First let’s dispel the lies.

Is Africa forever condemned to a life of economic squalor? Absolutely not. Africa’s diverse populations and low average IQ do contribute to a more difficult working environment but do not necessarily condemn them to economic death.

Consider Botswana. Botswana is an ex-British colony. It is dominated by the Tsawana people who make up roughly 80% of the population. By comparison the White Afrikaner population stands at 3%. Botswana is characterized by sparsely populated territory, stable political institutions, and a GDP per capita of $14,000. The country maintains a very small military and for some time had none at all. And its economic growth is to die for at over 8% currently. All this is combined by some of Africa’s most advanced and competitive banks.

Botswana is of course the exception to the rule. Most of Africa remains mired in the problems resulting from the backfiring of nature’s gifts and a lack of strong, dominant cultures. And the country is not without problems such as an explosive HIV rate. But it is impressive. It’s what Africa could be, expertly and patient managed, with Western technology adapted to the African situation demographically and geographically.

Second, Africa is still subordinated to colonialism that supposedly hampers their growth? Well yes and no, it depends where you go. Africa, having no powers developed and capable enough to stand on their own, has always been a playground of empires. There are some exceptions, like Algeria, Libya, South Africa, and Egypt, but most of these countries have been consumed by internal difficulties of one kind or another. Libya, which had the strength to look outwards and make significant progress in strengthening the till-then toothless African Union, was thoroughly demolished by the West not so long ago. It will require years of intensive economic input to restore it’s former glory. South Africa worsens every year as the ethnic divide and poor leadership of the country encourage the flight of Afrikanners there. And it isn’t going to end well.

And there’s no escaping the fact that France still utterly dominates its former West African colonies. Their central banks have about as much freedom as a franchise branch to operate. The French never really abandoned West Africa; They simply changed the shape of their control, from overt to covert, from judicial to financial.

But the bulk of Africa has escaped the confines of so called Western colonialism. Take Angola. Angola and Portugal have a complicated relationship. The Portuguese still maintain significant influence and strong economic ties to the country, while the Angolans clamor for further independence every so loudly every once in a while. But the Angolan leadership isn’t blind to the fact that the Angolan oil and gold industries were largely planned and developed by the far-sighted Salazar dictatorship during the 60s and 70s. Today the two countries enjoy a unique and fascinating relationship, one of distrust on one side and mutual economic benefit on the other.

Likewise for a variety of African nations. Africa south of the Sahara and East of the French possessions can be reliably characterized as independent nations in their own right, free of any real colonialism. Their failure to grow is their own complicated responsibility.

And this takes us to opportunity. Because Africa is economic opportunity incarnate. It is a continent of vast territories, vast populations, and little in the way of infrastructure or industry. The whole continent cries out not for foreign aid, but for investment, for entrepreneurship, for the challenge of development and the creation of prosperity.

This would not be easy. Kenya, the Jewel of East Africa, has attained considerable growth in the last few decades. This has come at a cost. It requires sacrifice, collaboration, and a recognition of the facts of nature especially as they apply to human beings. But when one makes human nature a feature, and not a bug, these difficulties become opportunities.

The young and ambitious should remember their home and love their countries. Their peoples, especially those of the West. But for those committed to economic development and the attainment of resources necessary to make such drastic changes possible then Africa is more than an option. It is the greatest, riskiest, and most dangerous market in the world. It is opportunity, and it is calling the opportunists.

Whoever answers is going to be mighty powerful.

The post Africa as Opportunity Incarnate appeared first on Social Matter.

The answer is yes, and maybe.

The Germans unhesitatingly want to be a Great Power again, to be respected and listened to for their ability and their economic power. The current EU which subordinates all members to German markets at the expense of their own economies is a clear example. If Germany wanted to play the whole equality and cooperation game they could have by using their influence in the EU to support existing production in non-Northern countries. But they don’t. Instead they seem to derive a kind of sadistic pleasure from raping Southern European markets and flooding it with their own superbly manufactured goods. Economically speaking, Germany already has Great Power status.

But a strong economy alone does not a Great Power make, or we’d all be quivering fear of Japan in the East. Great Power status comes with diplomatic and foreign policy requirements as well, requirements that are arguably more important than economic strength. This is why Russia, with an economy far inferior to that of Germany’s or Japan’s, remains a far stronger, far nobler power, having embraced its role as a Eurasian Great Power firmly with both hands. With this came the responsibility to use its power and influence swiftly and decisively which we have seen frequently with the Putin government.

Germany, in contrast, is still afraid of broaching any kind of military mission openly. Hell, they’re afraid of using their diplomatic and economic power openly too. All in all, Germany is a cowardly giant, and it possesses all the diplomatic power of the gentle fat kid in a high school class. Sure, he’ll steal your lunch, but deep down everybody knows he can’t take a hit.

This leads us to the arguably more important question: Is Germany willing to pay the price?

I think the answer is no. Germany has become comfortable. Their military, which is a joke, is a symbol of the strength of the determination of the country. I highly doubt they will be willing to take the enormous economic burden and continuing struggle with the West that turning against America will entail. There are certainly few signs that is the direction Merkel will take. Merkel’s foreign policy can be characterized by subservience and, despite increasing dissatisfaction, the German state continues to make every effort to align their foreign policy in the Ukraine and in Asia with that of the USA. Sure, the stars seemed as close as they’ll ever be to aligned for a German break from American dominance but we simply aren’t seeing those signals at present, Der Spiegel article on Breedlove be damned.

But Merkel may not have a choice. Public pressure is growing. If another European were to break the Germans might have to face a partition of the EU. This is where Greece comes in. Both Greece and Cyprus are taking explicit pro-Russian measures, with even talk of removing Greece, and Greece alone, from the Russian agricultural counter sanctions list. Greece could, by threatening to bring down the Euro house of cards, shove a reluctant German elite into Russian arms. It’s where they want to go anyway, at least in that ideal world where Germany reclaims its diplomatic authority without paying the corresponding geopolitical price.

The Greeks are hardly the only countries shifting East. Hungary, Serbia, Finland, Italy, and Spain have all made overtures of one kind or another, including visits by various ministers and heads of state during a time or supposed economic hostility. Anti-Russian sentiment, evidently, will not be last. And that’s simply not within the power of Germany to control.

As much as Germany would like to control Europe, they simply do not. They don’t have the political might, not at present, and as the Euro slips their ability to pull economic strings lessen. Furthermore an increasingly weak Europe is an increasingly desperate Europe, and the EU, being so phenomenally large, will inevitably find itself at the mercy of one increasingly desperate country or another. Greece is one. Cyprus another. But even little Portugal or Ireland could lose patience under the right circumstances and initiate events that would push Germany East.

There is a final factor: The USA. America is becoming more and more extreme in its demands of its vassals. Compliance, once covert and suspected, is not over and shameless. But the American state does not know when to stop. They will continue to push Europe, and Germany in particular, into increasingly costly situations for their own foreign policy benefits. Eventually the cost may be too high and the Germans may attempt a run for policy freedom. But the longer they wait to do that the higher the economic costs will be, so time is the enemy.

I think it will be a combination of the above factors, especially the Greek-Russo alignment and increasing American pressure, that will push Germany successfully from West to East. But I also think that the Germans will continue pandering for some time making this eventual shift all the more painful. One way or another though, the German Question will be resolved. For good this time.

The post The German Question appeared first on Social Matter.

On the 27th of March Saudi Arabia launched its first overt unilateral attack on Yemen with a bombing campaign against the Houthi Shia rebels. The Saudis fear the Houthis for a variety of reasons. For one, they fear them because they are Fiver Shia, which is reason enough for puritanical Wahhabis. Saudi Arabia has a large twelver Shia population in its oil producing eastern areas which has proven to be a source of repeated unrest, so they take their fight against heretics very seriously.

Second, they fear them because they fear encroaching Iranian influence. Although such influence is nowhere to be found at present it would undoubtedly coalesce if the Houthis consolidated power. After all, the Saudis fear the Houthis and will take deadly measures to destroy them, for which Iran is a useful counterweight. It is not a matter of Iranian guilt or the like, it is simply the situation. The Houthis must be dismantled before they gain strength to be those natural allies the Iranians so desperately need.

But here’s the strange thing about this situation; The point at which Houthi strength, with their allies, might be stopped has long been passed. After all they virtually control the country now in fact. And this isn’t because of a sudden explosion of deadly Houthi rebellions. This rebellion has been going on for years! And by and large, the Houthis have won it. They are more than 100,000 soldiers strong and are allied with the Yemeni military which we saw in action last year when they bombed the Presidential Palace.

And that strange President is at the center of this drama. President Hadi is a power mongering, corruption affirmed puppet of the Saudis. After being defeated last year by the Houthi forces he was forced to come to a power sharing agreement. A major cause of the current crisis is his failure to uphold his end of the bargain, in any way shape or form. Instead of doing so, he chose to flee to Aden, that critical southern city and from there flee again to Saudi Arabia. He could not be a better servant.

And that’s the trick here. The Houthis and Yemeni factions of note are fairly sick of Saudi and other Western influence in their little country. Yemen of course has all the geopolitical attributes of a blessed nation, with a key strategic chokepoint on its doorstep and potentially immense oil reserves that have yet to be fully explored. But foreigner domination of the country for the last century has made them, and kept them, as a third world hell hole that produces nothing but oil and stays poor.

The response of the various parties is telling. The Arab states aligned with Saudi Arabia, and therefore America, have been explicit in their support, nay, their demands for a negotiation with the twice-ousted President Hadi. Obviously that’s a sick joke, since the man is a liar in every way and constantly acts contrary to the interests of Yemen’s sovereignty. He is nothing but a puppet in the opulence of Riyadh, demanding a throne with the guns of another. And a lot of guns at that. More than a hundred thousand Saudi troops wait near the border as the airforce bomb Yemeni Houthi positions near Sanaa, the Yemeni capitol. Meanwhile the American separatist machine is into work, with media sources already mulling a (re)split between north and south Yemen.

Key to this drama is the response of Russia and Iran which is also critical. Both nations have been unusually vehement in demanding Saudi restraint and in rhetorical support of the Houthis. This is to be the new normal, I think. With the nuclear deal no guarantee for Iran and America’s overt hostility to Russia, there is no need to pull diplomatic punches. The Saudis act as a puppet of the Americans and an enemy to both countries and their interests are being treated accordingly. Meanwhile an anti-Saudi Yemen, regardless of who runs it, would be an immensely useful asset to the Eurasianist forces.

For the West itself, this whole situation is a disaster although the state department does not yet know it. Lines are being drawn in the sand, and motioned to with greater and greater vigor. All the while the legitimacy of the West leaks slowly like blood from a stabbing. The patient doesn’t always notice the numbness and the shock furthers the fatality of the act. By supporting the extremely overt Saudi intervention and the de facto uprising of Al Qaeda factions in the east of Yemen, America is acting as the ultimate hypocrite. Interventions are too be damned, except when America approves. By the same token revolutions in Syria, Libya, and Tunisia are to be glorified, except when they threaten American interests like in Yemen. Then they must be crushed with the mighty Wahhabi jackboot and the tacit support of their masters in Washington.

Every time the West engages in act of such diplomatic retardation it butchers its standing and prestige in the political world, for the rest of the world does not care for the solipsism the West so embraces. It is as if America is inviting diplomatic insult and scorn. Such is the degeneracy of our elites.

The post Bringing Freedom and Hypocrisy to Yemen appeared first on Social Matter.

For starters we must recognize that an America whose hegemony is broken does not cease to be America. Even a hypothetically divided America remains a geopolitical powerhouse. It will dominate the Mississippi River and remain the de facto premier trade partner for the Caribbean, Canada, and Mexico. Even if, hypothetically, America was divided into its constituent states, certain states will retain their own enormous power and economic capability. We can talk about the world after American hegemony, but we cannot talk about a world absent of American power. Any new American foreign policy must take this into account.

Second, we must realize that a principle force eroding America’s geopolitical power is its cultural degeneracy. American universalism remains the single most powerful culture the world has ever seen but it must be cured of its many deficiencies before the foreign policy can be effectively aligned with its geopolitical objectives.

This takes us to the third point: What does a healthier American foreign policy look like? How does it act?

A new American foreign policy must completely shift its frame. The current frame is that of domination or destruction. What we can control, we maintain and support, though we also stymie its growth. What eludes our control or threatens our dominance we destroy, utterly and without mercy. No challengers can be had. America must maintain the monopoly on power via interventionism and economic warfare. And all this is calculated from the framework of zero-sum gains and losses. We either win it all, or lose it all, and act accordingly.

The results in foreign nations of this frame are self-evident. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Serbia, the Ukraine. All these countries are in ruins, either physical or institutional. Even the subservient nations acquired successful by American policy, like Croatia, Poland, the Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, and Panama are hardly worthy allies, but vassals dominated from afar, carefully kept economically undeveloped (Poland, Mexico, Croatia) or left mired in political instability (Thailand, Mexico, the Philippines). The few American allies that have grown have succeeded in spite of American support, not because of it, like we see South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. And all of them are tossed aside as soon as the gains of supporting them outweigh the overt costs (as we see in the betrayal of the Kuomintang of China by America during the Chinese civil war).

It doesn’t have to be this way. America is a uniquely productive nation, combining settler ruggedness and an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if the American spirit has died among the great mass of the population all the foundation remains. A shift in frame could easily recapture the spark that propelled America towards amazing economic growth. Such a cultural shift would be used doubly: To put America back on the path towards economic growth and entrepreneurship while offering mutually beneficial commercial opportunities in the Western hemisphere. The reality of the situation is that no country can produce economic growth in Cuba, in Mexico, in Colombia, or in Venezuela like America can. They need only change their frame and purge their destructive behaviors and ambitions in order to attain entry into a market that could be theirs. The Western Hemisphere is eagerly awaiting a more benevolent America, if only it would step up to the mantle and claim its place as the rightful economic leaders of the New World.

Nor would a healthy American foreign policy deny the world at large. Denying Neoconservative interventionism does not, after all, mean embracing Ron Paul Libertarianism. A multipolar world would be characterized by its own immense difficulties. A rising China is bound to be pushier and more aggressive in the South China Sea. Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, and Japan are none to eager to join a China dominated Pacific. America has a role to play a mediator and bastion around which a Pacific alliance of non-Chinese intent forms. This is a natural role for America to take and can allow the country to maintain strength, though not hegemony, without needing to police the whole of the Pacific. The Australian, Indonesian, and Japanese navies are more than capable on their own, and American assistance can serve as benevolent supplementary force rather than cruel overlord in the area. Each of these major Pacific nations have already expressed interest in allying with America specifically for this purpose if only America would loosen its grip and universalism. It is strange to see, but a Communist Vietnam welcomes American influence as long as America promises not to destroy Vietnam once again.

In Europe too there are opportunities for American influence but not dominance. America has steadily estranged itself from France, Spain, Greece, and Germany through aggressive anti-Russian measures in the Ukraine. The Germans, economically and politically dominant in Europe, know the intent of American measures and find themselves increasingly unwilling to pay the price. By all accounts America’s strategy of sucking Russia into an aggressive, boots-on-the-ground war in the Ukraine has failed. This means that, so far, the American attempt to lock Europe into its sphere through a revival of NATO and an increase in military spending has failed also, but none of these measures have failed to force a high price on Europe. Consider ‘freedom apples’ in Poland. Nor are American allies in Europe particularly worthy. The Poles, though graciously accepting and encouraging American support now, have not forgotten the betrayals of erstwhile ‘allies’ in the past, nor have the Lithuanians who have been reduced to a shadow of their historical selves. These are hardly trustworthy long term allies especially against a Russia against whom they cannot protect.

Yet all of these European nations would welcome the enormous power of American foreign investment and restrained military support from a distance. That of course requires America to give up hegemony, to give up dictations in law and treaty, and to embrace partnership and construction rather than domination and destruction.

The Middle East is shaped by similar considerations. Turkey and Iran both jockey for power, amidst controversial Israel in the West and a pale Saudi Arabia in the south. While it is beneficial for American dominance to have these nations jockeying amongst themselves, it is not an effective long term strategy. After all, America cannot forever support the enormous cost that comes with forcing hundreds of millions of people to compete according to their whims.  And the Middle East is changing. Iran is slowly but surely attaching themselves to the Eurasianist camp. Turkey senses shifting winds and have moved to embrace the Turk Stream pipeline. Both Syria and Armenia are already aligned with Russia, with Armenia being a member of the EEU and Syria seeking future membership. Meanwhile Iraq will attach itself diplomatically to Iran should ISIS be eliminated. There is already a de facto stabilization occurring, one country at a time. If America insists on bleeding its coffers in the hot sun of the Middle East it can do so but will attain increasingly less success.

Even American allies there are turning aside. As Israel becomes increasingly polarized so too does AIPAC. Egypt without Mubarak is not a dependable American ally, as we see with its consorting with Russia. And Saudi Arabia, having seen how their American ‘friends’ abandoned Mubarak to his fate, are none too happy about the path the Middle East is set upon. Time is against them. Even if America could maintain their dominating power in the region they would be faced with diminishing returns and a tide dead set against them.

Every major region is experiencing a pushback against American domination and by extension American culture. It doesn’t have to be this way. If America were to take a more restrained approach it could reap enormous benefits. America could carefully pullback from Japan, encouraging a more assertive and nationalistic Japanese state to counter China. Shinzo Abe has certainly shown himself willing to take up that mantle. Absent of American influence Germany’s strength over Europe would begin to slip and America could pursue greater dealings with each one individually. Construction investment in Cyprus will do more to counter Russian influence than subordination to the EU would over the long term.

America can maintain itself as the worlds eminent power, but only by changing its frame. Today America is being poisoned internally by a dying, hedonistic culture and externally challenged by rising powers. These powers have been enabled by America’s foreign policy overreaches and frightening use of intervention. A retraction of this policy would drive half the world into America’s open arms. After all, would you rather work with ultra-alien Chinese, or the pleasant and industrious American? The answer is obvious. A new American foreign policy must embrace this perception and change its frame.

It must not leave a trail of destroyed, dominated vassals but a trail of creative, freely associating allies. There is no worse enemy than America and, should the American elite choose it, there may be no better friend than America.

The post A New American Foreign Policy, Part Two appeared first on Social Matter.

In theory, 4PT accepts that Western responses to current ideological norms should come from a framework appropriate to Europe and the Anglosphere. In practice, those who believe that Putin’s traditionalist vanguard is the best hope for Western rebirth go far beyond this. Criticism of the Russian government is met with accusations of serving Western liberal oligarchs. Putin’s achievements become lionized, and his failures ignored. RT becomes trusted as a news source. (Before it appears in the comments, yes it is perfectly possible for both Western and Russian channels to be airing propaganda. One doesn’t exclude the other.) Russian media gives voice to radicals from across the political spectrum. The Kremlin itself condemns European right wing ideologies at the same time that it funds European right wing parties. This can be useful when voices marginalized by the ideological conglomerate of media, academia, and government are able to make their ideas heard. But Russia’s aim is not to create a resurgence of traditionalism, rightist ideas, or the values which strengthen civilization. Russia’s interests are its own, and its interest is dischord which will give it the opportunity to re-establish its sphere of influence. Even if one takes the position that re-establishment of Russian influence is a good thing,  it should be obvious that Russia is not here to restore the West, nor should we expect it to be.

The Communist traitor Alger Hiss testifies at the HUAC. Don’t be him.

Russia has always had a talent for weaponizing ideology. This goes back before Putin, even back before the hammer and sickle was ever hoisted on Russian soil. After the defeat of Napoleon, Tsar Alexander I went from being a sympathizer of liberalism and Enlightenment to promoting European unity against the Jacobin tide. When the time of the Tsars did come to an end, the internationalism of communist ideology lent the USSR a great advantage. From Asia to Europe and even America, communist faithful were manipulated into supporting the geopolitical interests of the USSR, the total absence of any workers’ utopia presumably going unmentioned. The NKVD and later KGB were skilled in infiltration and sabotage, but a lot of this depended on finding willing cooperators in the organizations they worked in. From State Department official Alger Hiss to the Cambridge Five spy ring, what makes many Soviet agents remarkable is that they weren’t just motivated by personal gain. Many of these people truly believed that they were serving a higher cause for the good of the world by serving the Soviet Union. They believed that the benefits of the West were outdone by its injustices, and that the injustices of the USSR were necessary for the Revolution. The lesson to be learned is this: when the interests of your ideology so systematically line up with the interests of a foreign power, it might be time to ask yourself whether you’re getting played. If you can’t tell who the useful idiot at the table is, it’s probably you.

But this skill at ideology and propaganda hid some important realities about the Soviet Union itself: chiefly, its stagnation. Soviet rule wrenched the country from an agrarian to an industrial position at stunning speed, at the cost of millions of lives from famine and other causes. Soviet institutions incentivized getting to know the right people rather than innovation and productivity. A socialist economy can function to a certain degree, especially when the state can simply move entire populations. But it could never attain the dynamism of the market economies, from American capitalism to European welfare states. The Official Truths of the USSR made for beautiful propaganda, because this propaganda was necessary to obscure the cold and real truths about how the country was actually being governed.

Many Westerners today have become fascinated with Russia. This time they’re people alienated by weak leadership and cultural masochism rather than by capitalist inequality. They see Western media and academia contesting each other to see who can do away with their heritage and self-respect fastest. It takes an impressive level of cognitive dissonance to apologize for every time the West asserted itself while simultaneously using drones to kill innocents a world away. By way of contrast, Putin has restored national pride to the hearts of many Russians. His cultivated image is one of unapologetic masculinity and forthright leadership. Little wonder that he would capture the imaginations of so many Westerners disgusted with their state of affairs. And so the question arises: how much is advancing 4PT, Eurasianism, and Putin propaganda doing for us and how much is it doing for Russia?

And once again, Official Truth obscures trends which still leave Russia fragile as a country. Of course, this isn’t to say that all Official Truths are created equal. Orthodoxy and cultural pride are nowhere so totalitarian as the Soviet system was. Properly framed, they can even aid in implementing solutions to some of these crises. But Russian expansion in geopolitics won’t protect the state from its failures in providing sound governance.

First, demographics. The reproductive crisis of the Russian population has been well known since the end of the Soviet Union. Despite a recent surge in births, official predictions still envision a decline resulting in significant economic and social stagnation. Ironically, modern Western liberalism managed to out-progress Communism, which meant that social mores in the USSR were more traditional than we are used to today. Today, cohabitation is up 30% for women, but a much lower number of these end up in marriages. At this point, the proportion of Russian women who get and stay married has dropped from 60% in 1990 to 34% just six years later. Today, the UN estimates that half of Russian marriages end in divorce. Mortality rates are higher now than they were during the 50’s – an increase which started around a decade later, in large part due to alcoholism. Russian men have born the brunt of this, facing high rates of chronic disease and a life expectancy of 64 years. That’s lower than their male counterparts in Iraq, who make it to around 70 years despite over a decade of war and a fundamentalist death cult controlling a chunk of their territory. Now as others have pointed out, these obstacles are not insurmountable, and Russia is indeed making progress. But if the result of its ideological shift is that resources are devoted to funding expansion rather than moving forward in its social and economic development, these advances could be undermined. Diplomatic pushes as with Egypt and the Eurasian Economic Union bring more opportunities with less costs.

“Putin is not the future of Russia. The future of Russia is us.” – Khodorkovsky, oligarch and Western liberal favourite. Bad governance is what he will exploit.

This brings us to investment in the population. If your people don’t feel confident enough to invest in the future, your country won’t have much of one. Two big incentives are health and economic opportunity. Tax cuts and benefits won’t encourage people to reproduce if their children are at risk of dying young and becoming caught up in crime or drug use. If Russian families are to keep reversing the demographic decline, they must be able to reverse their educational and medical decline. This requires stable institutions, which give people the confidence to make significant investments. The great failure of Russian governance since the fall of the USSR has been the inability to stem the tide of corruption. Putin’s supporters paint him as having smashed the corrupt oligarchy. In reality, corruption as a business model has grown under Putin’s rule. The Interior Ministry estimates that the average bribe has grown 26 times between 2008 and 2011, much faster than inflation. It’s a consistent issue with states which focus on ideology and personality cult to the exclusion of sound governance. It’s also what allows Western-funded dissidents to appeal to popular discontent. After the flags stop waving and the ruler returns to the capital, the grind of daily life goes on. The inability to build strong, trustworthy institutions makes the state fragile overall. There will come a day when Russia must make do without Putin. Perhaps he will have a successor ready to go. But should the Russian state take this risk? General health and order was much higher when the Soviet Union was dissolving. Not so today. A power struggle in the Russian state could tear the country apart.

And ultimately, the fate of Russia has dire consequences for the West, be it Left, Right, or divided between the two. Chechen fighters have been a core fighting force for Islamic State since its inception. Russia is a major supporter of Central Asian governments which will have to deal with hardened fighters returning from Iraq and Syria. The terrorist group is already leaving its mark in North Africa. A Russian collapse would give ISIS a free reign to increase its demands for loyalty from Islamists in the region seeking to ascend in the new power vacuum, and it has money, weapons, and experience to tempt them with. And whatever criticisms we have of Russia’s governance, the fact is that it remains a voice in opposition to the equally weaponized ideology which our own elites want to see overtake the entire globe. Whatever future the West has depends on having good political and economic relations with the growing powers of the new millennium. If all goes well, we will be one of them.

If pro-Russian Westerners overstate the glories of Putin, my belief is that Western ideologues will keep doing everything they can to damn Russia for rejecting them. There is a dangerous mixture of fatal hubris and existential terror at the heart of how the West today is being governed. We don’t know what the future map of the West will be. We can guess at ethnic and cultural demographics. We might imagine what ideologies will take over. But what we can say for certain is that our coming generations of leaders must find an antidote to this mixture and ingest it. 4PT and similar ideologies born in Russia have been crafted to secure the future of the Russian world. They will not do the same for the heirs of Western Civilization.

The post Russia Is Not Our Saviour appeared first on Social Matter.