The Blue Book

Our manifesto. The Blue Book’s right values, right governance, and right geopolitics outline our bold new vision for America.

Ⅰ. Right Aim

Our American civilization must stand the test of time, and this, beyond every other concern, must be our aim. The great civilizations of history are measured, more than anything, based on how long they endure. All posterity will measure our American civilization likewise.

Yet today our leaders lack this clarity-of-purpose. What visions do they offer? Liberalism offers a vision of “freedom,” which is now used as a weapon against every effort to strengthen our civilization’s morality and unity. Reactionaries offer a confused “return” to yesterday, which fails to go beyond what brought us here. Marxists offer “equality” for the entire world, of course, in relative and absolute terms, this is at the American civilization’s expense. And outside of that, a host of half-measures and petty visions likewise lack a clear vision for America to stand the test of time.

The Blue Book offers the clear vision for an eternally righteous and powerful American civilization. The Blue Book outlines the right values, right governance, and right geopolitics for America to harmoniously endure.

America needs only one right aim: it is to stand the test of time.

Ⅱ. Right Values

American civilization must have the right values to stand the test of time. Without the right values, there cannot be right governance or right geopolitics. Our leaders come from the American community; thus, our governance and our geopolitics rely on the state of the American community.

Yet today our communities lack the right values. The churches, divided and confused, fail to organize a clear movement forward, while the irreligious, mired in relativism and “skepticism,” lack the foundation and the conviction for a national ethos. As migrants flood America, the right fails to produce a coherent response, and the left opposes any response. As gender conflicts divide men and women, resentment, envy, and bitterness permeate every response. As class conflict intensifies, the elites seek only to justify their own greed irrespective of the community, while Marxist agitators sow discontent, at best indifferent to American civilization, at worst against it. As race relations descend into chaos, blacks fail to transcend their community’s indigent and dissolute state, whites face an existential demographic crisis, and every race struggles to define its importance, its history, and even itself. As education and health deteriorate, neither left nor right offer a solution wholly synchronized with the wellbeing of America.

The Blue Book offers clear solutions to all these crises. The Blue Book’s Right Values outline the right approach toward religion, migration, gender, class, race, education, and health for the American civilization.

Religion

Declining religious influence, increasing religious diversity, and sectarian division weaken America. Secularism debilitates any effort toward a single American ethos, instead it led to the oxymoronic ethos of “freedom,” that is, an “open society” wherein everything, other than what insists on anything, is tolerated. Nor can secularism, being empirical, transcend materialist concerns, on what basis would it do so? Religious diversity in and of itself empowers secularism. All too often secularism is upheld on the basis that we cannot offend religious minorities. Meanwhile sectarianism among Christian denominations undermines the strength of the faith. Against this backdrop we determine three right values.

1. America must recognize Christianity as the one true faith.

America is a Christian nation; the great majority of Americans are Christian, and the plurality of youth are Christian. And of those who are not Christian, that religion nevertheless surrounds them and often influences their morality. Despite this the state refuses Christianity, instead it insists on secular values which, in many cases, prove incompatible with Christian values. Is it any wonder that a great many Americans are now disillusioned with the present state of morality? And while baseness, decadence, obscenity, and every other affliction hide behind the ever-so-sacred secularism, to the detriment of us all, how can we hope to build strong American communities? Religion can only strengthen the unity and purpose of America, in contrast irreligion speaks for itself.

2. America must support its Christian institutions.

America must support the church if it hopes to strengthen its religious moral unity. Endorsement alone does nothing to effect true change. Christian institutions, where the people congregate regularly, offer a direct means of strengthening the American ethos, that is, they effect everyday life of Americans, and through this they effect the spirit of America. America has no claim to moral superiority without supporting the institutions that champion those morals, otherwise American morality amounts to a mere virtue signal. By supporting Christian institutions, we reinforce a foundational antecedent of the American ethos, by extension we reinforce American civilization.

3. All sanctioned denominations must acknowledge and prioritize the essential truths of American Christianity: Monotheism, the Nicene Creed, and the messianic deity of Christ.

The power of Christianity in America relies on a level of harmony among its denominations. Certainly, elevating any one church disrupts this harmony and undermines the strength of American Christianity. How can Christianity produce a unified American ethos while alienating large swathes of its own? How can Christianity underpin the American ethos if the denominations fail to agree on fundamental things? The essential truths of American Christianity, whereby America is definitively yet flexibly Christian, suffice as the basic religious foundation of the American ethos.

Migration

Tens of millions of illegal migrants, the increasing flow of illegal and legal migrants, and the demographic shift threaten the character of America. Today these crises epitomize two matters-of-fact which are now obvious to every American. First, that we are an oligarchy, that is, that a rootless upper class stands above the law. Nowhere is that fact clearer than here, where this class justifies illegal migrants for their exploitability, and where they can subvert something as simple as border security. Second, that this rootless elite opposes a true American ethos. Though a limited tolerance for ethnic diversity conditional to stringent assimilation is reasonable, American culture is essentially a derivative of European culture. Ethnically it was Europeans, and to a lesser degree Africans, who were the progenitors of American civilization. Even the so-called “anti-racists” acknowledge this, whether they mean to or not, when they declare that America was “founded on white supremacy.” And on this basis ethnic Europeans should remain the majority, likewise migration should not render African Americans irrelevant. With this we determine three right values.

1. Illegal migrants must be deported.

Mass deportation is the only answer to our illegal migration crisis. For as long as we tolerate illegal migrants, we will have more of them. When desperate foreigners see that we do not enforce our migration laws, does that discourage them from coming? Does failing to enforce the law make Americans feel safer and happier? And that some illegal migrants live in America for decades makes no difference. Would that illegals were truly “assimilated” they, like Americans, would face the law, and then they would get deported. History demonstrates law and order to be the bedrock of harmony. Today there can be no law and order without mass deportations.

2. Migration, both legal and illegal, must cease.

Fortifying the American ethos means ending migration. Migration hinders all efforts toward a shared American identity. When migrants ghettoize themselves how does this work toward assimilation, or a common American identity? High-trust societies feel and look better than low-trust societies. Migration disrupts high-trust societies. Across every metric migration weakens cohesion. America no longer needs migration. We have already built our great cities from sea to shining sea. We were a nation of immigrants, now we must be a nation of Americans.

3. Migration policy must not shift America’s demographics.

Migration policy must not transform the American character. Any migration policy that threatens America’s demographics threatens the civilization itself. How can Americans feel valued while their leaders replace them? How can any state expect loyalty while showing none in return? Culture, language, and ethnic composition define civilization. When these change organically, or when change is clearly a derivative of the civilization, it constitutes a continuation, that is, the civilization itself still exists. Otherwise, it constitutes the end of that civilization. When, through migration policy, migrants fundamentally alter the culture, language, or ethnic composition of America, it produces a new civilization, thereby failing to stand the test of time.

Gender

The declining marriage rates, growing distrust, and widening moral divide between men and women threaten America. Without doubt these are existential threats. Marriages form families, families form communities, communities form civilizations, therefore a threat to marriage is a threat to civilization. How can marriage rates rise without trust between men and women? Today, more than ever before, enmity defines gender relations. Neither men nor women commit to relationships for fear of betrayal and uncertainty. And morally, things are no better. Above all else this shows itself through politics, where along every metric the gender divide is irrefutable. Therefore, we determine three right values.

1. Christian marriage must be venerated.

Celebration positively reinforces commitment and encourages sacrifice. Certainly marriage, “till death do us part,” is a sacrifice, though blessed. Who would sacrifice something in vain? How do we encourage people not only to value, but commit to marriage without venerating it? And economic incentives alone, which amount to bribes, cannot suffice. No bribes are enough to strengthen anything beyond fickle self-interest. And what of hardship, which commitment and sacrifice entail? No relationship is perfect, nor without highs and lows. By venerating marriage, we venerate working through its lows, rather than acting on selfish whims.

2. Adultery must be criminalized.

Distrust in relationships essentially revolves around infidelity. Indeed, in relationships infidelity is the most severe breach-of-trust. Repairing trust between men and women starts with accountability. How often do adulterers hold themselves accountable? When cheating goes unpunished do we expect more or less of it? It is in the broader community’s interest to bolster trust by criminalizing adultery.

Before everything, good relationships rely on a shared understanding of right and wrong. Why does it surprise us when, during an argument, someone claims they did not know their actions were wrong? And among romantic partners it is known that to feign ignorance requires a level of plausibility, which often factors “common decency.” Indeed, we rely on a basic level of shared implicit understanding. From where, other than shared foundational morals, can we seriously expect this at scale?

Class

Declining living standards, increasing income inequality, and declining social mobility demand our attention. Today and across every meaningful metric Americans are getting poorer. No number of academic studies, no amount of contrived statistical analysis, none of this truly convinces the landless and debt-ridden American people, for whom life has never been so unaffordable, that things are getting better. Nor, in one’s heart of hearts, can it be justified that rootless oligarchs shamelessly glut themselves on what remains of our declining nation. It is a grave injustice that, standing on the grave of the American dream, these plunderers insist that we “lift ourselves up by our bootstraps.” Therefore, we present three right values.

1. During economic downturns, the wealthy must contribute more to America.

Economic hardship warrants urgency. And because we are all in this together the wealthy should share the same sense of urgency during hardship. Would they not apply themselves and their resources more readily to fix things? More still, the wealthy do not exist in a vacuum. Even the self-made man relies on the wider American civilization to facilitate his admirable success. American civilization stands a greater chance of weathering economic downturns if, during these downturns, it has more resources.

2. The lower and higher classes must collaborate toward the interests of the American community.

Neither employers nor employees should undermine the harmony of the community. The state must mediate labor disputes. Strikes and lockouts alike weaken America. How can workers trust or respect their employers while class conflict runs rampant? And what message does it send when America cannot adequately answer the basic question of labor rights? We cannot have national harmony without class harmony.

3. The lower and higher classes must be dignified in and of themselves.

Inequality does not drive class conflict. No, class conflict stems from two things: indigence and shame. And this becomes clear when we consider “the American dream,” which in reality has two types. First there is the humble American dream, that is, a house, a family, a dog, and a car. Second, there is the aspirational American dream which, promising everybody upward mobility, idolizes wealth and status for every American. On both counts the American dream is dead. Today estimates put the cost of the humble American dream in the many millions of dollars. Likewise, that boundless upward mobility is gone. None would dispute that decent Americans deserve decent lives, and this truth, contrasted with today’s inequality and indigence, causes class conflict. But this is not the only culprit. A corrupted aspirationalism, whereby it is affluence and affluence alone that measures one’s worth, now poisons America. But neither wealth nor aspiration reflects evil, and we should celebrate both. Yet we must also celebrate humility. How can we expect class harmony without according to all classes the dignity and respect they deserve? How can we shame any class merely for doing their job? Would we look down at the farmer who puts food on our plate? Every American who supports the national community, whichever part they play, deserves dignity and respect.

Race

Cultural diversity, racial tribalism, and racial disparities, both behaviorally and socioeconomically, all weaken America in ways neither civic nor ethnic nationalism adequately address. Today civic nationalism equates to colorblind meritocracy, that is, it is a nationalism whose identity amounts to mere documents. How does this go beyond a nationalism of “terms and conditions?” Ethnic nationalists correctly recognize civilizations as comprising distinct peoples. Nevertheless, in the case of America ethnonationalism routinely goes one of two ways: either it descends into an absurd purity spiral whereby even the majority of Europe is disqualified as “white,” or devolves into a reductive oversimplification, where so many exceptions render it confused. And yet, neither can be fully disqualified. For instance, no one would deny the clear differences between the black and white communities. Civic nationalists blame culture, ethnic nationalists blame race. Anyone who is honest with themselves knows that this issue will go nowhere without a balance between civic and ethnic nationalism which defines American identity going forward. The Blue Book accomplishes this with three right values and solves race relations in America.

1. All races must adopt an American ethos clearly defined by Right Values.

Neither ethnic nor civic nationalists would dispute that a cultural ethos is necessary for civilizations to endure. Indeed, in Europe, for instance, culture divides the white race. Nor would any dispute the cohesive power of cultural homogeneity, that is to say, familiarity begets kinship. And how can one forget 1918 and 1991, when petty nationalism destroyed so many states? How else, other than through a united American ethos, can we avoid this fate? Would cultural homogeneity not ease our internal divisions? One future must have one ethos.

2. An overarching American identity must separate itself from Europe yet remain derivative of Europe, with respect for race.

Citizenship alone does not define what it means to be an American. No, today we must go beyond the “melting pot.” No melting pot cooks forever. American identity needs a cultural definition and an ethnic definition. American culture stems from Europe. That is to say, America’s cultural foundation is principally white. Black American culture is, for the most part, essentially a derivative of Europe. Do most blacks not have a “slave name,” which goes back countless generations? And how many black Americans speak African languages, or wear African clothes, or can trace their heritage to any specific place in Africa? We are now a hundred years removed from Garvey, and nearly two hundred years removed from Liberia. Nor does “black nationalism” in America constitute a united or even “African” idea. Pan-Africanism, black separatism, and every one of these projects are reactionary inventions. Beyond race, what regional, linguistic, or even cultural connection do they have to Africa? Is it not the case that black Africans generally disdain black Americans? We can acknowledge that black Americans are culturally American without excusing the state of their community. Thus, we define American culture as essentially derivative of Europe. As for ethnicity: whites, variably defined, must comprise the core and majority of America, which is a multi-ethnic nation. English-speaking Christian whites who were born in America, and whose parents were born in America, are Americans. Minorities with an extended multigenerational American lineage, who share its language, culture, and religion, and who were born in America, are also Americans. Adopting and officializing this definition of “American” answers the question of American identity once and for all.

3. Culturally and behaviorally speaking, we must impose the same standards on all races.

No consensus yet exists on the eminence of race or culture. Were this decided, the battle between civic and ethnic nationalists would have ended. Imposing the same cultural and behavioral standards on all races answers this question and produces the ideal outcome. Ethnic nationalists, to varying extents, posit race as the decisive cause for the disparities we now see. Civic nationalists posit nurture over nature. But, in reality, these groups have the same goal. Would either civic or ethnic nationalists dispute that they aim for a state to reflect the natural order? The question of race has no importance in and of itself, rather, it is the question of race in connection with the natural order. Consider that the byproduct of walls are borders. Would the imposition of cultural and behavioral standards, being a wholly fair and reasonable expectation, not answer the question of race once and for all? And, for any ethnic or civic nationalist with conviction, would imposing these standards not produce the desired outcome, if only as a byproduct?

Education

Deteriorating civic education, complacency in the universities, and rampant timidity stupefy and emasculate America. Indeed, the pathetic state of our civic education reveals itself through vast swathes of Americans who lack basic historical and geographical knowledge. Nowhere is this clearer than social media, where the truth speaks for itself. Nor are things better in the universities, which, for the most part, now amount to glorified daycares. First, to make more money from tuition, colleges lower their standards. Then, professors often must resort to spoon-feeding students in their course, whereby the students learn nothing but pass. Is it surprising, then, that college has become less valuable, and that companies now have such stringent hiring standards? And, now endemic to every level of education and America itself, are timid and passive-aggressive people, and this, in large part, clearly stems from the education system, which punishes any aggression and enforces an enfeebled and degenerate form of “conflict resolution.” With this we determine three right values.

1. Primary and secondary education must mandate extensive civic education and extracurriculars.

How can we expect to inspire the American people without teaching them about America? Why is America inspiring? Inspiration is felt, seen, thought, or understood. Our education program stems from this truth and this truth alone. Civic education must go beyond a mere book or class. No, our civic education must extend to sports, architecture, ceremony, and the humanities, whereby it inspires the whole American civilization.

2. Postsecondary institutions must raise standards and become more rigorous.

College was never meant for everyone. America needs more than bureaucrats and intellectuals. How enthusiastically do students apply themselves to insultingly simple tasks? What prestige does college have when it becomes an extension of high school? How do we honor excellence by merely lowering the bar? Our experts must remain experts.

3. Primary schools must tolerate a healthy level of physical violence between boys.

Boys will be boys. Conflict is a natural part of life, as is violence. It is especially important that the youth, whose brains are still forming, understand this. Preventing boys from channeling their natural aggression redirects their energy to unhealthy things, often this extends well beyond childhood. Is it any wonder that men are more “non-confrontational” and impotent than ever? Yes, we must get along, but this must be balanced with spirit and boldness. Would it not be best to tolerate some level of physical violence in primary school, rather than to bottle it up until the inevitable and dangerous outburst later? And how can we expect to produce energetic and assertive men, who we need for America, while muzzling them as boys?

Health

Collapsing birth rates and declining physical and mental health threaten America. Women are having less babies than ever before. How, without growing our population, can we hope to build larger and stronger communities? And we should consider that our enemies weaponize our collapsing birth rates in their narrative. Indeed, how often have they argued that, given our low birth rates, we must import more migrants? We must increase birth rates to grow our communities and reinforce right values. Nor can we neglect physical or mental health for two reasons. First, as many Americans now notice, a great brain fog now descends across America. Essentially, our deteriorating physical health is to blame. We must clear this fog. How can we hope for a civilization of dullards to stand the test of time? Likewise, mental illness, whose chief cause is social maladjustment, permeates America. But this condition, both physically and mentally, is not terminal. Here the Blue Book prescribes three right values to treat America.

1. Abortion must be criminalized.

Orphans must replace abortions. Parenthood, as abortionists routinely remind us, is a tremendous responsibility. Indeed, how can we discard their concerns here out-of-hand? Likewise, pro-lifers never fail to raise the issue of personal accountability. What kind of communities do we get by excusing every haphazard decision? Regardless, the fact of the matter is that America needs more babies for the sake of supporting its virtue and future. And to those who would malign orphanages: is it impossible for us to have better orphanages? Even now, are they worse than death? How is it for us to say whether one would prefer to be an orphan or to die? That is not a choice we can make for those innocent souls, who have yet to glimpse the beauty of the world.

2. Good diets must be readily available and socially encouraged through both positive and negative reinforcement.

More people will eat well if good diets are further encouraged. Is it not commonly the case that embarrassment prompts change for the better? More still, are we not encouraged by the praise and respect that follow? A good diet is the foundation of good health. Likewise, exercise and other habits are important, but a good diet decisively influences all of these. Promoting a good diet will do more to improve the health of America than any other measure.

3. We must have stylish, fun, and impressive communal activities.

America needs more parades, festivals, and rallies. Today there is a severe shortage of activities that are socially engaging. Why, if this is not the case, are young Americans having less fun than ever? In truth, even though we lack the words to explain it, our current options are lame. How do we expect to strengthen social adjustment without good social activities? Style, spectacle, and fun remedy this problem. People loosen up and enjoy themselves wherever these three things are. In other words, they get out of their own heads and reconnect with the world.

Ⅲ. Right Governance

American civilization must have the right governance to stand the test of time. Without the right governance, there cannot be right geopolitics or right values. The state sets domestic and foreign policy; thus, our geopolitics and the strength of the American ethos rely on right governance.

Yet today, and on full display, America lacks right governance. Therefore, we must revisit the foundational questions of the state. Who rules the state, and how? What is the justice of the state? What liberties does the state enshrine? What is the state’s role in the economy? What rights does the state afford? How does the state structure law? On what condition, and over what things, does the state have authority?

The Blue Book answers these questions. The Blue Book’s Right Governance outlines the right approach to power, justice, liberty, economics, rights, law, and authority, whereby it structures a new conception of the state.

Power

America must revisit the question of power, that is, the leadership principles of the state. Who rules the state? Who administers the state? What is the mechanism of the state? To answer these questions, the Blue Book outlines three principles of right governance.

1. One person must rule the state.

Supreme power must be invested in the leader. That is to say, the leader directs the state and is responsible for the conditions of the state. Indeed, it is the natural expectation of the people that the leader rules the state. Why, if supreme power were meant to be shared, do we hold the president accountable, as if he alone has the supreme power to act? And if it is natural that the president underdelivers, why has our hope for the opposite endured? And how does it affect the legitimacy of the American state when its leaders, who in truth are hamstrung, fail to address the most basic things? Today America is a nation of half-measures. We have no vision, instead we have a collection of contradictory and half-hearted dreams. And to those who say that there will be incompetent leaders, or disconnected leaders, or corrupt leaders: has our entire system not itself become incompetent, disconnected, and corrupt? In attempting to prevent a tyrannical leader we have instead doomed ourselves to a tyrannical system. Does that constitute an improvement? One vision must have one leader.

2. Americans alone must administer the state.

It is Americans, and Americans alone, who can be trusted to govern. While today citizenship is required for civil service, a closer examination paints a very different picture. Today dual citizens permeate the entire government, many of whom are congressmen or cabinet members, and this is a problem. In fact, those who deny this only do so because dual citizenship among civil servants is neither officially measured by the government, nor required for civil servants to disclose. Yet, by means of personal research, any American will see the problem, clearly and for themselves. Dual citizens have a clear conflict-of-interest. Does this do anything to build trust with the American people?

3. The leader directs the state; the government, directed by the leader, administers the state.

A house divided cannot stand. Today the state spends too much time fighting itself, as we see with the typical presidential term. First, the incoming president undoes every executive order of the outgoing president. Next, the country’s direction changes, and in many cases directly and haphazardly contradicts the previous president. Then, for the next four years, the opposition does everything to undermine the president. This back-and-forth, which has continued for decades, is today our state-of-affairs. Does this infighting bolster faith in the state? How, with this petty squabbling, can America have coherent long-term goals? The leader must direct the entire state. The main question that civil servants should have during every debate, every deliberation, every legislative procedure, is how to carry out the leader’s directives, insofar as they conform to right values.

Justice

Today, American lawmaking is a battlefield of foreign lobbies, corporate interests, rival think tanks, and countless other factions. Consequently, the whole legal framework is a confused and ineffective mess of competing interests. Therefore, we must revisit American justice. Who deserves justice from the state? What is the ethical framework of justice for the state? What measures does the state use to determine proper punishment? To determine American justice, the Blue Book outlines three principles of right governance.

1. Every American deserves the justice of the state.

Improper justice, whereby some Americans do not have the justice of the state, cannot endure. The state must provide justice if it is to expect loyalty. Does it reinforce the feeling of justice when some Americans are above or without it? And would depriving some Americans of justice strengthen or weaken its legitimacy? The state must hold itself and America to the standard of justice. Otherwise, we can only justify the state through force. The first time a law was broken is the last time that law was unbreakable.

2. Right values must constitute the ethical framework of justice.

Right values must guide the justice system. A justice system which fails to account for the people alienates the people. A system of justice derived from private interests cannot serve the public good. Does it bolster Americans’ faith in the justice system when rootless elites weaponize it? How can we produce an ethical justice system without strong ethics? And how can we reinforce right values without righteous justice? If our justice discourages right values, how can we hope to have right values?

Above all else, America must punish disorder, damage, and subversion. And while it is clear to all that we must punish public indecency and street crime, this principle cannot stop there. No, we must punish these things everywhere that they are found. Indeed, nowhere is this clearer than the subversive media which, under the guise of “freedom of the press,” deceives and abuses the American people. It is clear to all that this “freedom of the press,” which was meant to promote transparency and accountability, now acts as a vehicle to divide, outrage, and lie to the American people. Who could forget the media’s conspicuous blind spot following October 7th, when they ignored, or at worst cheered on, Israel’s genocide in Gaza? And how can we ignore that the media is clearly controlled by the same rootless oligarchs who are destroying America? Against this backdrop how can anyone trust the media? And what message does it send when we do nothing to protect ourselves from this subversion?

Liberty

The very nature of America demands that we address the question of liberty. Today, odd as it may be, liberty both threatens and protects America. Freedom of speech, and of assembly, and of petition, and of religion, all these simultaneously help and hurt us. Therefore, we must revisit the basic questions of American liberty. What are the freedoms upheld by the state? To what extent are people free from religion? To whom does the state afford liberties? Three principles of right politics answer the question of liberty.

1. We must have freedom of righteous expression, freedom of righteous assembly, and freedom of righteous petition.

The state must enshrine righteous freedoms, that is, it must not infringe on the freedom to uphold right values. History demonstrates that no government is fully immune to corruption. Indeed, corrupt democracies and corrupt autocracies litter our past and present. What stops the state from becoming corrupt when it is too repressive, or when it is too ineffective? It is here that the people must act as a check on government. While we cannot permit freedoms to be weaponized against America by our enemies, we must also not stifle the people. What stops the state from abandoning right values if the people cannot defend them? How would the people feel in a state without any freedom? The principle of righteous freedom, whereby the people can stand up for what is right, strikes a balance.

2. We must have freedom of active religious practice.

America is a Christian nation. No other religion can have the freedom to proselytize to Americans. It must be the Christians alone who have the freedom to evangelize. That is not to say that America is a theocracy. We cannot force every American to become a perfect Christian. Would it not produce a backlash, and therefore be counterproductive, to enforce participation in every rite and attendance of every mass? How does it feel to be forced? No, there is only one to whom every knee shall bow. Moreover, is it desirable that the state produces a mere imitation of a pious America? We aim to foster a piety which goes beyond ritual.

3. We must not afford liberties to traitors and foreigners.

It is clear why we must prevent traitors from abusing American freedoms, their actions speak for themselves. How can we pretend that they will use their freedoms in good faith? Foxes and hen houses do not mix. As for foreigners, that is, non-citizens and dual citizens, consider our interventions during the past four decades. One will notice that in every case, foreigners disingenuously weaponize American empathy and control the narrative to sway public opinion in favor of American involvement. Even today, one need not look far to find for themselves an advocacy group run by foreigners, or a demonstration organized by foreign interests, or foreigners in exile railing against distant regimes. Do we imagine these foreigners to have American interests in mind? Or is it more likely that they see America as a tool toward their own goals? We must not allow foreigners to weaponize freedoms toward influencing the American people.

Economics

What are the economics of the state? Today we are stuck in a capitalist-communist lens, yet neither capitalism nor communism starts with the right question. In both cases their focus is wholly materialist. Both share the same fundamental proposition, that the highest goal is freedom from need. But both fail to recognize that the economy exists conditional to the state. Therefore, the economy, contingent on the state, is secondary to the state. The fundamental question of the state, of standing the test of time, takes precedence over freedom from need. Thus, we must revisit the economics of the state and transcend both capitalism and communism. What is the state’s role in monetary policy? How does the state regulate labor relations? What principles guide the state’s tax system? To answer these questions the Blue Book outlines three principles of right governance.

1. America must have a national public bank.

Today the Federal Reserve, a private institution, functionally controls the American economy through two things. First, the Federal Reserve functionally controls the money supply. It influences consumer spending, the price of goods and demand for labor, through interest rates. Second, it controls access to credit. Economic growth relies on access to credit, whereby the bulk of investment today occurs. How does this build trust with the American people? How can the state synchronize economic policy with its wider agenda without the necessary tools? How can America have national sovereignty without monetary sovereignty? The state must control monetary policy.

2. The state must mediate labor disputes through a national labor organization.

Settle on the means of production or someone else will seize them. Class conflict opens opportunities for foreigners to weaken America. In turn this leaves both the workers and employers in a worse position. Class harmony, which is in the state’s interest, comes from mitigating indigence and shame. Thus, it is in the state’s interest for the American worker and employer to reach agreements whereby the worker has strong labor rights and a decent standard-of-living. How can the American worker have national pride if he is impoverished? Giving a voice to the workers while balancing their concerns with the employers strengthens the state’s legitimacy and harmonizes the national community.

3. The tax system must serve the interests of the state.

The tax code must serve the right values, right governance, and right geopolitics, that is to say, it must incentivize right values, facilitate right governance, and function as an instrument of right geopolitics. How can we expect to strengthen right values if the tax code penalizes them? And if the tax code tells a completely different story while the state preaches right values, does this build trust with the people? There can be no strong nation without taxation. Synchronizing the tax system with the state’s interests strengthens the national community.

Rights

As with liberties, the nature of America demands that we address rights. Like freedoms, rights must uphold the dignity of the people. But while freedom is protected, rights are enforced. With three principles of right governance, we outline the fundamental rights of the people.

1. The state must uphold the right of the people to form well-regulated righteous militias.

The right of the people to form righteous militias is necessary for the people to defend right values. History demonstrates the state as the principal force of collective harmony, yet also, if left unchecked, that the state will degenerate. Being that our conception of the state is strong and totalizing, we must include a corrective mechanism to bind the state to right values. The right of righteous militia, that is, the right to form militias in defense of right values, accomplishes this. Freedom to dissent means nothing without firepower. Would the threat of an armed and righteous fighting force not make any leader think twice? And would righteous militias not likewise defend America from foreigners, both through acting as auxiliary forces and cultivating a capable manpower pool?

2. The state must uphold the right to healthcare.

One way or another, the state must ensure universal access to healthcare for the American people. Today many millions of Americans struggle with healthcare cost and, consequently, delay their visits to the doctor. How can we fully encourage Americans to be healthier with this convoluted healthcare system? And to those who would point to improving diet and life habits, are these mutually exclusive to improving healthcare? Moreover, what message does our broken healthcare system send to the American people; does it bolster their trust in the state’s commitment to national health? America must stand the test of time, for this the American people must be healthy, and this, more than anything else, must dictate how we structure the healthcare system.

3. The state must uphold the right to private property. If it is necessary for the state to requisition private property, it must furnish compensation.

The state must reconcile private ownership with national interests, both being necessary for a harmonious America. It is clear to all that we must pursue national interests. Indeed, to this end the state must act decisively, and property rights cannot undermine this. History demonstrates that one man in the way of progress will usually get run over. And as for private ownership, it lends itself to motivating and rooting the American people. A dignified people must have roots in the land. Otherwise, the land is meaningless to them, no different from any other land. How can this sentiment foster America’s harmony and patriotism? People take better care of what they own. Would private ownership not work toward reinforcing this?

Law

America must revisit the legal system to synchronize it with right values. Therefore, we must revisit common law, civil law, and canon law. Common law is decided based on judicial decisions, civil law is decided based on legislative decisions, and canon law is decided based on clerical decisions. Today America operates under a system of common law with some elements of civil law, with some accommodations made for canon law in the case of both. Here the Blue Book outlines three principles of right governance on law.

1. Right values must be the basis of our civil laws. Civil laws must supersede common and canon laws and must apply to every American without exception.

Our civil code must be our highest body of law. No one, not even the head of state, can be above the civil code. This civil code must be guided by right values. How, without an overarching civil code, can we underpin the legal system with right values? A constitution alone, which merely details the structure of the state, cannot accomplish this. No, only a civil code can provide a clear sense of direction and purpose necessary to tie the entire legal system together.

2. Right values and circumstance must be the basis of our common laws. Common laws must supersede canon laws unless otherwise decreed by the head-of-state, and must apply to every American, apart from the head-of-state.

Common law is necessary for the legal system’s adaptability. It is a far better means of serving American communities, being case based. No American should feel underserved by the state because of an obtuse and rigid legal system. However, being that the leader’s responsibility is to the whole American civilization, and that common law, whose formulation is more often catalyzed by petty civil disputes, has often been used by judges to obstruct heads-of-state for partisan purposes, we must not let our common law system handicap the head of state. To hamstring the leader is to hamstring America, and we cannot allow something as simple as a district court to get in the way of the entire country.

3. Denominational canon must be the basis of any sanctioned set of canon laws. Select canon laws, and only by means of decree by the head-of-state, can supersede common laws, and must apply only to their denomination’s clergy.

The state must respect the churches, therefore we must have methods for respecting a denomination’s canon laws. How can America be a Christian nation without respecting the power and sanctity of Christian institutions? Of course, this must be balanced with respect for civil law, and more flexibly common law, and we cannot impose one denomination’s canon law across every denomination, much less the entire country.

Authority

Today, clear to all, America is not by, of, or for the people. Nor, in recent history, have “states’ rights” held weight. When was the last serious challenge to the federal government? And when every election is sold as a final, existential battle, only to be followed by the “peaceful transition of power,” that phrase feels especially hollow. Thus, America must revisit the questions of authority. How does the state justify itself? How does the state delegate power? How does the state choose its leaders? We answer these questions with three principles of right governance.

1. The state must derive its right to rule from upholding right values.

Right governance and right geopolitics necessitate right values. Thus, right values are the linchpin of America, the sound foundation upon which America stands the test of time. Moreover, they constitute the tangible measure whereby we evaluate the state’s alignment with the right aim. And this is necessary for two reasons. First, it lends itself to the rights and freedoms meant to check the government. How, without a measure to point to, would any American feel certain in righteously opposing the state? The fastest way to straighten someone out is to hold their feet to the fire. Second, as history makes clear, occasional course corrections are necessary for a civilization to endure. Every path has a destination. How, without clearly justifying the state, without a goal, can we even understand what it means to correct course?

2. The state must adopt a unitary system, whereby the local governments are responsible for carrying out directives from the central government.

A unitary system balances the national vision with local realities. No farmer ever came out of an ivory tower, local governments are best equipped to handle themselves. Let them do what they know best. Moreover, how can the state build trust with local governments if it does not afford them any autonomy? And without trust between the state and local governments, how can America be united, much less harmonious? Delegation is necessary to the state; no degree of centralization makes it desirable or practical for the central government to incessantly micromanage every corner of America. One size never fits all.

3. Upon the head of state’s death or resignation, a central government congress, comprised of electors from the local governments, must appoint a new leader.

It is only fitting that the head of state, who leads the whole country, must be chosen by a representative body reflecting the whole country. No region of America should feel neglected by the state. Thus, the state, in exchange for overarching authority, must leave the matter of succession to an assembly that represents every corner of America. We must understand that the head of state sets the course for the whole nation. Denying any part of the nation a say in the direction of America is a recipe for unrest and disorder.

Ⅳ. Right Geopolitics

American civilization must have the right geopolitics to stand the test of time. Without the right geopolitics, there cannot be right values or right governance. Our foreign policy decides our place in the world, that is, the very existence of American civilization.

And today, more than ever before, right geopolitics are sorely needed. More than any court ruling or president or scandal, this “foreign policy” that is now inflicted on the American people is the single greatest humiliation. What have we gained from our wars, what, other than corpses, do we have to show for them? And while we fight across the entire world, our trade policy has driven millions of Americans, who had good-paying jobs and dignity, into poverty and aimlessness. But the greatest injustice is not merely a lost war, or a bad trade deal. No, above all else, it is slavery, and it is a slavery that every honest American has come to recognize. As America burns, our leaders, kneeling to the likes of AIPAC and the ADL, do Israel’s bidding. It is contemptible to every patriot whose heart still burns with the American spirit that while the American Empire crumbles to dust, our sycophant leaders suckle this foreign thing. And so, we must totally overhaul our foreign policy. We must revisit our approach to war, trade, diplomacy, territory, defense, and resources. And, most crucial, we must look back at our history as a country.

The Blue Book offers a new geopolitical outlook. The Blue Book’s Right Geopolitics outlines a bold new vision of America’s place in the world, a foreign policy for America to stand the test of time.

War

The military is the most essential tool of foreign policy. And recent developments remind us of this in two ways. First there is the war in Ukraine, wherein Russia shrugged off western sanctions, and where it is western military aid that keeps Ukraine afloat. Second there is the nuclear arsenal, which in reality acts as insurance. Contrast Libya with North Korea. Is it any wonder why we invaded Libya but not North Korea? Nor does accounting for China, another nuclear power, do anything to challenge this. How far would China and Russia have gotten without nuclear weapons? Force remains the decisive instrument of geopolitics. Thus, we must revisit the questions of war. Where do we justify war, and on what grounds? And during war, how far do we go? Here, we outline three principles of right geopolitics.

1. There is no justification for offensive war beyond the hemisphere.

We must end our disastrous military adventures beyond the Americas. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans afford America tremendous strategic advantages. Our long-term strategy must work toward national self-reliance and, where that is unfeasible, a self-contained network of supply chains across the Americas. Fighting wars across the world works against this. Long supply chains are fragile. How does relying on Taiwan for semiconductors accentuate our geographical strengths? How does alienating oil-rich Venezuela help decouple us from the Middle East? There is no reason to wage wars halfway across the planet when we could be realizing the untapped potential of the Americas.

2. The valid justifications for war are territorial expansion, ideological security, economic security, resource security, strategic concerns, and the defense of the Americas.

The liberal international order is dead. Everybody, save for career-climbing tools and decrepit leftovers of the cold war, sees that times have changed. Today, there are only two reasons why America should wage war: security and regional hegemony. Security, that is, strategic interest, in and of itself justifies war. And America, being a great power, regional hegemony is necessary. Without regional hegemony it is inevitable that other powers will undermine us through our weaker neighbors.

3. War justifies all means.

Victory is the only goal of war. And the type of war, defensive or offensive, existential or otherwise, does not change this. No, it is victory and victory alone that matters, and this justifies everything. In every war we must be unapologetic. But this is not an excuse to be cruel or callous. Vietnam and Iraq teach us this. America must wage war deliberately and precisely, whereby it employs whatever is necessary to win, no more, no less. Only an existential war justifies an unconditional fight to the death. Yes, this method of war goes far enough for victory and deterrence. The last war anyone wants is a war of attrition, fear begets caution. As for the home front, we cannot divide ourselves during war. We must not forget that Vietnam was a failure of the state and the people. Principled Americans across the country righteously and vocally opposed Vietnam, yet for many the anti-war stance came not from a sense of injustice, or critical disagreement, but from a decadent cowardice stemming from hedonism and escapism. Where did this show itself more clearly than the degenerate hippies, who brilliantly protested Vietnam by spreading STDs during drug-fueled orgies? During war, everything is secondary to victory.

Trade

Self-reliance must be the goal of American trade policy. Today’s economists uncritically parrot capitalist dogma, wherein the only goal of the state is ensuring the cheapest possible goods. They are totally deaf to geopolitical concerns and see nothing beyond the trading desk. But America is more than a pile of goods and services. We are a sovereign state; our trade policy must never undermine that. Yet today it does, most clearly in three places. First, through our imports from China, our industrial base has atrophied, and now, because American industry has become incapable of meeting consumer demand, even a minor effort to decouple from China is a tremendous pain. Second, our exports to Europe and the rest of the Old World entangle us based on a simple truth: exports mean profit, less exports mean less profit. For as long as anything threatens our exports over there, it gives America a reason to stay. For instance, how, when a fifth of American exports go to the EU, can we ever hope to detangle ourselves? Finally, there is the trade deficit. The idea of a “good trade deficit” is yet another insidious invention of rootless cosmopolitans. Essentially, this idea relies on twisting another idea, that economics are not “zero-sum.” Indeed, that is true in a domestic context. But on the geopolitical stage it is an abject lie. Consider what it means to be “more interdependent than ever before.” There is no free lunch. America paid for its “good trade deficit” by surrendering its economic sovereignty to oligarchs and foreign powers. Three principles of right geopolitics rectify these problems.

1. We must minimize imports and work toward self-reliance.

No price is too high for self-reliance. A self-sufficient state is a sovereign state. Against a self-sufficient state, what use would it be to blockade the Red Sea, or the Suez Canal, or the Strait of Malacca? And to those who say that self-sufficiency would doom us to a lack of competition, is that any different than where we are now? Moreover, did competition come into being after the birth of Adam Smith? No, America can work toward self-reliance while being competitive. As for what we must import, we must import it from the Americas, and for two reasons. First, America needs supply chain security. Shorter supply chains are safer. Is it easier for us to defend the Caribbean or the Mediterranean? Second, if we import anything, it should work toward strengthening us. By importing from the Americas, we strengthen our sphere-of-influence, and this strengthens us.

2. We must shift exports from the old world to the Americas.

Shifting American exports to the Americas fixes two problems. First, it lowers our dependence on faraway markets, thereby helping to insulate America from the world’s issues. Second, it strengthens our sphere-of-influence, that is, the Americas. Shifting our exports to the Americas requires other American countries to cultivate larger markets. Being that they are in our sphere-of-influence, that means we help ourselves by helping our neighbors.

3. Export value must exceed import value.

America must return to a trade surplus. The global arena is zero-sum, only proportional measures matter in geopolitics. There is no “win-win,” the side that wins less loses. Why else would we care about the rise of China? Moreover, why would we care about unipolarity or multipolarity, what difference does it make if the world is not zero-sum? Instinctively the American people know this. No amount of sophistry and pseudointellectual nonsense has yet tricked the American people, who know we are in the red. And optically, how can we maintain a trade policy that we cannot justify to the country? Does it not undermine faith in our leaders to do this? Practically, who would dispute that a trade surplus is good?

Diplomacy

Today, no theory of international relations offers a compelling way forward for America. In light of the past three decades no true American can support liberal internationalism, which, clear to all, has failed. Nor can we rely on that Machiavellian realism, which merely offers a reductive conduct of diplomacy and fails to produce a positive vision of America’s place in the world. Thus, we must consider the questions of diplomacy. How far do we aim to extend American influence? What is our stance toward the other great powers? How, and when, do we cooperate with other states? Here, we answer these with three principles of right geopolitics.

1. North and South America constitute the American sphere of influence.

America’s natural sphere of influence spans the entire Western Hemisphere. Hegemony affords privileges to the hegemon; we must understand that America only benefits from Pan-American hegemony. Moreover, America needs regional stability, today’s migration crisis is a consequence of our lack thereof. How can the American people feel safe without stable neighbors? Moreover, there is the issue of prestige. All too often people disregard national prestige as a romantic concern, only important to the starry-eyed, yet can anybody deny its effect on a country’s spirit? How would it feel to live in an America without prestige, is that something we want? No, prestige is soulfelt. It cannot be neglected, and a Pan-American sphere of influence affords it.

2. No foreign power can be allowed to influence the Americas.

Foreign powers do not have America’s best interest at heart. Their aims, however much they may appear to coincide with ours, are theirs. Locking them out of the hemisphere is the single most important guarantor of Pan-American hegemony. How can foreign influence be anything other than subversive? Every political actor that emerges from foreign influence is in essence a foreign proxy and functionally acts as a beachhead for expanding foreign influence. How, without stifling foreign influence, can we maintain the unity and cohesion of our sphere of influence? And how, if foreign influence poisons popular opinion against America, can we hope to maintain our hegemony?

3. We must form a Pan-American treaty of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance.

America must bolster Pan-American cooperation, neither the Rio treaty nor the Organization of American States suffice. No, we must deepen our cooperation with the rest of the Americas for two reasons. First, if we are to maintain a Pan-American sphere of influence, that arrangement must be mutually beneficial. How can we justify anything else? And if we rely on force alone, what happens when we lack force, even for a short time? Mutually beneficial relationships encourage longer-lasting cooperation and send a better message. Second, mutually beneficial relationships are the strongest foundation for a lasting bulwark against foreign powers. In contrast history demonstrates the consequences of our exploitative relationships in Latin America, whereby Anti-American sentiment culminated in the Pink Tide.

Territory

Today, the failure of the liberal international order invites America to revisit the ideas of territorial integrity, integration, and sovereignty. We cannot let the decrepit principles of the Nuremburg charter, chiefly the naïve idea of “crimes against peace,” dictate our foreign policy. Indeed, how can we handicap ourselves based on this idea, which has so clearly outlived its usefulness, especially considering recent developments in Eastern Europe and East Asia? Therefore, a new American foreign policy must review the essential questions of territory. What is the legitimate extent of a Greater America, and what must we do to integrate new territories? And beyond this, on what basis does America recognize the sovereignty of other states? The Blue Book answers these questions with three principles of right geopolitics.

1. America must incorporate Canada and Greenland.

Cultural, practical, and strategic concerns demand that a greater American state includes Canada and Greenland. Only Canada and America share a common Anglo-American heritage, and today the significance of that shared heritage transcends every difference between the two states. Culturally it renders Canada a natural extension of a greater American state. Moreover, there is Canada’s proximity to the Arctic and its bountiful untapped resource reserves, both of which are strategically invaluable to America. It is Canada, more than any other state, whose culture affords the potential for a peaceful and popular unification. How, when time will only erode the cultural significance of this, can we let this opportunity wither and die? We cannot justify any territorial expansion until we can incorporate Canada. Likewise, Greenland holds tremendous strategic importance for America. And practically, Greenland lacks the strength to defend its own sovereignty. How can Greenland hope to defend itself without American support? Its small population, less than sixty thousand, not only leaves it vulnerable to foreign powers, but makes integration with a greater American state feasible.

2. We must Americanize any new territories by imparting right values.

Right values underpin strength and harmony. Time and time again, history demonstrates the consequences of ignoring this truth. Indeed, whether in Austria, Rome, Russia, Turkey, or any other civilization, petty nationalism and heterogeneity are endemic to the stories of decline. How can we have harmony while any part of America is, in effect, a province of outcasts? And strategically, what long-lasting use would these territories have if we do not properly integrate them? Moreover, any territory without right values invites foreign powers to divide and conquer. At the outset America can only hope to prevent these problems by imparting right values.

3. In the context of the hemisphere, American recognition of territorial integrity and political legitimacy must be conditional to economic cooperation, military cooperation, political cooperation, and conformity with American foreign policy.

The assertion that sovereignty is sacrosanct, a pillar of the liberal international order, is a fanciful lie. Self-government and independence are not inalienable. No, sovereignty is a privilege. Nowhere is this reality clearer than the Middle East, where America, whose foreign policy has been captured by Zionists, recognizes Israel but not Palestine. This alone reveals the true nature of the “inalienable right” of self-determination, that is, a feeble and immaterial virtue signal. Thus, America must be justified in recognizing sovereignty as a privilege that it decides to afford. And as such we must afford it according to national interests. Any hostile or neutral state in the hemisphere constitutes a weak point that leaves the rest of the hemisphere vulnerable to foreign influence. Is it any wonder that the Cuban missile crisis was a crisis? Just as one burner left lit can burn down an entire house, so too does a single pariah endanger the whole hemisphere.

Defense

Today, and as a direct result of the muddled principles of the liberal international order, America lacks a true idea of “defense.” Instead, it is confused by the contrast between the necessity of offensive war and its condemnation by the liberal order, whereby every war must be framed as a defensive war. Is it any wonder that our invasion of Iraq, or our antagonization of Iran, feel so awkwardly framed in the language of “defense?” And, functionally, is a “preemptive war of defense” anything other than an offensive war? Indeed, all of this has transformed “defense” into a confused, catch-all term for every military action. Thus, we must revisit the key questions of defense. In terms of hard power, soft power, and counterintelligence, how must America defend itself? The Blue Book answers the essential questions of defense with three principles of right geopolitics.

1. America must maintain a strong naval presence in the Atlantic and Pacific, a ground force presence across the hemisphere’s strategic key points, and an advanced nuclear arsenal.

We must defend America with soldiers, sailors, airmen, and nuclear weapons. Without hard power there can be no serious discussion of defense. Hard power is essential for geopolitics. How can the American people feel safe without strength? We must guard our territories in the Pacific and the Atlantic, we must defend every point in the hemisphere crucial to our strategic interests, and, above all else, we must menace transgressors with nuclear weapons. True sovereignty demands that America must be able to defend itself and deter aggression.

2. America must restrict foreign news agencies, ban foreign lobbies and advocacy groups, and restrict foreign presence to a small number of designated cities.

Today, foreign powers subvert America with impunity. China swamps social media with third parties and foreign influencers. Russia, chiefly through RT, sophistically weaponizes Third-Worldist narratives and anti-establishment sentiment. Israel, through its agents in finance, media, and politics, bends America to its will. Sovereignty demands that all of this must end. How can we protect America from total cognitive dissonance while foreign powers pull the American people in a million different directions? How, while this subversion persists, can America strengthen, much less maintain, a united truth? No path is clear without clear vision. And to those who would champion any foreign cause, or who feel called to fight any foreign struggle, rather than focusing on what these causes say, focus on what they do not say, because that is what reveals their insidious nature. It becomes obvious that these causes are specially designed to deceitfully pull on the heartstrings of the American people, because they only see the American people as useful tools. Every foreign interest paints itself as the poor defenseless victim but viciously lashes out at even the smallest amount of scrutiny. It is always about what they suffer and never about what they seek.

3. We must maintain an intelligence agency to defend America against foreign subversion.

We must not let our intelligence agencies’ present shortcomings cloud our broader judgment. History demonstrates the perennial importance of intelligence and counterintelligence. And with today’s interference by Russia, China, and Israel, we are urgently reminded of this truth. How would America wage an information war against foreign powers without an intelligence agency, how would it carry out any coordinated strategy? No, America needs a strong intelligence agency to defend itself. We must stay sharp to stay safe. No amount of hard or soft power matters if America lacks a competent intelligence apparatus.

Resources

American prosperity relies on strategic resource security. Steel needs iron, gas needs oil. This is a fundamental truth: without strategic resources, America cannot prosper, and it will not stand the test of time. Here our leaders fall short. Our current strategy is wholly unfeasible in the long term. We now rely on unstable nations and long supply chains for our strategic resources. Our supply of oil and rare metals depends on Arab despots and African warlords, that is unacceptable. And, even after this became abundantly clear, our leaders still drag their feet. We are ever-so-slowly shifting our supply chains, and at this pace that will realistically take decades. No, we must approach this urgently. Thus, through three principles of right geopolitics, we outline the right approach to strategic resources: how do we secure them, what do we do without them, who manages them?

1. America must secure steady access to strategic resources from the hemisphere by any means.

America must never compromise in securing strategic resources with reliable supply chains. The highest duty that the state has to the American people is to answer doubt with action. How can any American feel that the state carries out this duty if it cannot even commit to maintaining secure access to resources? And what message does it send when America cannot commit to securing something as essential as strategic resources? We expect the state to prevent famine and protect us, preventing resource shortages is a basic extension of this.

2. America must support the development of synthetic alternatives and substitutes for resources that it lacks.

Innovations across the past century show us that most strategic resources can be feasibly synthesized, and that at scale they become cheaper. By transcending our natural weaknesses, we send a strong message to the world and set a powerful example for the American people. We must strive to achieve self-reliance at any cost. For as long as we rely on anything else, we must obey it. The American people must rest assured knowing that no foreign interest can hurt American prosperity.

3. State corporations managed by Americans must handle strategic resource concerns.

We cannot trust private or foreign interests with the security of the state. Nowhere in history is this truth clearer than 1965 “Apollo Affair,” whereby the Zionist president of NUMEC, stole American uranium for Israel’s nuclear program. Moreover, there were no consequences for the conspirators. How is this anything other than careless? How can we claim to value and protect our resources while we tolerate this? No, we must entrust strategic resources to loyal and dependable Americans. It is abundantly clear that America, and America alone, must control its strategic resources.

History

We must turn to history to fully legitimize our geopolitics. Otherwise, a positive vision is impossible. Without history what differentiates our geopolitics, our place in the world, from other states? How can we call our geopolitics “American” without grounding them in history and tradition? How can we understand the present without understanding the past? No, understanding right geopolitics demands understanding history. Thus, we must answer three questions: what justifies our geopolitics, what does history warn us against, what roots our geopolitics in the American tradition? We answer these questions with three principles of right geopolitics.

1. History gives us the right to power and imbues us with the grace of Heaven.

Without exception, every great civilization has been afforded the right to power, that is, the right to strengthen itself. And that right defines entire generations, through Caesars, Kings, and Khans. The American civilization enjoys the most favorable position of any in history. Never has a civilization had the opportunity that we have now. Historians envy China for its natural barriers, which protected that state for thousands of years. How do they compare to ours? The Gobi and the Himalayas are nothing compared to the Atlantic and the Pacific. Historians point to Russia’s vast natural resources, which fueled its transformation into a great power. But America and the hemisphere eclipses this boon a thousand-fold. And with a population in the hundreds of millions our manpower is near-inexhaustible. Today, America has the unprecedented and magnificent power to transcend empire, and to become a world within a world, a truly new world. How can we squander this opportunity by binding ourselves to the rest of the world? How can we let this golden potential slip through our fingers? We owe it to posterity to seize these opportunities. We owe it to those our ancestors to finish what they have already sacrificed so much for.

2. History consigns us to action and warns us against resting on our laurels.

Today America reaps the benefits of pretense. We enjoy the spoils of a bygone era, and we will only be able to for a short while longer. Nothing ever lasts forever. As America’s global power declines, as our globalist empire crumbles to dust, our leaders live in the world of yesterday. History demonstrates that, in the decline of empires, periphery territories are the first to go, yet our leaders cling to the idea of relying on our positions across the world to support America. But what happens when, inevitably, we must retreat from these positions? What happens when the rug is pulled out from under our feet? We must understand that America can only prevent the impending shock by taking immediate and preemptive action.

3. History justifies our vision as the natural synthesis of the American dialectic.

We are the inheritors to the mantle of Washington. Our vision is the just and natural progression of the American idea. And to those who would weaponize Washington against us, how, in good conscience, can that be done? Washington warned against every defining element of the status quo and acknowledged the elasticity of the American experiment. In his farewell address Washington conditioned the republic on united government and national pride. Nor did Washington argue for the rigid dogma of protecting “our democracy.” No, Washington sanctioned reform by means of the constitution. Moreover, did General Washington crush the Whiskey Rebellion with gavels or guns? And did he not decry political factionalism, wanton interventionism, and foreign subversion, just as we do? And when Washington called for us to guard our national union, “watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety,” is this not the ultimate purpose, for America to stand the test of time? Nor does history’s endorsement end with Washington. Is that not clear through Manifest Destiny, that blossoming of a continental American Empire? And what of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary, which so clearly constitute our antecedents? And, finally, there is American exceptionalism, that cherished dream of the shining city on a hill. Our unapologetic, unadulterated, unrestrained conviction to that beautiful exceptionalism defines our whole vision. It is here, in the Blue Book, where that exceptionalism finds its purest, most passionate expression.