My response to Joel Davis on Altanticism

Joel Davis:

The basic geopolitical concept of Atlanticism is good in my opinion, why shouldn't the West be united in friendship? The issue is with how this is ideologically defined as muh liburalism, diversity and fag rights. Nevertheless there is an actually real civilization which Atlanticism corresponds to which obviously prefigures this ideological debasement.

The basic geopolitical concept of Eurasianism however is utter rubbish. Russia has no genuine civilizational unity with the Islamic or Oriental civilizations - it is an artifical fabrication of Russian geostrategists and nothing more.

But, having said that.. Atlanticism has become so ideologically corrupted that it needs to be criticized, not from an artificial Eurasianist perspective - but authentically from within. If not liberalism, diversity and buttsecks.. What defines us as a civilization? Or more accurately, what defined us as a civilization before it took a retarded turn? For Atlanticism to become justified, it must actually ask and answer this question. Until it does, defending it is defending the collective suicide of our civilization. 

An issue I see out there on the e-right among those critical of Atlanticism is one of a purely negative thinking where no positive vision for the political constitution of our civilization is offered. Just being against the empire is not enough, we need to have an alternative vision for how things should be. 

The vision which I think should be supported is one of decentralizing power from post-national institutions back to the actual nation-states which make up the alliances. The idea that devolving power from the EU or NATO or whatever is "just what the Eurasianists" want will be the false dichotomy presented, but this must be rejected because these post-national institutions are themselves structurally dependent upon diversity and (neo)liberal notions of "civil society (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(nonprofit))" to legitimize their authority over the nations they rule.

We need a nationalist rather than a globalist Atlanticism.

And also, those who criticize Atlanticism from a Continentalist perspective who think the EU would magically turn based if the Americans stopped involving themselves in European affairs are delusional. The same processes which are making everything cringe in the US are occuring in Europe, scapegoating the Americans or the Anglos won't help you resolve them. We're in this together.

 

***********************************************************************************

 

"The basic geopolitical concept of Atlanticism is good in my opinion, why shouldn't the West be united in friendship? The issue is with how this is ideologically defined as muh liburalism, diversity and fag rights. Nevertheless there is an actually real civilization which Atlanticism corresponds to which obviously prefigures this ideological debasement."

Joel Davis seems to  be saying that he doesn't quite approve of the matriarchy that the global American Empire is spreading. 

So change the moral system to Secular Koranism.

"The basic geopolitical concept of Eurasianism however is utter rubbish. Russia has no genuine civilizational unity with the Islamic or Oriental civilizations - it is an artifical fabrication of Russian geostrategists and nothing more."

Eurasianism just means taking the best things from the European and Asian parts of Russia and forging new alliances with other parts of the world, surely.

"But, having said that.. Atlanticism has become so ideologically corrupted that it needs to be criticized, not from an artificial Eurasianist perspective - but authentically from within. If not liberalism, diversity and buttsecks.. What defines us as a civilization? Or more accurately, what defined us as a civilization before it took a retarded turn? For Atlanticism to become justified, it must actually ask and answer this question. Until it does, defending it is defending the collective suicide of our civilization. "

Atlanticism = globohomo

Christianity and liberalism defined Western civilisation. These ideas are now held in contempt, so what about the future?

Can American imperialism be justified?

If not, should we worry?

Joel Davis seems to be saying that neoconservatism and neoliberalism represents the collective suicide of Western civilisation.

"An issue I see out there on the e-right among those critical of Atlanticism is one of a purely negative thinking where no positive vision for the political constitution of our civilization is offered. Just being against the empire is not enough, we need to have an alternative vision for how things should be. "

Breaking up the empire would mean Australia, Canada and New Zealand declaring independence from Britain and becoming independent republics.

"We need a nationalist rather than a globalist Atlanticism."

If Atlanticism is American imperialism through the British monarchy, then any meaningful form of nationalism can only mean the former British dominions declaring independence from Britain and becoming independent republics.

"And also, those who criticize Atlanticism from a Continentalist perspective who think the EU would magically turn based if the Americans stopped involving themselves in European affairs are delusional. The same processes which are making everything cringe in the US are occuring in Europe, scapegoating the Americans or the Anglos won't help you resolve them. We're in this together."

Europeans have their own geopolitical interests.  

To reject the American imperium, Europeans must be friendlier with Russia and Australasians friendlier with China.