Global Democracy Award: The United States vs. America
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Photo: USA Really

Global Democracy Award: The United States vs. America


USA Really presents the essay applied for The Global Democracy Award (Aldous Huxley nominee).

Instead of wondering which country the US will invade next, the world should open its eyes to the ongoing socio-cultural invasion of America by the Liberal-Globalist faction of the country’s “deep state” that’s been waging Hybrid War on its own people for decades now.

There’s always a lot of speculation about which country the US is going to invade next, but the very framing of that question itself is inaccurate because it presumes that the United States and America are always the same thing and that there’s no conflict between either. That’s not exactly true since the United States refers to the country as a whole in reference to the collection of 50 separate states under the control of a single federal government while America describes the diverse socio-cultural traditions of the country’s people. The Establishment has more or less been occupied since the end of the Old Cold war by Liberal-Globalists whose ideological goal is to incorporate America into a UN-led “world government” whereby their country would just be a “first among equals”, though nevertheless secretly functioning as the puppeteer of all others behind the scenes.

This plan couldn’t be advanced without the progressive weakening of America’s sovereignty, which Liberal-Globalists hate because of their obsession with removing all borders, whether political or personal. The first-mentioned is largely recognized by objective observers and is even proudly trumpeted by The Establishment’s leading proponents while the second one is much less discussed but forms the core of the United States’ socio-cultural war against America. As the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci postulated, political change must be preceded by its socio-cultural counterpart if it’s to succeed and remain sustainable, and that’s why The Establishment has worked so hard to try and transform American norms, values, and principles. The whole point of this far-reaching and decades-long operation has been to reshape Americans’ minds so that they unquestionably accept the elimination of all boundaries, both political and personal.

The former relates to international borders and the constitutional limits of the federal – and eventually, global – government, while the latter is all about transhumanism and everything that builds up to it, such as the normalization of non-traditional sexual practices (which includes homosexuality and transsexualism), radical feminism of the aggressively anti-male variant, and the virtualization of everything that ultimately leads to so-called “digital immortality” when taken to its predictable conclusion. Many Americans are uncomfortable with these developments but feel powerless to stop them, watching in horror as the country that they grew up in, knew, loved, and in some cases, even had family members who died for gradually becomes unrecognizable. None of this is inevitable, however, but is part and parcel of the Liberal-Globalists’ attempted takeover of America, which has yet to be completed and has abruptly been halted by the election of Donald Trump.

An Establishment “rebel” in the sense that he “defected” from “his own” and dedicated his life to fighting Liberal-Globalism, Trump is fiercely hated by some members of the country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”), though he himself is by no means perfect nor the “prophet” that the people are looking for to “deliver” them from their misery. Trump represents a different faction of The Establishment that’s more concerned with retaining America’s socio-cultural traditions while still ruthlessly working to expand its influence across the globe by hook or by crook, with the slogan of “Make America Great Again” being a euphemism for maintaining Americans’ comparatively better living standards that have since grown to become dependent on its neo-imperial hegemony.  The United States is still fighting against America even under Trump in the sense of continuing the country’s departure from some (but crucially, not all) of its core values that were promulgated at its foundation.

What’s meant by this is that the US as a whole has been forced through “mission creep” to maintain its unipolar superpower status or risk becoming the “last among equals” or worse, unlike being neutral as its founders intended it to be. It can be debated whether or not the country even has a choice in continuing along this particular geostrategic trajectory or not, but the point of the matter that deserves to be emphasized is that the foreign policy traditions of the state as they were originally practiced are no longer being adhered to despite Trump investing a lot of his soft power into trying to convince Americans that their country is “Great Again”. Intentionally or inadvertently, this has had the effect of distracting his supporters from that “politically inconvenient” reality because of the relative success that he’s had in retaining their socio-cultural traditions that are more immediately important to most of them.

The primary difference between Trump’s Establishment and the Liberal-Globalists’ one in this context is that the President respects the people’s will and is much more “hands-off” when it comes to “regulating” their behavior while his enemies think that Americans “don’t know what’s good for them” and have to be “encouraged” (in reality, forced) into compliance with their ideological dictates over time. Moreover, while Trump still believes that America is a democracy in spite of the functional necessity of having a “deep state” to run its strategic affairs (as all countries do in the bureaucratic sense), his opponents think that America has descended into a “dictatorship” and therefore needs to be “liberated” from Trump’s “yoke”. The so-called “Resistance” is the public tip of the “deep state” spear that wants to see Trump toppled or politically neutralized, not so much because of his vision of American foreign policy, but due to his domestic socio-cultural views.

Trump and his “deep state” detractors pretty much only differ on the foreign front in terms of the model that they seek to employ for perpetuating the US’ unipolar hegemony, though they importantly don’t ever question their country’s international role. If one accepts this and instead focuses on the differences between them on domestic issues, then the dichotomy can be over-simplified as the Liberal-Globalist Establishment representing the United States while Trump stands for America, or at least the America that’s still left after the past few generations’ worth of intense “Cultural Marxist” brainwashing. The aforementioned “trigger word” colloquially describes Marx’s concept of economic equality being transferred into the cultural sphere and truthfully has nothing to do with Marx or his economic model at all, but it merges with Trotskyism’s most well-known stereotype of “permanent revolution” to create a destructive socio-cultural Molotov cocktail that threatens to burn down America’s traditional foundations.

To return back to the question that was posed at the beginning of this analysis, the world shouldn’t ask which country the US might invade next, but should instead open its eyes to the fact that the United States has already been carrying out the socio-cultural invasion of America for decades now even before the Liberal-Globalists finally seized full power over the country’s Establishment after the end of the Old Cold War. It can be forecasted that more people will begin realizing this as time goes on, irrespective of the role that they believe that Trump is playing in this Hybrid War. Furthermore, the realization that countries can wage asymmetrical next-generation war on themselves via their “deep state” and its warring factions’ academic, media, and other proxies can enlighten people about other ongoing invasions that had hitherto remained invisible to them, and this in turn can lead to a radical reconceptualization of strategic warfare in general.

DISCLAIMER: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. 

Author: Andrew Korybko