Guide to Effective Protests: Dress Code

Which picture shows people who are more serious?

The title was going to be "making demonstrations more effective" until I realized my previous titles increasingly began with ING suffix words. This reminded me that the trend of statements with ING suffix starters seemed to pick up pace under Bush. He would make many speeches in front of a background that would be endlessly covered with written tidbits like "rebuilding American families", "increasing opportunities", "making heartland strong", etc.

News organizations caught this propaganda flu as well. Since adding the ING suffix creates an action noun and conveys that continuous action is happening, it could very well be that GOP came up with very effective, psychological, and viral informational tool. Instead of definitive statements conveying a beginning and end such as "The act of 2006 caused this" we got streams of meaningless and cerebrally confusing "financing our future" which just told that vague action is happening nonstop. Perfect for 24/7 cable and do nothing politicians since definitive statements with an end would invite thought. Bush excelled at psych ops.

When talking about increasing effectiveness of protests, it is good to remember that the gathering of demonstrators is primarily a psychological propaganda tool for various media and apathetic middle class sections of the public. During the Bush era, the early Iraq war protests numbered in the hundreds of thousands. These protests were dramatically ineffective and not just due to 3 major media conglomerates deciding to ignore them. These anti-war gatherings were utilizing shockingly outdated methods (if they were ever that effective to begin with considering cultural backlash in 1970s).

The participants thought that the sheer numbers of people would be enough to catch the media's eye. Many of the baby boomer organizers have been using the same tactics that seemed to be successful decades ago and for which the establishment and society at large had developed a serious immunity. It may have been shocking and eye catching to have colorfully dressed hyper individuals in large numbers in 1960s in one place. In 2003 however, the insistence than protesters find their own unique way of expressing discontent became counterproductive since MSM was able to use it as a weapon of ridicule when it wasn't ignoring. It was easy pickings to zoom in on the strangest looking hippy or funniest paper meche statue.

Anybody who was exposed to this silly groan inducing spectacle could not have come away psychologically impressed. The actual target audience, politically dominant elderly and middle aged voters in the western world (majority of them were not on the side of earlier protesters in 60s/70s) were exposed to the wrong psychological marketing strategy and completely counterproductive anti-war propaganda.

The organizers would complain that just getting everybody organized enough to show up was an accomplishment. If they faced such critical organizational issues they should have spent serious energy on creating a perception of organization that was lacking. This is easily accomplished with a general agreement on what to wear and what color theme the demonstration should be.

It may sound silly but one just has to look back at US suffrage movement and the various CIA engineered "color revolutions" in eastern Europe in recent years. The green "movement" in Iran for instance was comprised of multitudes of various groups and previously unaffiliated individuals yet it miraculously became transformed into a monolithic "movement" with a simple color emphasis.

The effect of 2003 protests would have been multiplied dramatically if everybody showed up in their most formal wear and decided on a singular color. All it takes is for organizers to send a simple message to those attending such as "whatever you do show up in work pants/work skirt and a white shirt and wear a cheap blue headband or scarf, etc". When a reporter takes a picture of 50,000 people each dressed individualistically, it looks as you'd expect, just a horde of disorganized people. However a picture of 50,000 all dressed in office cubicle formal wear that also has blue headbands and occasional blue flags would be visually and psychologically stunning. It would:

1) Prevent reporters (both MSM and amateur) from singling out the strangest looking costumes and pretty much force more wide crowd shots since shots of so many people wearing the same are better photography in general (think psych ops of crowd shots in 2003 Ukraine and 2009 Iran). More media coverage is guaranteed.

2) Create the illusion of organization and "movement" which in turn invites giving the whole coalition of diverse groups an umbrella nickname (even simple tea bags can do this much less blue headbands)

3) Most importantly the psychological effect on elderly people (who see a crowd of crisp well dressed people of all ages) would go further in achieving the aim of the event in the first place. Even if the demonstration gets a derogative nickname like "bluebaggers/bluetesters" etc it would still give power to "movement" by putting it under one category. People like to lump things into categories.

Doing something as simple and seemingly trivial as coordinating color and asking everybody to wear a white shirt automatically starts a process of integration where common themes and slogans are developed. It may be asking too much to also coordinate 3 simple phrases such as "Telling to End Afghanistan War" to utilize propaganda of repetition as a voice of the crowd. It may also be asking too much to have everybody at a protest shut up and walk in solemn silence for a mile to create a psychological sense of gravity in onlookers. It may definitely be too much to replicate the simple parade formation walking that suffragettes showed.

But when people feel seriously enough about something to gather in a large crowd (knowing that the crowd itself is a marketing tool) then they should also take the next step to demonstrate their seriousness instead of treating the event like a giant Halloween party, music festival, or socializing opportunity. Until common tricks to multiply message are used, American protesters will not show they are serious no matter how they feel on the inside. Then again, in today's climate next time there are that many people in the streets the catchy nickname they'd get may be pitchforkers.

All Major Problems that Affected Soviet Union also Affect United States Today

United States did not have any serious national introspection when its rival for hegemony collapsed. It thus found itself trapped in a very Soviet ideological bubble and economic difficulty. 

When the world's only supposed superpower starts coughing up blood and seems to not even have the political will to provide 1/6th of its citizens with healthcare, it's hard to not compare it to another federal union whose multitudes of small problems led to a spectacular demise. It may seem counter-intuitive to say that USA has Soviet Union's ailments (due to supposed enormous differences in the degree of state capitalism) but comparisons become eerie once they start being made.

1) Structurally and logistically determined inability to satisfy consumer demand for better and more accessible healthcare, education, and healthy food. Economic priority is on building, maintaining, and expanding vast conventional and thermonuclear weaponry rather than on improving quality of life for all Americans. Political leadership tolerates increasing suffering of the citizenry and deterioration of infrastructure to maintain military power projection capabilities abroad.

2) Rigid ideological indoctrination of most of the population and public officials that prevents pragmatic discussion on the highest levels concerning modernization efforts. All serious talk of modernization is instinctively seen as treasonous by military and major party leadership who have vested personal interests in perpetuating the status quo. Not only is state orthodoxy not questioned by major media but there is full support of efforts to violently spread American style socioeconomic organization abroad.

click to enlarge

3) Deteriorating food quality due to the architecture of means of food production and distribution. Inability of subsidized state capitalist enterprises to provide fresh non-adulterated produce. Rise in popularity of decentralized small farms to fill holes in supply by large, inefficient, and increasingly hazardous state supported large farms. Situation is still not bad enough for homeowners to grow food on small plots of land yet.

4) Severe military overexpansion overseas. The state is going broke supporting numerous satellite regimes in South America, Asia, Central Europe, and Middle East through maintenance of hundreds of bases and conventional deployments.

5) Lack of frank discussion on national problems since they are not allowed by a handful of state subsidized media conglomerates that provide most of the information to the citizenry (they have vested interests in the status quo just like political and military leadership does). Severe self censorship by news outlets that do not deviate from the party line in any meaningful way.

6) Inability to project soft power due to serious erosion of economic strength. Utilization of the only tools left that elites can use to project global power, namely military force and threats of force.

7) Ideological stagnation, exhaustion, and moral bankruptcy. The average educated citizen does not believe in the party line about the American dream anymore or that United States is the wealthiest and freest society and a force for good in the world. The ideological exhaustion and disbelief is increasingly present among public officials who just mouth the party lines. Spread of fatalism and apathy among the general population. Some of the educated now become rabid reactionaries and try to go back to the days when the ideological fervor was more present (libertarians, imperial reformers who want to go back to the days of state capitalism in the 1950s, elderly who remember when economic base was expanding rather than shrinking, etc). Efforts to "improve" or "fine tune" American state capitalism increasing as well as efforts to scrap it altogether.

click to enlarge

8) The biggest and most advanced gulag prison system that is still expanding and increasingly relying on prison labor for manufactured goods. Mass arrests are made for non-violent consensual acts even in the face of enormous economic costs and violation of human rights. Disregard for human rights as a blind eye is turned towards the prison system (now the biggest in the world) that is dangerously overcrowded and where torture (inmate rape and other abuse) is allowed to continue. Human rights violations as some ethnic groups are arbitrarily and disproportionately targeted for imprisonment (higher arrests for drug possession among blacks/Hispanics than whites disproportionate to the reported use).

9) The politically active young people do not believe what they see in mainstream media anymore. They increasingly turn to alternative or foreign sources for information about their own country rather than continue to listen to the blatant lies and propaganda on major news networks. Major news increasingly focusing on problems of other countries, trivial entertainment, and support of military establishment than introspection on declining national strength and health.

10) Increased reliance on middlemen (Wall Mart) that connect the American consumer with goods made in other countries (Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc) since quality of domestic industry and workforce is declining. Domestic industry can't satisfy the consumer demands of society even if the state officials found political will.

11) Deterioration in the quality of the American worker that cannot be reversed due to political structure's inability to provide modern education for most citizens. Education system itself is tainted by state propaganda.

12) Most of the population is isolated from the outside world and has no idea what it's like to live in an advanced society. The elderly are particularly affected. Only 1/3 of population have passports and have been abroad (mostly state officials/businessmen/educated/urban/suburban upper classes and their families). Increasing psychological restlessness among the young and escape from cities in the rotting industrial heartland. Increase in mindless hedonism and drinking as a form of escape.

13) Western Europe is now seen as a model civilization to emulate and aspire to rather than just a different system of development. Psychological and moral surrender in trying to conceptualize and evolve American state capitalism towards greater heights. Western Europeans increasingly looked at as more fun and developed in terms of knowing how to live and what values to have.

14) Both wings of the pro-oligarchic political establishment (The more nationalistic and introspective Democratic wing that wants to fine tune American style state capitalism and the more internationalist Republican wing that wants to spread it abroad) suffering from gerontocracy rule. Elderly and mentally infirm now predominate in the legislative like they did in the 80s in China and Soviet Union. They are unable to effectively conceptualize modernization efforts and thus defer to reactionary defensive mindset while suppressing more youthful reformers. The two political wings were always nearly identical at the center but are now practically merging as a result. Younger knee jerk reactionary militarists, regional politicians, and EU leaning reformers increasingly find themselves completely without an outlet for expression.

15) Increasing physiological and psychological suffering in the land of plentiful natural resources. Insufficient provision of livable shelter due to structural inefficiencies of the economic and political system. Collapsing infrastructure that is decades behind the most developed countries on the planet (and often even behind developing nations) and that is not designed to meet the demand placed on it.

16) Serious and irreversible budgetary gaps between collected money to fund the functioning of the country and the money needed. Irreversibly large debt from military commitments and ideologically based management of society.

17) Restlessness in the satellite countries, desire of military allies to choose their own developmental path, and Washington DC's decreasing international credibility.

18) Inability of the top leadership to integrate the diverse ethnic groups of the Federal Union. As Emmanuel Todd (who predicted collapse of the Soviet union accurately) has pointed out, the child mortality of blacks has actually risen while the white child mortality declined. Demonstrative lack of national ethnic consolidation and thus lack of emergence of a unitary American nationality. Ethnic and regional groups still looking out for themselves rather than the whole of society.

19) Slow trickle of educated elites out of United States to countries where they can get better opportunities to materially expand.


20) Militarization of police to keep social order. Blatant suppression of genuine reformist political candidates from having any airtime. Increase in power of the intelligence organs.

21) History of violent belligerence abroad as well as continuing abuses and occupations (Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia). Militarized, warlike, and often xenophobic mindset of the population that is more concerned about imperial glory than peace, development, and human rights. After WW2, United States actually killed a lot more foreign peoples directly and indirectly than Soviet Union (which was under siege for decades by NATO armor).

The list can seriously be expanded to have 40 items. The reader is free to think of other key things that caused the slow rot and inefficiencies in Soviet Union and find an American equivalent. In the end, the summary of the cause of decline can be that the contradictions in the social fabric of United States (ideological emphasis on equality even though there is horrid ever increasing inequality) combined with the decades of state propaganda to create a serious inability to adapt and cope with national problems.

All the problems that Obama is now facing Gorbachev has also faced. He is seen as not moving fast enough when it comes to reform or is seen as moving too fast. In the meantime, he is constrained by status quo entrenched political interests and elites in almost every major organizational hierarchy. Historically, this is a very dangerous political situation since major social discontent begins when things start to improve but aren't seen as improving fast enough (or there is a bit of a reversal). We've seen this in late 19th century China, in late 18th century France, and of course Soviet Union itself. It seems United States has only postponed serious economic difficulty due to the collapse of its rival and by flooding Eurasia with dollars in the 1990s.

Anglo-American Empire and Its Catastrophic Involvement in Europe

An epic story of carnage and madness in Europe that should finally draw to a close.





As much as we may wish for all of Europe to have a common lingua franca so it could finally unite politically and start creating a grand supra cultural entity, one must consider the dangers involved. British-American liberalism over the last 200 years always had a whiff of condescension from the leadership. Yes, the children finally won the right to be left alone to do as they wish but not to influence what the adults are doing. Most European societies had people grow up and slaughter the adults in leadership so they could finally take matters into their own hands and shape societies as they saw fit. The French are a good example as well as other populous ethnic groups like Spaniards, Germans, and Italians. Russians, unfortunately, still did not sufficiently grow up so they can self-govern (through genuine proportional representation) even though the old parents got buried. The process is happening but slowly since its only been a few generations since most of the population was dragged kicking and screaming to class to be taught reading/writing.

English speakers however, never stormed the capital and imprisoned/murdered those that needed it (those rulers that were decadent, weak, and stagnant rather than growing and socially enriching). Sure, the English speaking adults split a few times but the revolution of American colonial aristocracy was a matter of the wife storming out of the house and taking some kids with her. Confederate elites wanted to repeat the same but were a little too close to really leave and got a few gentle slaps to not do it again. For far too long English speaking peoples have lived without massacring the rulers since hey, the rulers let some elder sons make some money off the land, speak more freely, and even beat up/enslave some local ethnic weakling. English liberalism is a nanny state mentality in the making. Liberalism in the classical sense of course. The rulers love it since they can really focus on playing around and expanding their interests in the international arena without being held as accountable as in proportional representative government where vast majority of people iron our national future.

Yet England grew old and tired. English elites sweated and puffed and got rather creative in keeping Europeans divided amongst themselves. That was no small task since continental people had weapons more advanced than spears and could read pretty well. Keeping them divided was a bit of a challenge for London but with such great task one grows very clever and experienced in control. Sure London's not totally to blame. Russian elites helped them slap down forces of European unification from time to time. But one can strain to prevent potential economic and political influence from a unified continent (which could also take the form of physical invasion channel) for only so long. In retrospect, these efforts have even sped up forces of unification and made them more egalitarian.

English meddling earlier in the last century overreached and wiped out enough conservative/nationalist European elites (as they and their family members led across the trenches) to reduce forces of tribalism and ethnic solidarity. Further English meddling (not content with quarter of the world's surface and potential role of being a raw material supplier to a German Europe) has taken out more nationalists in the 1940s. It also created a situation where unification could start occurring voluntarily and without one populous ethnic group leading the way. This time England was wheezing and coughing and got its long estranged and somewhat more liberal wife really involved. Yes, America the beautiful really came in this time and got in the game of keeping Europe divided. The English speaking couple got remarried.

At this point things could not go on as before since Soviets offered a continent wide democratic (compared to the earlier French and German plans) unification plan for all of Europe.

"What!?!" you say? How dare we call communist unification more democratic than Napoleon's or Hitler's? Well facts speak for themselves. Original communist wave integrated all captured nations into Soviet Republics. The Soviet integration was not as driven by one populous dominant ethnic group, offered a federal structure with separation of powers, protection of national languages, and most importantly, proportional representation for communist elites in the Politburo based on population of European ethnic groups.

Sure, you say, but Stalin hijacked it to be de facto Russian driven enterprise and this democratic representation only occurred within the Soviet Union. That is true but practical considerations cannot discount the driving force of a teleological idea (such as the American drivel spewed for over a hundred years that all men are created equal). Yes, in the 50s 60s and 70s many communist states didn't get their representation in the Soviet politburo that they would have if they got under the red wing in the 20s. Neither did the white American males get their political say for a number of decades. Does one really think a communist Western Europe (with its demands for central planning) could really be kept under Russian control without political integration into Soviet Union? Once Europe became Soviet, the Russian ethnic elites would be but a plurality faction within the Politburo that could be outvoted by an alliance of Spanish/German/Italian communists for example. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that integrated most of the continent along with European colonies would be a bit of a force. English colonies would be an exception until England is browbeat into joining or co-operating. Soviet Europe would have had over 500 million people under its embrace (easily over a billion if integration kept spreading into former colonies).

How strong of a force are we talking about here? Its democratic representation (that is if you join the party and work your way to the top to be represented by your ethnic group) would have international appeal. Lack of one ethnic group always setting the agenda by being half or more of the population (like in Stalin's Soviet Union) would allow a true multi-ethnic governance and exchange of ideas along EU lines. It would democratize further as multi-party democracy (within ethically proportionally representative governmental structure) develops gradually through the Politburo sessions. Factional alliances within the communist party (and not necessarily rooted in the ethnic background of representatives) would naturally arise and help create new efficiencies on the continent. Soviet Europe would liberalize economically with time like China and if it expanded beyond the continent would also bring mass literacy and decline of birthrates to Africa and parts of Asia (as they were brought to Central Asia). That in turn would usher in wealth generation and further democratization.

All the resources of Africa, Siberia, Scandinavia, and parts of Asia would be a backbone of a new world order and make grand projects possible. China showed that peace, diplomacy, and trade with Maoists works. If one thinks China makes grand rapid construction (made possible by its authoritarian central command), is there a doubt Soviet Europe couldn't do space colonization, end African/Asian hunger, end common preventable diseases, and make sure secondary and even higher schooling is available to all of its subjects the way they cannot be dreamed of now? As it liberalized, global unification would finally be in sight and finally the end product of such an idea, world peace.

The English speaking couple recoiled in horror at the idea although it was far away on the horizon. World peace, literacy, prevention of overpopulation into the 21st century, and wealth generation is good and all but getting there via socialist means!?? Unthinkable! Socialism perhaps democratizing and economically liberalizing after a while? Would never happen! England, although frail, still had dignity and would not allow these hooligan Soviet gutter punks run rampant. It would rather let its estranged wife America wear the pants rather than have the continent dictate anything to London.

United States was happy to oblige. Its taste was already getting used to stomping around abroad and its elites wanted to roll with the big boys (electrifying the country, building new railroads and tunnels, and messing around Western Hemisphere was getting boring and under-stimulating). It had a shiny new toy which could be used to bring its own version of what's proper for people of the world but nuclear fire over Leningrad and Moscow was perhaps a bit rash and impolite right after a war. People of the world might not go along as well with everybody "being equal" on paper and "picking themselves up by their African and Malaysian bootstraps" if US elites started another continental blitzkrieg. What other option rather than mass murder to compete with Soviet Europe? If nothing is done well one risks being a giant dangerous rather religious Texas/Iran-like laughing stock! We can't have that as the world inches closer to unification and education.

America, after getting some endorphins from a work out and finally having some real dough and respect to spend, sat deep in thought and entertained some options. For some reason she thought of herself in third person for the first time.

"Well sure America could integrate most of the English speaking world/colonies as member states and use vast Canadian resources to fine tune its idea of freedom and small government. USA would have enough deterrence to prevent naval invasion across thousands of miles of ocean (or Soviets building magical tanks to dance their way across Bering strait, and then thousands of miles of Alaskan/Canadian tundra). Sure America can actually start adhering to what is written in its sacred documents and start treating blacks and Hispanics as equals and educate them. Then it can start accepting all north American/Caribbean states into the union to bolster its population and resources. Then it can move on to offer membership beyond the continent to south American member states to further economically develop them and free their peoples from their impudent elites through mass education, real opportunity, and constitutional protections.

Heck! With Southern American states so close by and their elites being traditional willing lapdogs and exporters of raw materials they might even succumb to the pressure to join expanding USA (and be new wealthy senators and governors for life if needed) rather than having their people decide for them by forcefully joining competing Soviet model. It'll probably create a super economy due to less borders and one currency. This way USA can gleefully show the world that its model creates more wealth, protects religious freedoms, has a more transparent fair federal structure, and allows all people (regardless of skin color or party) to vote and be represented. With Western Hemisphere mostly part of a multi-ethnic USA and all the natural resources under its control, small/medium/and large companies could really demonstrate the efficiency of private ownership and competition. USA could then shame Soviet Europe with adherence to constitutional protections regardless of race or religion and show peoples of Africa and Asia that there's a better way. It could actually follow FDR's propaganda slogans that Americans (unlike the Germans) are more focused on building for developmental needs of man rather than tools of war.

Sure the nations of Western Europe would fall under the Soviet yoke but how would that be against American interests? How is making a deal with Soviets to allow any Western European citizen to come live in the Western hemisphere a bad plan? Russian imperial elites enriched Western Europe through emigration in the 20s so why not allow bourgeois of Europe to bring their money and talent to help America reconstruct Western Hemisphere and parts of the world in the image of the founding fathers? Those that stay and face the gulag do so voluntarily so why protect these non-Americans and their nation-state playthings with expensive weapons?

What does America have to lose in Western Europe? Fascist Franco's Spain becoming a Soviet/communist republic? Italy's rural population getting communist education and making scientists instead of priests? Greece and Portugal switching one authoritarianism for another? The ruins of France (that had 20% support for communist party into the 1970s) being rebuilt by French communists and Algeria becoming a communist state where Arabs are not discriminated against? Why not allow Soviets to be burdened with control and rebuilding of Europe and never have a continental war again. Let as many Germans flee to US as possible and thus bolster American industrial economy. Those that remain would provide an internal domestic counterbalance to Russian dominance within communist Europe. Maybe Russians wouldn't be able to hold on to the continent without creating a more egalitarian system similar to EU which in turn would allow liberalization to proceed. If they fail, America wins. If they succeed, US wont need to spend on a Marshal plan and more enlightened populations would transform communist world from within. Losing Scandinavia would be a shame but they too can relocate here along with the Vatican. Having the Pope on American soil would sure help expand manifest destiny south and help in Africa. And what exactly is wrong with Soviet Spanish, Swedish, Greek doctors and engineers having friendly competition with ours in bringing white man's burden to the world? Is preserving the sovereignty of Western nations in the interests of US and the world? Is supporting a small population of ethnic elites against larger numbers of their blue collar workers really fair? Let the Red Army take it from here since they'll probably fail with their economic system.

America could help create a United Nations structure and constitution that made a point that African and South American states could decide which system to join voluntarily with the provision that Africa and South America would not have Soviet or American troop build ups/missiles. American leadership (of a country stretching from Newfoundland to Panama) could passionately appeal to UN with a message that there's been enough white soldiers and military bases on the two continents. It could tell the Soviets that they wouldn't need to worry about build up and thus possible invasion from Africa just as Americans wouldn't need to worry about tanks/arms in South America/Caribbean. North America and all of Europe (with exception of maybe England and Switzerland) and all the states within them would be firmly within their political spheres of influence however and free from meddling. With Soviet multi-ethnic leadership free from worry about invasion from North Africa, it'd just need enough of a nuclear deterrent to keep hordes of Anglo-Hispanics/Chinese from rapidly (and magically) advancing on water or many time zones of frozen Siberia. Both superpowers would then have more money to spend on human development and construction rather than spending endless hundreds of billions on things designed to cause mass murder. The two parts of the world can trade in friendship and we might even do some joint partnerships in business and space exploration. From utilitarian perspective, even if a couple million more Europeans end up dead or in Siberia due to Soviet occupation, countless millions will be saved. A world secure from another war, peasants of Africa/Asia/Latin America educated (and not contributing to explosion of population to 9 billion), hundreds of millions more having their inalienable rights secured, and forces of science more focused on building rather than destroying.

Americans could join with Soviets to pressure England to decolonize immediately and choose what state to join. If England does not choose to let Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as well as itself become American states then it would need to choose neutrality or be left to face the Soviet Europe by itself. American pressure on England to rejoin its embrace under constitutional protection and let its conquered people go (or also become Americans with freedoms, schooling, hospitals, roads, and electricity) would really send a message to the world and most importantly India and Arabs. We can actually adhere to Washington's warning not to join foreign alliances and we'll have an exciting new frontier and manifest destiny of our doctors, scientists, and builders competing with Soviet ones all across the world. Then those dastardly Soviets with all of Eurasia will start sweatin'!

Heck! My old hubby England and I will show them French/German/Russian Soviets that we can build a thing or two! We'll probably be better at making things anyway since we're so sure of our industrial/economic methodology. Maybe after a while Soviets will become more capitalist like us through friendship trade peace and goodwill towards mankind. Then we can achieve world peace on our terms."

America sat deep in thought and it got late. She yawned. The game was on. There were still a few beers left.

'Naahhh.... this type of thing involves.. planning... and maybe a president who gets elected again and again.. It needs a long term vision, like, really long term. And some of these mass international building projects might even need a bit of that central planning the euros got over there. We'd also really need to start properly organizing our urban and rural communities and integrate educational infrastructure to create those armies of world trotting do gooders. Plus treating blacks like equals probably wont fly for next election cycle... "

America got up and started pacing a bit and getting frustrated while sipping on her beer.

"Alright, I don't want to use a shortcut with the new toys and nuke the Soviets to then expand my vision all the way into Asia.. It's quick but too messy and a bit risky. I mean, I'm not a mass murderer or an ideological imperialist or anything... I could just nuke the Soviets and get back to being neutral again.. Maybe British can sort out the European ruins and survivors and do some clean up or something. They're good with all that world conquerin' thing... "

That last thought struck a nerve for some reason.

"Goddamit!!! British this and British that always getting me to do things and teaching me!! No more! I won this thing, and am sticking around! I'm getting the credit. England got one thing right though. The Soviets ain't classy and at least my frail controlling hubby knows a thing about class. I've got the nukes and I'm digging in and threatening them with mass murder if they keep pushing about equality and education and all that. How much of a fight is in them anyway?

Hmm.. It'll probably get pricey though. I mean I could build a lot of colleges and high schools and educate everybody here as well as many others in the world for a fraction of what I will spend on submarines and carrier strike groups and tank squadrons on German soil. That first plan with letting other countries become states will adhere more to the founding structure for the country and increase the amount of troops and tax payers that we have... But am I THAT sure free enterprise will work as well with South Americans as here so I can start taxing their income and that of their children?

I mean mass developmental projects/education works and all and Soviets successfully tested it in Central Asia...and creating public works for new states will still be cheaper long term than decades of hundreds of billions a year on military. Hmm... But then America will lose its white character and even though Soviets are losing their Russian character and being absorbed into Europe one probably needs to be authoritarian to keep whites from starting another civil war over this. And maybe Catholics and Africans added to the Union will be too weird. England does it but they're a monarchy and really authoritarian or something. I will just fund elites all across the world with money and weapons so they can hunt down and kill their communists. I will undermine commie governments by giving lots of money to rebels and insurgents. I will starve, intimidate, and maybe beat up those states that do become commie. I will create entangling international alliances so vast that they stop being entangling. Plus, I'll be the captain of the alliances so Washington and Jefferson would probably not have a problem. I'll tax the free enterprise of the country to build enough explosive power to eradicate every living thing in Eurasia. I'll make French and Germans my lapdogs... I will have bases in most countries, use the UN to stall Soviet designs, and transfer enormous funds to anything that is sort of anti-communist! Can Soviets match that!!?? I'll encircle and starve them and their allies! Aren't the Soviets just Mexicans that learned how to make lots of tanks anyway?"

At this point England arrived for dinner, gave America a loving hug, and tried to stop the rant by gently pulling America inside. America was too incensed and drunk. England hasn't seen her in such a state before but something seemed familiar..

America continued while gesticulating excitedly.

"What was I thinking before!!?? We just need good Public Relations! Lets just outshout Soviets about freedom and equality! Mass murder works! World peace sounds like a crackpot commie dream anyway. Why use our superior global position at the moment to try to create a meaningful relationship with our old ally against Hitler? We can't trust them. Trying and always building is for suckers. Right old pal? You've built all them schools in Africa and now they want freedom. Ungrateful! Capitalism and freedom needs to be brought by force and not example."

England smiled rather sadly and nodded.

"Yes dear. Lets go inside it's getting cold. I've brought some Belgian chocolates made by good hard working mom&pop stores over in Europe. Hopefully they'll never be centrally planned. I also brought some plans and graphs about how you'll defend me.. err the people of Europe more effectively. I promise you that the military build up in Europe really wont cost more than those interstate highways or libraries. Plus the protestants in your country don't want government telling them what to do and just want to be left alone to provide healthcare/education/infrastructure for themselves like adults. We can't have Soviets preaching to us now can we, let me do the thinking, together we're a power couple. "

And so it went. Time passed by and Europe aged. Soviets were threatened by a lengthy siege into spending lots of their wealth on missiles rather than reconstructing Western Europe and building better infrastructure for Eurasian peoples. The dream of international solidarity, development, and peace gave way to defending the borders and so the dream died. French, Germans, and Russians stopped posing a demographic expansionary threat to each other since their birthrates stagnated (educated people tend to not have litters of children). They just wanted to be left alone, and trade, and not go abroad to have their people die in far off lands while having vicious rumors divide them.

America still remained on the continent however, whispering about how Russians don't have freedom of press and how French and Germans should threaten them with mass violence and bring new aircraft and bases ever closer to Moscow. Europeans listened and rolled their eyes (since America was still relatively powerful with all the rockets) even as a lot of American population faced laughable infrastructure, educational rot, and impudent elites who thought that liberalism was all and proper since they're only harassing the children occasionally to fund Lockheed-Martin and to borrow from Chinese "commies". World saw American presidents bang their shoes on podiums and threaten to bury poor suffering nations and bring their ideological system there. Most nations indeed now acquired parliaments and the joys of democracy as seen throughout Africa. The idea of international solidarity and brotherhood gave way to a more libertarian world where illiterate peasants scrambled to live in city slums for a chance to work for a subsidiary of an international firm.

Too bad such trickle down wonders to feed and bring equality to soon to be 9 billion people couldn't really be challenged. Challenged by a large scale system that allowed every large Soviet/Cuban fishing vessel to have a doctor on it in case somebody gets hurt (since crew were seen as people rather than resource to extend profit margins) and often even a marine biologist to expand human knowledge. For an ideology that bores everybody with endless lectures on benefits of competition, it really cant seem to stand anything but ideological monopoly. Even a local subsidiary of the communist corporation, Cuba( that now remains like a rotting GM factory)is shrieked at and threatened.

"But the whole world has to thoroughly be capitalist and adhere to all capitalist rules so full benefits can be felt!!"

Indeed, we've heard that before somewhere.

Time for English speakers to let go of Europe, stop the hysterical and at this point tiresome preaching and ideological propaganda. Time for America to gently take England's hand and push it towards Europe or towards itself and not use it as a Trojan horse against EU anymore. No need to divide the continent anymore. They wont invade and overthrow the aristocracy. Russians have been whipped and thoroughly converted to capitalism (similar to how north European pagans of old became the most zealous Christians). If anything, American influence will continue living through East European/Chinese oligarchs.

The Schengen zone is creating a lot of cultural and blood intermingling on the continent and things are finally getting exciting. Maybe it's too late to not use English as a lingua franca but hopefully Europeans wont let the linguistic filth of propaganda, sexual prudishness, fear, black/white morality, and hysteria enter their consciousness too much. Let European influence flow through England into American Northeast rather than the other way around. They can teach us a thing or two about living together in close quarters and put ancient hate behind.