pandemic were the SAME public health officials, such as Fauci, now in control of the Covid operation. That is a pause for thought. Yes I realise HIV is a harder disease to spread but that is the reality we have to face. Some of us are going to get sick. Freedom isn’t Free as they say.

The WHO must immediately begin a process of dialing back its destructive and punitive policies and seek an alternative route to deal with this current pandemic. Yes people are going to die. That is an unfortunate fact of life. But we cannot destroy our very society in an attempt to save some lives, lest any of the Covid survivors will have nothing left to live for anyway.

The Myth of the Second Wave of Covid 19

There is no SECOND WAVE of Coronavirus, we are still in the first wave which a bunch of idiots didn’t allow to run its course, by locking everyone in their houses like a pack of fascist lunatics. The virus wasn’t going to magically disappear just because everyone cowered in their homes like terrified mice. 

The whole point to the ORIGINAL plan we were sold was that we lock everything down for a couple of weeks and get all our health systems set up and ready. Then after two or three weeks we would release everyone in spurts back into the wild, so that the infection spread through the community in a slow, measured and controllable manner.  After a couple of months everything would have phased back into normal and the wave would have run its course. This was the “Flatten the Curve” model which, as you can see from the below graph, means the same number of infections would still have occurred just over a longer period of time.

(Source WSJ)

Instead a bunch of lunatics decided that “Total Elimination” was the goal, with no consultation with society at large and they pushed for harder and more extreme lockdowns until everything blew up, they lost total control, and now we are facing the ORIGINAL wave, in the same chaotic fashion we would have anyway, ON TOP of all the economic collapse and civil unrest. 

We could have just stayed open and dealt with the virus chaos without the associated meltdown of society OR stuck to the original plan and done a limited lockdown with the intent to slowly infect the community. The “Flatten The Curve” they kept telling us about. Now we have allowed a bunch of pin heads turn a crisis into a catastrophe. The Swedish university system is obviously one of the last on the planet that still pumps out sensible people. There needs to be a serious reckoning for the political establishment, across the world, which has driven us off a cliff like this.

What Have We Learned After Lockdown Week 1

So after our first week in lockdown what have we learned?

1) The Western Empire’s supply lines are total shit. Absolute trash. Thank goodness we DIDN’T ever get into a serious war with Russia or China these past years. We would have run out of everything we need inside a week and had our asses handed to us inside a fortnight. 

This from the civilization that held the entire Pacific basin against the Japanese in World War 2. What a disgraceful self-destruction of a nation, through the abject greed of its political and wealthy class. Globalised supply chains clearly DON’T work and should never be trusted again. Especially in the case of China, a nation we were daily being told we had to prepare for war against, we would have for the first time in history been engaging in an attack on our own manufacturing base. It would have been instant suicide and one of the shortest wars in history. This would have been a madness historians would have had a great deal of trouble explaining, to any surviving future generations.

2) The neo-liberal economy is the most fragile and hollowed out bit of fluff ever. An economy should have been able to handle a slow down, or even a full shut down, for a few months without the instantaneous careening off a cliff into massive economic crisis, and risking full civilization breakdown that we have witnessed in the past week. 

Imagine if we had been in ancient Rome and the Emperor, on a whim, suddenly declared an entire month a holiday in honour of Jupiter. Rome never collapsed due to any of these types of whims. The debt-based economy is totally unsustainable. 

The endless hollowing out of workers rights and casualisation of workers is not just an attack on the working class, but actually a suicidal destruction of the very economy that sustains the supposed capital wielding class. Even if you don’t have issues with classical Adam Smith Capitalism this system is far from that, and is in fact a threat to the entire of civilization due to its wildly unsustainable nature.  

3) The War machine CAN actually be paused completely. Whilst a few skirmishes still rage here and there, this is to be expected after such a long war has been raging for the past 20 years. But by and large a massive shut down of the war effort, and troop movements, has occurred in the past week. 

As long as the political will is there this WAS ALWAYS POSSIBLE. Never let the war hawks forget this moment again. If anyone tells you we have to maintain endless war ever again remind them of this moment in history.

4) Whilst we are on the topic of the war machine we also learned that sometimes, massive Government intervention, causes more harm than good. The huge lockdowns we have seen around the world have sent millions plunging below the poverty line and facing potential mass starvation around the world. All this pain to try and save thousands from dying from the virus.  

Whether this was done on purpose or by accident is irrelevant. It shows how one part of the system can make a proposition to help people, which leads another part of the system to inflict massively more pain than the original problem would cause. As Trump said “The cure is worse than the disease”. 

Remember this social dynamic next time someone tells you we have a RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, when they say we need to invade other countries to ‘save’ their populations. To ‘save’ the Syrians, to ‘save’ the Iraqis, to ‘save’ the Serbians, we need to plunge into epically violent conflicts that kill millions more than any supposed local despot ever would have. We must rethink how we triage the needs of some over even greater needs. 

5) The locking down of borders to human traffic is finally beginning to be followed with the locking down of borders to capital flight. This is the only way to maintain a future world, where we have massive deglobalisation under way. 

Part of the reason we have such a huge refugee crisis right now is because the wealthy countries were setting up harvesting systems, which sucked the flow of capital out of the developing world back to the European and American centers of ‘finance’. The millions of people flooding around the world trying to cross borders were simply chasing this dwindling capital from their home nations, and were trying to catch back up to it in the nations it arrived in. 

This was always a massively unsustainable system that could not be allowed to continue. Decentralised capital leads to decentralised communities able to sustain and support themselves, leads to way less flows of human labour attempting to move around the world. The concept of the entire globes labour force being in competition with itself, rather than firewalled into localised economies, could never survive. 

This shock to the system has proven this to be exactly the case. Now we see huge restrictions on people’s movements and FINALLY Capital controls are being put into place. This marks the true end of Globalisation. The future will be Nationalistic. Steve Bannon was correct when he said the future is Economic Nationalism. This need not be conflated with any hysterical racial superiority theories, as so many on all sides of politics have been attempting to do of late. It’s just a simple function of sustainability and mathematics. 

6) On the note of Nationalism we are also seeing in the time of great crisis that privatisation was the complete scam many thought it was. The myth that centralised industries could ever offer true competition is laid bare. 

As we know privatization never lead to the promised lowering of prices anyway. Any gains in tax cuts, due to entire sectors no longer being funded by the Government, were instantly lost to the massive price gouging these companies engaged in anyway. Now, in the face of this emergency, huge sections of the private sector are being nationalised anyway. We are seeing the private hospital systems immediately caving under the stress and being nationalised. We are seeing public transport in some sectors already renationalised. And as the economic crisis gets worse we will see the Utilities being nationalized. 

Already in Iran, relief on the economic front, is being delivered through the utilities as it was ALREADY still nationally held. Energy will be renationalised before the end. We should even call for telecommunications to be renationlised in Australia. Maybe Internet and Mobile telephony can stay in private hands, as luxuries, but the need for a nationalised, old style, copper landline network to be reinstalled has been shown to be massive in this summer of crisis. ONLY such a network could withstand disasters such as major fire, hurricane or nuclear war and be used as part of the emergency response.

7) Forcing the retirement savings of everyone to be invested in a stock market, which cyclically completely wipes itself out, has also been shown to be a strange and demented idea at providing a stable future for people to retire on. Much like the nationalisation wave we are seeing so many people are going to zero on their super that we are going to be back to just having most of the population on a retirement pension anyway. Yet again the promises of the neo-liberals were exposed as malfeasant lies.

8) The larger nation states, with big central Federal organs, have proven the most incapable of dealing with the speed of the crisis. The United States, the UK, the E.U, Iran and Australia are all shattering in their Federal centers, under the sudden stress of the crisis. Their ability to project power from the center into the regions they occupy has dramatically plunged. 

In the case of the E.U the whole myth of European Solidarity has been laid bare, as countries desperately restrict the flow of medical goods internally between the member states, as they realise their lack of local production has left them hugely vulnerable. Even the megalith that is China is showing that it is cracking at the seams as regionalism and provincialism massively rises overnight in this crisis. 

Some may argue that Russia is the exception to this rule however with no serious outbreaks in Yakutia or Siberia we have not yet seen the dynamic to prove what will happen to Moscow should the regions begin to suffer. The smaller nations have been fairing MUCH better with consistent policies that adhere across the population. As this blog has been arguing for a decade we MUST break up the large nation states into smaller nations for a sustainable future.

So that is quite a lot that we learned in just one week. The speed with which we are now all learning things can be a bit overwhelming but finally these truths are being exposed. One can only imagine what we are going to learn in the COMING weeks.

At some point people are going to learn that in fractional reserve banking much of the money they believe is in banks is not actually really there. That is going to be a very fun learning curve to watch occur. If you thought panic buying toilet paper was the most fun you have had in a decade we haven’t seen nuthin yet. Enjoy the ride everyone and stay safe.

Operation Yellowhammer and Project Fear

Now that the Project Yellowhammer documents have been released in Britain it looks like Labour has fallen for a trap.

Operation Yellowhammer Release

The suspicious mind would assume that the not so secret Remain Tories hatched a plot in order to get the Project Yellowhammer documents circulating widely in the public domain. They knew they are mostly a Remain party albeit with a massive Brexit base. So they had to worm their way out in a way that saves face with their base. What better way than to hint at a secret document that tells of the worst possible outcomes of Brexit, then get Labour to seem like they forced it out of them there by giving Project Fear a renewed boost in its continuing psychological warfare against the Brexit British public. Indeed much of this document reads the same way as what the anti Scottish Project Fear used against the Scottish Referendum a number of years back.

If for a second we were to take this document on its face value and not treat it as the psychological warfare that it obviously is then it shows that in actual fact the Brexiteers were in every way correct to want to pull out of the EU. It shows that a complete loss of statecraft and sovereignty has occurred. What a ridiculous and broken system it is, if the supply lines are so huge and over extended that they are under such threat of collapse post Brexit. If Britain is no longer able to feed itself then it has in fact lost its Sovereignty to Europe. Exactly what the Brexiteers were warning about. If there is no longer enough local production to meet local consumption then the system is in even worse shape than previously supposed.

If medicine supply lines are so dependent on foreign sources of production then one can no longer call it a NATIONAL Health Service as it is in fact a supranational health service and has lost its ability to remain sovereign and sustainable.

Again everything is in upside down land when it comes to Brexit. The left wing Labour party should be outraged at the total degradation of work in the British Isles that this report seems to be admitting has occurred. Only the consumer and service economy is left.

The left wing Greens should be outraged that the EU has been allowed to grow into a behemoth of wildly long supply chains. The amount of carbon that must be getting burned in order to freight along these supply chains must be huge.

Yet where are Labour and the Greens calling for an immediate shortening of these supply lines? They should be demanding Brexit go through and Tariffs begin to be placed all around British production, in order to restore it to sustainable and environmentally sensible levels. Local production for local consumption should be a standard of any environmental movements. And it should of course be the rallying cry of any serious Labour Union movements.

Even Conservatives should see it as a necessity just from a basic level of statecraft. To have left ones supply lines so vulnerable to disruption, as this document indicates, is a gross risk in the event of any future conflicts or indeed simply some exogenous shock on the system half a world a way in Eastern Europe, which can now represent such a threat to a local system in Western Europe. This is terrible system planning and is a complete misallocation of resources.

Of course it would be hugely surprising if the British have in fact weakened themselves to this degree. This document is probably just propaganda to terrorise the population into Remaining. At the very least serious questions must be raised as to what Parliament has spent the past three years doing. The narrative has long been that the working class North overwhelmingly supported Leave because their jobs and industry had been so denuded by the EU over the past 30 years.

The obvious solution to supply chain issues would have been to restore a manufacturing base in the North, thereby restoring jobs, at the same time as strengthening a robust local supply chain ahead of leave. This was the whole fucking POINT to Brexit in the first place. They have had THREE years to achieve this and yet seem to have done nothing to prepare. 

All in all the Yellowhammer documents show why a Brexit, and an even wider break up of the EU itself, is even more important than ever now. The lessons of the banking crisis of barely 10 years ago seem to have been ignored. Having a giant global system that has no firewalls built into it, such as national sovereignty, only leads to global (or at least Continental in Europe’s case) collapse. This collapse is inevitable in the future of the project if it continues in this way, Brexit or no. And if it is so impossible for the British, or even the English if there is a further break up of the region, to operate a viable nation state anymore what on earth makes people think the greatly remote technocrats in Brussels will have a hope of running any viable United States of Europe?

COMING SOON!

Go To Previous Part

Go Back To Part 1

Project For A New Westphalian Century

The following discussions, on a potential new Geopolitical map for a post Globalisation word, form the core of a phenomenon that could be referred to as a wave of pan secessionism. This is a phenomenon occurring across the world now. Given that the financial system, which has underpinned the world empire, is completely disintegrating this actually makes a great deal of sense. The political systems and territorial definitions that this system has underpinned will now mirror the disintegration.

However this need not be seen as a negative thing. There are some on the left who view this as some sort of horrendous rise of "Nationalism". They view this as the bastion of right wing politics and condemn it out of hand. I will now offer a comprehensive rebuttal to such argument.

Far from resisting this current trend towards decentralisation, the left should be embracing it and supporting its arrival. Both the left and the right would agree that we have hit a period where democratic institutions, we have taken for granted for the past 200 years, are in a break down phase. The hanging of Parliaments across the Western world is now a well established phenomenon.

There is a rapidly rising "democracy deficit" taking hold in western civilisation. Part of this could be ascribed to the economic crisis and part to the interruptive affect of new technology. It can be argued therefore that the system can no longer serve large body politics. Breaking these down into smaller, sovereign, body polities will seek to ease this crisis.

This moment in history could be seen as a chance to restore a new Westphalia 2.0. Many astute observers have noted that the current cycle of violence, which we find ourselves trapped in, mirrors to a great extent that which destroyed Europe in the Thirty Years War. Many have even called it a new Thirty Years War and the Pentagon claims it as "The Long War", for similar reasons.

Therefore to seek solutions to bring an end to this self destructive spiral, our civilisation finds itself in, let us look to past solutions that have worked. When thought about deeply enough one can see that Nationalism is in fact a Progressive policy. The modern nation state was birthed out of the first Westphalian treaty. This was a result of the progressives of the time, the so called Protestors or Protestants, finally fighting the conservatives to a stalemate in the Thirty Years War.

This brought to an end the supra national empire of the Catholic Church, which then held sway over most of Western Europe. Therefore supra national power, with a supra national centre based in Rome, was the position of the conservatives. Smaller nation states, with the right to govern themselves and hold sovereignty over their own territory, was the position of the progressives.

This idea was further solidified by the American and French Revolutions, which could only have birthed the idea of the modern Republic with the help of the Enlightenment ideas, which flourished after the treaty of Westphalia. Again the revolutionaries of the late 18th century were the progressives of the time. The Monarchists who were trying to hold onto the old order were the conservatives.

Thus it is interesting that the left has fallen for a great fallacy in recent times. It has somehow sold itself the myth that nationalism is a great evil. Whether this has been done by an accidental misreading of history, or by elements infiltrating the left and leading it astray, is a debate for another time.

What we can say however is that at the close of World War Two elements reshaped the narrative about Nationalism. Suddenly it no longer came to be about the liberational moments of leftist history, such as the Thirty Years War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution or even to some degree the Napoleonic Wars. Instead it became associated with the Fascism of Hitler and Mussolini.

However I think a serious case can be made to show that neither of these individuals were in fact Nationalists. They were consummate SUPRA Nationalists. Mussolini wished to restore a Roman Empire to the world. This was one of the ultimate expressions of Supra Nationalism in history. It was this same supra nationalist structure that the Catholic Empire had then modeled itself on.

Hitler was a similar Supra Nationalist. Had he simply been an Austrian Nationalist he would have maintained his particular political ideology to within the borders of Austria. Instead he became first a proponent of Pan Germanism, calling for a large Union of all nations with a link to the Germanic tribes. Following on from this he then went completely Supra Nationalist, as he too attempted to create an enormous, globe spanning, Reich.

So in actual fact these two individuals were Imperialists and Ultra Conservatives. They were attempting to undo the nation state building of the progressive liberals, of previous generations. They were ENEMIES of Nationalism. They were undoing everything that had been agreed upon at Westphalia.

So it is a curious twist of fate that it was large elements of the left who then also became supra nationalists after the war. Some of this mutation came from elements of the left leaning towards Communism, as a solution to the inequality they saw in their current system. Stalin was running a similarly Supra Nationalist project at the time. Some of it however came from the idea that the Neo Liberals had, that they were the inheritors of the Enlightened ideal and thus they should spread this to all the corners of the globe. However this led them into the same trap of Supra Nationalism.

Since this time there has always been a massive cognitive dissonance, among the left, in its dealings with Nationalism. During the 60's and 70's the left had no problem supporting and encouraging many revolutions across Africa and the Subcontinent, in order to reverse the supra national structures that the European empires had cast across the regions, in the previous century. This was a perfectly noble position to hold. However this means that the left was in effect supporting Nationalist movements, in these new African countries that were emerging.

The ultimate example of the left being okay with Nationalism has been its long support for the Palestinian Nationalist cause. It has also long offered support to various Indigenous nationalist movements, in the colonial countries in the New World and Australasia. So it seems that the Left had a cognitive dissonance in support for Nationalism overseas but denouncing its existence at home.

Even on the extremes of the far left, where one finds the classical Anarchists, this dissonance seems to hold sway. How is it that many Anarchists can be open proponents of a "two state" solution in the middle east, when one would assume they would rather support a "no state" solution? Indeed it would seem that 'smashing the state' does not preclude having a dealing with Nationalism.

Let us look at the ultimate success story of Anarchism on the planet today. The city state of Christiania. Whilst its internal structures may indeed be organised along a stateless, non hierarchical structure, this does not preclude the region from being nationalist. Evidence of this is shown in the fact that these Anarchists have adopted a flag that represents their dominion. This flag flies over their territory. Their territory has clearly defined borders. Borders which they militantly protect when the Danish state encroaches on their sovereignty.

We see a similar ability, for Anarchist governmental models to comfortably co-exist against a Nationalist backdrop, with the Kurds of the Rojava region. Kurdistan is an inherently nationalist project, yet the government structure of the YPG is in itself Anarchic in construction. Therefore it seems that "Smash the State" need not also mean "Smash Nationalism".

The incongruity of the Left's position on Nationalism has eventually built up to the modern era, where the support of supra nationalist bodies is in complete collapse, despite the desperate attempts by the social engineers to shriek that this constitutes some racist return to xenophobia. Encouraging cultures and languages to remain strong is in fact a very multicultural approach to have. The modern Neo Liberal Left has again confused itself.

It claims that it supports cultures and is the enlightened bastion of multiculturalism. Yet it demands that all borders are broken down, which in effect erodes culture and begins to force a single, mono culture, on the entire world. Such a system would never survive. It is the classic example of over expansion leading to collapse. A great example is the current outcry in the United Kingdom. Far from celebrating the Brexit moment many on the Left are upset by it. Yet this discounts the very real option that finally borders can be restored for the Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Irish. A return to them being allowed to form a strong culture again and a right to speak their language sits before them. Instead of celebrating this possibility for multiculturalism the Left is in opposition to it.

The ultimate example of this monoculturalism, which the supra nationalist, imperial endeavour creates, is its demand that only one economic model is in existence on the planet at any time. This was the travesty that kept us locked in the last great conflict of the Cold War. A new treaty of Westphalia could also be used to address this problem.

The first treaty of Westphalia stated that no nation could interfere in the rights of which confession a neighbouring nation was allowed to belong to. This brought a truce to the conflict between Catholic and Protestant. In the modern age economics has become our new theocracy, complete with its high priests, its fundamentalists and its demand at gun point that everyone follows the same belief. A Westphalia 2.0 could declare that no nation can demand another nation adhere to any particular model. This would leave us with a  pluralism of systems. Some Communist, some Socialist, some traditional Capitalist, some Anarcho Capitalist and so on. In the event that one system fails and collapses somewhere, it will not pull the entire globe and empire down with it.

This will require a certain level of protectionism to be restored to the world economic system. Again however we must ignore the propagandists, who have attempted to tell us this is somehow a bad thing. The global empire, of the Neo Liberals, never fully manifested its stated goals of an open world any way. In a world where there is only free trade and thus the free movement of capital, then there must also be the free movement of labour. This means that a world of free trade must be a world of no borders and hence the giant, mono-cultural empire, which we are now debating.

However this was never allowed to manifest. At the same time that borders to capital were smashed, the "Fortress West" mentality was fostered across the western world, with extreme walls put up against the flows of labour that were chasing after this capital. This essentially became the under pinning model for a system of neo-colonialism. Capital and resources were wildly harvested, back towards the centre of the empire, but labour was impeded from chasing after this dwindling lack of supplies, which was collapsing the peripheries of the empire as it harvested.

This collapse mechanism has been noted throughout history, with every empire, no matter what its underpinning ideology has been. Therefore, an obvious remedy is to not fight the forces who wish for less porous borders for human labour. Reinforce this idea with strong borders for capital as well, so that localised economies flourish that serve their local communities. Providing for local communities will increase stability, prevent brain drains from regions and allow for a myriad of cultures to flourish, in a true reflection of multicultralism on the globe.

Of course surpluses of things will still be produced in some areas, which are required in others, so there will always be a mechanism of global trading in place. Also there should be no reason to suppose that world tourist travel would be stopped. The ridiculous claims by the Remain campaign, in Britain currently, that maintaining a sovereign nation, with sovereign borders, suddenly means you can no long travel anywhere outside your own country, is mindbogglingly ridiculous. British citizens are not in any supra national union with South East Asia or the Indian Subcontinent. Yet many Brits have been traveling there for holidays the entire post war period. Ridiculous rhetoric, such as this, is clouding judgment on the issue.

The same arguments that Europe is now grappling with, about the benefits of smaller nations and republics versus large supra nationalist systems, was exactly the same debate that the American colonists had at their first Constitutional Convention in 1787. The so called Anti Federalists, of Jefferson's camp, put forward many of the same arguments for the continent of North America that are now being made in Europe. One can not really think of a more Progressive, Liberal than Thomas Jefferson. So it should not be hard for modern Liberals, on the North American continent, to rediscover this progressive history of which their own ideology draws.

The argument then arises to set in motion the pan secession, which has been laid out in this brainstorming session. History has proven the Jeffersonians to be correct. The over federalisation of the District of Columbia's hold on the continent was a mistake, which must be undone. It will trigger a renaissance on the continent. It will allow for true multiculturalism, a reduction in the militarist ills of empire and a protection against economic meltdown.

Building these myriad new nations will also allow for a reset of the current crisis. The economy can be unburdened by its debt load, as these new nations were not the legal entities which took them on. Having a new nation building project, in each of these regions, will hopefully also be a chance to heal the divides that are currently tearing apart the societies on the North American continent, at the moment. Giving the whole population a stake in building the new country, and giving them an exciting project for history, may ease their boredom with the vacuous life Western Civilisation has descended into and could be a powerful moment to once more bring unity and end the catastrophic violence that will arise otherwise.

Currently there are some devious voices, who are using the crisis to push for exactly the opposite agenda. They would rather see all the borders, of the North American continent, erased completely and the whole thing be subsumed to one, giant, Supra National, North American Union. This is exactly the same model we are currently seeing be pursued in Europe, to disastrous result. The Left should turn their back on these voices and instead push for the decentralised power structure posited here. Think Global Govern Local, should be the catch cry of the new NEW Left. This new new Left could then also see that it has some bipartisan support, from the Libertarian Right, on this issue.

If we put some of these ideas into practice then maybe we can finally bring an end to the horrid Project For A New American Century. Ironically this project has completely destroyed America. This is probably because it was always based on a lie. It was never a project for a new century of the Republican, Enlightenment ideal, which the original colonies of the Union represented. Instead it was a call for a restoration of a Project For A New European Imperial Century. The financial old guard of Europe used the structures of Wall Street to project this new empire onto the globe. Manhattan was behaving more as a New Amsterdam once more, than a New York.

The military and financial doctrines of this empire all spoke of having torn up the tenants of Westphalia and the fact that under Globalisation we had now entered a post Westphalian world. However there was never any discussion with the peasant classes, as to whether this was a change that was wanted. Disasters with  experimentation within this new model were bound to occur. The biggest disaster of all has been the openly supra national, post Westphalian territory of the so called Islamic Caliphate. Far from offering stability or wealth, to the peoples of the global south, it has turned into a horror show of neo-colonial invasion and genocide.

Because this post Westphalian system was so at odds, with everything the American Republic was supposed to represent, it has torn itself apart internally under the weight of its own cognitive dissonance. So let us replace it with a Project For A New Westphalian Century. Under a non interventionist, Westphalian system, conflict should decrease, economies should once more go into restoration and a sustainable century can be built, which is not predicated on any one super power attempting to convert the entire world. Be that a Communist, Liberal or Islamic power, there will never be room on the planet for only one system.

Now is the time. Decentralise or die!

Go To Previous Part

Go To Next Part