(a) – Imperial Conservatism

I’m clearing out drafts of ideas I had this week but which I was too busy to write. Got a couple more in the hopper. One that I haven’t thought about enough to make it’s own post, but an idea I wanted to share for your consideration, is this one:

America, on the geopolitical scale, is conservative, even though run by liberals. Our foreign policy amounts to “Keep everything the same”. Are the “evil empires” of history geopolitical Liberals?

If you think about it, any nation once it gets to the top of the food chain must be conservative in order to preserve the environment in which it is dominant. Every other nation must be either conservative (to preserve itself) or liberal (to put itself on top).

In this dynamic, Peace is only preserved when one nation is unfailingly dominant, and all other nations accept that dominance.

In the Microscale, this describes a Kingdom, with a solitary ruler whose Authority is accepted without dispute.

Food for thought!

ADMG

CCCII – The After-War

I know I said I wasn’t going to do it but by golly it’s my blog and I do what I want. In fairness though, this is not so much about current events as it is about future ones. Somehow that distinction excuses this article.

---

I saw a headline that showed promising signs of movement towards peace, that Russia and Ukraine have “made progress on a 15-point peace plan”. The details of the 15 points remain a mystery, but the article contained some speculation about what the result could be. In effect, the result looks like military peace between Russia and Ukraine.

A question I’ve had, and I don’t remember if I have expressed it here on this blog in an article or comment or whether I’ve only expressed this verbally to people around me: What happens if Ukraine comes to a peace agreement that is not agreeable to the United States? I have a suspicion that we are going to have that scenario, especially with all the political bluster surrounding the defense of Ukraine. “Russia will not win in Ukraine”–and then Ukraine comes to a peace deal that (for example) allows Russia to annex the Donbas region. How will America respond to that? Surely with good natured de-escalation, right?

The problem is, even if Ukraine and Russia find some resolution to their war the moment I hit publish on this article, there is still an After-War that is inevitable. The sanctions are a big deal–do those come down as soon as the peace deal is signed, or do they stay up? Russia has started to implement counter-sanctions, the most recent one I saw being that BBC is now blocked in Russia. Besides this: What ought Russia do about all the NATO and other countries that sent military aid to Ukraine? What ought Russia do to the people who sent money? What about the “foreign mercenaries” who traveled from around the world to fight for Ukraine?

The explicit military conflict was between Russia and Ukraine, but the diplomatic war was between Russia and the world. THAT war is very far from being over.

Just to state the moral of the story explicitly: This is why it is important to remain neutral or to join a fight, and why it is dangerous to sit on the sidelines and give guns and money to the participants. Because if the side you’re supporting loses, suddenly you are a valid target–you can’t claim to have “stayed out of it”.

The After-War is going to last much longer than the War, because America is proud and we refuse to admit when we have made a mistake.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

AMDG

CCXCIX – The Global Order Will End

In a previous article I took it as a given that the global economy will collapse at some point in the future. I didn’t expand on this, it’s just one of those assumptions I’ve always held to be true and never really thought about. Well, I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately. And now that I think of it just now, we have all the pieces already to understand why.

Remember: Markets Are Rational and Efficient

Markets are efficient. To reiterate from the linked article: they are efficient in that whatever someone desires can and will be satisfied by the market. That is to say: Markets exist to satisfy the “public like”–things society enjoys and approves of, whether or not it is good for them. People make rational economic decisions–economists like to refer to homo economicus as the modern rational economic decision making man. This is true on larger scales as well. Corporations will make rational economic decisions–look at tax havens for proof of that. There was a lot of bluster over Trump’s bankruptcy’s when all he was doing was making rational economic decisions to support his business. Was it good and moral? Maybe not. Was it legal? Yes. Was it profitable? Definitely. Countries behave this way too. Some countries structure their tax laws for the express purpose of attracting foreign corporations. Countries structure their foreign policy to protect their economic interests. Countries make rational economic decisions: not necessarily good and moral decisions, but rational decisions given the economic landscape.

Remember: Money is a Resource

Money is a resource used to conduct exchanges in the name of the sovereign to supply oneself with ones needs. The denomination of currency tells you who the sovereign is. Who receives the money tells you who is subject to the sovereign. What they use it for tells you what they need the most. NATO is a recent example I’ve discussed: We pay for their military defense, so in a certain sense America is their sovereign. This works the same way for the EU: If they operate in Euro denominated currency, they are transacting in the name of the sovereign, which is not their own. Once people decide what kind of currency they are going to use to make exchanges, they make rational economic decisions to maximize their stockpiles of currency–or property received through exchanging that currency.

Remember: The Combination of Scarcity and Demand is What Makes Currency Worth Something

There must be a limited supply of a thing for it to function as currency, and people must want that thing for it to function as currency. When there is a lot of currency around, people don’t really want it so the value of it goes down–which makes things cost more. When there is no currency around, people really want it and so the value goes up, which makes things cost less. If you are a jerk, no one will want currency issued by you. If you are not a jerk, people will be interested in currency issued by you.

And So:

America is suffering from currency inflation right now due to COVID. That means that it has a lot of currency out there, issued in the name of the sovereign, so it is not very valuable and prices are up. There are a lot of subjects to the American sovereign as well, in the form of foreign nationals who receive our currency and use it to provide necessities for themselves, namely defense and foreign aid.

The Global Order and the Global Economy will end when A) No one believes the US will protect it’s economic subjects; B) When the US Dollar is no longer valuable as a means of exchange and/or is not able to provide for defense anymore; and/or C) When some alternative to US Hegemony becomes more profitable and rational economic behavior pivots away from the US.

That’s the thesis: The Global Economic Order isn’t really the Global Economic Order–it is America’s Economic Order. And America’s economic order is not designed intentionally, so it is fragile. It is being sustained by the citizens of America, and being exported around the world. It will inevitably collapse because there is a maximum limit that the American population can support. When we reach that, only those who are disconnected from the American Economic Order will be unaffected.

Think about who is on that list.

AMDG

CCXCIV – A(n Attempted) Realist Take

I have been thinking about how to parse the conflict in Ukraine. There’s a lot of issues tied up in this bundle and you could take any one of them and write a thesis on it and still miss 90% of what is going on. So I like to zoom out, but before I zoom out it’s helpful to have a couple ideas in mind and see what events transpire to confirm or reject that hypothesis.

For me, the single headline that did the trick was this one: “Kosovo asks for permanent military base, NATO membership“

What Kosovo is asking is to become a protectorate of the United States, that is what those things mean. NATO means the US Defense budget will pay for your protection, and a permanent military base means that US Personnel will be tasked with your protection. A lot of hay is being made out of Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which means “An attack on one is an attack on all”–but when only one of them all has the capacity to fight on a global scale, what it really means is “An attack on one is an attack on the USA”. And if we are further distilling this down, this means that NATO protectorates are really American unincorporated territories.

This also explains that absolute panic over the Trump Administration. Does my home state of Virginia pay extra for defense by the American Military? No. So why should Lithuania? Trump wanted budgetary parity, and it drove the protectorates apoplectic.

So the geopolitical world since the fall of the Soviet Union has been defined by American hegemony and the establishment of a network of protectorates and unincorporated territories. Ukraine was a bridge too far for Russia, and so Russia is moving to protect it’s sphere of influence and establish Ukraine as a Russian protectorate and not an American one.

Europe is the only place where the Russian and American spheres overlap. There probably wouldn’t be much hay to make over an invasion of Kazakhstan–but Ukraine was the last gap in the NATO vice that was closing around Russia and it is of strategic importance for Russia to preserve it. If Russia smells weakness or there is a global economic hardship of some variety, it would be a very scary time to be in Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. If the United States cannot defend it’s protectorates then they are unprotected.

Watch for this dynamic and see if I am right. I understand Russia and Ukraine are holding talks as we speak–if Ukraine comes to peace terms that the United States does not find agreeable, watch how the United States reacts.

Interesting times, indeed!

For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

AMDG

CCXCI – Read News Like A Catholic

My thoughts are still occupied by events in Ukraine. There are a couple streams of thought:

• What is actually happening: Seeing news and trying to discern truth from the fog-of-war
• What will happen: Trying to predict the end result of the conflict, which is always foolish but also always interesting
• What is Good: How can I talk about events in a way that doesn’t invalidate my faith.
• What is interesting: I love military history and seeing events unfold I can’t help but have a perverse enjoyment out of seeing how the campaign and defense are being conducted.

As a Peasant, there is very little happening in Ukraine that affects me, personally. In times of old, I probably wouldn’t even hear about it unless a learned old bookworm who hangs out at the market told me what his friend heard from a royal courier who was passing through town. And even then–Russia and Ukraine would be so abstract to me as to be meaningless. You hear war and send up a prayer because war means suffering, regardless of whether the war is just or right. Something about it feels off to say “That doesn’t affect me so I don’t care”. But that’s not exactly what we should say–we should pray for peace, and pray that God’s justice, whatever it is, be done, and be done hastily. That is all we can do. It’s not that we don’t care–we are pro-life in this house, and any loss of life is an unmitigated tragedy–but all we can do to have any influence whatsoever is pray. Maybe there is a Joan of Arc in Ukraine right now who is working her way to Kiev to get a commission. Maybe God has decided that Ukraine’s time on Earth is over and it is better suited as a province of Russia. God’s will be done, whatever it may be!

The hardest thing about this approach is first, convincing ourselves that we have no control; second, convincing ourselves to accept whatever outcome; third, trying to avoid having the right opinion in the eyes of the world.

This peasant-based approach resolves any uncertainty in my mind about the first and second questions in my bullets above. The fourth bullet presents a challenge to my third bullet.

Like I said, I love military history. So I am tempted to respond with interest at the news of how the campaign is conducted. For example: There was a Battle for Chernobyl yesterday, over-which the Russians prevailed. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a brilliant strategic point to take, it is a huge expanse of land that is unoccupied by civilians. It is out of range of Ukrainian artillery and only accessible by aircraft, so if Russia can preserve air superiority they have a safe and secure staging point very close to Kiev, from which they can launch all kinds of operations. Securing this region is a manifestly brilliant move. Could that opinion scandalize non-catholics? How can I say “we are pro-life in this house” and also “Wow taking Chernobyl is genius”. I think the most uncomfortable thing about that opinion is that it doesn’t necessarily conform to the opinions of the world–it is not a right opinion.

I think in one sense it is OK to observe the war as a learning experience. I don’t enjoy military history out of a perverse and mirthless enthusiasm for death. I enjoy it for its strategy, tactics, leadership, and heroism. These things are on display in both sides of the conflict, and Ukraine may also have reciprocal and brilliant moves in response. Watching a chess game, and learning from a chess game, does not profess a preference for one side or the other. I can learn from both sides just by watching. So I suppose the important thing is to specify that my enjoyment in observing the war is from an educational perspective, and I need to be careful about insensitive and careless speech when it comes to the human cost and the morality of events.

As a peasant, I must remember that I can do nothing but pray. As a student of history, I must remember to study impartially, without rooting for either side. These two principles will help me to avoid getting sucked into the zeitgeist while still maintaining a prayerful and unemotional reaction to events as they happen. I think the phrase I am looking for is prayerful detachment from the world.

For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

AMDG