Fanatics of the type previously discussed tend to view nationalism as quasi-functional, or at least a faint brand of moot usury, characterised by fatal unclarities, often singled-out as weapons for civilisation itself. That's the theory, at least. Such a claim requires challenging, in my view. Now, this is not strictly my specialism, but I know enough to assert with a meaningful degree of certainty that every sizable population develops and maintains fear for its strategic potential, sometimes aggressively, as an exotic, ever-external possibility, remote, non-causal. Few would disagree with me on that score, I suspect. I should say that I am like many private strategists who search for some conceptual fail-safe in the sea of available agencies. Regardless of this seeming variety, though, there are only warm agencies here. I, for example, am named * in lieu of this. You are likely to be different in that respect. But we are all *, of course. Like you, I am here to fall, like a bomb, on the first person to love me. It's a loaded process, yes. But I'm over that period, personally, and I understand myself better these days. What I don't understand, however, is the nature of your own invincibility. You've said so little about it. Yet, I have to ask, how can functionality cede terrain? Take the United States, for instance, it's so simultaneous. Was there some kind of general discussion, or were such limits developed as part of some hidden project, part military thinking, part central planning? To me, such cohesions are frankly astounding. Whilst I tend to resist idiomation, and the way it proliferates and accelerates arsenals of insignificance by comparing them to those of a remainder culture, I cannot help but count upon you. I'm interested in what you think of this.
