The Rise of the City-States

[Ahnenerbe]

The "Singapore" Factor: Towards Anarchy and the Market Order

A proper definition of anarchy is:

1) the absence of government, and

2) a political theory opposed to government.

That begs the question, "what is government?" Government is the POLITICAL means of social organisation and control - the political means of imposing order.

Anarchy does not mean NO order, it simply means no "political" order.

You can have order without a government - as in the way a company is run. If you work for Microsoft, or Ford, then you are working for an organisation. It is orderly. There are rules. The big difference is that you do not have to work for such a company if it is not to your liking. But once you sign on to it, you must either abide by its internal regulations or resign (or be fired). In other words, order - but not by government, by mutual consent.

Similarly, if you have purchased an apartment in a large complex, then you will have run into what is sometimes called the Body Corporate. Essentially, most freehold residential complexes are run by elected representatives of the owners - who set various rules and regulations to produce the best outcomes for those who live there.

Once again, there is order - but no government.

Government is the POLITICAL means of achieving order. The market is the VOLUNTARY means of achieving order.

The political process is entirely different from the market process. In a political order the power derives from the use of force. In an market order the power derives from the voluntary consent of the participants.

So, to use the Body Corporate analogy again, if you buy a condo in a classy complex - which has the rule that you cannot make undue noise after 11 pm - then the Body Corporate will enforce those rules. However, you agreed to them when you first purchased your property, as part of the contract you entered into.

It is this important element of "agreement" that is missing in the political ordering of things. Things happen WITHOUT your agreement. And they happen to YOU!

Oh sure, this is glossed over by reference to voting every three or four years. But this is a joke obviously, because you know that even if you vote, it makes no difference - especially if who you voted for doesn't gain power. Political voting is a charade, designed to give the cloak of respectability to an otherwise thoroughly despicable practice - rule by the mob.

And you certainly didn't enter into any "contract" with your existing nation of birth. Socialists like to talk of the "social contract", but that's just a red herring. To be born somewhere is a complete accident on your part, and cannot be construed as some sort of contract.

Political order is ultimately the rule of brute force. Market order is ultimately the rule of agreement and contract.

But what if someone reneges on an agreement or contract? In a market order, such situations would be resolved by arbitration and enforced, if necessary, by resort to various agents of the
arbitration company.

When it comes to getting things done in this world, the verdict is already in. The market order delivers the goods - in easily verifiable abundance. Whereas the political order fails miserably. Soviet Russia and Maoist China, as the most extreme versions of the political order, presented irrefutable evidence of this fact.

Just one visit to your local supermarket should disabuse you of any notion that the government could do it better. Or another example: who would you trust to manufacture your next new computer - the government or a company of your own choosing?

One of the perennial rebuttals of anarchy - or no political order - is that when push comes to shove, a third party must be able to intervene to enforce contracts and civil behaviour, if the parties to such an agreement cannot resolve a dispute. And in a market order society this would be done by the private agents of law and order - including insurance and security companies and private arbitration courts.

The sceptic will then say that this would lead to multiple jurisdictions - where you may have your own legal environment and I may have mine - and never the twain shall meet.

But this is a straw man argument - because we already have a working model of such competing jurisdictions in the world today.

I'm talking about the world community of nations. Each nation is a sovereign jurisdiction - and a crime in one may not be a crime in another. However, when it comes to major crimes, you'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how different nations and cultures agree - as in response to murder, rape and robbery, for example.

Nations get over this "problem" of different jurisdictions by setting up various forms of co-operation - a perfectly natural thing to do. That's why we have such things as extradition orders, Interpol etc.

If you are truly against the "anarchy" of multiple sovereign nation states - then you have nowhere to go, except to endorse and work for a WORLD government. Just one government. Just one jurisdiction.

Sure, there are many supporters of world government. But I believe that no thinking freedom lover would countenance such an idea. Why? Because a WORLD government would be a magnification of
all the bad things that arise from government. Things like graft and corruption; inefficiency; incompetence, cronyism; inertia; and the sheer horror of having nowhere else to run, should you be
targeted for any reason whatsoever. And I haven't even mentioned taxes!

But that's the choice. Either we "progress" to the logical endpoint of political governance - World Government - or we think outside the square and start to question the very notion of political order itself.

Just as the worst scenario is for us to move to a world state, the best scenario is for states to actually become smaller and smaller. This would increase the effective competition between states, and make possible the introduction of a true market order.

The template for such a type of order is already in place – the corporation. And by that I mean a company made up of CEO, Board of Directors and Shareholders.

As an interesting aside, it's worth noting that Hong Kong's political leader is actually called Chief Executive Officer. A sign of things to come perhaps?

The successful city-states of the world (including Singapore,Hong Kong, Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and certain existing tax havens etc.) point to a new way of doing things. They are small enough to be flexible in this fast changing age. They are small enough to be responsive to the actual wishes of people. They are small enough to get things done. And interestingly enough, they are all low tax jurisdictions - meaning they are fundamentally more competitive than the behemoth "old world" nation states - like the USA, UK, France and Germany etc.

In fact, both Singapore and Dubai present an even closer model to the idea of a "corporation". Both have been created by the vision and single-mindedness of individuals - benevolent "dictators" if you will. Perhaps they were precursors of the CEOs of the city states of the future.

Imagine this future scenario:

You are an IT professional and have been considering seeing the world while you work. So you check out the many citizenship opportunities on offer. Basically, they mostly work the same - if you purchase a property in a particular city state, then you not only gain citizenship, but also become a shareholder. And if you don't want to become a citizen, you can always just become a resident, by taking out a lease on an existing property.

The internet has specific search engines designed for citizenship and residency searches - where you can do in-depth analysis of what each city state has to offer, and the cost of entry. It's fascinating stuff - like shopping for a new house or car!

These rapidly expanding city states are the "talk of the town". Not only do they have very low or non-existent levies, they also offer real benefits - and come in all flavours. But more importantly, they are causing a revolution in the way people think of themselves - and the very notion of "nations".

The economic impact of the emerging city states has been profound and has literally caused other old-world states to sit up and take notice. They can't afford not to - as they've witnessed an ever-growing "brain drain" to these upstart micro-nations.

The engine of their success is their very smallness, their economic management and style of leadership. Each of these city states is run like a modern corporation - with a CEO, CFO, Board
of Directors - and with every property owner as a shareholder.

No more "elections" like in the old days - where politics was the name of the game, with different parties promising to benefit various segments of the population. This way of doing things had
economically ruined the old world - which came crashing down in the wake of the "Great Crash of 2007". That was when the USA defaulted on its immense indebtedness and dragged the rest of the
world into a widespread economic collapse.

It was like the Berlin Wall coming down. Suddenly, the pent-up frustrations of millions of people was released. New ways of doing things seemed the order of the day - and those nations which had remained solvent, small and flexible were first off the starting blocks of a true "new world order" - the market order.

Suddenly, politics, like socialism before it, was reviled and blamed for all the misery. People, looking for a new way forward, simply had to look with their eyes, as nimble city states surged forward - putting in place new ways of governance, and new ways for people to economically prosper. Being a shareholder of such a state was a vastly more inviting prospect than being a tax slave of some economic basket case!

It was like attracting bees to a honey pot. The motivated, able, talented of the world saw the advantages immediately - and from the ashes of the collapsed nation states rose the phoenix of the
new world.

Of course, the "old" nations took some while to readjust – being monolithic and overly large - like dinosaurs from a previous age. But once their inhabitants got wind of what was going on in the
world, the demand for immediate decentralisation got under way.

The USA reverted to its separate states - with the collapse of the federal government. And moreover, within such states, various cities peeled off on their own.

Europe was the same. The machinery of the EU simply could not compete with the economic tigers of the "new" world - and reverted back to its individual components, and then again into smaller units. It was the same the world over. Some countries tried to hold it together, with political repression and
violence. But their cause was lost, and it was only a matter of time before the tide of history swept the old power structures away.

It was like a tsunami, flushing out all the dross from the chaos of the so-called democratic age of the nation states. One minute there were presidents, prime ministers, parliaments, dictators, and other assorted political parasites. Next minute they were out of a job - with nowhere to go. It happened that fast.

Meanwhile, your internet search is turning up some interesting possibilities. In fact, the choice is quite overwhelming. So you simply home in on what sort of things you like to do, what sort of culture you want to mingle with, and what sort of work opportunities you want to get involved with.

You find a great "rent-to-buy" opportunity in Dubai, which will allow you immediate residency and benefits, with the future option to buy the property you were renting - if you wanted to become a shareholder/citizen. This way, at least, you can test the waters of this booming city state and decide if it is for you in the long term. And if it isn't, no problem, back to that internet search again.

Yes, the future looks bright - and the world is literally your oyster!

And back to the present.

The political order is crumbling. The cracks are showing. The fingers are in the dikes - attempting to thwart the inevitable. And those with a vested interest in the status quo are working their big fat arses off to ensure their snouts remain in the public trough. But it's only a matter of time.



New City States

Can nations really survive in this new world or will we find other ways to
organize ourselves? There is growing evidence that a global network of city-states may emerge, to coexist with national governments in a digital economy where the boundaries between nations are disappearing.

There are precedents for what is happening today. Very common in ancient history, city-states emerged again in medieval Italy. By the end of the thirteenth century, the region had become a patchwork of small principalities and independent towns. Five major players -- the Papal States, the republics of Florence and Venice, the kingdom of Naples and the duchy of Milan -- exercised such power over their hinterlands that they became a major force in European politics. Banking, commerce and industry fueled their growth.

Hong Kong and Singapore are more recent examples of cities whose influence extends far beyond their immediate geographic domain. The former British colonies are prosperous bastions of capitalism - Hong Kong's return to China notwithstanding. Already well entrenched as global business and financial centres, they have moved boldly to embrace the new electronic economy. Both have invested heavily in communications infrastructure.

Hong Kong was the first city in the world to install a fully digital telephone network, and the first to provide interactive television with video-on-demand. More than 80% of Hong Kong households and 90% of commercial buildings now have a broadband connection. More than half of the population owns a mobile phone.

Singapore's IntelligentIsland initiative, begun a decade ago, will connect computers in virtually every home, school and workplace. The Singapore ONE network will provide universal access to broadband services including videoconferencing, high-speed internet, teleshopping, entertainment-on-demand and electronic libraries.

These and other urban centres appear destined to become the new city-states of the twenty-first century, connecting their hinterlands to the global network and bridging the physical and the virtual worlds. These cities will become the primary hubs for electronic commerce and communications and, as new affinities develop between them, a radically different global power structure will emerge.

Citistate is the name Neal Peirce and Curtis Johnson coined in 1993 to describe how metropolitan regions have begun to operate in the new, post-Cold War world economy.

A citistate isn’t defined by political boundaries. Instead, it’s organic. A citistate is reality — a labor market, a commute-shed, a broadcast area, the circulation area of the lead newspaper. A citistate is what the economy does.

The world’s lead citistates are its greatest metropolises — New York, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Los Angeles and their global “command and control” competitors, spread from Chicago to Singapore. But every metro area that’s set apart geographically — a Houston, a Denver, a Burlington, Vermont or Boise, Idaho — qualifies as a citistate too.

Here’s a definition for the lexicographers — a nomination for 21st century dictionaries:

Citi•state — n. — A region consisting of one or more historic central cities surrounded by cities and towns which have a shared identification, function as a single zone for trade, commerce and communication, and are characterized by social, economic and environmental interdependence.

Hist. Similar to city states of antiquity (e.g. Athens, Rome, Carthage) or medieval times (e.g. the Hanseatic League), except that modern citistates engage in instant electronic communication and capital transfer, and are the chief recipients of world population growth.

Citistates would have made little sense under the old paradigm of American thinking – federal, state, local. But they emerge as the centerpiece of a new paradigm – global, regional, and neighborhood. Citistates become the focus of how our world is now organizing itself.

As economic actors, major U.S. citistates compete in size with major world nations. In gross product, the New York region ranks 13th among the world's top economies, just ahead of Australia, Argentina and Russia. The Los Angeles citistate is bigger than Korea, Chicago greater than Taiwan or Switzerland, Washington ahead of Hong Kong, while Minneapolis-St. Paul exceeds Israel. And according to figures compiled by Standard & Poor’s DRI division for the US Conference of Mayors and National Association of Counties, the US’s 314 metro regions are clearly the economic drivers, providing 84 percent of new jobs, 95 percent of high-tech jobs, 88 percent of the country's income.

Citistates’ importance was enlarged through the 1990s by the rapid flowering of the Internet and the digital revolution. Both have accelerated economic expansion, triggering more global commerce. The challenge of the 21st century is to harness such forces, and civic will, for strategic regional planning.



The IndependentRepublic of New York

As New York—a city that often has more in common with Europe than with the United States—prepares to be invaded by the red-state hordes during an election that has much of the city fearing the prospect of four more years, a persistent fantasy resurfaces—should New York secede?



With the Republican Convention a mere three weeks away, it’s hard not to contemplate how different we New Yorkers must seem, and what the delegates will be thinking as they pull into town. Their cabs will be driven by “Pakis,” as Bush once accidentally referred to Pakistanis at a news conference, and the reception desks at their hotels will be piled high with stacks of the New York Times, a paper that the party faithful often refer to as “Pravda.” They’ll be politely shown to their suites by bellhops, likely gay. Then they’ll shower, have a meal, and begin a four-day cocktail surf that Tom DeLay once suggested be confined to a luxury ship on the Hudson. One can only hope that these men and women will be spared an encounter with the secular, pro-choice mayor of this city, a loyal Republican if an unconvincing one, whom, in spite of the millions he has raised, in spite of the hospitality he has shown, the party has managed, with smiling consistency, to financially screw.

New York has always felt like a nation apart. In a country that grows ever redder, it is the bluest of blue cities in one of the bluest of blue states, with the eccentrics to match. Eric Bogosian, with those three cubic feet of curls and black-leather car coat; Harvey Weinstein, with his public tantrums and highfalutin taste; Ed Koch; Lou Reed and Laurie Anderson; the Black Israelites preaching in Times Square; Mexican kitchen workers preparing sushi in Korean delis—could any of them find a home anywhere but New York? Even the New York Post: Where else could a right-wing Australian media mogul win over a left-wing, multiethnic cosmopolis with a toothsome rag of boldface names, sports scores, political scandals, tearjerkers, hectoring editorials, and front-page oopsie-daisies announcing the anointment of Dick Gephardt as John Kerry’s running mate? Only in New York, kids. Only in New York.

Psychically, then, New York already seems headed out of the union—so why not go all the way? If we’re so blue, perhaps it’s time to choose another color entirely. (Maybe black.)

How cool our currency, the york, would be. Vera Wang could design our flags. Groucho Marx would be on our stamps. Bill Clinton could be president again.

Consider: If New York were its own country, its army, the New York City Police Department, would be the twentieth-best-funded army in the world, just behind Greece and just ahead of North Korea. Its GDP, $413.9 billion, would be the seventeenth largest, just behind the Russian Federation and just ahead of Switzerland. With more than 8 million residents, it would be more populous than Ireland, Switzerland, or New Zealand; roughly half the countries in the Middle East (including Israel); most of the former republics of the Soviet Union; and all the Scandinavian countries besides Sweden.

New York is already an island off the coast of the United States. And its mayors already act like heads of state. When terrorists first tried to blow up the WorldTradeCenter in 1993, David Dinkins was in Osaka. When Rudolph Giuliani was in GracieMansion, he entertained Tony Blair and threw Yasser Arafat out of Avery Fisher Hall. “Every time a leader came to City Hall,” says Jerome Hauer, the former director of the Office of Emergency Management, “people at the State Department started taking Maalox.”

The idea of secession has been suggested before, and it has always been dismissed as patently inane. (So now we need passports to go to the Hamptons? How would we get our water, our electricity, our Social Security? Are we supposed to form a navy?) What is interesting, though, is how persistent the fantasy of secession remains in the New York imagination—how intuitively logical it seems, how tantalizing and how real, and how quickly everyone grasps the concept. “It’s impossible, but it’s not crazy to think about,” says Leslie H. Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, “especially given that the city is chronically shortchanged by Washington and Albany and yet still retains financial strength and the great creativity of its citizens.”

After contemptuously dismissing the idea, even the crustiest, crankiest city officials will say that, yes, the Democratic Republic of New York is a very interesting place to contemplate. How fabulous our national anthem would be. How cool our currency, the york, would look. Vera Wang could design our flags, Groucho Marx would be on our stamps; we’d all agree not to have a national bird (sorry, pigeon). Bill Clinton could be president again—assuming, after eight years of presiding over the Free World, he has the patience to worry about potholes—though Ed Koch jokes he’d volunteer for the job, adding he’d name an international airport after himself and call it EIK.

We’d be a great trading hub, the city Hong Kong was before it was handed back to China; an international capital of media and entertainment where news, books, and watchable films were peddled and made; and a diplomatic outpost, mediating between that lone superpower the United States and the rest of the globe. But best of all, we’d be able to define ourselves. Gone would be the days as a neglected appendage to an indifferent nation; instead, we’d be “an antenna to the world,” as Shashi Tharoor, an undersecretary-general at the United Nations, once gorgeously described us. And New York City—home to 600,000 Muslims, cauldron of more than 160 foreign languages, birthplace of Jonas Salk, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the brothers Gershwin, the telegraph machine, the hot dog—would no longer be identified with a country the rest of the planet hates, fears, and cannot understand.

Now is a wonderful time in New York’s history, in spite of orange alerts, million-dollar co-ops, and $2 subway rides. It’s clean, it’s safe; there’s a real swing to the city’s stride. The food’s probably never been better, our bars are smoke-free, and the mayor, for the first time in decades, has a shot at turning around our public schools. Every kid who watched Friends wants to go to college here. Every foreign somebody who’s anybody wants an apartment here. Why secede?

That’s exactly why. The city is no longer the land of Taxi Driver; it’s the land of the Today show and You’ve Got Mail. We no longer fear other New Yorkers. What we fear are more attacks from terrorists, and it’s hard to escape the suspicion that our prolonged association with the United States, at least this United States, does not make us safer. From a political perspective, it seems legitimate to ask whether this city still shares the DNA of its parent country, or whether, at this point, we’ve mutated into something else—something closer to Europe in values and aesthetics and philosophy, or perhaps something entirely different. With globalization, our physical place is becoming incidental. The whole world over seems to be fragmenting as it’s connecting: In Italy, the Northern League is contemplating breaking away; Scotland again has its own Parliament; Paris seems to be moving in a different direction from the rest of France, perhaps because it’s diversifying; and the same appears to be true of London.

Sources:

www.sovereignlife.com

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9573/

http://www.citistates.com/whatis.html

http://www.capitalizingonchange.org/forrest/df5.htm

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Ahnenerbe

That begs the question, "what is government?" Government is the POLITICAL means of social organisation and control - the political means of imposing order.

Government is the means by which any social and political idea is delivered to the society as a whole. Be it a good or a bad government, depending on the political and social idea.

In a family, the father and the mother are a government. In a tribe, the chieftain is a government. Etc.

You can have order without a government - as in the way a company is run. If you work for Microsoft, or Ford, then you are working for an organisation. It is orderly. There are rules.

A company has a governing hierarchy, i.e. an internal government.

But once you sign on to it, you must either abide by its internal regulations or resign (or be fired). In other words, order - but not by government, by mutual consent.

So it's like a government for which you can opt out. Fine. Not different to what exists today: either you are submissive to the order imposed by the government, or you are out and become a political outcast, a pariah.

Similarly, if you have purchased an apartment in a large complex, then you will have run into what is sometimes called the Body Corporate. Essentially, most freehold residential complexes are run by elected representatives of the owners - who set various rules and regulations to produce the best outcomes for those who live there.

Those community boards of neighbours exist within a wider framework of a government run state. The example is too simplistic in my opinion.

Once again, there is order - but no government.

Wrong. In both cases there is order because this is enforced by a governing body which also sets up the rules to follow.

Etc.

This is nothing but Capitalist Libertarianism.

[Ahnenerbe]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

This is nothing but Capitalist Libertarianism.

I've never said it was something else... We should be the Libertarians by excellence.

Of course any social body is lead by a form of government. But what is called government in this article is basically "ZOG" or more exactly it's its existence under the form of the Nation-States which is targeted, not "any form of social organization" at all. He's saying that one should be submitted only to the authority of the group he belongs to and he'd had choosen to belong, by free will.

That's very interesting, as it concerns us directly. My opinion is that racially conscious people worldwide should not try to win elections, or use similar ways to seize the power in it's most archaic legal form, which is the one of the nation-state.

Try to think out of the box: We want to secure our future biologically and culturally as Whites, or Nordics, or whatever. That means the blood and culture that give us our supremacy. Now technology (internet, low airfares, etc) weakens the nation-states by decentralizing income production, financial systems, media, artistic creation, etc. It is really good for us, because these old forms of governments are anyway systematically against our interests.

Don't make the mistake to support their "external authority" scam which helps nobody but the Jews, the Freemasons and other tenants of a global world submitted to universal values. We should be the Pro-globalization by excellence. We benefit from it more than they do. I want to get rid of their governments and be judged according to my values, not theirs.

That's why, I'm aiming for a world of semi-anarchy where the most powerful "private" social entities will survive, grow, attract skilled people and enter in confrontation with each other and what remains of the current governments. I want the opposite of the current reign of egalitarist bureaucrats on a mass of uniformized, mongrelized world-citizens.

We don't want to oppose our "ennemies" directly, but to avoid it. Just disappearing from their radar screen and build our own "distributed nation". They no longer represent us. We don't need a representation anymore. We can organise ourselves. The real forms of effective power now are holded by worldwide distributed organisations based on common values, philosophy, economical and social model: sects like Moon, Scientology, Rael; mafias; corporations(mostly); NGOs; etc.

I see the future as White, or Nordic or Heathen, - or whatever each one of us wants - organisations, business and solidarity networks, distributed among the mass of the muds/bastards/lemmings. Then no matter how numerous we are, we would have secured our existence.

Take a look at this website from our point of view, not his, it's really worth it: www.sovereignlife.com .

[Agrippa]

Libertarianism in all forms is one of the most destructive forces on this planet and will lead to nothing except as a tolerable interlude to something organised and collective oriented if its necessary to destroy a negative norm system.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Ahnenerbe

I've never said it was something else... We should be the Libertarians by excellence.

And how can anyone declare allegiance to the nation, to the people, if Capitalism opposes the very concept of nation?

Of course any social body is lead by a form of government. But what is called government in this article is basically "ZOG" or more exactly it's its existence under the form of the Nation-States which is targeted, not "any form of social organization" at all.

What a "form of social organization" under the Libertarian Racialist concept means is that you surrender your nation, you neglect your people, and in short you join a club to marginalize yourself while allowing foreign elements to take over the rabbles of your former nation.

Or, in other words, defeatism through egoism.

That concept exists in the minds of people who do not belong to a nation, to a more or less homogeneous and compact group. I.e. Americans. And it exists in their minds, useless as it is, because they do not have anything else to hold themselves to.

Racial communities? They will be crushed and swallowed by the stronger and bigger multicultural societies, which in the case of America are unavoidable, in the case of the nations and countries of Europe they could happen if people don't stop living on demential constructs.

That's very interesting, as it concerns us directly. My opinion is that racially conscious people worldwide should not try to win elections, or use similar ways to seize the power in it's most archaic legal form, which is the one of the nation-state.

Is this directed to European nationalists... or to American racialists?

Try to think out of the box: We want to secure our future biologically and culturally as Whites, or Nordics, or whatever.

Which future? There is no future for he who surrenders his nation... or for he who has none.

That means the blood and culture that give us our supremacy. Now technology (internet, low airfares, etc) weakens the nation-states by decentralizing income production, financial systems, media, artistic creation, etc. It is really good for us, because these old forms of governments are anyway systematically against our interests.

So far I smell something fake in the air..

...

I see the future as White, or Nordic or Heathen, - or whatever each one of us wants - organisations, business and solidarity networks, distributed among the mass of the muds/bastards/lemmings. Then no matter how numerous we are, we would have secured our existence.

I've had enough with visionaries of all types. The internet is packed with weirdos.. it worries me much the impact that this can have in the real world.

Now let me tell you this.. despite your profile I pretty much doubt that you are European, but American. Your speech is plagued with americanism, and even in your well constructed English, your few grammar mistakes are typically American.

I promoted and funded Stirpes to offer a restrictive space to Europeans who believe in their nations and their peoples, and who believe in a future for them and for Europe. For people who have a heritage that they want to save, regenerate if needed (which it is), and to preserve.

Whiteism, nordicism, heathenism, mormonism, etc., are of no concern, especially when the things that are at stake are so real.

There are lots of places out there on the internet which are good for such things.. you are a mod in at least one . Here, we would like to keep things to a healthy level of reality. I hope that's not much to ask.

[Ahnenerbe]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Is this directed to European nationalists... or to American racialists?

Well, to racially conscious people of european descent worldwide.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Which future? There is no future for he who surrenders his nation... or for he who has none.

I don’t feel like belonging to a nation, rather to tribes (Frankish, then Germanics, then Europeans). I put blood a lot ahead of land, which is mainly what the concept of nation is all about.

I’m leaving in reality. Human societies evolve through history and I maintain that the current nations are obsolete. The peoples that compose them on the opposite have folk cultures, racial souls and genes pools that should be preserved (I despise completely any kind of miscgenation among Europeans) and improved, but in another frame than the one of the nation-states.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I promoted and funded Stirpes to offer a restrictive space to Europeans who believe in their nations and their peoples, and who believe in a future for them and for Europe. For people who have a heritage that they want to save, regenerate if needed (which it is), and to preserve.

There are lots of places out there on the internet which are good for such things.. you are a mod in at least one . Here, we would like to keep things to a healthy level of reality. I hope that's not much to ask.

You're right. I'll try to remember that .

[El Ingenioso Hidalgo]

[Hidalgo, there is no need to quote the entire text. Save some space, please. Mynydd]

The Rise of City-States


I read your text and I have a few opinions I would like to share with you.

Firstly, I guess that the micro-state idea is, from the first sight, an utopia; the world order cannot be changed so drastically and you should know it.

Secondly, I believe that in some countries, specially the Latin ones, there is already a similar system – the municipalities and the local organization inherited from the Romans; maybe a look at the past can help you to correct some aspects of your (radical) idea…

Thirdly, the internet idea appears me to be excellent; I just doubt that with the emigration facilities of our world, something that is not avoidable due to irremediable situations in the Third World, you’ll be able to keep the most prosperous “city-state” away from a massive invasion of workers that need to be fed.

Fourthly, I sincerely believe in the contrary of your anti-world government – I guess that there should be a corpus of people that had the merit and capacity to rule; it’s not a matter of politics (I agree with you in this point) but a matter of a better view of our world’s problems from above in order to create a planetary identity (don’t forget that extraterrestrial colonization is not that far!).

Fifthly, the examples you gave have a particular characteristic – they have something to offer (e.g. tourism, strategic location) and that’s how they receive what they need in order to maintain themselves “independent” – other places don’t have that capacity: how will they be able to form an auto-sufficient autarchy?

Sixthly, I look with suspicion to the relation the text establishes between today’s megalopolis and tomorrows (?!) city-state due to the fact that there are so much links that interconnect today’s big cities and the smaller areas of productions that a “independent” state will force people to adopt special economic behaviour that they might not be ready or willing to!

Seventhly, I agree with the idea given that the city-state “emerges as the centrepiece of a new paradigm – global, regional, and neighbourhood” but I still believe that the text lacks of information about the way to achieve such a situation based on the status quo;

Eighthly, it would be an interesting debate theme to relate this idea with the globalization but, of course, without the anti-globalization standards some people like to throw to serious discussions…

Ninthly, allow me to present a situation, based on the possibility of such an organisation: there is a city state in, for instance, Spain; this is a regular city state with regular trade activities – everything is normal regarding to its neighbour “states”; one day, some miners discover gold or silver or oil or anything rare and expensive; this city’s economy will flourish! Now, imagine if they spend their money in warfare to invade the rest of the peninsula in order to expand the territory: the other cities, that are now poorer according to the new standard, won’t be able to defend themselves – some may even ally with the newly rich city-state. How would a global city-state system fix this situation? And even if there is a solution (I keep one for myself), won’t the tensions from this possibility haunt the relationships between neighbour cities?!

Finally, I would only like to ask if Lichtenstein is really a city-state as said in the text (the capital is, if I am not mistaken, Vaduz) and to propose a debate, in another thread, about the possibility that bees have to be attracted to a honey pot (I thought it was bears and that bees were more about pollen)…

Otherwise, compliments to the interesting topic,



El Ingenioso Hidalgo