Death of the Grandfather: the Meaning of America's Collapse

There is an odd formation of intellectual alliances in the world today which exists between the radical leftists of America and Europe, coupled with their equally extreme friends on the right of center. Rather than a sheer issue of policy, the shared view dictates that the presence of American influences across the globe is grandiose in its lack of positive benefits; a stipulation which suggests the forces of Europe or Russia are better suited for that job. While this is all fine for speculations, its leaves out a critical factor to the endurance of multiple establishments in a variety of areas, most directly the domestic state of America and the succeeding superpower to dominate where the Land of the Brave will eventually falter and become less relevant.

On the home front, a loss of superpower status will render the nation a helpless and flailing socialist bloc. This makes perfect sense because the absence of the powerful market benefits vested in a grand nation would no doubt vanish considerably, leaving many struggling and am movement for the implementation of governmental reforms to provide for individual well-being. When one compares past empires to the American version, the pattern of secession into the statist region is glaringly obvious. Italy, home of the former Roman Empire is now a structurally corrupted statist country, and across the English Channel the once superpowered Great Britain has succumbed to a mass of social programs preventing the emergence of a rapid business environment and free enterprise.

But the buck does not stop there. Loss of the American World Grandfather also signals a dramatic change of circumstances where the power vacuum remains open to movement, and the only real nations prepared to succeed America's status are Russia and the People's Republic of China.

While America is not well-regarded as the bastion of excessive and unneeded freedoms as they relate to sexual orientation, the radicals on both sides might be surprised to find that their fellows in the former Soviet States and China do not share moderated views on the issues. In the initial one, gays are regularly assaulted and treated with less respect than even the limited statues of America present.

Some might proposition that the Federative Republic of Brazil could succeed America, but this is unlikely due to its limited military strength alongside the rising international peers. Brazil's active duty forces number just over 350,000, a far cry from the 23 million of Russia and the approaching 30 million of the Communist Asian region. Brazil's embrace of freedom would mean nothing even if they grew larger, as the immediate seize of Russo-China forces promise to eclipse them outside of market power.

Finally, the world would be forced to accept the stances on human rights of both the Russian and Chinese governments, creating a dilemma which many have perhaps not fully chosen to comprehend. Europe may enjoy calling for the prosecution of former President George W. Bush for the relatively minor infractions at the Abu Gharaib prison or  the waterboarding conditions,  but both the Chinese and  Russian perspectives are less moderate. Those who doubt would do well to consider that the Chinese supplied genocide sponsors in Darfur and have generally refused to donate mass aid to relief efforts such as the 2011 Japanese Earthquake.

Empires cannot exist forever, yet the American version is not once which the world should desire to fully reject all too soon. Time must be offered to bolster upcoming powers such as Poland, Singapore, and Brazil in order to provide alternatives to the power-hungry authoritarians of both Northern and South Asia. A racidal jump away from American influence may suffice for a few moments of extended glory, yet as the light fades the remainder would be only a sacrifice of individual liberty and international freedom.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

The Strongest Defense

I was rather intrigued after watching a lengthy film which pushed for the view that the Russian Armed Forces are more united and supremely more skilled than the average U.S.Army Solider. The argument falls on largely the basis that in Russia, the environment and and surroundings equate and add to an upping of the general skill and readiness of the common soldier; a fact that it does not apply to the American defenders of liberty. After some further research however, I came up with my own analysis, albeit with a starkly different conclusion.

According to international statistics, the Russian area is defended by roughly 23 million active soldiers, far more than the present number of American troops. While this number is considerable, it comes hugely from the process of conscription that occurs within Russia's borders, forcing many young men into involuntary service during their careers.

Further, the reports explain that while most of Russia's volunteer forces are considered quite effective and united,  its larger units of enlisted conscripts often reveal great percentages of AWOL troops, soldiers who are on the run from their posts of duty. So despite the massive number of troops available, the Soviet bloc has yet to discover methods to keep those numbers in line, showing a clear weakness in their structure.

Additionally, Russian troops receive among some of the lowest pay and benefits of any major nation of the world, perhaps explaining partially why the numbers of deserters are so high.



Notwithstanding these elements, the major reason as the data shows is that Russia forces so many young men to join the armed forces, likely against their will. As America saw during the War in Vietnam, drafted soldiers had a tendency to preform poorly, commit atrocities, and return home to bash the military operations preformed abroad. Because America allows for choice, its members cannot claim that they do not wish to be involved in a war and have been forced against their own will. Politics rarely divide uniformed members, and the focus remains upon completing the mission, not serving oneself. If Russia were to take this reality to heart, moving for full implementation within its military assembly, the numbers of its soldiers would fall considerably, yet their power would be more directed and useful.

The 21st Century is one in which human rights--and will, must be respected. Forcing a person to don a uniform and obey an institution which they hate does not foster good performance or hard work; it encourages weaker actions and less confidence in the military. America has learned this, yet Russia still must understand it for future success.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues