Amerika

Sometimes we get a few minutes to chat with an author about the situation in which Western Civilization finds itself, the cause of our decay, and most importantly, how to get out of this mess. Upcoming author Casey Morris has penned The Geopolitical Order of the Post-World War II Era Throughout the World and took some time to meet with us over maduros and espresso in order to contemplate the future.

How did you get involved with writing about history, and what goal or discovery has animated your writing career?

I started having an interest in writing about history in college, with papers about Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa, the origins of tanks in WWI, Joe McCarthy and anti-Communism, Julius Streicher and Der Sturmer, the Sea and Land Peoples of the Late Bronze Age era collapse, and multiple others. As some added background, I began learning about history at about the age of 13 or 14, mostly interested in ethno-history and the European peoples.

The goal of one day getting involved in politics and advancing Nazism to achieve a Minarchist state would be the ultimate ideal I strive for in writing on history. I have recently come to adulate and praise the Nazis five years ago, before which I was more of a rational humanist striving to seek reconciliation between the races, something that is very insensible except on an individual basis.

My main interest is to detail and describe the facts and truths that are ignored by the mainstream and give rise to a new moderate, pragmatic, and reform oriented vision of historical perspective incorporated into political ideas, such as defensive neorealism.

You see the the postwar era as inherently multipolar, which seems to reflect both competing systems and different authorities on each continent. Who do you see as the enduring players?

I think the postwar era was typified by the little man trying to make his mark, such as in Cuba, Vietnam, and mixed modeled Communist Yugoslavia. It was a push against the excessive glut and capitalism of the West and its arrogant showiness, which had marked its fight against Nazism.

The multi-polar order only became bipolar when the Soviets and Chinese had to press their agenda onto Cuba and Vietnam. Communist Yugoslavia remains the most dominant and enduring figure as the success it had at unifying the different ethnic groups in the Yugoslavia and its perchance to advance economic success for many spelled fear that there was a need to break up Yugoslavia to make it a political and corporate proxy of the West, which traditionally has meant not only accordance with Communism, as seen with the Nazis, but also supporting Islamic terrorists and bombing much maligned Christian nationalists.

I think America has come out on top though as seen with the N.A.T.O. bombing of Belgrade, Detente, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet’s adoption of policies such as Perestroika and Glasnost. America came out through mass industrialization and the military industrial complex, two things which are the front for soft-Marxism and Communism and the subjugation of the world soul to the American blob and globular soul.

In a sense, the Soviets and Chinese lost because they were not necessarily as mixed-modeled as the Americans and had not successfully placated their populaces. They had to Westernize and inject the Western model of its economy in order to do this and it is why we really have a new bipolar world inclining towards the unipolar and which people unfortunately believe is truly multipolar. Russia has revolted and wishes to be the leader against the threat of America becoming the dominant unipolar force in the world through nuclear deterrence, and given the lunacy of the American government since Bush, possibly nuclear war.

Going back a bit, America in the postwar era was about using the fight against Communism to disguise its descent into a new era of consumerism and corporate smut. It was really an entity that has won its absolute victory over the rest of the post-Communist world, which has realized the deficiencies and corrosive nature of Communism. It has hidden behind anti-Communism and pro-democracy and promoted these fights about economic prosperity and wealth, which are really other means of saying we promote degeneracy and excess. Reagan and his Iran-Contra affair, amnesty for illegals, and a system promoting economic prosperity showcases this and showcases that we are embarking upon a new system of economic glut that will have the state overseeing and managing the dissemination of goods and supplies.

It was never absolute then and certainly the argument can be made that anti-Communism was subverted by Civil Rights, Second Wave Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution/Hippie movement. That said, these became integral parts of the promotion of pro-democratic governments and societies throughout the world. The collusion between the wealthy and economically prosperous conservatives and Civil Rights, feminists, and Sexual Revolution advocates is as real as the collusion between the C.I.A. and the Mafia in anti-Communist operations.

In essence, America is dealing with a multi-faction and united set of monsters and in order not be consumed by the rest of the world which models itself economically and socially after it, we have to aggressively act out, something the other nations might not be able to combat or challenge, except by unifying together and threatening America with nuclear disaster and mutually assured destruction. In essence, the next era might not be marked by any particular dominating power as America and Russia neutralize each other, although this is just one of the many possibilities.

Do you find any parallels between the American revolution, the American civil war, the American wars for democracy in WW1/2, and the early American experience of the British fighting the French, who had a more centralized and Left-leaning system (arguably)?

I think it can be rightly said that the American Revolution was an overreaction to the British taxation of America through the sugar and stamp acts. The British had reduced it to merely a tax on tea and they only taxed their American subjects one-tenth that of other British subjects. Certainly, they liked and admired Americans, who were mostly British. The fact the New England region was behind the American Revolution shows that there cannot be said to be a parallel between the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, because it was a war of radical Puritanical reactionaries and religious ideologues who believed in a stringent theory of how they should be treated, instead of relaxing their expectations for how a benevolent England should treat the thirteen colonies.

In essence, they had a gripe against the English and provoked and agitated them with the Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, and this rightfully led the British to try to seize gun arsenals in the New England backcountry. The declaration acts were severe but necessarily so to restore order and tranquility and that the British would not be bossed around by the New Englanders. I think the Revolutionary principles were too much based on egalitarianism and Enlightenment ideals that saw things through a rational and humanistic prism which has dominated America and given it over to indifference to what one believes, while restricting those with meaningful and productive ideals.

The Civil War was based on the Articles of Confederation which were never ratified by the Continental Congress of 1788. In this sense, they were pointing out an inherent fault with the centralized and corporate-state merger of the American federal government, but they had no legal recourse, and one can say that all they had supporting them was that part of the constitution that states that the citizenry can abolish or alter the government if it becomes tyrannical in the manner that is to their liking and need.

Ultimately, the Civil War, like the Revolution War, was an overreaction built around multiple premises that were justified except that they did not claim that the main principle cause, which was slavery, was the reason they had lashed out, when the American political system had represented them very well on that problem and when the Southern establishment was more well represented in Washington than the Northern establishment. The premise behind the Civil War that justified it for the South was the fifty percent tariff on Southern cotton, which put a heavy pressure on the Southern economy and was probably out of envy of the South, so as to prop up its industrial and corporate factions as the future of America. Arsenals and forts in the South were seized and it seemed like the Southern militia which stood against Federal imposition and the assertion of its own rights and self-determination.

Lincoln was known to have an odd view on slavery, even though he said he would not threaten the institution. His father was a merchant, who hated plantation owners, and this came to fruition with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, where Lincoln unleashed blacks on the South and inspired a “structured” insurrection. In this sense, the South’s arguments for slavery and fear of what would happen if they were immediately freed justified the South’s pro-slavery positioning, especially since the North with its tariff was not allowing for them to have the capital to industrialize. Also, it undermined the Southern aristocracy and feudal system, which was afraid of the democratization of the West, which would have meant votes against it and the loss of their political representation.

Ultimately, one can say there are comparisons to the American Revolution and Civil War, and likewise like the Civil War there is a comparison to WWI and WWII, which was the expression and assertion of national, racial, and natural identity and right over that of the globalist and centralized forces that wished to dominate the world and throw Germany out into the sea to drown. I see in our fight against Germany in WWI a hypocrisy that was bred out of the Northern establishment during the Revolutionary War, that one can overreact inappropriately and for the wrong reasons, or just to be a fanatic and ideologue, and yet decry the “atrocities” and crackdown on such activity. It was a sign that democracy was not free and a break from isolationism, which the South had supported.

In no way, did the South aspire to create its own Empire like Germany had to counter the British and neutralize the French, but perhaps they might have wanted to check the Northern establishment and industrial system which might have benefited the U.S. overall, just like increased competition between Great Britain and Germany did, along with creating an atmosphere for more moral responsibility through deterrence and military threat. Woodrow Wilson’s Sedition Act sealed the fate of pro-democratic revolutions, like had happened with the American Revolution, and that ultimately we were guided by a system that was worse than the one being replaced or fought against. It was not a sign of a healthy democracy and ultimately a search for centralized rule that dabbled in the private and frivolous affairs of the public to stifle them and orient them toward their own engineered objectives.

I think WWII was an escapade not in fighting tyranny and genocide that wished to just lash out for no reason. In a sense, it might have been seen as legitimate for us to fight for democracy and freedoms against the Nazis, but the Nazis vastly improved the social and economic conditions of their citizens, fought against Communism, and were fighting a two-headed monster in the banking system of the West that had crippled it and held it in political and ideological bondage and the Soviet Communist system which colluded with the Communists. The Nazis saw the need to conquer Eastern Europe because they saw it as too lenient toward the Communists in general, even though groups such as the Ukrainians, Hungarians, and Romanians fought against it bravely.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought direct ties and collusion with Josef Stalin and Soviet Russia to the extent that we were partners with Communists to the extent they would infiltrate and dominate our society under different names and forms, while retaining their identity and image. The Nazis and Hitler had sought a more moderate figure to replace Hitler and hoped to transfer to a parliamentary democracy, so in essence it was not a war for democracy and freedoms but to subjugate and pacify the defensive and national interest of the German people, which had been targeted by Stalinist Russia that wanted to swamp all of Europe and Great Britain who carpet bombed German cities without provocation in an illegal and criminal act.

As far as the French-Indian War goes, it was an effort to protect settlers interests in the region, and has no overlap with the Revolutionary War, but some with the Civil War and WWI and WWII, namely the pursuit of overthrowing a more absolute monarchical system that wished to swallow and consume land desired by the settler populations of British America, the protection of white citizens and their interests, and attacks from hostile forces that were used in an Imperialistic scheme.

Overall, the French-Indian War reveals the great lack of gratitude shown toward Britain, who had basically saved the settlers from French and Indian conquest and elevated the Britain to the ultimate place of benefactor of American land, something Native Americans with their perchance for savage attacks and enslavement of white American captives had not been able to show. The British also did the best job of balancing out treatment between the Indian populations and the settlers of British North America, with King George III’s Indian Demarcation Line.

Speaking of parallels, do you see any parallels between now and the ancient world of Phoenicians and Carthage where it seems not only many of the same political ideas, but the same territories were being batted about as are contentious today?

The land of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians has disintegrated racially and otherwise since the Phoenicians and Carthaginians ruled it. That said, there are some remnant characteristics, most notably with the authoritarian Arab nationalism and democracy, which probably was embedded strongly in Pheonician cultural and political life, with its King and such. In Libya, direct democracy was made popular by the former dictator Muammar Al-Gaddafi, who created a representative system that probably mirrored the Carthaginian system which was considered more democratic than Rome’s, with the one hundred and two elders, senators, and oligarchs who all shared power built around having differing systems of rulership and socio-cultural orientation depending on the location of the city in the Carthaginian Empire.

This won the loyalty of other peoples and was less domineering. Gaddafi represented this to an extent and perhaps one can say its the legacy of Carthaginian presence in the region, as Gaddafi sought the best interest of the African continent. The Carthaginians were clearly more Europeanized according to genetic studies, Y-Chromosomal analysis, et cetera. Hannibal was half Middle Easterner and half Iberian, so to compare the Carthaginians to the current people of the region is entirely tangential. That said, they are fighting their war against the Roman Empire, which seeks to destabilize it, exploit, and utilize it to its advantage while it weakens its cultural values and systems of leadership, so as to create a disenfranchised, overtly controlled, and abandoned population.

America’s and Hilary Clinton’s promotion of the Arab Spring was devastating and its genocidal stance toward Arab nationalism and promotion of radical Islam is very much similar to Rome’s genocide of Carthage, which had only sought revenge for losing a war that Rome had started in Messina, during the First Punic War, in order to conquer Sicily as a whole.

In your view, has America been a positive stabilizing force, a negative stabilizing force, a positive disrupting force, or a negative disruptive force in the last century or so?

America has been mostly a negative destabilizing and disruptive force, as it has only rarely destabilized to knock down the bad guys and extend its reach in an area of the world that needed its assistance on more than just ideological grounds. America did a good job up until Jimmy Carter of grounding ideology around humanitarian concerns, but the main problem with this is the harboring and caring for a peoples that are not our own, so we impress our values on them and cause them to give rise to ideas that are hostile to white populations in Western Europe. America does not concern itself with ethical conduct at times, as seen with its economic blockade and assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, but with destabilizing to spread its influence and buttress the world up on the basis of American exceptionalism, which guides America’s “humanitarian” regime.

It has hardly pursued real strategic economic interests at times, and engaged in crony capitalism and the exploitation of goods and resources and coercion of government’s to the negative outcome of a nation’s people. Examples of this are Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan in the 80s. Examples of crony capitalism and exploitation of goods and resources are the American military presence in South Korea and the Philippines, the Iran-Contra affair, which has already been mentioned, and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan of the 2000s. The last legitimate war we have fought was the Gulf War of the 1990s where the great Norman Schwarzkopf, stopped Saddam from conquering the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, but even this can be questioned in hindsight. America wishes to destabilize so it can justify interventions and conquest of places like Syria and Iraq. Syria is proof positive our fight for democratic values holds no bearing, as the oil fields of Syria do not produce enough for us to make a substantial amount from, and Bashar Al-Assad had 73% of the populations support, with those not supporting being largely Arab Bedouins and impoverished people in the Eastern parts of Syria, who are friendlier toward terrorist and Islamic extremists.

We are supporting policies in the region that could lead to another 9/11, something Donald Trump did a good job at squashing by putting a ban on immigration from Islamic populations. America’s policy in the Middle-East is going to ultimately lead to the reemergence of terrorism. Also, most importantly, we destabilize with the name of Israel written all over the destabilization situation and process, and this is all part and parcel of a centralization of the American government, unification of the general political ideology of the party system, which is engaged in petty bickering, and censorship and repression of the American population from unifying and seeking moderate reform in our legislative and political system.

Russia experienced the destabilization of itself as the oligarchs and kleptocrats of the former Soviet regime worked to do the dirty work of American politicians in an attempt to overthrow the traditionalist and nationalist culture of Russia. Whether its oil, N.A.T.O., Islamic extremism, or the Communist like promotion of a soft-Marxist democracy throughout the world has led to populations of the world becoming rightfully indignant toward the American government and population. I believe though that America’s and the Soviet’s involvement in the Cold War was asymmetrical and positive on both ends, whether it was the Soviet’s support of Cuba or America’s support of Chile in the 1970s, when Augusto Pinochet came to power. America has not been able to get out of the nexus of neoliberalism and corporate and social engineering of people to get them to accommodate with American ideals and principles, instead leading to the rise of anti-democratic and ethnically centric forms of societal reaction and ideology.

In essence, our control over the system of international commerce is our stranglehold over the white American populations and its demands and needs. Ultimately, it will be forced with growing ethnic tensions and hostilities directed toward it and the consonant blend of engineering and off putting statements like a little bit of change and reform needs to happen ad infinitum will lead it go rural and adopt a more horticulturist, hunter-gatherer, and agricultural subsistence economy.

Pinochet’s economic model and political rulership proved to be based too much on corporate and social engineering and reforming of the population to blindly and ignorantly follow Pinochet then to reinforce his model and allow for an actual state controlled and centered reform to a new type of democracy, not as merged with corporate entities and their advertising pursuits. In essence, we have to question whether Russia is a reliable ally in the future, which it probably does not represent as it gets swamped with Africans and Muslims and supports Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA in the states.

China has its own goals and aspirations for racial supremacy and Iran has its Islamist vision for the Middle East. In essence we are in a world without friends or allies, as we are being pushed into a corner to be expunged merely for being participants in a once democratic system.

It might be best if we pull into the countryside and sit it out like the Western manorial and proto-aristocratic/baronic system did in the Western Roman Empire, or we might want to consider going the route of the Serbs and taking on the system with all our might to protect and provide for our economic and national interests. The white American race is the new non-aligned in a new bipolar world that pits America against the world.

Do you see echoes of your thesis in the large number of secessionist movements that are still out there?

The thesis calls for restraint and generally the preservation of individual liberties and rights, instead of an immediate call for secession. I think secessionism is the most logical route for American whites, as I mentioned with the retreat into the wilderness, but our enemy will come after us wherever we go, in order to indoctrinate us, stifle us, and ultimately kill us. This means forming a white state would be a necessity, since if we have our own standard it should be represented through political systems and institutions that allow for self-determination and sovereignty.

It is my idea to create a white ethno-state in Alaska and have Russia back it to agitate and provoke both the Canadian and American governments. The oil industry, along with other industries, fur trade, and a general re-emphasis on a frontier society could see a white ethno-state booming and becoming very popular with whites. We do not wish to displace the native Inuit peoples and wish for Russia to recognize us as they recognize conservatives and Boer farmers who are given places in Russian society. We might be too radical for them unless we incorporate a more pan-European message which might work. If Russia sees us as a buffer or proxy state we might be very well successful at getting them to buy our operation.

Ultimately though, any white nationalist state will have to be like North Korea to protect its long term sovereignty, which would mean the acquirement of nukes, something that Russia would not agree with most likely, as Russia seeks to hegemonize things through cleverer and subtler means since it can not leverage it through a more direct power, like America can with its military industrial complex. In essence, I really strive for a white nationalist government in America that uses the legislative and political system and mechanisms to benefit the general American populace, whether they be white or not.

We must curb the system by dealing with immigration reform and ensuring America remains a white majority country. In detail, I don’t wish for a radical measure to be put in place to expel and deport minorities, although I do not argue this on economic and career based services grounds, but rather that many have worked and deserved to remain put in their stay in America. After a period of time, we might be able to return to a representative political system that includes everyone but constitutionally protects whites.

This has not worked for the Afrikaners in South Africa though, and I do not expect having any fair playing field with non-whites will lead to benevolent treatment for us. Of course, naturally I am for local governance checking the state, with the civil and legal system benefitting if it was not as stratified around federal control, but populace control and direct democracy, namely that of referendums. We should consider many options on the playing field and make as few enemies as possible while currying favor with as many people as possible, so as to be accepted and thus understood. This is a lesson we can learn from the Nazis.

Of course, we have to realize we are being shut out by the establishment and no matter how sensible, factual, or realistic our statements are in fact we must realize we will face push back for trivial pursuits and desires that wish to supplant our more authentic and traditionalist designs. We must be balanced but realistic and that is the only way we can get through the gap into what will be a new Renaissance and Golden Age for Western Europeans, one resembling the original image of the Western European commoner in America being the heir to the aristocratic order, something that has not come to fruition due to the trampling of state and citizen’s rights.

How long is the book, and who is your ideal audience?

The book is 138 pages and it is made to be an introduction to a topic that one with a more expert opinion can go into greater depth upon. The ideal audience will be those on the far-right mostly and dissident factions throughout the world, most notably in the Middle East. Nazi sympathizers and enthusiasts will enjoy the book, but find it perhaps somewhat odd and non-consistent as it is sought to mention that Cuba’s Communist system served as a dissipating yet productive force for Cubans in the wake of Fulgencio Bautista.

Nazis might also find it distasteful the amount of support given to Serbia during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, as the Serbs were strong anti-Nazis and championed their cause against the Croatians and Bosnians on anti-Nazi perspectives and principles. Naturally, the book is tilted toward Southern nationalists and secessionists who want to build a new America utilizing the social and cultural model of the South.

It’s really a book meant to portray the truth rather than pick a side and to let the white reader and dissident reader consider the situation. It’s a matter of philosophical questioning more than just accepting a fact and not reading into the dynamics and complexities behind it and what it implies and means essentially. This is a book that is designed for the alt-right, especially the Amren and Unz.com crowd, which I highly admire.

Do you think it will be controversial to the normies who are trying to rationalize the postwar order as good?

It’s a blow to the normies and their delusional admiration and false patriotism for the United States of America. It’s also a blow against the media’s and government’s doctrinal and dogmatic spin on the postwar era and what it was about. It wishes to denude American economic nationalism and the gospel of prosperity, while targeting American exceptionalism, something that does not stand up to our recognition of the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples, which the Nazis greatly cherished.

In essence, it could be a way of awakening normies, especially pro-Cuban and pro-Nicaraguan, to a lesser extent dissident elements that buy into the soft tyranny and centralization of the American government. Most people are ardently opposed to the truth in today’s world and this means even little bits of truth will be treated as independent from the larger web of truth which the book wishes to expose, and this is namely that the fight against Nazi was not built on democratic values and that the Nazis were not only the good guys but also some Communist regimes were good guys given their situation, even though Communism is never productive or stabilizing.

I encourage a positive stance on the indigenous cultural revolution of Evo Morales, support for the leftist Assad, support for the leftist Slobodan Milosevic, and strong and positive positions on China to pull in leftist dissidents and normies into my general haranguing against the American Empire, so as to turn away from its lashing out against the white population.

The world is on fire, at least if you believe the television, and lots of us want to know what is head. Care to make any conjectures?

The book tries to point out the difference between idealistic and realistic geopolitical solutions and activities, so as to say where we should be going opposed to where it is most likely that we are headed. America is very powerful, it holds sway over large corners of the world, culturally and militarily, but this force can only last so long. In this sense, America needs to enforce itself even further, which means destabilizing more and more regions of the world to push its weight on the region and enforce its form of rule over a battered and weakened part of the world with little political resistance to put up.

In the Middle-East, America is using its proxy (¿or is it the other way around?), Israel to achieve its end in a continuation of the war against terrorism. This involves genocide in Palestine, which will lead to Israel annexing the region, its properties, and its lucrative oil. Iran and its proxies will continue to increase its presence in the region and put pressure on Israel, but with the America behemoth at their back the Greater Israel Project seems guaranteed.

If we mess with Assad, which is possible given our stance in the region, it could unleash ISIS once again, an irony of having bases in Syria. We are angry that we could not overthrow Assad and this might lead to a final lash out in the name of Israel and the war against terrorism, although this is not certain, and dependent on how much Syria involves itself in the Israeli-Gazan war.

America is also becoming withered and weakened at its core. It will not be able to supply economically for its people, with its placing of emphasis on gaining resources overseas for corporate and contractor purposes, and this could lead to social and ethnic tension and revolution, especially if America ups its ante against the Russians and Iranians. China is the wild card and the odd man out, as they are more sensible and calculating.

It’s very likely that N.A.T.O. and Western Europe, and even America, if it can sacrifice it, puts more boots on the ground in Ukraine as Ukraine’s territorial integrity is threatened more and more with the Russian military and supply advantages it has over the Ukrainians. That said, Slovakia and Poland have pulled back aid, so it seems like Ukraine’s game is up. The reason I state this is because we are not willing to negotiate with Russia over a settlement of the conflict, being too arrogant and caught up in our support for the revolutionary and disruptive politics of the Maidan Revolution.

Expect Russia to move back into Central Asia to find resources, allies, and industrial plants for their military complex, and to facilitate the Islamist fervor toward its cause as it has done with Chechnya. They will also do this to link up with China and put pressure on the Middle East. I say Russia wants to sustain the status quo in the Middle-East, but if any of its interests are threatened or attacked it will respond, not necessarily because it holds stake in the region, but because it’s part of a larger theater to press against the West in Ukraine. Expect Ukraine and the Middle-East to become more raucous and unstable, as Iran exploits the region for its expansionist and Islamists interests. Expect the world to become more of a mess as Russia puts its negotiating and mercenary arm into the politics of foreign governments in order to agitate against the West as it expands and grows over its boundaries, to compensate for its weakening. Latin America has gone through a leftist stage, but expect the Trump movement to inspire political reform and uprising, especially in the Southern Cone of Latin America.

There is a great chance for stabilization in this unstable world in certain parts of the world, which is always the product of global widespread destabilization. As America becomes more like the world, ingesting large amounts of populations from throughout the world, expect the World to become the New America, or the substitute for America. The American Empire is much weaker and corroded than the Roman Empire and it has less will to balance things out on a very feeble minded rationalization of everything real, rather than the execution of what is needed and in alignment with the truth. We could see it breaking up into different states, with white nationalist movements moderating too much to seek a piece of the pie, and with a new E.U.-like state complex that represents multiple non-white ethnostates, with a strong representation in Washington of minorities.

Europe, especially Western Europe, will militarize in response to Russia using Europe as a platform to launch its aggression against its main target. These are all possibilities, some of which may never play out, but the fundamental fact is there is only a bipolar world, which will combat to become the unipolar world. The growth of the non-white population might signal a turn toward the collapse of the American Empire and the rise of Russia and Eurasia as its substitute. On the other hand, to preserve its supremacy we might engage in a preemptive nuclear strike to target the independent minded, self-sufficient industrial and business model of the Russians, and provocative Russians.

Russians are seen by some members of the non-white world for being nationalistic, traditionalist, Christian, and pro-white Russian. I see the dawn of a new Cold War in Europe due to the faults that led to the Cold War being repeated. China will use a combination of soft and harsh measures to expand its empire into the Pacific, copying the American model, and alleviating the area of the Imperialist effect of the Americans. The Chinese might have a beneficial impact on the region, but will exploit labor and resources to advance its model of being a capitalist empire on the backs of other foreigners to make the Communist system more “functional.”

I expect as the conflict in the Middle East heats up and Russia pushes more and more on Ukraine in a successful manner, as it has sought a war of attrition, police-like style of combating the problem, and to not heavily engage the Ukrainian enemy in a fight where they have armament superiority in numbers and quality, there will be a push of China on Taiwan to “capitalize.” I think being surrounded on all sides and having a government weakened and exploited by minorities fixed on oppressing and controlling us should set us up for a revolutionary future, or at least one in waiting, as we seek a new frontier to embark upon.

The greatest concern is how Israel presses on our government and society as it fights the war against Hamas in Gaza, and how it uses its “victim” status to achieve greater control and monopolization over the American political system, one that it has with its multiple lobbies, such as AIPAC, and having 50% of the cabinet of Joe Biden’s presidency represented by Jews.

How do people stay on top of news about your writing, thinking, and publication status?

As far as this question is concerned, I heavily endorse Amren and Unz, especially Kevin Barrett, Philip Giraldi, and Ron Unz. I advise people to get their news from them and stay away from mainstream views. You can get both the BRICS and dissident American position, as I believe we can strike a peace with BRICs and Eurasia but America in its ignorance, belief in divine right, the fake allusion to the constitution, and American exceptionalism is incapable of being argued with, as it entrenches its position in hypocritical and contradictory positions.

Amren offers a more white ethnocentric standpoint, with a dose of white nationalism, that will allow for a good discussion and dialogue over the necessity and merits of having a white state that represents white people’s interests, a universal standard that is replicated for other people’s but sadly not reciprocated to whites.

Amerika.org will be the first to hear of the publishing and it is through that that you will hear of the book’s publishing, if its owner allows it. As for now, my thoughts are not represented or published on any particular site, although hopefully this will change once I get multiple books published.

Tags: Books, BRICS, casey morris, geopolitics, minarchism