What is the Global American Empire (GAE)?

An FAQ

While it will be shocking to some that this article needs to be written, apparently, it does need to be. Keep a bookmark to this to share with friends and family whenever anyone asks you ‘what is the GAE?’ or else whenever a fellow traveller and comrade starts to sound like George W. Bush circa 2004.

What is the Global American Empire (GAE)?

It is the post-World War 2 global order maintained by American hegemony. The GAE is marked by a financial system underpinned by the US Dollar and such entities as the World Bank and the IMF. It has occupied Europe since 1945 with military bases all over its territories and such supra-national holding mechanisms as NATO and the EU to control both the foreign and domestic agendas of European nations. Therefore, the national governments of European nations are, in effect, no better than regional colonial administrators.

How does the GAE maintain its power?

Four main ways. First, through military supremacy. The USA outspends every other nation by some distance. American nationalists, such as Donald Trump, have argued that European nations who do not fulfil their NATO defence spending obligations should ‘pay up’, but this is to misunderstand the function of NATO. Trump’s demand was, essentially, an imperial call for colonies to pay for their own subjugation. ‘Why should Americans pay for Europe’s defence?’ ask American populists. In truth, US military spending is not for Europe’s defence at all, but to ensure its continued helplessness; it is simply the ‘cost of empire’. Even besides this, the premise that Europe cannot defend itself is somewhat farcical even though it is never seriously questioned. Russia has never even come close to conquering Western Europe in history, and it currently making seemingly hard work of it just to take a portion of Ukraine. The combined military budgets of the UK, France and Germany are almost three times that of Russia while Italy and Spain still maintain armies of over 150,000 strong – recall, this has been in ‘peace time’ with an implicit guarantee of US defence. Any of those nations could remilitarise far beyond current numbers if the call arose – as they have done throughout their long and glorious histories. The GAE serves to curtail such thoughts, as well as to prevent the European nations from worrying about their traditional rivals: each other. Hence, Europe has lived in a gay postmodern, post-national, ahistorical fiction for over 70 years. Beyond Europe, the GAE ensures global compliance with their order using its military might. In the last instance nations that will not ‘play ball’ are simply bombed into submission as were, for example, Serbia and Iraq under the guise of remaking alien foreign cultures in America’s image as a ‘liberal democracy’.

Second, the GAE maintains control through its dominance over the global financial system underpinned by the US Dollar and the IMF. Before military might is required, the GAE favours financial leverage as its favourite tool of control. Any nation that does not comply, let us say Cuba or Iran or Venezuela or Zimbabwe, are subjected to punitive sanctions in which the USA threatens all other nations to boycott the ‘rogue state’ and branded as enemies. The average American is encouraged to view the average Venezuelan, say, as an enemy — not because of racial otherness, far from it — but because he’s a ‘sodalist’ and therefore ‘not one of me’. The same Venezuelan who has moved to the USA and adopted American ways can now be hailed as a success story for ‘capitalism’ on Fox News or as proof that the American socialist left are good and virtuous people on CNN. The net effect of such sanctions typically causes the governments of rogue states to move to emergency command and control economies, which suffer shortages and hyperinflation. Once the rogue state is desperate enough it must beg the IMF for a loan. The IMF must be repaid in US Dollars: therefore, the rogue state cannot inflate its way out of debt. Meanwhile, the USA as hegemon of the GAE and the beneficiary of US Dollar supremacy can inflate its way out of debt.  In this way, the USA can run up an annual fiscal deficit of $1 trillion (and total public debts of over $30 trillion) while demanding that a nation like Zimbabwe must ‘live within its means’ like some sort of FA Hayek simulator.  Often, an IMF intervention has resulted in famine for the nation in question. Studying a list of IMF interventions since its inception would be instructive.

Third, the GAE is a regime characterised by the techniques of soft persuasion and propaganda. Its official ideology might be characterised as Anti-Tradition. In the words of Julius Evola: ‘a “civilization” that represents an exact contradiction of the ancient European tradition.’[1] That means non-whites and other historically excluded minorities, such as Jews, have hierarchy over whites; that means that the moral norms and practices of ‘LGBT people’ must prevail over those of straight people; that means feminism must prevail over the ancient patriarchal order; that means materialist atheism must prevail over transcendental religion; that means a banal and levelling reign of quantity must prevail over any and all meaningful qualitative differences between people. This is the GAE’s message which is pumped out through the avenues of its propaganda 24/7, through every media and social media outline, through every institution, through all otherwise hierarchical organisations, and from the top of every government. Enormous resources are committed to ensuring the subjects of the GAE receive this messaging in all times and all places. Commissars known as “equality, diversity and inclusion officers” are employed to punish any transgressions.

Fourth, the GAE subjugates its colonies through the method of demographic change through mass non-white immigration. In 1945, Europe, unlike America, was overwhelmingly white. This was unacceptable to the GAE who required — for the purposes of a uniform policy across its empire — for all vassal states to enjoy the same ‘diversity’ as the USA. Thus, the project to remake Europe in America’s image. The GAE cannot allow there to be ‘test cases’ that have not embarked on this suicidal policy. Domestic politicians who resist in any nations are branded ‘fascists’ or else exiled from public life and vilified like the late Enoch Powell in the United Kingdom. Public opinion on this issue simply does not matter. Nations as ethnically homogeneous as Ireland are rebranded in the American mould as ‘proposition nations’ where in an African who arrived in the past two years is ‘just as Irish’ as someone whose family has lived there for 500 years. This is the logic of a ‘settler nation’ which welcomes all newcomers.

Why do you call it ‘GAE’ and not any other name?

Vladimir Putin suggested ‘Empire of Lies’, which I like, but which both failed to take off and which fails to capture the specifically American nature of the GAE. Many older dissidents prefer ZOG, which stands for ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ and draws attention to the specifically Jewish and pro-Israeli nature of the post-1945 order. Whatever truth there may or may not be to that analysis, the term both attracts the Eye of Sauron and has heavy associations with neo-Nazism.  For these reasons, the term GAE has been preferred. More substantively, however, I feel it lets rather too many people – specifically elite white Americans as well as insane Israel-obsessed evangelicals – off the hook and encourages you overlook the complicity of the American order in general with this overall project. Bronze Age Pervert has suggested an alternative recently, the GNC or (‘Global N****r Communism’), this is partly motivated by what BAP sees as the hijacking of the right’s agenda by Catholic integralists and other religious groups who wish to take the focus from race onto ‘safer’ areas such as the cultural impact of porn. BAP outlines how the USA – not Russia – has always been the driving force behind anti-colonialism, post-colonialism and the social elevation of blacks to right perceived historic wrongs.[2] He has charted, in many episodes of his podcast,[3] the American drive to destroy the old European order and its empires – which mirrors, in surprising ways, older analyses by traditionalists such as Julius Evola.[4] However, I have some issues with the term. ‘Communism’ puts one in mind of the Cold War, and BAP seems, in some obscure way, to wish to ‘save’ the liberal or capitalist right from the implications of his own analysis. BAP himself, along with our mutual friend , The Shaman, Thomas777, has done much great work to show that, in actuality, the USA barely fought any ‘Cold War’ against the USSR but rather strove to ‘outdo’ it to be more egalitarian, more gay, more racially equitable and so on than the Socialist bloc was.[5] BAP seems to wish to pin this on the left whereas I – in the ‘reactionary’ tradition of Carlyle, Evola, and, indeed, Yarvin – would simply say ‘this is the logic of liberal democracy’ and is a function of ‘Americanism’ per se. ‘Communism’, even if BAP does not intend it, seems to get neo-liberalism off the hook and, honestly, makes him sound like he is angling for backdoor return to Reaganism or Thatcherism, which I somehow doubt. For all these reasons and more, I prefer to stick with ‘GAE’ than adopt ‘GNC’.

But is not the GAE simply a continuation of the British Empire?

This line, often lazily trotted out, is one which has had barely any thought attributed to it. It is truth that the corrupt figure of Winston Churchill did more than any man to gift the assets of the British Empire to the Americans, and that the British elite after the war betrayed its people to offload the Empire as soon as humanly possible.[6] But it is not true that the British Empire was substantially the same as the GAE in any but the most superficial aspects. In fact, one could justly argue, as Bronze Age Pervert rightly has, that the GAE is the exact inverse of the classic colonial empire as exemplified by the British.[7] While it is true that the empire was a net cost for the British people – at its height they spent £2 for every £1 they got back – its real measure should be in power not money. The money spent is simply cost of Empire. In this respect, the British Empire and the GAE have some similarities. For example, in its advocacy of ‘free trade’ as Pierre L. van den Berghe explains:

Starting in the late 18th century, and increasingly in the 19th, Britain became the champion of free trade; but it was in its interests to do so. Indeed, by then, Britain had become the first shipping nation in the world, the leading industrial economy, the supreme naval power and the largest colonial country. In effect, the advocacy of free trade by Britain was little more than a disguised request for free commercial access to the whole world, including, of course, its rivals' colonies. Some of the weaker colonial powers, such as Belgium, had no option but to accept the ‘opening’ of its colonies to free trade, but most resisted strenuously. The fostering of economic dependence of the colony on the metropole meant principally the prevention of self-sufficiency. This could be achieved negatively by discouraging the development in the colonies of industries that would compete with home industries. In the 19th century, for example, Britain, despite her advocacy of free trade for other countries, was concerned with Indian competition for the British textile industry, trying everything to stifle it. Positively, economic dependency of the colony was fostered through highly specialized development of a few products for export. In the aggregate, the colonial world produced a wide range of goods, but the monoculture of cash crops often prevailed in individual colonies: sugar and its by-products in the Caribbean, cocoa in the Gold Coast (now Ghana), groundnuts in Senegal, sisal in Tanganyika (now Tanzania), and so on. Monoculture meant extreme dependence since the crop in question was rarely a basic subsistence crop and was scarcely ever consumed locally in significant amounts. The French, for example, produced wine in Algeria, a Muslim country where religion forbids alcoholic beverages. After nearly a quarter century of ‘independence’, Ghana, the world’s leading producer of cocoa, still imports most of the little chocolate it consumes from Britain! Not only were colonial cash crops not consumed locally, but they also took away much land from subsistence agriculture, thereby leading oftentimes to a decline in the native standard of living and a deterioration in the quality of the diet. High-yield, low-quality root crops such as manioc and yams, for instance, were substituted for more varied and protein-richer cereal and bean crops. In extreme cases, such as in the West Indies, food had to be massively imported because nearly all available arable land was in sugar cane. Dependency thus generally meant impoverishment as well. Paradoxically, the more ‘developed’ a colony was in terms of export productivity, the worse the diet of its population. Black South Africans, for instance, have one of the highest incidences of kwashiokor-a nutritional disease caused by a starchy diet-even though their country is by far the most highly developed industrial power on the African continent, with one of the continent's highest per capita income. An additional source of dependence of colonial economies was that the few commodities, whether mineral or agricultural, in which they specialized were highly susceptible to extraordinary price fluctuations on the world market or, alternatively, were produced under conditions where the colonial power artificially imposed by force a very low price.[8]

Today, the United States employs the same basic power mechanism as the British did, this is simply the empire part of the GAE. A second similarity is in the use of the British tactic of indirect rule. Here is van den Berghe on the British again:

The second limitation of indirect rule is that its effectiveness rests on a give-and-take basis and thus puts limits on what the conqueror can do. The role of native ruler in a system of indirect rule is a very delicate one. If he becomes entirely the stooge of the colonial regime, he loses all credibility and legitimacy with his people and thus ceases to be effective, for his actions will be resisted and sabotaged, and his orders ignored. If, however, he sides with his people and resists too openly the colonial administration, he is likely to be replaced by someone more pliable. The native chief is thus perpetually performing a balancing act between the colonial rulers and his subjects. The former must see him as a useful collaborator; the latter as a buffer and protector against "excessive" exploitation. That posture, in turn, can only be maintained if the colonial power is content with the status quo and does not seek to alter radically the system of production and to intensify the exploitation. In short, indirect rule is ideal in state-organized societies where the colonial power is content to be only moderately exploitative and to leave the status quo largely undisturbed.[9]

This also happens perfectly to describe the relationship between the governments of European nations and their populations. It exposes too the fiction that Liz Truss or Boris Johnson, for example, have been leaders of the autonomous Government of the United Kingdom rather than a supine regional vassal state of the GAE. The glimpse of the true feelings of the British were registered in a film that is otherwise perfect GAE propaganda starring Hugh Grant as Tony Blair: Love Actually. When Grant’s British Prime Minister stands up to the American President to wild cheers from the crowd, the film reveals the inner feelings of a subjugated people. Again, this is the empire part of the GAE.

            However, this is where the similarities between the GAE and the British Empire end. Unlike the British Empire, which largely maintained local traditions as well as, for the best part, racial hierarchy and segregation, the GAE destroys culture and traditions wherever it goes, promotes racial mixing, and demanding that people from Europe to Afghanistan worship blacks as shown by the frankly ridiculous George Floyd mural painted in Kabul before the Taliban took back over.[10] The British Empire was ‘openly racist, ascribing the supposed shortcomings of the natives to innate, genetic disabilities’,[11] which is to say the superiority of whites over non-whites, while the GAE insists either – in the case of the weak, ‘false opposition’ centre-right – on the total equality of the races or – in the strong case of the left itself, or the inner-party ideology properly stated – the superiority of non-whites over whites. This is the real difference between the British part of the ‘British Empire’ and American part of the GAE.

For an ordinary British person living in the empire, as BAP has shown,[12] there were social and material benefits for belonging to the rulers of that empire. There was status, there was the opportunity to live with servants and underlings. In other words, while colonialism largely was not good for the colonised, the coloniser was rewarded. This is the ‘colonial’ part of classic colonialism. The GAE, in contrast, confers absolutely no benefits to either coloniser or colonised. The rewards, instead, go the obscenely rich financiers such as Larry Fink, or else mascot avatars of GAE ideology such as the obscenely fat Lizzo. The ordinary American gets nothing but general abuse from its own ruling class as they are denigrated to work harder as tax cows for the likes of Lizzo, just as the ordinary colonised European gets nothing as their history and culture and torn up and denigrated in front of their eyes as a massive black arse twerks in their face. This is the global (as opposed to ‘colonial’) part of the GAE.

Is this not this just a European rehash of ‘post-colonial’ victimology?

Not in any respect. The core difference between the old European empires – which benefitted Europeans and largely sucked for the colonised (apart from a few bridges and railways, etc.) are outlined by Arthur de Gobineau here:

The English are the masters of India, and yet their moral hold over their subjects is almost non-existent. They are themselves influenced in many ways by the local civilization, and cannot succeed in stamping their ideas on a people that fears its conquerors, but is only physically dominated by them. It keeps its soul erect, and its thoughts apart from theirs. The Hindu race has become a stranger to the race that governs it to-day, and its civilization does not obey the law that gives the battle to the

strong. External forms, kingdoms, and empires have changed, and will change again ; but the foundations on which they rest, and from which they spring, do not necessarily change with them. Though Hyderabad, Lahore, and Delhi are no longer capital

cities, Hindu society none the less persists. A moment will come, in one way or another, when India will again live publicly, as she already does privately, under her own laws; and, by the help either of the races actually existing or of a hybrid proceeding from them, will assume again, in the full sense of the word, a political personality.[13]

The British Empire was at its very best a  civilising force and at its very worst a ruthlessly efficient exploitation engine, but at no point did it seek to fundamentally annihilate the cultures and traditions of the people it subjugated. The GAE does. The GAE is a uniquely evil force in history totally unlike previous colonial empires. The GAE seeks total transformation of a culture in its own image using mass psychological warfare – as it did in Germany after World War II – on its subject populations and even on its own. It is a sick anti-civilisation cancer, a kind of all-consuming, all-destroying vortex that will not stop until everyone in the world has lost their history. It is especially awful for white Europeans, a group it scapegoats and holds as pariah at the bottom of its caste system:

They are also viewed as morally debased, ritually impure, genetically inferior (or whatever the rationale for their invidious treatment) by accident of birth-and for reasons quite unrelated to individual merit, behavior or actions. As the stigma is believed to be immutable, there is nothing which the stigmatized individual can do to escape it …[14]

This is the lot of the white European in the GAE. He has no choice but to oppose it with every fibre of his being or become complicit in his own subjugation. But this is true, albeit to a lesser degree (for now) for all men and women of whatever background. We face a totally evil enemy. The GAE has no redeeming features. It cannot be defended from the point of view of anyone who cares about humanity. It is anti-humanity and will destroy all you love. Total opposition to the GAE is a bare minimum requirement for anyone who travels with us. No ifs, no buts. It defines our friend / enemy distinction.

---

[1] Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco (1934; Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1995), p. 350.

[2] Bronze Age Pervert, ‘EPISODE 118: GNC’, Caribbean Rhythms (18 September 2022): https://bronzeagepervert.gumroad.com/l/BronzeAgePervert.

[3] See, in particular, Bronze Age Pervert, ‘EPISODE 2: ANGOLA, ANGOLA’, Caribbean Rhythms (19 August 2019).

[4] Julius Evola, ‘Negrified America’, in The Bow and the Club, trans. Sergio Knipe (1968; London: Arktos, 2018), pp. 26-38.

[5] Bronze Age Pervert, ‘EPISODE 38: COLD WAR CONSPIRACIES, NEW WORLD ORDER’, Caribbean Rhythms (27 May 2020).

[6] Thomas777 has told the long history of this on The Pete Quinones show, the Churchill parts are here: https://petequinones.substack.com/podcast?sort=search&search=churchill.  

[7] Bronze Age Pervert, ‘EPISODE 47: GLOBALISM AGAINST COLONIALISM’, Caribbean Rhythms (13 August 2020).

[8] Pierre L. van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1981), p. 102.

[9] Ibid., p. 99.

[10] Phillip Walter Wellman, ‘George Floyd mural painted near Kabul’s Green Zone’, Stars and Stripes (15 June 2020): https://www.stripes.com/news/george-floyd-mural-painted-near-kabul-s-green-zone-1.633812.

[11] van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon, p. 95.

[12] Bronze Age Pervert, ‘EPISODE 47: GLOBALISM AGAINST COLONIALISM’.

[13] Arthur de Gobineau, The Inequality of Human Races, trans. Adrian Collins (1855; London: William Heinnemann, 1915), p. 33.

[14] van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon, p. 160.