HUGH LAMBERT
There’s this idea that goes around in rightist circles occasionally that the United States should balkanize, because there’s too much cultural and racial diversity to fit in a democracy, and also that it’s obvious how American power is currently ruining the world. The idea is that if the U.S. broke up and retreated from its foreign entanglements, everything would ultimately end up better off, as the resultant nations would be more culturally homogeneous and able to focus on their internal affairs.It’s easy enough to see why someone might think that; diversity actually is incompatible with democracy, and America’s foreign policy actually is ruining the world and ourselves, and a retreat and breakup might seem to offer immediate relief from those problems. So, it’s common enough to see this idea in discussions of the problem of America’s future.
But the balkanization meme, and many other visions for America’s geopolitical future, like going back to something more akin to isolationism, miss major facts about the state of the geopolitical game-board and are thus ultimately unrealistic and dangerous.
So, let’s go over five important basic facts that must inform a smarter approach to coming up with ideas for long-term geopolitical strategy:
1. America Has A Global Empire
The days have passed from when near-isolationism was a live possibility. Relative peace and prosperity in the West are secured by U.S. nuclear and military supremacy, the U.S.-dollar based financial and international trade system, the U.S. intelligence agencies, the U.S. elite education monopoly, U.S.-controlled “liberal democratic” system, and so on. These systems are broken and destructive, but they fill a vacuum and secure an empire.
If the empire were surrendered, there would be a period of geopolitical chaos as players jockey for new positions, falling material prosperity in the West would result in civil unrest, and ultimately, China and Russia would take advantage of the chaos to fill the vacuum and become our new world overlords. It would take a long time and possibly some big wars to get back to stability, and the outcome would probably be worse than what we have now.
For analogy, consider what happened after World War II when the British Empire collapsed. The third world wasn’t liberated; it was eaten up by the international empires of Moscow and Washington. Lots of genocide, dysgenics, civil war, and mass immigration resulted.
Same thing with the collapse of the USSR. It was not a happy age of nationalism, but mostly eaten up by the EU, in addition to some nasty proxy civil wars in Yugoslavia and Chechnya. It’s less well known, but the collapse also triggered an immigration wave, and so lots of Serbs and Bosnians now live in Germany and Sweden. Russia itself was pillaged and crashed in living standards and fertility rates. This was uncontrolled, so perhaps not the best example, but an imperial retreat has never been done cleanly.
In our case, if the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East, Russia would move in and make alliances with Turkey and Iran for resources and access to warm water ports and naval bases. Saudi Arabia would fall, having no power that isn’t enabled by U.S. protection, and the Russians would end up in control of an absolutely enormous amount of oil. This would throw off the balance of power in a very severe way and result in huge economic and political consequences for America. We would be unlikely to navigate such a transition successfully.
So, the U.S. has an empire, and as broken as it is, it holds on to that empire for good reason.
2. The Global Powers Are China, Russia, And America.
There are only three serious world powers: China, Russia, and “the International Community,” i.e. America. All the other apparently sovereign powers, Israel, Iran, India, France, etc., have to play in the great powers’ sandbox, and so are dominated by them in one way or another. Only the great powers have all the ingredients of sovereignty.
America has economic, diplomatic, cultural, and military supremacy, and enough nukes to wipe everyone else off the map. Most of the world takes direction from America and goes along with America’s geopolitical agenda, even to their own detriment. But America is declining in all of those dimensions. If current trends continue, America will lose her position as global hegemon, which will involve a messy re-positioning.
Russia is in a dark spot in many ways, but is adequately self-sufficient in the important areas of intellectual culture, economy, and military. Russia has enough nukes to wipe anyone else off the map, on par with America. Mutually Assured Destruction isn’t really assured, but it’s plausible enough that all-out war with Russia is best treated as unwinnable. Russia is getting stronger over time and reasserting its own sphere of influence, as the cabal of KGB men around Putin solidify the state and rebuild from the failure of communism.
China is a bit of a wildcard. They are economically very strong and getting stronger, have enough nukes for deterrence, though not enough to win all out war, have a huge advantage in terms of sheer numbers, and are starting to throw their weight around diplomatically, but they have a lot of deep cultural and political problems that may hold them back and disqualify them from being acceptable world overlords. If the U.S. and Russia don’t get better organized together in the next few decades, China will win by default, which is not a good outcome.
Each of these three is powerful enough to be fully sovereign and play the world supremacy game. None of them are in full alliance. Various secondary powers seem to be able to achieve some level of internal or regional sovereignty, but none can act at the level of world power. The vast majority of countries are simply indirectly-run vassals of America.
3. America’s Empire Is Internally Divided
America’s empire is politically divided into the Red Empire and the Blue Empire, and America is made weak by this division and the constant struggles between them.
The Red Empire is the empire of military bases. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the “military-industrial complex”, the NSA, the FBI, the Amerikaners, and the Republican Party. The Red Empire is generally ideologically conservative, meaning that they don’t have any real ideology, they are just opposed to whatever madness the progressives have thought up.
The Blue Empire is the empire of consulates. The State Department, the “International Community,” the “Non-Government” Organizations, the CIA, the permanent bureaucratic government, the Ivy League, the mainstream media, the international elite, Wall Street, the urban liberals and non-whites, and the Democratic Party. The Blue Empire is ideologically progressive, every year thinking up new ways to overturn sane tradition to generate more power for their allies.
These sub-empires are loose alliances and for the most part haven’t been self-aware, formed on the basis of operational and ideological alignment, though elements within each have probably been self-aware for decades. They are not monolithic political parties, though the Blue Empire is closer to that, and they are trending that way over time, even recently becoming publicly self-aware.
Much of the conflict that goes on in the world can be seen as proxy wars between the Red and Blue empires. One hand doesn’t know what the other is doing, and when it does, it doesn’t like it. For example, Blue Empire covertly supports ISIS, besides its usual “moderate rebel” antics, for the group’s role in destabilizing the Middle East and keeping down anything that might be Russia-aligned or independent. Meanwhile, Red Empire opposes Islamic terrorism and occasionally slips intelligence reports to allies it knows will leak them to the Russians, so that the Russians can more effectively oppose the terrorists. The Iraq occupation had the Red Empire military operation hobbled at every step by Blue Empire lawyers and NGOs. Trump ran on a new Red Empire-friendly platform and was hence supported by it where possible, while Blue Empire institutions threw all their resources against him.
Blue Empire is fanatically opposed to Russia. Red Empire just wants peace and good relations with a mostly contained Russia. In the Cold War, when Russia represented communism and was much more internationally aggressive, the polarities were different.
This division and internal conflict, which goes quite deep and quite far back, keeps America and the West much weaker than we ought to be, and is in our estimation very closely related to the primary causes of our general social problems.
4. America’s Empire Is Built On Insane Principles
When the leader of some imperial territory or vassal acts against U.S. interests, or even just gets strong enough that they might, U.S. assets stir up “popular movements,” “moderate rebels,” and “refugee” crises, or subvert their internal operation with NGOs, diplomats, and “grassroots” activism. Or, if that isn’t working, in case we have all forgotten 2003, the U.S. military directly invades in the name of “human rights” and “democracy,” neither of which need to ever materialize for this to work. One way or another, the leader in question ends up deposed.
The occasional genocide, mass rape, persecution of Christians and actual moderate minorities, enormous expense, damage to civilization, loss of historic sites, damage to our reputation, loss of the cultural and material produce that order would bring, destabilization of regions and populations that later need to be bailed out at our own material and demographic expense, and hostile mass-migration into the lands of our own people, which are the byproducts of this indirect form of rule, are overlooked as necessary collateral damage, unfortunate random happenstance, or, when the victim is of our own white race, even celebrated.
Why does this happen? Why are we, good people most of us, caught up in an evil empire? It’s easy enough to blame traitors and Jews and the devil, but the problem goes deeper.
The root of the problem is the principles by which the empire is administered. To start with, we don’t call it an empire, we call it “the international community,” composed not of vassals, provinces, states, territories, colonies, and protectorates, but of “sovereign” “democratic” “nations.”
In other words, we don’t even have language to talk coherently about the empire, which means it’s hard to think about it; we can’t issue orders to our “sovereign” subordinates, have no widely understood imperial authority, and can’t extract straightforward imperial tax, but still have to administer an empire. So, American foreign policy grabs the next-best mechanisms available to it: rebel groups, NGOs, subversion, “human rights” and associated leverage and inconsistencies, petrodollar shenanigans, exports of easily subverted democracy, weaponized mass-migration, and so on.
The worldview attempting to govern the empire and build coherent sub-states fails, because it doesn’t dare recognize what it is actually doing, and doesn’t dare use the “enemy” methods of effective statecraft that actually work. Instead of clear rights and duties of imperial provinces, states governed by clear chains of command and authority, and open negotiation for tribute and protection, we are forced to use destructive, clandestine methods to govern our empire, which in turn create the evilness of the empire.
Obviously, the people in charge of it are the bearers and purveyors of this destructive ideology, but they are not senselessly evil; there is a twisted logic to it all that is generated from the deep structure of modern political thought. Replacing the elite would be insufficient to fix our problems without a new imperial and political ideology. Any replacement elites, though they might go in with the best of intentions, would have the same incentives and would develop the same characteristics and ideology, if the formal structure of the thing stayed the same.
If we had a different imperial ideology, it would be possible to allow the components of the empire a much greater degree of peace and leeway to do what is right, while simultaneously exerting more efficient and fine-grained control over those aspects for which it is in our interest to do so. And we would no longer have to bear the negative by-products of a destructive and evil imperial operating system.
5. Business As Usual Means We’re In Trouble
America’s imperial mode and internal divisions are unsustainable:
Both our imperial mode and our internal conflicts are hollowing us out economically, demographically, and socially. See for example: politicized mass immigration, deindustrialization, divisive anti-white, anti-Christian anti-male, and anti-traditional domestic propaganda and subversion by Blue Empire are generated by the structure of the system. These things will be the end of us unless something changes first.
We have no way to seriously oppose a belligerent China or Russia besides subversion, escalating hostility, and nuclear brinkmanship. If things were different, and we had an economically, demographically, and morally stronger empire, we would have a much stronger negotiating position, and many more options to deal with our neighbors.
Our internal conflicts lead to Putin’s famous comment, “America is no longer agreement-capable.” To be clear “not agreement capable” is a fancy technical term for “not capable of the rational deescalation needed for nuclear peace,” because what one part of our government agrees to might get ignored by another, or torn up once the other party gets in after four years.
We lack the central strength and coherence to re-industrialize the rest of our empire as economic negotiating leverage. Right now, we can’t easily threaten China with cutting off trade, because that would be a domestic disaster, as our wealth is based increasingly on imports from China. This hollowing out of our industrial core originates from a combination of internal conflict, and weak government that can’t act as a unit.
With a weak empire, we can’t impose or enforce treaties to deal with global issues like global pollution, out-of-control African population growth, dangerous transformative technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, nuclear proliferation, or any other grand problems.
If things continue as they are, we’ll be in a bad spot. Business as usual is unacceptable, but we already knew that. More importantly, any strategy for getting us out of business as usual has to take into account the above basic points of our geopolitical situation. But what does a realistic new geopolitical vision for America look like?
Our vision is a Restoration at home in America to rebuild the unity and strength of America along traditional reactionary lines. Then to formalize the American empire as a true empire, so that it may be governed efficiently and responsibly. With that in hand, use our resulting much stronger negotiating position and newfound philosophical commonality with Christian and reactionary Russia to negotiate a tight alliance. Together with our Russian brothers, negotiate an honored but subordinate position for China and all other sub-civilizations and nations, forming the unified Empire of Man before going on to conquer the stars.
But that’s out of the scope of this post. We will revisit it in the future
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario