Talking about the END OF STATES.

[Arminius]

Talking about the END OF STATES.

There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled "Talking about the END OF HISTORY" I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials. Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.

What do you think about the end of states?

[James S Saint]

Talking about the END OF STATES.

There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled "Talking about the END OF HISTORY" I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials. Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations, and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.

What do you think about the end of states?

The design is that not only will the states disappear, but even the nations as the new order of boundaries gets installed. All of North America is to be one "nation" with newly assigned regions, equivalent to "states" or provinces. No more USA or Constitutions. In Europe, the countries are to be melted into a new regional map also under one reign.

[Arminius]

Talking about the END OF STATES.

There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled "Talking about the END OF HISTORY" I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials. Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations, and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.

What do you think about the end of states?

The design is that not only will the states disappear, but even the nations as the new order of boundaries gets installed. All of North America is to be one "nation" with newly assigned regions, equivalent to "states" or provinces. No more USA or Constitutions. In Europe, the countries are to be melted into a new regional map also under one reign.

It is well known that the Glozis want to abolish the nations and have already abolished the nations for the most part; but it is not so well known that they also want to abolish the states.

Please note: nation and state are not identical.

[Orbie]

The idea behind that, Arminius, is that with the dissolution of natural states will follow the dissolution of states of mind, vis. consciousness.(self)
Now the end of history represents nationalistic wars ad infinitum, with regional jealousies, conflicts of sovereign power relating to those jealousies.

At the present time, it has been realized, that the corruption of power is still within the realm of possibility, yet, conflict resolution is not within the context of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Among those who hold to this view, the possibility of war under these circumstances is not preferable to a conventional age, where such distinctions could still be held in check.

Gorbachev and Reagan realized this; and the incalculable pain that would result. What sayYou to this form of argument?

[Arminius]

The idea behind that, Arminius, is that with the dissolution of natural states will follow the dissolution of states of mind, vis. consciousness.(self)
Now the end of history represents nationalistic wars ad infinitum, with regional jealousies, conflicts of sovereign power relating to those jealousies.

At the present time, it has been realized, that the corruption of power is still within the realm of possibility, yet, conflict resolution is not within the context of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Among those who hold to this view, the possibility of war under these circumstances is not preferable to a conventional age, where such distinctions could still be held in check.

Gorbachev and Reagan realized this; and the incalculable pain that would result. What sayYou to this form of argument?

I say that they had to do it because they were merely the puppets of those who wanted them to do it.

Sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states are in a position to better solve. But that should not be solved by states, because for the rulers the control of the people is easier to do without states - according the motto „DIVIDE ET IMPERA“

[Orbie]

This makes sense, however the de-identification as a trend, as pointed out by French existentialists as early as the end of ww2, laid the existential foundations to de territorialization
Was the emergence of international corporations, free trade zones, quick access world communication the coexistent process, by which the thoughts of such previously discussed men as H.G. Wells & Co. could be accommodated and brought into fruition?

If so, political fiat was just the de-jure imprimatur of those, who sought just such a program?
Can a linear analysis suffice, without taking into consideration the quantum, existentially jumped over, of all the other factors?

[Moreno]

The West no longer has states or nations. I think some of the third world have nations, to a degree, but these nations are controlled wherever the interest is there from the big players, who are not nations. Russia and China seem to exist, still, irritating the big players. As always a choice between bullies.

[Arminius]

The West no longer has states or nations.

To a degree. The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states ore nationshave not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.

I think some of the third world have nations, to a degree, but these nations are controlled wherever the interest is there from the big players, who are not nations.

Yes. That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.

Russia and China seem to exist, still, irritating the big Players.

Yes. But Russia and China are more empires than nations.

But note (again): Nations and states do not mean the same. Talking about the END OF STATES is the topic of this thread.

[Arminius]

This makes sense, however the de-identification as a trend, as pointed out by French existentialists as early as the end of ww2, laid the existential foundations to de territorialization
Was the emergence of international corporations, free trade zones, quick access world communication the coexistent process, by which the thoughts of such previously discussed men as H.G. Wells & Co. could be accommodated and brought into fruition?

If so, political fiat was just the de-jure imprimatur of those, who sought just such a program?
Can a linear analysis suffice, without taking into consideration the quantum, existentially jumped over, of all the other factors?

Which factors do you mean?

[Amorphos]

I think that with increased travel and most likely personal air travel, national and many other boundaries will become superfluous.

Good thing too, ~ as inevitably money types would disappear. then if a third world chappie can trade at the same monetary scale [all the same dollar] as everyone else, one would assume that they could build up quite quickly.

[Orbie]

This makes sense, however the de-identification as a trend, as pointed out by French existentialists as early as the end of ww2, laid the existential foundations to de territorialization
Was the emergence of international corporations, free trade zones, quick access world communication the coexistent process, by which the thoughts of such previously discussed men as H.G. Wells & Co. could be accommodated and brought into fruition?

If so, political fiat was just the de-jure imprimatur of those, who sought just such a program?
Can a linear analysis suffice, without taking into consideration the quantum, existentially jumped over, of all the other factors?

Which factors do you mean?

Those relating to trade issues, simplified bills of trade, where more general forms could generate less confusion in apart from linguistic problems of communication, simplified methosds of acceptance of goods with unitary exchange formats, interpenetrated work criteria,of using interchangeability of manpower, regardless nation of origin, causing a more porous identification of foreign workers, usage of less beurocratic paper trail.

[Moreno]

To a degree. The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states ore nationshave not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.

I am generally on the polemical side on this issue, because I think on some level most people know/fear this to be the case and I think the bald statement is better than getting into degrees. I really have no way to estimate and I am not sure what criteria I would want to begin suggesting metrics around. To me I see and interlocking oligarchy making the decisions they want, generally.

Yes. That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.

It's because they are not centers from which to control, so they are not useful tools or threats. If they get in the way of Shell or something they will get their people slapped, but there is no need to merge with their damaged in any case governmental infrastructure. Why get into that when you can still make them pay for GM seeds and eventually their own water?

Yes. But Russia and China are more empires than nations.

OK, in practical terms, for me as a non-Russian, non-Chinese, this doesn't matter. I guess the US would have been an empire also, then.

But note (again): Nations and states do not mean the same. Talking about the END OF STATES is the topic of this thread.

Yeah, I was pretty lazy. I understand the distinction, but I just plowed on through to make my main points.

Just read in the paper - mainstream European one - how the EU was taking more power. Interesting to see if England manages to secede.

[Arminius]

The state is being undermined at the base by the resolution of the supporting institutions and loses itself upward by the insertion in getting others, always new, uncontrollable structures.

[Arminius]

A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manages the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation can't exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one ). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.

[James S Saint]

A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manage the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation can't exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one ). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.

True.

[Arminius]

When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.

What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.

[Moreno]

When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.

What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.

How much do you think the various Empires had to do with this - Roman, English and American come to mind. The last is a nation that came to be identified in practical rather than cultural terms. Any culture could function here as long as it respected the bureaucracies of the ever practical concept of nationhood. Just as anyone could become a roman and then in general any empire inevitably integrates, through various processes, those it colonizes. OH, yes and the US is also responsible for corporate personhood. That eliminated state control of corporations except to the extent that it could create them and does.

Of course nations are not innocent. I mean, they were often nationed via the royalty. Talk about BS. From there their histories were just more propaganda.

I am no globalist, but it seems to me we will have to deal with this, because the lies have to unravel and they were not going to internally. And by the way, I am not using 'have to' in moral terms. Though there is a hint of practical terms...we need to.

I am more of a tribalist so for me the nation builders were just early globalists working with the transportation and communications systems they had to determine their goals. I weep not for the death of nations, though I have concerns about what it will lead to.

Me I liked it back when the person who led well, got to lead the tribe and if people lost confidence, well there went the job. And there was a lot of discussion and organic decision making, with the leader almost a focal point and not a leader.

Governmentally, things have been going downhill from there.

[Arminius]

How much do you think the various Empires had to do with this - Roman, English and American come to mind. The last is a nation that came to be identified in practical rather than cultural terms. Any culture could function here as long as it respected the bureaucracies of the ever practical concept of nationhood. Just as anyone could become a roman and then in general any empire inevitably integrates, through various processes, those it colonizes. OH, yes and the US is also responsible for corporate personhood. That eliminated state control of corporations except to the extent that it could create them and does.

Of course nations are not innocent. I mean, they were often nationed via the royalty. Talk about BS. From there their histories were just more propaganda.

I am no globalist, but it seems to me we will have to deal with this, because the lies have to unravel and they were not going to internally. And by the way, I am not using 'have to' in moral terms. Though there is a hint of practical terms...we need to.

I am more of a tribalist so for me the nation builders were just early globalists working with the transportation and communications systems they had to determine their goals. I weep not for the death of nations, though I have concerns about what it will lead to.

Me I liked it back when the person who led well, got to lead the tribe and if people lost confidence, well there went the job. And there was a lot of discussion and organic decision making, with the leader almost a focal point and not a leader.

Governmentally, things have been going downhill from there.

When I was saying that nations „are one of the greatest Western creations“, I was referring to a cultural merit and to democracy and not saying that „nations are the best“, but saying that I don't know a better social form when it comes to manage the greatest possible social form. So it was meant relatively. Empires can only be held together, if they are like dictatorships, if they are totalitarian.

From another thread:

The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I'm sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? (1) Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality. (2) "Communal particles" or "SAM" ("Social Anentropic Molecule") Corporations? Perhaps. (3) A mix of empires and communal particles? Maybe, and if so, then in a more globalistic way. (4) Other social forms? With the untmost probability: No; but perhaps in the future, after the globalists will have disappered, and: if the machines will not have taken over. With the utmost probability all other social forms will not be possible anymore because they will have been destroyed totally then.

[Arminius]

"Reformimg democracy"? ( ). Which "democracy"?

[Arminius]

The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.

The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the "communal particles". But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.

So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - machines! You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.

And if someone has an idea like James with his "SAM" / "communal particle" (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he were a "friend" of the "bad socialists" of the past (for example: Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot), although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.

Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.

The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.


The middle class carries the globalists.

[Arminius]

In my thread "Talking about the END OF HISTORY" it is said amongst others:

History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.

History can't have ended yet because the „historical existentials“ haven't ended.

According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me ( or ):

• Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
• Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
• Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
• Classes;
• State;
• Great War;
• City and country as contrast;
• Education, especially in schools and universities;
• Science;
• Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
• Historiography / awareness of history!

There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.

Since the beginning of the Western modern times:
1. Religion has been becoming a more secular, more powerful religion, a modern religion, thus an ideology; so religion has been expanding.
2. Rule (leadership, a.s.o.) has been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric, more powerful one; so rule has been expanding.
3. Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.) has also been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric, more powerful one; so nobleness has been expanding.
4. Classes have been changing: a richer becoming upper class, a shrinking middle class, an increasing lower class; so classes have been changing badly.
5. State has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear.
6. Great war has been becoming smaller but much more wars and threatening; so we still can't say much about the end of this historical existential.
7. City and country as contrast have been changing by expanding cities and shrinking countries; so the contrast will perhaps disappear.
8. Education, especially in schools and universities, has been becoming a catastrophic issue; so education has been changing very badly.
9. Science has been becoming a new religion for the most part; so science has been changing very badly.
10. Order of sexulality / demographics, economics has been becoming a catastrophic issue too; so this order has been becoming a disorder.
11. Historiography / awareness of history has been getting under ideological (modern religious) control; so historography has been changing badly.

So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don't know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive.

|=> #

It is somehow scary that the state has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear (=> 5.). What do you think about that?

[James S Saint]

It is somehow scary that the state has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear (=> 5.). What do you think about that?

I think that it is going as to plan. The current methodology is one of obfuscation and extortion, subtle and hidden snares to create doubt, distrust and weak confidence so as to shift power into the hands of those creating the doubt and with which, they spawn more. After enough uncertainty is cast into the population, dependency, and power is gained, a "savior" is to appear in order to help those feeling lost and gain their support. After some serious death and destruction, new order is then declared, "new states" with a new world Congress, new world religion, and new world emperor.

[Arminius]

There many correlations (for example):

– Cultural development,
– fertility development,
– demographical development,
– educational development,
– intelligence (IQ) development,
– political development,
– economical development,
– wealth development,
– welfare development,
– artistic development,
– technical / technological development,
– mechanical development,
– civilisational development.

When the red coloured arise, then the green coloured arise merely a little bit, and the blue coloured lacks.
When the red coloured decline, then the green arise very much, and the blue coloured arises.
When the green coloured also decline, then the blue coloured declines as well, first a little bit, then much and very much.

The culture turns the light on, the civilisation of the culture turns the light off.

[Arminius]

A sign or omen for the end of states in the relatively soon future could be the following impression:

The more I look at the modern state versus anarchy or anarchism I am coming to the conclusion that they are essentially the same thing. This might of not been the case with states of the past ( especially our ancient past) but again certainly can be said of the modern ones. Modern states are becoming more chaotic, disorderly, unorganized, self destructive, and socially conflicting internally. These are the kind of things you would expect in an existence of anarchy and not that of a governed state of society that prides itself on social order.

It will likely take time before this description will become reality. But the thing is that some certain indicators have been being perceptible for a relatively long time.

And for example: Is a welfare state with billions of debts still a well working state? If so: For how long will this last? A huge crisis - and this state is really bankrupt!

The crash is only a matter of time.

[Zero_Sum]

Any kind of push for globalism will require a violent overthrow of all nationalist groups around the world through a kind of purge where the end of national states isn't possible until then. Globalism versus nationalism, who will win? Shall be interesting as things escalate.