User talk:Vince Did 7-14

You seem to be quite interested in defending groypers and their views, and critical of people like Ben Shapiro and TPUSA. I was wondering if you'd be interested in discussing these issues further. A while ago, I set up a Debate page just for that purpose. Here it is. Feel free to add your commentary. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 01:50, November 13, 2021 (EST)

FYI:bot

Hi, I see that the Minuteman bot has been giving you some trouble. Whether or not the quote posted on "Richard Bertrand Spencer‎" is acceptable for this audience, is a question for admins, but is outside the purview of Minuteman's purpose. It shouldn't give you any more trouble, as long as nothing too crazy happens. Apologies for the inconvenience. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 19:08, January 28, 2022 (EST)

Oh, yeah, that pesky Minuteman! I get it; the quote is quite vulgar; however, imo it's definitely something important to mention. Vince Did 7-14 ^{Christ Is King!} 22:24, January 28, 2022 (EST)

Neocons, Neolibs, and the "Eurasian Balkans"

Good afternoon, Vince. I'm reaching out to you today to discuss the motivations of neocon/neolib foreign policy.

One thing I believe a lot of paleocons get wrong when it comes to critiquing neocon/neolib foreign policy is that they often neglect to go deep into the geopolitical aspects of said policy. For this reason they end up giving the impression that they are critiquing said policy from a purely ideological standpoint, which ends up turning off many undecideds who could've been persuaded on this highly important issue otherwise. But perhaps you could buck that trend, with my help.

I'll start off that help by asking a single question: Have you ever head of Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard, and the "Eurasian Balkans" theory it emphasizes?--Geopolitician (talk) 16:06, February 13, 2022 (EST)

Haha, good afternoon. My name isn't actually Vince, it's a reference to paleocon Vince Dao. No, I haven't read the book in question. What's it about? I'd also like to better understand your first point; why are we turning off undecideds by criticizing neocon/neolib foreign policy? From what I can tell, our main criticism is of interventionism and endless war, which have proven to have horrible repercussions. Vince Did 7-14 ^{Christ Is King!} 18:17, February 13, 2022 (EST)

Wait, so you're not Vince Dao? No joke, no sarcasm, I literally thought you were. Ah, well. I'll continue this conversation anyway.

So to clarify my first point, I was arguing that many undecideds see only ideological arguments within paleocon critiques of neocon/neolib foreign policy, and that they are left unpersuaded for precisely that reason. The only things they seem to get out of those critiques are "George Washington wouldn't want this," and "this is not in our national interests, whatever they are."

The keys to overcoming this impasse are as follows: (1) State our core national interests, which are to secure our borders and ensure that our neighbors are not controlled by hostile entities; (2) Identify the geopolitical goals of the neocons and neolibs, which by the way are not "to spread democracy" or "to spread liberalism," but rather the goals set up Brzezinski in his book; and (3) State why neocon/neolib foreign policy interferes with our ability to either protect our borders or keep our neighbors friendly. And as a bonus, it would be preferable to state why neocon/neolib foreign policy is morally objectionable, which by the way it is, for reasons I'll elaborate upon when I explain the "Eurasian Balkans" concept (I'll get to that later tonight; I gotta get back to watching the Super Bowl. Go Bengals! :)--Geopolitician (talk) 21:05, February 13, 2022 (EST)

Alright, I'm back. Bengals lost, by the way.

So, the idea that neocons/neolibs' sole foreign policy goal is "spreading democracy" is totally false. In reality, their true foreign policy goal is to maintain the unipolar world order brought about by the collapse of the USSR. The two big "gurus" of this geopolitical movement are Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. Both Brzezinski and Kissinger have maintained the opinion that the key to ensuring an eternal, American-led unipolar world order is to ensure that no other power dominates the "Eurasian Heartland." A premise originally coined by Halford Mackinder in 1904, the "Eurasian Heartland" theory maintains that Central Asia is the most strategically important region in the world, because whoever controls it is in the best position to control the "World Island," the Afro-Eurasian supercontinent which contains the majority of the world's resources and the world's people.

In 1997, Brzezinski published The Grand Chessboard, which promotes an updated version of the "Eurasian Heartland" theory known as the "Eurasian Balkans" theory. "Eurasian Balkans" theory maintains that "Eurasian Balkans" is the epicenter of the global power void caused by the collapse of the USSR. Thus, the primary goal of American foreign policy must be to ensure American domination of the region. This region consists of: Afghanistan, Central Asia, eastern Turkey, most of the Caucasus, northern Iran, and the Xinjiang region of China. A map detailing the scope of the region is attached here. In the same chapter, Brzezinski identifies seven potential foils to neocon/neolib aspirations in the region: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Notice any patterns yet?--Geopolitician (talk) 22:33, February 13, 2022 (EST)

Putin uses the 1998 bombing of Belgrade which was not authorized by the UN to bash NATO. So beware; citing this book sets you up as a Putin stooge. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 19:11, February 13, 2022 (EST)