I find it quite odd (I truly dont imply anything about you or your comment here) that people dont mention and in many cases I suspect dont even see the elephant in the room on this. The banking and finance paradigm that existed from the birth the USA and was then made manifest during the reign of the Jacksonians and then enforced with a broad based deep public sentiment that resembled a devout religion was certainly overturned in 1913, it was in fact mostly dismantled in the 1970s and then fully done away with by the late 1990s, it was ended with the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era, in fact, centralized control of capital everywhere is essentially the heart of the Neoliberal project.
The USA, fully for the first ~150 years of its existence and then still mostly in the real economy for the the next ~40 years after that, was a system of systems whose national strategy worked in tandem with and was indeed actually powered by many sub national local and regional strategies. And it could be again.
In fact the heart of the American idea of democracy and federalism was a decentralized system of systems with people living in a paradigm of national prerogative AND local/regional semi-autonomy which allowed for an imperfect and limited but still real democratic environment. A great shame is that just as some demographics were able to get start getting full access to it, it was destroyed.
Populism and federalism are definitely key for national strategy to be aligned appropriately. The system of systems is indeed essential to deal with the fact that Americans citizens as a class have diverse interests. I see populism as the principle means by which the movement away from federalism can be rectified.
In other democracies, like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and any country where you vote in Africa, nationalism works just fine with democracy. It is the natural state and all parties have to adhere to it, even if they don't want to. In Turkey for example even communists have to support the Turkish people. No one in these countries supports mass immigration.
It is only when the media are hijacked by a people who aren't the majority people, and who have a long history of hostility and conflict with the majority people, that you get a long process of turning nationalism into anti-nationalism. The U.S. was nationalist when it was democratic in the past. Hollywood worked hard on making Whites hate themselves and accept race mixing and mass immigration to give the Left permanent election victories through imported voters. Hollywood studios in the past resolved to make at least one pro-race mixing, anti-"racist" movie per year, even when they knew they'd lose money from it. So it had nothing to do with making money. It had everything to do with being anti-White.
Likewise their brethren in the social sciences pushed an anti-White, pro-immigration agenda even though the professors had nothing to gain from that. And the media bosses amplified that agenda even though they had nothing to gain from that - they weren't international, their newspapers were only in the U.S. It had nothing to do with money.
Likewise the war agenda is not for money. In that case they could just invade countries in Africa or wherever, produce weapons for that, without disturbing the extremely sensitive Gulf region where the oil can be lost if the Strait of Hormus is mined shut. And it's not "for the oil" as the Left claims. In that case they'd never aid Israel. There is no oil in Gaza. Nor in Lebanon. Almost no oil in Syria. And attacking pro-Palestinian countries means cutting off the oil trade with Iran, to the detriment of the U.S. And lately, cutting off trade with oil-rich Russia, because Russia helps the pro-Palestinian Syria and Iran.
No, the foreign agenda is entirely based on who is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. The U.S. opposed Iran and Iraq but not Saudi Arabia, because Iran and Iraq were pro-Palestinian, whereas the Saud government is a de facto Israeli ally. Note, Iraq went to war against Iran on the U.S. behalf, with U.S. money and weapons. A war that killed about a million people, about half in either country. Iraq's Hussein was staunchly pro-American, even toward the end, hoping the Americans would take him back as an ally, despite his generals trying to make him change his mind. But he helped the Palestinian resistance. He hosted them. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, families whose homes and all they owned were illegally razed by Israeli bulldozers. So the neocons demanded that he be removed.
Just like it was the neocons who demanded that Iran be attacked. In the 1980s there were still both neocons and realists in the State Department and Defense Department - with the "realists" being the ones who'd trade peacefully with whoever was in charge in the Middle East. The neocons were pushed by the media bosses, the realists were opposed. So the politicians gave the neocons full control. It had nothing to do with oil or selling guns, which could have been handled much better without being bogged down by the neocon/Israel agenda.
I agree that democracy and nationalism can and should go hand-in-hand. The most anti-democratic feature of the current system in America is the administrative state and aspects of the judiciary that are almost totally insulated. I see populism as the a means of restoring popular control of the executive at the very least.
I find it quite odd (I truly dont imply anything about you or your comment here) that people dont mention and in many cases I suspect dont even see the elephant in the room on this. The banking and finance paradigm that existed from the birth the USA and was then made manifest during the reign of the Jacksonians and then enforced with a broad based deep public sentiment that resembled a devout religion was certainly overturned in 1913, it was in fact mostly dismantled in the 1970s and then fully done away with by the late 1990s, it was ended with the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era, in fact, centralized control of capital everywhere is essentially the heart of the Neoliberal project.
The USA, fully for the first ~150 years of its existence and then still mostly in the real economy for the the next ~40 years after that, was a system of systems whose national strategy worked in tandem with and was indeed actually powered by many sub national local and regional strategies. And it could be again.
In fact the heart of the American idea of democracy and federalism was a decentralized system of systems with people living in a paradigm of national prerogative AND local/regional semi-autonomy which allowed for an imperfect and limited but still real democratic environment. A great shame is that just as some demographics were able to get start getting full access to it, it was destroyed.
I find it quite odd (I truly dont imply anything about you or your comment here) that people dont mention and in many cases I suspect dont even see the elephant in the room on this. The banking and finance paradigm that existed from the birth the USA and was then made manifest during the reign of the Jacksonians and then enforced with a broad based deep public sentiment that resembled a devout religion was certainly overturned in 1913, it was in fact mostly dismantled in the 1970s and then fully done away with by the late 1990s, it was ended with the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era, in fact, centralized control of capital everywhere is essentially the heart of the Neoliberal project.
The USA, fully for the first ~150 years of its existence and then still mostly in the real economy for the the next ~40 years after that, was a system of systems whose national strategy worked in tandem with and was indeed actually powered by many sub national local and regional strategies. And it could be again.
In fact the heart of the American idea of democracy and federalism was a decentralized system of systems with people living in a paradigm of national prerogative AND local/regional semi-autonomy which allowed for an imperfect and limited but still real democratic environment. A great shame is that just as some demographics were able to get start getting full access to it, it was destroyed.
Populism and federalism are definitely key for national strategy to be aligned appropriately. The system of systems is indeed essential to deal with the fact that Americans citizens as a class have diverse interests. I see populism as the principle means by which the movement away from federalism can be rectified.
In other democracies, like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and any country where you vote in Africa, nationalism works just fine with democracy. It is the natural state and all parties have to adhere to it, even if they don't want to. In Turkey for example even communists have to support the Turkish people. No one in these countries supports mass immigration.
It is only when the media are hijacked by a people who aren't the majority people, and who have a long history of hostility and conflict with the majority people, that you get a long process of turning nationalism into anti-nationalism. The U.S. was nationalist when it was democratic in the past. Hollywood worked hard on making Whites hate themselves and accept race mixing and mass immigration to give the Left permanent election victories through imported voters. Hollywood studios in the past resolved to make at least one pro-race mixing, anti-"racist" movie per year, even when they knew they'd lose money from it. So it had nothing to do with making money. It had everything to do with being anti-White.
Likewise their brethren in the social sciences pushed an anti-White, pro-immigration agenda even though the professors had nothing to gain from that. And the media bosses amplified that agenda even though they had nothing to gain from that - they weren't international, their newspapers were only in the U.S. It had nothing to do with money.
Likewise the war agenda is not for money. In that case they could just invade countries in Africa or wherever, produce weapons for that, without disturbing the extremely sensitive Gulf region where the oil can be lost if the Strait of Hormus is mined shut. And it's not "for the oil" as the Left claims. In that case they'd never aid Israel. There is no oil in Gaza. Nor in Lebanon. Almost no oil in Syria. And attacking pro-Palestinian countries means cutting off the oil trade with Iran, to the detriment of the U.S. And lately, cutting off trade with oil-rich Russia, because Russia helps the pro-Palestinian Syria and Iran.
No, the foreign agenda is entirely based on who is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. The U.S. opposed Iran and Iraq but not Saudi Arabia, because Iran and Iraq were pro-Palestinian, whereas the Saud government is a de facto Israeli ally. Note, Iraq went to war against Iran on the U.S. behalf, with U.S. money and weapons. A war that killed about a million people, about half in either country. Iraq's Hussein was staunchly pro-American, even toward the end, hoping the Americans would take him back as an ally, despite his generals trying to make him change his mind. But he helped the Palestinian resistance. He hosted them. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, families whose homes and all they owned were illegally razed by Israeli bulldozers. So the neocons demanded that he be removed.
Just like it was the neocons who demanded that Iran be attacked. In the 1980s there were still both neocons and realists in the State Department and Defense Department - with the "realists" being the ones who'd trade peacefully with whoever was in charge in the Middle East. The neocons were pushed by the media bosses, the realists were opposed. So the politicians gave the neocons full control. It had nothing to do with oil or selling guns, which could have been handled much better without being bogged down by the neocon/Israel agenda.
I agree that democracy and nationalism can and should go hand-in-hand. The most anti-democratic feature of the current system in America is the administrative state and aspects of the judiciary that are almost totally insulated. I see populism as the a means of restoring popular control of the executive at the very least.
I find it quite odd (I truly dont imply anything about you or your comment here) that people dont mention and in many cases I suspect dont even see the elephant in the room on this. The banking and finance paradigm that existed from the birth the USA and was then made manifest during the reign of the Jacksonians and then enforced with a broad based deep public sentiment that resembled a devout religion was certainly overturned in 1913, it was in fact mostly dismantled in the 1970s and then fully done away with by the late 1990s, it was ended with the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era, in fact, centralized control of capital everywhere is essentially the heart of the Neoliberal project.
The USA, fully for the first ~150 years of its existence and then still mostly in the real economy for the the next ~40 years after that, was a system of systems whose national strategy worked in tandem with and was indeed actually powered by many sub national local and regional strategies. And it could be again.
In fact the heart of the American idea of democracy and federalism was a decentralized system of systems with people living in a paradigm of national prerogative AND local/regional semi-autonomy which allowed for an imperfect and limited but still real democratic environment. A great shame is that just as some demographics were able to get start getting full access to it, it was destroyed.