A Crash Course In Reactionary Geopolitics

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.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Aodh Mor MacRaynall January 23, 2017 at 9:20 am

    Fine. The analysis seems to be accurate…but this “unified empire of man” sounds like just some more universalist bullshit. Let’s hear it.

    1. A tip of the hat to Jerry Pournelle’s science fiction future history, The Co-Dominion (US-USSR).

  2. Aodh Mor MacRaynall January 23, 2017 at 9:42 am

    What I am asking is, where are the premises? Lay them out first. Marx did it on the first page. I am not being combative but I hear a lot of analyses that are spot on but the syntheses are destructive.

  3. This was a very interesting read, but I feel something very key was overlooked, and that is the most common argument for internal balkanization of the United States made by Americans themselves which in fact is devoid of geopolitics: that is the ethnic makeup of the nation itself.

    There is a very serious AAQ. The Hispanic question isn’t real, but the issue of African Americans and the problems they are at present causing, and have been causing for a long time, persist. Russia of course dominates non-Russian ethnic groups through suzerainty, some far more successfully than others. However these are largely Caucusoid peoples or what might crudely be called ‘Asian snow-n****’, akin to Mongols.

    Africans it seems, at least in my own assessment of race, are not necessarily a group that can be put ‘effectively’ under suzerainty. They are volatile, and their mentality is just so alien from our own. As such, what is the solution? My own proposition has been to give them their own space as Farrakhan wishes, and let them cut loose.

    When previously I have advocated for the end of the United States, particularly its present imperial structures abroad, I have never had the assumption that White Americans would become an irrelevant principality or some such thing. In fact, I believe that such a roughly homogenous state would very quickly become a far more potent force in Latin America than it had been for its history. There’s certainly nothing to say that a new American imperium could not enter into federation with the more ‘civilized’ LatAm countries including Chile and Argentina. I also think the oil thing is somewhat overstated. America’s energy reserves are bountiful, as are those of its near-neighbors on the continent. It should not have to rely on overseas energy, as this is an unncessary strategic weakness. If only it could cut through the mindless bureaucracy of misapplied enviro regulation, these immense resources could be tapped. Along with the expansion and nurturing of agriculture, America as such could shed the diabolic ‘Atlanticist’ orientation it inherited from the United Kingdom, and become a third ‘Land Based Power’ with telluric values. The UK moved to Atlanticism as necessity once it lost a kind of spiritual or psychic connection with an Arthurian concept of kingship (and of course being an island), but the United States never needed to have this orientation. It is a huge landmass, and even if it did release some territory to its more troublesome ethnic clientele it would remain as such.

    As to Russia itself, I do think the time may be coming for some kind of solution to the Chechen problem. Chechnya proper cannot be relinquished for geographic reasons involving the mountain ranges, but the people there are festering into a broader security problem than they were under ostensibly terrorist leadership. This will need some thought.

    I would say common working relationship between Eurasia and an American continental imperium are possible most certainly. And I am as perturbed by China as you are. It is indeed a ‘wild card’ and I am particularly worried about the threat it may pose to living cultures nearby. But also I do think there is room for a fourth power, something geographically close to Africa. I doubt Iran can fulfill this function but it is possible (indeed its an argument FOR a nuclear Iran). that or some other Islamic power.

  4. If technology remains stable or advances, global government is inevitable due to the increasing number of interactions.

    USG created a global government framework. The EU copied it. It doesn’t seem wise to give it up. Many countries of the world want what we have, and want to adopt Western systems ($$$). Africa would much rather be recolonized by Western businessmen than Chinese businessmen.

    Independence movements are gaining strength because of the EU, because there is an umbrella organization that keeps them tethered to Europe. A lot of people in the world want the poz, and a lot of people want modernity without the poz. Some countries (mostly Islamic) don’t want the poz, even if it means rejecting modernity. The Blue-led Empire force feeds the poz. A Red-led Empire could work on solving or at least addressing this problem. Create exits, and police the walls.

  5. Nope, sorry, too late, not happening. The American Empire is too far gone, utterly wallowing in a mire of Poz, to consolidate as a Christian reactionary competent empire. Trump gives a short respite from the leftward spiral, but Chtulhu will keep swimming left until the academia-bureaucracy-media complex (Cathedral) is dominated by alt-righters, which is a far-fetched scenario, by far less likely than American collapse.

    1. Michael Perilloux January 23, 2017 at 1:07 pm

      Defeatism. What is your alternate plan?

      1. Honestly, the only thing you *can* do is build private social networks and wait for the inevitable. The Empire won’t be saved. Americanism itself has become too toxic and entirely unsustainable, and even de-SCALE-ing the Empire back to its proportionate size (close up shop on the NGOs, etc.) will only go so far to palliate the terminal moribundity of the system. There is no going back. Seriously – show me one single state apparatus that, once pozzed, has rejoined the fold of sanity. Even the military is altogether in the grip of transsexuals and Feminists. How on earth can you go back?

  6. Anywhere one could find a more detailed treatment of the Blue Empire’s connections to ISIS?

  7. I’d like to hear more about this “Empire of Man” concept also, as it sounds not only unworkable but highly undesirable at first glance.

  8. The Empire of Man is a cool trope, but I highly doubt both its implementation’s feasibility and even more so its efficacy in the realm of good governance. What’s needed is more Darwinian competition between sovereign states, certainly not less.

  9. You can critique american consumerism that gets exported around the globe and often gets copied by other cultures, but you forgett that these other two empires Russia and China have even less they can offer the world, they have nothing. They are even more divided internaly than the US with violent terrorist movements within their borders. In this world you eigther are an empire or you belong to the empire of someone else, and i rather take the US consumerism backed up by 10 carrier strike groups then the hollow pseudo-spirituality of Russia or the stonechild of China.

  10. You make a strong case for why it would be preferable to fix rather than demolish the empire. We all agree it is broken. The real question is how to fix it. For more on why one might not want to conduct “shock therapy”, see: http://www.socialmatter.net/2017/01/13/myth-20th-century-episode-2-collapse-soviet-union/

  11. Two main points to make here-

    1. The “Blue empire” created ISIS? You should try doing your homework some time. ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which of course had Bush and his invasion to thank for that.

    The problem in Syria is not that the US supported moderate rebels, who were once a majority of Free Syrian forces. The problem is that they dithered on supporting them and in the end provided them with far less than the Saudis and Qataris who supported groups like Al Nusra. Sticking with US support meant getting at most MREs and other non-lethal aid, whereas Al Nusra and ISIS were flush with cash and weapons.

    Next time try reading something on the Syrian war that isn’t produced in Russia.

    Speaking of which, that brings us to point #2, your ignorance about Russia.

    Russia is not getting stronger. What it has done is managed to project an image of toughness. Of course all of that costs money, and thus Putin has traded his country’s future for short term, largely propaganda-based gains.

    In short, Russia’s soon headed for 1991 v2.0.

    Empires, in case you haven’t noticed, don’t work out too well.

    1. I edited your comment to make it more polite. If you’re impolite like that again, that’s a ban.

    2. “In short, Russia’s soon headed for 1991 v2.0.”

      I too wanna see these people eating out of garbage cans again, but this time the Job should be finished and russia getting crippled in a way it can’t regenerate from. With the lose of Oil and Gas as a Status of important resources, that finaly could be a reality.

      1. “I too wanna see these people eating out of garbage cans again”

        That seems a little excessive.

        1. Its the moderate option. My first thought was more like bashing the heads of their children against the rocks. Or bad asphalt roads or whatever you have at hand.

          They need to go. We can’t breath the same air as these people.

    3. Aristokles Contra Mundum February 1, 2017 at 5:20 pm

      “Empires, in case you haven’t noticed, don’t work out too well.”

      The Roman Empire only lasted for 1700 years after all.

  12. did you ever consider that NATO might invite Russia to join? There are numerous advantages to this, for both Russia and the West.
    1 – Removes the fear of Russia invading w. europe, and NATO invading Russia. (It makes me snort when I hear all the people crying Trump is going to start WWIII, when it was Obama who sent troops right to Russia’s doorstep in Poland and the Baltics)
    2. Achieves the grand Russian obsession of being taken seriously by the West. I believe Putin sees himself as a latter-day “Peter the Great”, and he would love to go down in history as the leader of the Russian rapprochement with the West.
    3. Creates an enormous military to fight the real enemies: Islam, and Chinese expansionism. The Chinese, thanks to their 1-child policy, now have a huge cohort of young men without enough women or jobs to go around. That has historically been a precursor to war. Islam of course is trying to take over the world, but a united West/Russia could easily contain it to MENA.
    4. Frees up enormous amounts of brainpower in both the West and Russia spent on weapon design, etc. and lets it tackle problems that people want solved: cancer, energy, clean water, etc.

Comments are closed.