I think the end of US cultural/economic supremacy on Europe is the only way to revive our continent.

[Nausevar]

I am very convinced that only by freeing itself from the american cultural and economic hegemony could Europe revive as a civilization-space.
The US has exported every kind of degenerate fashion, the last one being an extreme anti-white ideology that threatens the survival of our race. As long as our elites take example from the US we are doomed.

I think that we should end NATO and form our own EU army, and work toward a new international financial system that would make as independent from US banking and payment system as possible. We should have good relationships with other nations even if they are not "liberal democracies" and develop our own culture.

The end of American global supremacy could be one of the best events for us.

[sean]

US hegemony will never end. Everything the world is today is the result of the prosperity that the British Empire brought to the world after the Napoleonic era including the current hegemony created by the United States. In the end its a culture of polite and tolerant efficiency with the resolve to take on any foe or circumstance that grew out of centuries of conflict while gathering wisdom that was so appealing to others that it took over the world.

When we lose that culture (currently practiced by people in Western Europe, Australia/New Zealand and in North America) the world will once again become what it was before the British Empire: A never ending conflict between "kings" and warlords. If that happens, get ready for a nuclear war and true reset in the next century.

America is unironically the global policeman. It's why American naval and air power and the American system of internationalised institutions precisely like the WHO or the G20 exist in the first place, while NATO and the UN serve a figs leaf in enabling American hegemony.

So they keep the global commercial system up and running, and in doing so, ensuring the American-dominated and moderated world order is maintained. This is why China will not replace the US as the global power broker, and while they may rival or exceed the US in some aspects, they ultimately benefit from the consumerist capitalist globalist system and because of this, they will never truly eclipse the nation that has inserted itself as the ultimate fail-safe in the world order that it itself created.

I am very convinced that only by freeing itself from the american cultural and economic hegemony could Europe revive as a civilization-space. I think that we should end NATO and form our own EU army, and work toward a new international financial system that would make as independent from US banking and payment system as possible. We should have good relationships with other nations even if they are not "liberal democracies" and develop our own culture.

For your hypothesis to work out, a federalised Europe would have to become a stronger actor on the world stage. That is a possible outcome, but not guaranteed. Europe is way too diverse and most of it's people don't want federalisation.

Furthermore, in Europe, nation states are the norm so if Europe were to federalise it will be like Northern Ireland during the Troubles but on an European scale (especially now as national leaders do NOT want to give up power; see Hungary, France, Italy etc).

Look at the EU parliament, which compared to national parliaments is weak. Yet, to appease competitive hearts, there are two locations (Strasbourg and Brussels). France's hawkish approach to West Africa largely serves their own interests. Would they sacrifice defence euros to protect Baltics if it means they need to reduce their post-colonial campaigns? I doubt not without chaotic infighting.

Germany is most concerned about it's supply chains in eastern-central Europe, and keeping export markets open. Baltic countries and Poland are terrified of Russia and want guarantees of protection from the great powers, but France and Germany are totally disinterested, and do not feel particularly threatened by Russia at all.

How could all of these different regions decide on a common foreign policy? How could they all be effectively represented by a single sovereign? Is it likely that European populations are going to willingly give up their national sovereignty to EU institutions? Having watched how they have handled the Eurozone debt crisis, the migration crisis, and the provision of vaccines for covid?

The US has exported every kind of degenerate fashion, the last one being an extreme anti-white ideology that threatens the survival of our race.

Nonsense, cultural marxism was exported by Europe to the US. The Frankfurt School was a European product. Marxism itself was created in Europe.

Even a Jew like Theodor Adorno was humiliated by the monster he created in 1960's West Germany (his research and publications was always about correlating fascism and right-wing ideology. This created the impression that ONLY right-wing ideologies were fascist, only because no one back then tried to correlate fascism to left-wing ideology).

Adorno was notoriously straight-laced, much to the chagrin of the increasingly radical leftist student body of the University of Frankfurt. In 1969, the SJW students demanded in his lecture that he engage in self-criticism and disrupted the professor. Some of this disruption involved walking up to the chalkboard and writing anti-Adorno statements, but most famously, a group of female students took off their tops and accosted the old man. This type of disruption shocked Adorno and he had to call the police.

When they hunted down niggers who raped and killed white women in America, the Soviets were pimping their women to foreign leaders, you balkan roaches were flooding Western Europe with dope, and women in Europe loved negroes so much that they inspired them to fight for Civil Rights in America.

In fact, American military police in Germany for instance tried their hardest to stop German women from dating blacks. They would arrest any German woman they saw with a black guy and accuse them of being hookers, and even banned jazz music in clubs.

[Nausevar]

US hegemony will never end. Everything the world is today is the result of the prosperity that the British Empire brought to the world after the Napoleonic era including the current hegemony created by the United States. In the end its a culture of polite and tolerant efficiency with the resolve to take on any foe or circumstance that grew out of centuries of conflict while gathering wisdom that was so appealing to others that it took over the world.

When we lose that culture (currently practiced by people in Western Europe, Australia/New Zealand and in North America) the world will once again become what it was before the British Empire: A never ending conflict between "kings" and warlords. If that happens, get ready for a nuclear war and true reset in the next century.

But what if the US becomes more divided and hence unstable? Couldn't the US seriously decline as the white population declines and anti-white affirmative action becomes more widespread? Wouldn't American culture and science stagnate, at least in the long run?

I share the concern over a possible nuclear war.

America is unironically the global policeman. It's why American naval and air power and the American system of internationalised institutions precisely like the WHO or the G20 exist in the first place, while NATO and the UN serve a figs leaf in enabling American hegemony.

So they keep the global commercial system up and running, and in doing so, ensuring the American-dominated and moderated world order is maintained. This is why China will not replace the US as the global power broker, and while they may rival or exceed the US in some aspects, they ultimately benefit from the consumerist capitalist globalist system and because of this, they will never truly eclipse the nation that has inserted itself as the ultimate fail-safe in the world order that it itself created.

China may reverse the social trends and provide an alternative to the world. With its mass internal market it already influences movie makers who have to cather to their sensibilities.

For your hypothesis to work out, a federalised Europe would have to become a stronger actor on the world stage. That is a possible outcome, but not guaranteed. Europe is way too diverse and most of it's people don't want federalisation.

Furthermore, in Europe, nation states are the norm so if Europe were to federalise it will be like Northern Ireland during the Troubles but on an European scale (especially now as national leaders do NOT want to give up power; see Hungary, France, Italy etc).

Look at the EU parliament, which compared to national parliaments is weak. Yet, to appease competitive hearts, there are two locations (Strasbourg and Brussels). France's hawkish approach to West Africa largely serves their own interests. Would they sacrifice defence euros to protect Baltics if it means they need to reduce their post-colonial campaigns? I doubt not without chaotic infighting.

Germany is most concerned about it's supply chains in eastern-central Europe, and keeping export markets open. Baltic countries and Poland are terrified of Russia and want guarantees of protection from the great powers, but France and Germany are totally disinterested, and do not feel particularly threatened by Russia at all.

How could all of these different regions decide on a common foreign policy? How could they all be effectively represented by a single sovereign? Is it likely that European populations are going to willingly give up their national sovereignty to EU institutions? Having watched how they have handled the Eurozone debt crisis, the migration crisis, and the provision of vaccines for covid?

I agree the situation seems grim at the moment, but I've saw a change in the right towards Europe. There's more collaboration among rightists in Europe, there's growing a sense of europeanism, they're reckoning with the reality that for Europe to survive it needs an army and a unified intelligence system.

Nonsense, cultural marxism was exported by Europe to the US. The Frankfurt School was a European product. Marxism itself was created in Europe.

Social liberalism predates cultural marxism, and it's the fertile terrain where cultural marxism can more easily grow.
And the US has always been more socially liberal than Europe. American women have always been more free than European women. The myth of freedom is a typical american one. If you read some biographies of american actresses you can see that already in the 40s and 50s 16 year old girls left their homes and traveled doing various jobs, modeling, singing, acting, etc, before finding a job at Hollywood. Some of them did drugs while there and lost their minds ending their life miserably. You couldn't easily find minor girls going around from city to city in Italy, for example.
This happened in the US because of the particularly libertine american culture, where the authonomy of the individual is above decency and traditions and where social bonds are particularly weak.
Cultural marxism in Europe before WWII was restricted to few freaks who were a small minority in universities let alone in the mainstream society. Europe was extremely conservative compared to the US. Even today it is: gender ideology, pronouns in bios, obsession with antiracism, tolerance of trannies, black worship, etc it all comes from america. European normies may repeat platitudes against Red America ("they're fat rednecks with guns!") but they hear that stuff from Blue America that dominates the world with its universities and big media.

I laugh when I hear american conservatives talk about "family values". America is the country which pioneered mass divorce where more or less half marriages ended in divorce already 40 years ago, where kids are encouraged to leave home as early as they can and where retired people form communities in Florida so they can play golf together in the sunny weather instead of being close to their children and grandchildren.
I read accounts of italian men who dated american women and they said that they were the women with the worst, shallow, personalities who couldn't form strong bonds and lasting relationships.

Even a Jew like Theodor Adorno was humiliated by the monster he created in 1960's West Germany (his research and publications was always about correlating fascism and right-wing ideology. This created the impression that ONLY right-wing ideologies were fascist, only because no one back then tried to correlate fascism to left-wing ideology).

Adorno was notoriously straight-laced, much to the chagrin of the increasingly radical leftist student body of the University of Frankfurt. In 1969, the SJW students demanded in his lecture that he engage in self-criticism and disrupted the professor. Some of this disruption involved walking up to the chalkboard and writing anti-Adorno statements, but most famously, a group of female students took off their tops and accosted the old man. This type of disruption shocked Adorno and he had to call the police.

I remember reading that years ago. It's true it happened in western Germany but who conquered Germany in 1945? What ideology did the German government and institutions follow in 1969? What were those students teached at school and by whom?

When they hunted down niggers who raped and killed white women in America, the Soviets were pimping their women to foreign leaders, you balkan roaches were flooding Western Europe with dope, and women in Europe loved negroes so much that they inspired them to fight for Civil Rights in America.

In fact, American military police in Germany for instance tried their hardest to stop German women from dating blacks. They would arrest any German woman they saw with a black guy and accuse them of being hookers, and even banned jazz music in clubs.

The military police was conservative, but the US government that ruled post-war Germany was dominated by New England Brahmin types, so explicit racism was forbidden from the law. The american south regained its authonomy after the civil war and so was able to legally discriminate blacks through the so called Jim Crow laws. Segregation was legal because Massachusetts couldn't directly rule Alabama and the police in Alabama was controlled by the local, pro-white mayors, so they closed an eye when an occasional negro was lynched.

You have to understand that Europe was completely remade after WWII, all media&institutions were dependent on American approval. But we still have lower rates of abortion, drug use, crime etc.

[Teutone]

Take a look at the USA.

Its a problem that will solve itself.

The division, poverty, ethnic conflicts and loss of influence cant be stopped.

But the EU and western Europe face the same fate, thats what hedonism and degeneration get you to.

Replacement migration is a official UN proposal:

https://www.un.org/en/development/de...-migration.asp

If you do not live in the sheltered Mansions, Pairlaments and Banks, you know that the idea of multi-culturalism, consumerism, lack of ideals and degeneration will tear down every empire.

[Cristiano viejo]

US hegemony will never end. Everything the world is today is the result of the prosperity that the British Empire brought to the world after the Napoleonic era including the current hegemony created by the United States. In the end its a culture of polite and tolerant efficiency with the resolve to take on any foe or circumstance that grew out of centuries of conflict while gathering wisdom that was so appealing to others that it took over the world.

When we lose that culture (currently practiced by people in Western Europe, Australia/New Zealand and in North America) the world will once again become what it was before the British Empire: A never ending conflict between "kings" and warlords. If that happens, get ready for a nuclear war and true reset in the next century.

America is unironically the global policeman. It's why American naval and air power and the American system of internationalised institutions precisely like the WHO or the G20 exist in the first place, while NATO and the UN serve a figs leaf in enabling American hegemony.

So they keep the global commercial system up and running, and in doing so, ensuring the American-dominated and moderated world order is maintained. This is why China will not replace the US as the global power broker, and while they may rival or exceed the US in some aspects, they ultimately benefit from the consumerist capitalist globalist system and because of this, they will never truly eclipse the nation that has inserted itself as the ultimate fail-safe in the world order that it itself created.



For your hypothesis to work out, a federalised Europe would have to become a stronger actor on the world stage. That is a possible outcome, but not guaranteed. Europe is way too diverse and most of it's people don't want federalisation.

Furthermore, in Europe, nation states are the norm so if Europe were to federalise it will be like Northern Ireland during the Troubles but on an European scale (especially now as national leaders do NOT want to give up power; see Hungary, France, Italy etc).

Look at the EU parliament, which compared to national parliaments is weak. Yet, to appease competitive hearts, there are two locations (Strasbourg and Brussels). France's hawkish approach to West Africa largely serves their own interests. Would they sacrifice defence euros to protect Baltics if it means they need to reduce their post-colonial campaigns? I doubt not without chaotic infighting.

Germany is most concerned about it's supply chains in eastern-central Europe, and keeping export markets open. Baltic countries and Poland are terrified of Russia and want guarantees of protection from the great powers, but France and Germany are totally disinterested, and do not feel particularly threatened by Russia at all.

How could all of these different regions decide on a common foreign policy? How could they all be effectively represented by a single sovereign? Is it likely that European populations are going to willingly give up their national sovereignty to EU institutions? Having watched how they have handled the Eurozone debt crisis, the migration crisis, and the provision of vaccines for covid?



Nonsense, cultural marxism was exported by Europe to the US.

All your post (I stopped to read here) is a total nonsense, in a pathetic try to justify how the world goes "thanks" to the British empire

Boy, the world is going for the toilet bowl. And with the world I mean Occident. Thanks, British empire!

[Blondie]

The OP is partly right, but i don't want USE. The strongest european country is Germany and this german elite is catastrophic, in USE this elite will be more powerfull with more right over other countries and that would be the end of us. Our most important task to remove this german elite, only after that we can talk about any resurrection.
Btw i would prefer a Great Germany (Germany+Austria+Switzerland+Netherlands+Liechtens tein) over USE by far.

[Turul Karom]

I am very convinced that only by freeing itself from the american cultural and economic hegemony could Europe revive as a civilization-space.
The US has exported every kind of degenerate fashion, the last one being an extreme anti-white ideology that threatens the survival of our race. As long as our elites take example from the US we are doomed.

I think that we should end NATO and form our own EU army, and work toward a new international financial system that would make as independent from US banking and payment system as possible. We should have good relationships with other nations even if they are not "liberal democracies" and develop our own culture.

The end of American global supremacy could be one of the best events for us.

The USA and Europe (especially Western Europe) are connected at the hip. There's no way that will ever change until the collapse of the West.

An EU army will still be at the behest of the leading role of the Anglosphere unless it wants to play ball with the Chinese/Russia. Still, there should be no EU army, ever. It will be used against member states that refuse migrants or wish to rebel/leave the EU.

There will be no separation from the Anglosphere economy because Europe is not having children and therefore has less bargaining power in general. With the ever-declining births, Europe won't develop a culture that is uniquely "European" in this federalized system as everyone realizes that it's an impotent United States of Europe, another bureaucracy in a world of pointless bureaucracies, and the citizenry just tunes out to the world and enjoys the decline while indulging themselves in the bread and circuses so eagerly given to them by their masters.

[Mejgusu]

USA is collapsing, and Nato is obsolete. Although I don’t really like him only Macron realized that in Western world. It is pretty clear that India, China and SE-Asia will become military and economic powers in the 21th century. That doesn’t mean USA will become meaningless but it passed its zenith as world power. Europe could withstand the decline of Western world, but not how they are nowadays and most important, not without Russia. We can play enemies and push Russians towards China, which isn’t really our interest or we could integrate them to the European community. Theoretically an European army isn’t a bad thing but I think it would plunge us inside meaningless wars like the USA did. The world changed but Europeans didn’t notice it. I watched some days ago a really interesting discussion exactly about this topic unfortunately it is only in German.

[Insuperable]

US hegemony will never end. Everything the world is today is the result of the prosperity that the British Empire brought to the world after the Napoleonic era including the current hegemony created by the United States. In the end its a culture of polite and tolerant efficiency with the resolve to take on any foe or circumstance that grew out of centuries of conflict while gathering wisdom that was so appealing to others that it took over the world.

When we lose that culture (currently practiced by people in Western Europe, Australia/New Zealand and in North America) the world will once again become what it was before the British Empire: A never ending conflict between "kings" and warlords. If that happens, get ready for a nuclear war and true reset in the next century.

America is unironically the global policeman. It's why American naval and air power and the American system of internationalised institutions precisely like the WHO or the G20 exist in the first place, while NATO and the UN serve a figs leaf in enabling American hegemony.

So they keep the global commercial system up and running, and in doing so, ensuring the American-dominated and moderated world order is maintained. This is why China will not replace the US as the global power broker, and while they may rival or exceed the US in some aspects, they ultimately benefit from the consumerist capitalist globalist system and because of this, they will never truly eclipse the nation that has inserted itself as the ultimate fail-safe in the world order that it itself created.



For your hypothesis to work out, a federalised Europe would have to become a stronger actor on the world stage. That is a possible outcome, but not guaranteed. Europe is way too diverse and most of it's people don't want federalisation.

Furthermore, in Europe, nation states are the norm so if Europe were to federalise it will be like Northern Ireland during the Troubles but on an European scale (especially now as national leaders do NOT want to give up power; see Hungary, France, Italy etc).

Look at the EU parliament, which compared to national parliaments is weak. Yet, to appease competitive hearts, there are two locations (Strasbourg and Brussels). France's hawkish approach to West Africa largely serves their own interests. Would they sacrifice defence euros to protect Baltics if it means they need to reduce their post-colonial campaigns? I doubt not without chaotic infighting.

Germany is most concerned about it's supply chains in eastern-central Europe, and keeping export markets open. Baltic countries and Poland are terrified of Russia and want guarantees of protection from the great powers, but France and Germany are totally disinterested, and do not feel particularly threatened by Russia at all.

How could all of these different regions decide on a common foreign policy? How could they all be effectively represented by a single sovereign? Is it likely that European populations are going to willingly give up their national sovereignty to EU institutions? Having watched how they have handled the Eurozone debt crisis, the migration crisis, and the provision of vaccines for covid?



Nonsense, cultural marxism was exported by Europe to the US. The Frankfurt School was a European product. Marxism itself was created in Europe.

Even a Jew like Theodor Adorno was humiliated by the monster he created in 1960's West Germany (his research and publications was always about correlating fascism and right-wing ideology. This created the impression that ONLY right-wing ideologies were fascist, only because no one back then tried to correlate fascism to left-wing ideology).

Adorno was notoriously straight-laced, much to the chagrin of the increasingly radical leftist student body of the University of Frankfurt. In 1969, the SJW students demanded in his lecture that he engage in self-criticism and disrupted the professor. Some of this disruption involved walking up to the chalkboard and writing anti-Adorno statements, but most famously, a group of female students took off their tops and accosted the old man. This type of disruption shocked Adorno and he had to call the police.

When they hunted down niggers who raped and killed white women in America, the Soviets were pimping their women to foreign leaders, you balkan roaches were flooding Western Europe with dope, and women in Europe loved negroes so much that they inspired them to fight for Civil Rights in America.

In fact, American military police in Germany for instance tried their hardest to stop German women from dating blacks. They would arrest any German woman they saw with a black guy and accuse them of being hookers, and even banned jazz music in clubs.

Parts of that post are somewhat cringe, but I will give you that 'Anglo-Saxons' are not to be blamed. They sort of pitched the ride. They can only be blamed for giving power to immigrants like Irish, Jews and other immigrants. In Canada it was father of current Trudeau and Mulroney (Canada's Kennedy) who were harbingers of immigrantion and with it everything else. Correct me if I am wrong.

Mulroney sort of maintains his views.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...ur-population/

[KirillMazur]

I hope that the healthy, non-parasitic (you can call it modernist) part of the United States (most of the population, IMHO) will sooner or later defeat the Trotskyist globalist oligarchy that controls the Fed, the media, big pharma and digital giants.
Although the positions of these forces were shaken after the "honest" election of Biden.
And what will they do with degradation? Will the reproduction of the white race be resumed ... at the same time, without reliance on Nazism? On what ideology will they do all this, how, what ideological paradigm? Bolshevism (consider it dead), Trotskyism (generally leftists), Protestantism (gays and women are serving there now) or what?

And from whom, from what meat? Will the Mennonites and the rest of the Amish be socialized and urbanized? Yes, these are really cool conservatives, but they won't even be enough for a couple of states. And history is moving fast now.

There is hope for the American elite and a real scientific approach. They are flexible thinkers and have expertise in all areas of human endeavor. In particular, more than half of the world's professional anthropologists are Americans. Making a new paradigm is not a problem for them.

On the other hand, Reagan relied on sects when he forced his Marxism with the withering away of the state, globalism and hatred of socialism. I think the American bureaucracy should rely on normal scientific knowledge like Management science / Operation research. In this they are also masters. Therefore, they are able to create and support organizations with multi-million staff teams like General Motors. We can say that Stalin borrowed this ability to create huge organizations from them.

Of course, the American official’s brain is also full of all sorts of rubbish from the times of the Cold War, but he is a rational man. He uses what works and discards what does not work. Marx-liberalism with the withering away of the state, the global market, etc. obviously does not work and will therefore be discarded. They are empiricists. It was only our post-Stalinist elites who discarded everything that did not fit into their "only correct" doctrine. Americans will discard nonsense that cannot adequately describe reality.

Hollywood and NGOs are most controlled by the private power of the liberal-Marxist globalist oligarchy. It is more difficult for officials to reach there. Although it's easier with international and military affairs. Trump has not started a single war. Even in Venezuela. Cannot be compared with Obama.
In short - If USA can do that, then the whole world will gradually be cleansed along the chain and countries (and new blocs) start doing its own ways.

Regarding the end of hegemony - I think that something like antitrust legislation should work here - there should be two hegemon and concepts. For balance.
There can be no three - this always leads to the unification of two sides against the third, as in three-sided chess.

Spoiler!

The leading Moscow politicians and philosophers of the USSR did not understand how the thoughts of the classics of Marxism-Leninism could be qualitatively developed into a constantly refining scientific worldview. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of former communists, at the first opportunity, mimicked into liberal opportunists and recognized the pluralism of primitive worldviews as more valuable than the scientific worldview. Only recently did some officials realize that the scientific worldview can constantly develop in the form of conclusions from the analysis of the structure common to all languages. They've already declared liberalism and capitalism obsolete, but most bloggers haven't figured it out yet.