When one thinks of empires one visualizes an emperor resplendent in a gold crown studded with precious stones and the finest robes. One thinks of the empires of Napoleon, Augustus, Alexander the Great, of magnificent imperial capital cities built by from the plunder of military conquest. Men of great military and political leadership who were feared and respected. Even the empires of men like Stalin and Genghis Khan although not so opulent, ruled through the considerable force of their personalities, aggressiveness and willingness to ruthlessly use violence not only to rule over their own people but to command the obedience of subjugated peoples and strike terror in their enemies.
However, no empire, no matter their wealth and military strength in the beginning survives in the long run and many did not even survive the death of their founding emperor. Empire is not something to aspire to.
But here now is the latest contender to enter the world stage with imperial ambitions. As empires were always the province of the most ruthless men of outstanding abilities and epic ambitions now these latest pretenders to the hoped for Euroempire throne are a gaggle of mundane bureaucrats. Where the men with ambition to rule did so by taking what they wanted, these bland eurocrat apparatchiks merely whine how unfair it is that everyone else who matters has an empire except them. They want an empire so as not to be the only kid on the block to not have one and are hoping the people of the current EU nations simply hand it to them.
If this United States of Europe imperialism thing is such a good idea, then did the Allies bother wasting lives and treasure and destroying Europe fighting against the Nazis? Or resisting Soviet communism in the cold war? Are some tyrannies better than others?
Some might try to argue that such a passive-aggressive method is better than military action but it would only bring to power a more venal and capricious gamma male. The exact sort of creature that resorts to lies and trickery to get what he wants. For the man who takes power by force would only fear or respect an enemy who would actively use force against him. As such he would tolerate a certain amount of speech from the powerless peasantry and care little what his subjects did as long as they paid their taxes and didn't take up arms against him. Not so with the gamma male bureaucrat who took power by subterfuge. It would be in his bureaucratic nature to gradually gain control over every aspect of their subject's mind and body. Further, as someone who takes power through sub rosa deception would always be fearful of everyone around him as anyone could use such underhanded methods against him and he would in turn be a greater tyrant, fearful of and overreacting to, every shadow of a threat.
No sensible person would want to be ruled over by any sort of authoritarian or totalitarian emperor but there is no dishonor in being beaten in open combat by the stronger, better man so long as one fights to their utmost. But the gravest dishonor and shame would be to allow such pathetic characters such as a wastrel like Juncker or a loathsome toad like Verhofstadt to have power foolishly handed to them by gullible people without even a murmur of protest. However recent election results in the EU Parliament and national elections shows people in Europe are waking up to this fact and are taking a stand against globalist imperialism.
Hopefully America can do the same.
Of all the boogeymen that bedevil the left, and they are legion, maybe none are so terrifying as words that hurt liberal feelings. Inanimate...
To open, a brief summary of the following post would be this: Most people are inclined to be followers, live within the collective rules of ...
Edit: For the sake of clarifying the main idea of this post, I've altered the original title of this post from The White Army Redux to...
I had previously written about the fallacy of civic nationalism and the propositional nation of immigrants here . In short there is no such ...