[Thread time]
The biggest whitepill I know is the ontological antagonism between the internal strategic logics of Capital and Geopolitics. Units of Capitalist power accumulation are parasitically abstracted from Statist geometry, the State either re-spatializes Capital or dies.

Generating institutional power requires an internal competitive dynamic that strategically incentivizes elite-coalition construction; such as the logistical demands of competing for territorial sovereignty. This is why civic orders were co-extensive with taxing agriculturalists.

Peasants produce, Warriors secure, Priests mediate the relation between production and security with a religion. Great, however if you want to conquer territories which lack this religion, you need an alternative means of "mediating" this relation, and thus money was born.

The original money was essentially a token which signified a debt owed to you by an imperial temple. They made good on these debts so they could pay their soldiers to work abroad in territories where commerce with foreigners who didn't share their religion was necessary.

In most cases, these foreign peasants wouldn't travel all the way back to the temple to reimburse these debt tokens, which is why a class of merchants emerged which themselves would mediate this relationship between far away peasants and the imperial temples.

Markets emerged as a logistical necessity for imperial management; to expand beyond the geometrical limitations of what a state religion can mediate, state power must be abstracted into debt-tokens. Financialization then is a usurpationary leveraging of imperial logistics.

Liberalism signifies the victory of financial debt-leveragers over imperial debtors. The State's role under liberalism is to serve Capital, to manage the centralized financialization of as much of the global economy as possible, even if this self-sabotages geostrategically.

This is why the State isnt allowed to control propaganda under liberalism, only Capital is and so only political movements owned by Capital are permitted. When political movements which threaten the process of centralized financialization emerge, Capital's propagandists attack.

Of course, setting up this global market to financialize still requires an Imperial State, and for this State to function it requires a security apparatus capable of geopolitical dominance. So Capital is playing a dangerous game, it is existentially reliant upon its main rival.

In the context of the Cold War, Capital's subversive propagandists over at the Council on Foreign Relations were able to sell a more convincing narrative as to American hegemony being served by a mutually self-interested collaboration between the US and globalist Capital..

..But this bullshit is getting harder and harder to sell, especially whilst it looks like the American Empire is undergoing a controlled demolition which partially transfers its hegemony to its main Imperial rival. I made a thread going into this: https://twitter.com/Dick71224996/status/1334684189933916164?s=19

So you have the geometric manifold of State sovereignty and the parasitical leveraging of its logistics by financial abstraction. How is this resolved? Military intelligence deciding to challenge Capital's propaganda hegemony and prevent total geopolitical liquidation.

Unlike Capitalist elites and their technocrat servants, Military elites cannot deterritorialize their power. They have power only by logistically organizing territories, once challenging financial parasitism crosses a risk/reward threshold, conflict is inevitable.

If you describe an extended object in terms of abstract geometrical relations, those relations can only describe the object but can never substitute for it. Capital can never replace the State, it is a mere parasite, a disease. The job of Nationalists is to audition as the cure.