The Perils of Pax Americana

Pax Americana, American Peace, was a term coined in the mold of Pax Romana and was the idea of civilizational peace amongst the more powerful nations under mostly American rule in the Western Hemisphere . The current Pax Americana is generally considered to have begun post World War II, where America was the dominant power that would act something like the world police. By and large it has worked somewhat okay, with major world wars being averted (so far) and “smaller” wars have been confined to mostly proxy wars with smaller main combatants.

But I don’t want to talk about the merits or follies of Pax Americana on the world stage. Instead, we look inward and ask how has this American peace molded society in America. Has this period of 70+ years of relative peace at least in America propelled America to ever greater heights? On the contrary, I think most people would agree America is not on an overall upward trajectory since World War II. Yes, President Trump is trying to turn that around, but there are many great dangers that continue to lurk and could continue the undoing of this great American civilization.

There are many aspects to Pax Americana that can be discussed, but today we mainly focus on how it has hurt the American people, and more specifically the American spirit. Too much of a “good” thing often ends up yielding terrible consequences. Much like a forest fire can sometimes be beneficial to clean out and make room for new growth, sometimes war or nefarious acts that directly affect us can have positive benefits. NN Taleb hammers this point home in his book Antifragile, and we see it everywhere in the natural world, especially in medicine and with our body. “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” as Nietzsche coined it. War, for all its downsides, does have many positive psychological effects as well. Usually it will unite a people. It puts into perspective what’s really important in life, and gives one more appreciation for what they have (or what they had before war) and for what’s worth preserving, fighting, and dying for. I propose that in our Pax Americana we’ve grown too soft, too comfortable, and taken our freedoms and liberties for granted for far too long. We’ve become complacent, presumptuous, forgetful, and misguided.

One of the main perils of a peace lasting too long is it’s easy to forget how and why we got there. The effect is even more pronounced when you have a failed educational system that often times barely addresses history, or changes it altogether. It is easy to take for granted one’s freedoms when it has been too long since they needed to be defended. One begins to think it is the natural order of things to be free, and consequently it becomes easy to take it for granted and assume it is easy to obtain. One could make an argument we’ve had plenty of wars since World War II that run counter to this. But the reality is all of these conflicts (save for 9/11) have been on foreign soil usually thousands of miles away. And in our modern economy we really do feel very little, if any, effect on our daily lives. If you didn’t take the time to watch the “news” you may have no idea at all that war is even going on. Contrast that to World Wars I and II, where citizens often had to ration food and fuel for the war effort. Factories were converted for military vehicles and weapons, new roles were created and women took over many duties usually saved for men. Curfews, bomb drills, and blackouts all serve as reminders on the home front that things are different, and it’s easier to appreciate what one had when it is in jeopardy. Tragedy and hardship unite people. Communities are strengthened when there is a need, and it fosters fellowship and camaraderie. These stresses to the system and daily life can have a very positive effect.  Again, I do not wish for these things, but they do give us a greater appreciation for what we have.  And unless we constantly educate and remind ourselves of what it “used to be like” during these difficult episodes, we’ll either forget them altogether or unfortunately only learn after another period of hardship.

USARationing

It’s hard to ignore the war when it hits you where you live.

Something else that comes out when there is lasting peace, at least in our civilization, is the focus turning to other social issues, often times with an over-emphasis. “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” as the saying goes. So it is too in society. Could you imagine the current gender controversy going on during The Civil War or The Great War? You would be roundly (and rightly) completely ignored if you tried to spread the notion that there are 71 genders. The same goes with the transgender bathroom issue. Something tells me the 0.00001% of the population that is transgender wouldn’t have as much pull or have any sway towards changing legislation when hundreds of thousands or millions of people were dying yearly during a war. When there is peace, the minute comes to the forefront, and often times is overblown. And as the peace endures, it only gets worse. Again, we begin to forget why certain laws or practices were put into place in the first place, or the reasoning behind it. Today, we’ve gotten to a point where we can pervert the original intentions, as it was with fitness tests for women in the military, or the police force. Standards are changed, codes rewritten, to allow for greater openness and acceptance when the rules that were initially put in place had very rational reasons behind them.

The Immigration Act of 1965 is another example of irrational change because we forgot why it was there or undervalued its purpose. Pre-1965, America was a mostly homogeneous population, or largely consistent in its makeup since the country’s founding. It was never in doubt, never questioned. The benefits of a society of this sort were never fully appreciated or understood once the threat of war was lost. We assumed anyone could be an American, and that it wouldn’t have far reaching effects on our neighborhoods, educational system, or everyday lives. Like it or not, the majority, if not all wars, have started because of tribal differences. Whether they are racial, religious, or ideological, tribalism was at its root. Yet our hubris got the best of us and we somehow forgot this key fact. And once we opened the doors to anyone and everyone, we lost some of that unity and no longer is there a dominant population or religion to unite the people. One can harp on and on about how diversity is a strength, but the fact remains the less people have in common with each other the less likely they are to congregate or get along. Do you really think you have a better chance becoming friends with your neighbor if you speak English and they only speak Spanish or Arabic?

Approaching_Omaha

Would these men be proud of what our country has become?  What they fought and died for?

Which raises another point in that we’ve completely lost our sense of self. We no longer have the pride in being American that we once had, and in fact are often times made to feel guilty to have any pride in the first place. Further, we’ve lost our sense of unity. With the blatant disregard for our immigration laws, and the agenda of pushing multiculturalism, there is no longer a push towards integration when one becomes an American. Assimilation seems to be a thing of the past. And because of this, we are losing any sense of unity as an American people. Observe a crowd watching the World Cup, or how people identify when asked where they are from or what is their background. “I’m American” is hardly ever the first answer. “I’m Mexican” or insert-race-here-with-a-dash-and-American, Mexican-American, Italian-American, etc etc. Multiculturalism in general has destroyed communities and led to civil unrest. Because we no longer try to assimilate newcomers, we’ve become more tribal than ever. Identity politics became the de facto position since Obama came into office, dividing the country on racial and religious lines. The notion of bringing in unchecked numbers of outsiders from all over the world or not seriously policing our borders during a time of war would be ludicrous and absurd. In peacetime, it’s somehow thought to be okay, as if there would be no ripple effects or changes in the fabric of society as we know it.

It’s interesting to observe that this effect isn’t uniquely American, but seems to only affect countries living under this Pax Americana. We see a crisis of identity and deterioration of society and its values in the UK, Germany, France, and most of the Western world. Contrast this to Russia or Japan. They are still proud of their country and their people. They’ve by and large preserved their sense of self. Like us, they have black marks on their history as well, but they don’t let themselves drown in guilt and self-flagellation and are still proud of who they are. Perhaps the fact that World War II was fought with a very heavy cost on their own soil has served as a longer lasting reminder to their people.

So the question remains, are we better off for Pax Americana? In 2018 we are as divided as we have ever been perhaps since 1968 or the Civil War. I am in no way advocating for some kind of war just to refresh our society. Far from it. But if we are to sustain peace and survive as a country we cannot forget our past, the values we fight for, or how and why we arrived at where we are. I’m sure many of these social fights and stands people have made in this peacetime have been with the best of intentions. But there is definitely some iatrogenic effect at work here; we most certainly seem to be doing more harm than good by intervening at all in many of these arenas. The shock and outrage of a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding would seem a bit more petty and inconsequential if we were fighting for our way of life though, wouldn’t it?

No, I do not think we are better off. It has torn up our society, completely changed the demographic landscape, and led to a loss of American pride, which cannot be understated. Looking outwards for a moment, America as World Police has hurt our standing both in our own eyes as well as that of the world. Inserting ourselves into unjust or unnecessary wars, or wars that just plain have nothing to do with us, have left many Americans jaded, feeling guilty, and ashamed of what their country is doing. I have no doubt this is another contributing factor into why we’ve opened our doors to everyone (aside from the nefarious objectives of others in power too). Guilt, or perceived guilt, is a powerful motivator. A Vietnam or Iraq War can completely change how a country’s people view themselves.

USMarineTankinBaghdad

Are we any better off for having been in the Iraq War?  Oh right, WMDs…

Pax Americana has hurt our standing on the world stage and had deleterious effects on society on the home front. Most Americans, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives aside, would be happy if the United States re-adopted our pre-World War I foreign policy of staying out of other people’s business. It may not completely solve the problem, but it would be a start. A smaller military and global presence would have obvious benefits to our budget, and put the onus on other nations depending on us (without paying their fair share) to take care of themselves. Having skin in the game is beneficial to everyone.

9/11 – 17 years on

It’s been 17 years since the attacks in NYC and Washington DC.  You can argue about who did it, how it happened, or why it happened, but the fact remains that this dark event was a turning point in history.  It unleashed an unprecedented wave of surveillance, directly attacking our freedoms, and started a new volley of direct conflict and proxy wars in the Middle East, all in the name of “The War on Terrorism”.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

We would be foolish to not have been awoken from our slumber with this.  And really most people continued to stay asleep until 2016.  At the time of the attacks the Deep State was truly a conspiracy theory.  There are serious doubts that this was carried out the way the official narrative says it was.  Knowing what we know now in 2018 this hardly feels like a stretch at all.  As early as the Iranian coup in 1953 the CIA has had its tentacles all over the world, meddling.  The 9/11 attacks were justification for the Patriot Act, gave rise to the FISA courts, and initiated military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Remember WMDs?  More lies spun up out of this mess to justify wasting trillions of dollars spent in the Middle East.  When you ask yourself who benefited from 9/11 you could make just as good a case for the US Government agencies benefiting the most.

Perhaps the biggest piece of information to come out of the meteoric rise of President Trump is the very real and active presence of the Deep State.  You are no longer laughed out of the room by pointing them out as a real entity.  The treasonous actions of many in the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice against President Trump and for Hillary Clinton before, during, and after the election have thankfully awoken more people.  The Deep State can no longer hide behind the conspiracy theory curtain.

IMG_1846

But now we are stronger than ever.  We have momentum, and we have the greatest leader of our time to uncover the rot within our government.  Only a man of President Trump’s caliber, unable to be bought, or controlled, learning and growing in perhaps the most cutthroat industry in the world, NYC real estate, could handle the unimaginable pressure of running the greatest country the world has ever known while fighting domestic enemies more dangerous than ever once thought possible.

We are doomed to be victims of history if we forget it.  Let us not forget.  And let us be strong enough to not turn away, or be willfully ignorant because it’s easier that way.  Edward R. Murrow put it best, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves”.  It is our ancestral duty to stop this.

Elizabeth Warren is a communist

Elizabeth Warren introduced the “Accountable Capitalism Act” which of course isn’t capitalism at all and seeks to put more restrictions and add more regulation.  From her website:

  • Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a “United States corporation,” which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders: American corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue must obtain a federal charter from a newly formed Office of United States Corporations at the Department of Commerce. The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders – including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates. This approach is derived from the thriving benefit corporation model that 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted and that companies like Patagonia, Danone North America, and Kickstarter have embraced with strong results.
  • Empowers workers at United States corporations to elect at least 40% of Board members: Borrowing from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies, a United States corporation must ensure that no fewer than 40% of its directors are selected by the corporation’s employees.
  • Restricts the sales of company shares by the directors and officers of United States corporations: Top corporate executives are now compensated mostly in company equity, which gives them huge financial incentives to focus exclusively on shareholder returns. To ensure that they are focused on the long-term interests of all corporate stakeholders, the bill prohibits directors and officers of United States corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
  • Prohibits United States corporations from making any political expenditures without the approval of 75% of its directors and shareholders: Drawing on a proposal from John Bogle, the founder of the investment company Vanguard, United States corporations must receive the approval of at least 75% of their shareholders and 75% of their directors before engaging in political expenditures. This ensures any political expenditures benefit all corporate stakeholders.
  • Permits the federal government to revoke the charter of a United States corporation if the company has engaged in repeated and egregious illegal conduct: State Attorneys General are authorized to submit petitions to the Office of United States Corporations to revoke a United States corporation’s charter. If the Director of the Office finds that the corporation has a history of egregious and repeated illegal conduct and has failed to take meaningful steps to address its problems, she may grant the petition. The company’s charter would then be revoked a year later – giving the company time before its charter is revoked to make the case to Congress that it should retain its charter in the same or in a modified form.

What Elizabeth Warren wants to do here is create yet another government office to regulate corporations here in America, to centralize power over any corporation receiving greater than $1 billion in annual revenue.  The wording is so opaque and up for interpretation.  “The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders – including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates.”  What does that even mean?  Consider the interests?  Isn’t that done by necessity already?  If a customer is not happy with a product they will simply choose to buy elsewhere.  An employee can leave companies if they so choose.  With such wishy-washy rules who knows how an infraction can be interpreted and then like that your charter is removed.  Meaning what?  The company is done altogether?  The government completely seizes it?  That’s an awful lot of power for the government to have, and to control ALL industries.

This is yet another step closer to full blown communism.  Centralizing power to control all industries is not a good thing.  It has never worked.  And there are much better ways to go about reforming the problems with corporations.  I actually like some of the proposals in here, mainly the stock option clause and the political contribution bit.  Those make sense and are a good way to control how a corporation operates without seizing the company outright.  Further, what does she think will happen to business here if she actually passed this disaster?  What would the incentive be for corporations to remain here?

Which leads to the next point, which is she probably knows this has zero chance of ever passing but will help her succeed in winning the hearts of the feral-extreme left.  It’s virtue signaling, plain and simple.  What politicians do best; blather on about x, y, and z and preaching about major reformations but knowing it’ll never happen.  She claims she’s not running in 2020 but I don’t believe her for a second.

The best thing that could happen to this country would be to drastically reduce the size of government.  De-centralization serves to stabilize a country.  To use some terminology from NN Taleb large, centralized governments are inherently fragile.  In order to reduce the chance of a major black swan event that could lead to total government collapse, reducing this central power is key.  Name one industry that was ever run better and more efficiently when under increased government control.  The education system has been a disaster since the government took control.  What more is there to say about health care.  Aerospace is another great example.  How many times were we told it’s impossible to launch re-usable rockets?  Now SpaceX launches rockets for a tenth of the cost they previously cost, after finally being given the chance to compete with the very limited private partners they allowed.

Steve Bannon to build foundation in Europe to rival Soros Open Society Foundation

Steve Bannon is back folks!  Via The Guardian:

Steve Bannon has announced plans to establish a foundation in Europe that he hopes will fuel the spread of rightwing populism across the continent.

Donald Trump’s former chief advisor in the White House told the Daily Beast that he wanted to offer a rightwing alternative to George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, which has given away $32bn to largely liberal causes since it was established in 1984.

“Soros is brilliant,” Bannon told the website. “He’s evil, but he’s brilliant.”

The foundation, which Bannon said would be called The Movement, will offer polling, advice on messaging and data targeting and research to a network of rightwing parties across Europe that are enjoying a significant surge in support.

Isn’t it funny how the Guardian titles the piece, “Steve Bannon plans foundation fuel far right in Europe”.  Far right huh?  Literally anything that is a nanometer to the right of center is far right these days.

The pendulum is swinging back, and it couldn’t come sooner.  Europe has some momentum right now, and he could make powerful allies with the likes of Farage, Le Pen, Orbán, and probably some day with Kurz in Austria to make some serious inroads in the birthplace of Western civilization.  People are waking up to the dangers and takeover of the globalists.  I’ll be writing more about the great awakening tomorrow.

It’s great to see Mr Bannon back though.  The fallout with the President was unfortunate and I’m glad to see him out there a bit more publicly.

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signs gun seizure bill

RINO Charlie Baker has signed a bill for temporary gun confiscation with no due process.  Via Daily Caller:

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill on Tuesday allowing for temporary gun confiscation without any due process in Massachusetts.

Bill H4670 enables the police, a family or household member, including roommates, relatives or significant others, to remove firearms, firearm identification cards and ammunition from any individual deemed to be a danger to oneself or others.

Surrendered goods can be confiscated for up to one year, with the ability to renew the order, but an individual can try to appeal the ruling.

In a time where there has been increased violence and threats to conservatives, for an alleged conservative to sign this bill is an absolute affront to our personal liberties.  The feral left has ramped up their attacks significantly since traitor Maxine Waters called for increased harassment to President Trump’s officials is unforgivable.  Consider for a second the fact that now in Boston you could have a feral SJW roommate, and on a whim she could decide to come into your room and take your gun away because her sick beliefs make it feel warranted.  Maybe she feels her safe space has been invaded.  You then have  to fight in court for potentially years to get it back.  Absolutely insane.  The second amendment has been rigorously attacked for decades now.  A new Supreme Court Justice needs to be appointed quickly, and they should repeal every law that chips away at our 2A rights.  It’s gone way too far.  Even mental background checks, do you feel like you can fully trust a professional’s opinion anymore?  What if that professional is a devout leftist and SJW?  Do you really think they could judge the situation dispassionately and objectively?  Neither do I.

There Will Be War

A new Rasmussen Poll from this past week says that nearly 1/3 of the country believes there will be Civil War here within the next five years:

Most voters fear that political violence is coming from opponents of the president’s policies, just as they did in the second year of Barack Obama’s presidency, and nearly one-in-three think a civil war is next.

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters say it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, with 11% who say it’s Very Likely. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% consider a second civil war unlikely, but that includes only 29% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Democrats (37%) are more fearful than Republicans (32%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (26%) that a second civil war is at hand.

But 59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned. This compares to 53% and 28% respectively in the spring of Obama’s second year in office. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t share that concern, including 16% who are Not At All Concerned.

Fifty-three percent (53%) are concerned that those critical of the media’s coverage of Trump will resort to violence, with 24% who are Very Concerned. Forty-two percent (42%) are not concerned about violence from media opponents, including 17% who are Not At All Concerned.

The more glaring fact thrown in there is that nearly 60% are concerned the feral left will resort to violence.  The difference between this election cycle and Obama’s was the feral left has consistently demonstrated their violent tendencies, and the outward and very blatant calls for violence against Trump supporters is far greater than the reverse ever happened any time during Obama’s presidency.

Stock up and prepare folks.  Prepare your families.  This is one of the many reasons why we fight to preserve the second amendment.  Hopefully this can end civilly but I worry more and more that this is no possible.  The gap is becoming too wide to bridge.  We can’t even agree on enforcing our own damn laws anymore.  Given that we’re the ones stocking up and preparing ourselves for this, I like our chances.