(or, Finding Prosperity Beyond Peace and Morality)

9,961 words.

The zenith of the nation-state paradigm realized during the 20th century presently grapples with disorientation characterized by the ascendance of information dissemination concomitant and technological advancement. The nation state, which many political ideologues still view as the highest form of sovereignty on the global stage, struggles within the spiderweb of international networks, where multipolarity itself seeks to be the spider uniting unsovereign entities. Paradoxically, the revolutionary landscape remains tethered to a 20th-century paradigm, thus necessitating an intellectual recalibration commensurate with the transformative dynamics that have propelled the world beyond the conventional contours of nation-state frameworks.

The nation-state, fortified by the ascendancy of its adept managerial stratum and emboldened by the transformative impetus of the industrial revolution, indisputably retains a consequential role within the intricate calculus of global power dynamics. However, it is essential to look beyond what is familiar with the knowledge that what rings nostalgic rings weakly.

The Inevitable Miracle of Complex Collapse

Historically, the interrelationship between economics and politics manifested symbiotically, rendering the dichotomy between these domains an alien concept within the traditional mind. Over the last century, there emerged a prevailing orientation that perceived cold economics not merely as a single component but, more assertively, as the preeminent and overarching determinant dictating the course of global affairs.

According to Marko Papic in his book “Geopolitical Alpha,” we are witnessing a change of season as the empowered world of mathematical financial models is failing to predict our lived reality. Papic introduces the nomenclature “Newtonian Investors” to characterize those ensconced in the realm of investment guided by a fervent adherence to engineering and mathematical paradigms, wherein economic phenomena are exclusively scrutinized through computer models^​1​. In the nascent decades of the 21st century, a palpable metamorphosis unfolded, marked by the denouement of American hegemony—a hitherto stabilizing force that provided a veneer of predictability for financial theorists throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Nobody needed to care about the rest of the world because there was a clear center of gravity in global trade; the apex of globalization and, notably, the denouement of laissez-faire economics in its entirety. The reign of Neoconservative economics so embodied by Margaret Thatcher and the Bush family is now viewed conspicuously, ushering forth an era marked by a profound reevaluation of economic consensus – what was known as the Washington Consensus giving way to the Buenos Aries Consensus.

Nationalized industries, increased government spending, and hostility towards free trade are now familiar hallmarks of the Right, and Libertarianism survives only in the havoc-stricken zones of technocrats. This nuanced metamorphosis portends a whiplash course correction, and a radical pendulum swing within the American political landscape, eclipsing even the vicissitudes witnessed in Europe. Free markets are closing, and new power balances must be identified. This requires that the dizzying dynamism of international power politics once again be introduced to financial analysis. Extrapolating potential trajectories through meticulous trend analysis untangles multifaceted dynamics poised to unfold during this realignment.

“Preferences are optional and subject to constraints, whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences.” – Marko Papić, Geopolitical Alpha: An Investment Framework for Predicting the Future

Constraints have higher diagnosticity than preferences in judging the likelihood of geopolitical events, or the actions of global leaders. The deliberate emphasis on constraints serves as a catalyst for emancipating oneself from the conceptual straitjacket engendered by the realm of Platonic forms perpetuated through ideological ruminations. This deliberate shift redirects our analytical gaze towards the nuanced terrain of geopolitics, where the collision between idealistic constructs and pragmatic exigencies manifests itself with crystalline clarity.

The system Papic uses to gauge political capital which to deduce the likelihood of a political action occurring is: the popularity quotient of the policymaker, the temporal dimension of their tenure in office, the legislative calculus entailing the number and influence of allies within the corridors of power, and a meticulous evaluation of the prevailing economic milieu characterized by nuances such as crises or recessions. Moreover, the discerning eye is directed toward the dynamic landscape of special interest group affiliations shaping the political capital exchange.

Constraints, wielding formidable influence over the crucible of practical decision-making, harbor the potential to orchestrate the complete upheaval of intricate civilizations when left unbridled. In his book “1177: The Year Civilization Collapsed,” Eric Cline sketches out the latest theory of what caused the great Bronze Age Collapse. In stark contradistinction to simplistic monolithic explanations attributing the downfall of the Egyptian empire to a singular trigger, Cline discerns a web of interconnected crises precipitated by perennial pressures spanning both environmental and geopolitical realms. Even systems as epic as the Egyptian empire collapse when they fail to comprehend the larger system they are a part of.

In the Bronze Age we see the dawn of a golden age of internationalism with Egypt at the center of a vast trade network, more intricate than many historians assumed during its peak of interest in popular culture. Due to recovered clay tablets we can more comprehensively understand the matrix of interdependency that wouldn’t feel unfamiliar to modern states. An exemplar in this historical tableau is Ugarit, an illustrious port city whose archaeological excavation yielded a trove of evidentiary artifacts documenting extensive shipping and communication channels ^​2​.

“There probably was not a single driving force or trigger, but rather a number of different stressors, each of which forced the people to react in different ways to accommodate the changing situation(s). Complexity theory, especially in terms of visualizing a nonlinear progression and a series of stressors rather than a single driver, is therefore advantageous both in explaining the collapse at the end of the Late Bronze Age and in providing a way forward for continuing to study this catastrophe.” –  Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed

Historical records also document the relatively rapid annihilation of cities extending to the distant realms of Babylon and Mesopotamia. Discerning the causative factors behind the ruins entailed a meticulous sediment analysis, a forensic endeavor uncovering layers upon layers of ruins that allowed us to distinguish between climatic vagaries and the ravages of war. Archaeologists know distinctly when a city’s destruction was due to invasions, but there is additional evidence of frequent famines due to developing agricultural aptitude and general misallocation of resources common to any bureaucracy. Troy and Mycenae were both destroyed by earthquakes, but right after they rebuilt they were attacked, most likely by what were known at the time as “Sea Peoples.” Rather than being the prime progenitors of Mediterranean destabilization, these marauding entities emerge as potential refugees and settlers, fleeing the shadows driven by their own distant calamities—a narrative that eschews the conventional tendency to cast them as the principal architects of the region’s upheaval.

The collapse of this nascent global system during antiquity can be ascribed to the intricacies of the first genuine international network characterized by pronounced decentralization. This systemic breakdown is emblematic of a quandary identified as “Super-Coherence,” whereby the mutual interdependence of each constituent part escalates to a interconnectedness fraught with tension.  A modern example would be the long and complex manufacturing pathway of the superconductor, spanning the entire globe. Tangentially related would be what’s known as “LEAN Manufacturing,” where the production chain is designed to reduce waste down to the microscopic managerial level so that there are zero redundancies or wait times, meaning that any failure in the production line results in total paralysis. These intricate networks emerge as focal points susceptible to the gravitational pull of entropic constraints. Although the subversion of a complex system often necessitates the convergence of multiple catastrophic events, the propensity for such occurrences is maximized within a multipolar configuration that seeks to maintain complex interconnected functions. Bereft of a discernible global hegemon capable of mitigating power imbalances, the concatenation of miracles coalesces to inevitable systemic collapse in historical time.

Historical time is not only about recording dates and events but also involves interpreting the causes and consequences of historical changes, providing a linkage for understanding how societies evolve, how cultures develop, and how human actions shape the course of history. It is the temporal dimension in which various historical phenomena unfold, where each period boasts a panoply of unique constraints that contribute to the intricate fabric of historical reality. It is only in historical review when these constraints become obvious and the literature of the intelligentsia allows us to narrow the field of vision for practical purposes.

Whatever collapse scenario we may one day face, we will not apprehend the totality of during approach. When it gets bad, our purview demands it be weird.

Our ability to predict the future is limited to a tight time horizon, and it requires us thinking laterally about the multitudinous variables impacting every political shift and how it relates to the whole. Paramount among these considerations is the velocity at which these constraints may manifest, particularly in the context of decentralized power structures, where stakeholders advance their agendas guided more by subjective inclinations than cartesian foresight. The question now is, how fast can collapses occur now that power is decentralized, and actors are placing bets with agendas rather than schematics?

The Plate of Cynycicm Balancing Bicameral Power

The trajectory of global dynamics is regressing into the reinvigoration of historical rivalries, with entities aligning themselves predominantly along ancestral geographic demarcations. Samuel Huntington directs us toward the scale of cultural and civilizational identities, which have emerged as the pivotal loci of conflicts in the unfolding narrative of the 21st century. This diverges markedly from erstwhile focal points such as class, ideology, or eventually even national identity.  In this view, a civilization encapsulates the apotheosis of cultural identity at its broadest spectrum, aligning with the dictum of Spengler, who posits that civilization constitutes the ultimate destiny of a culture—a culmination that signifies the acme of both stability and complexity that human societies aspire to attain. Civilizations can thus be understood as largest “we” within which we can feel culturally at home.

The magnitude of a civilization need not conform to an expansive imperium; the nature of civilizations land upon a spectrum ranging from the expansive scale exemplified by China to the more diminutive scope epitomized by the Anglophone Caribbean ^​3​. In the annals of prehistory, civilizations occupied a markedly reduced scale, demarcated and isolated by geographic constraints that ruggedly contained their interactions. In prehistory, civilizations were much smaller and separated by geography with limited interaction, but this changed not only through literacy and technology but awareness of hypothetical aggressors unifying and presenting a threat to sovereignty. Concurrently, the incursions emanating from an Islamic Middle East unfurl as an autonomous, albeit intermittently cohesive, entity. While religion is the great unifier that has withstood entropic forces the most efficiently across centuries of conflict and catastrophe, it is not immune to subversion over time and, most importantly, the Modern West has never generated its own religion, just ideologies. When we speak of East vs. West, we are really talking about a manifestation of tradition and religion that is far and away from the Western intellectual orientation which cuts across all classes, fandoms, and faiths.

It becomes apparent that individuals, animated by divergent ideologies, can find a confluence of interests upon the international stage, wherein shared cultural elements serve as an unassuming unifier during times of strife. Intra-religious conflicts appear to abate when confronted by the looming presence of a truer Other, and our awareness of the Other only seems to increase in definition the more information is granted to us. At present we see the Western man attempting to cobble together whatever profound relics and ideologies shattered by critique he can to withstand the onslaught of cultural invasion. While the relationships between Britain’s former colonies has been fraught with apathy or hostility (as evidenced with Canada and America,) does it make sense to find a shared identity in Anglo Internationalism? And while Ukrainian Nationalism fights a bloody war for independence, do the Slavic peoples have a collective identity to pursue? And does that identity make sense under the European umbrella, especially if America withdraws its security interests and dissolves NATO?

“People define themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions. They identify with cultural groups: tribes, ethnic groups, religious communities, nations, and, at the broadest level, civilizations. People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.”– Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order

Post-1500, a discernible trajectory emerges with the expansion of the Western sphere and the burgeoning internationalism emanating from Europe. This expansion was frequently propelled by the conviction that the Enlightenment, akin to a homogenizing contagion, could be disseminated globally, facilitated by technological advancements, educational initiatives, and the adoption of novel political constructs. This intellectual revolution reached logical conclusion with Secular Humanists, who predicted that rational individualism would sweep the globe in the 20^th century and annihilate the ancien regime of national and ethnic identities. Rather than withering away, established identities have undergone a process of fortification, exhibiting a nuanced coexistence with a burgeoning array of novel identities orbiting in their periphery.

What we witness currently is the inversion of this; the East is undergoing a process of indigenization through the adoption of Western tactics but not Western attitudes. The assimilation of technology, educational methodologies, manufacturing, and political structures is more often orchestrated with the primary objective of amplifying the indigenous religious, ideological, and historical frameworks of the host countries. Moreover, a conspicuous phenomenon unfolds: the indigenization of the Enlightenment Virus itself, as these instrumentalities are wielded against the progenitors, divested of their inherent ethnic character for deployment on foreign shores. A common refrain on the political Right is that the Enlightenment was a distinctly European mind revolution and is not merely an operating system that can be uploaded to blank hard drives, or that this epoch was restricted from these cultures through some glitch in an otherwise benevolent nature. The conceptualization of the Decline of the West, as described by Hedley Bull circa 1900, attributes this decline to the effacement of the European character from the Western internationalist trajectory.

The fallacious endorsement of a Universal Civilization, colloquially denoted as Davos Culture, whose impact resonates predominantly within the echelons of the global elite constituting 1% of the global populous, serves as a salient point of consideration. As discussed in a pervious article, globalized trade does not, in fact, directly engage the entire globe but rather those international powers – members of the G8 – who merely employ (or exploit) asset nations in their trade network. In the imminent multipolar paradigm, there has been cooperation of the Sinic and Islamic civilizations against the West, specifically in Human Rights and Weapons Proliferation. The current geopolitical landscape is rife with strategic deliberations, as nations situated in burgeoning realms grapple with the consequential decision of aligning themselves either within the established Western order or affiliating with the nascent and yet amorphously conceptualized Multipolar World Order, envisioned to accommodate regional hegemons such as Russia, China, India, and Iran as regional hegemons.

Many people intrinsically believe that a multipolar power distribution is the true natural order contrasted against the common bipolar order (exemplified with America aligned against the Soviet Union and all the affiliated social revolutions and proxy wars.) Even in our regional politics, critics of the conventional Left/Right axis contend that its purportedly reductive nature necessitates a more expansive dispersion of political parties, postulating that such a configuration would not only be ideal but also inherently organic This inclination finds its roots in a Liberal-Capitalist paradigm, which advances the notion that maximal competition yields the most efficacious outcomes, with binary conflicts being emblematic of monopolies of power—an ostensible byproduct of a system in decline.

In reality, a scrutiny of parliamentary politics, such as that observed in Canada, reveals an array of political parties that, despite their apparent divergence, tend to coalesce along a discernible Left/Right axis, forming coalitions within the confines of this established framework that merely adds extra steps to what is a clear and inexorable reality of state politics. What if the duality is the natural expression of power, and a simple dialectic emerges the more we introduce technology, education, and sovereignty? 

The historical exemplars of bipolar power equilibrium, typified by the Cold War standoff between the Soviet Union and America or the early governance of Rome with its dual kings, may, in fact, offer an optimal paradigm for cultivating a competitive balance of power conducive to the attainment of a semblance of peace.

It is similar to the three-body problem, which holds that while the calculations predicting gravitational interactions between two celestial bodies can be solved exactly, the addition of a third body makes the system much more complex and chaotic. In this scenario, each body exerts gravitational influence on the other two, creating a dynamic and complex system. Unlike the simpler two-body problem, where the gravitational interaction between two bodies can be precisely calculated and solved, the addition of a third body introduces mathematical complexities that make analytical solutions elusive. This means a long-term system collapse is likely, but nigh impossible to accurately forecast. If we achieve a level of civilizational self-awareness sufficient to desire something like global peace and a prosperous stasis, it means our leaders and primary stakeholders may subconsciously seek out a bi-polar distribution of power.

Hans Morgenthau, an eminent figure within the neorealist school of international politics established the primacy of prudence as the driving force in international politics, positing that the paramount concern of a state or statesman lies in the preservation of national survival. Within this Machiavellian outlook codified in the state, the application of a universal morality across diverse groups is deemed untenable.  While it is certainly a component of any decision making process, morality assumes a subservient role to the imperatives of group existence, and groups are vested with the discretion to manipulate moral and ideological constructs in pursuit of this sole objective when required ^​4​. This was commonly understood even in Medieval philosophy. It is worth noting that it’s no coincidence that all of the political ideologies that have driven the course of history, for better or worse, have economics and resource distribution as their foundation.

“Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted — and few have been able to resist the power for long — to clothe their own aspirations and action in the moral purposes of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one’s side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.” –  Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations

The three most significant errors in the assessment of international power lie in the underestimation of the relativity of power, the erroneous assumption of power’s permanence, and the fallacious belief in a single factor as the exclusive contributor to power dynamics. In the ever-evolving tapestry of global affairs, a perpetual fluidity prevails. Everything is fluid, everything is changing, all the time, forever.

The contemporary terrain of international power in an incessant balancing act among advanced nations leading to a perpetual recalibration. The ascendance of any power to seemingly unprecedented heights triggers a reactive response, as witnessed in the formation of alliances among competitors to curtail perceived hegemony—a phenomenon exemplified by the multipolar proposition. Throughout history, several mechanisms have been employed to recalibrate power dynamics, including strategies such as divide and rule (as demonstrated in Germany), territorial compensation (as seen in the War of Spanish Succession), armaments escalation (exemplified by the Cold War arms race), and strategic alliances (as manifested in organizations like NATO).

To clarify: “Status Quo” describes a toolkit of conservative diplomatic strategies aimed at restoring a region to a preceding temporal juncture, typically antecedent to a disruptive event such as war, intellectual upheaval, or economic crisis. It reflects an inclination towards a state of normalcy, thereby embodying a political instantiation of nostalgia. The devil you know is often preferable to the devil you don’t. In this sense, something that is seen as imperialist or exploitative could actually be a desirable status quo, although defining the reference point is the entire trick. The crux of this matter resides in the subjective reference point, whereby what is deemed traditional normalcy by one group may concurrently signify the advent of cataclysm for another faction; for instance, the inception of Canada could signify the termination of the Aboriginal status quo.

It is paramount to acknowledge that imperialistic pursuits seldom find their impetus solely in economic motivations but are primarily propelled by aspirations for power, encapsulating the disruption and replacement of prevailing status quos rather than mere exploitation. Many Americans yearn for the status quo of the idyllic 1950s, and will adopt any public policy that gets them closer to that. Often these appeals are cloaked in the language of morality, where the current status quo is fundamentally amoral and we must return to a moral certitude of yesteryear.

Numerous geopolitical theorists posit that ostensibly moralistic endeavors are invariably shrouded in a veneer of morality rather than authentically propelled by ethical considerations. Still, can a nation – or even a civilization – become hijacked by an ideology? Certainly so, and we can pull a case study from the modern era. George Kennan outlines how self-interests are not only in relation to immediate goals but weighted in light of the goals of others.

America is an example wherein its moral justifications to became confused with its actual goals. Published in the 1960s, Kennan expounds upon how the United States navigated the realm of diplomacy ensconced in a fog of emotion and political machination, seldom aligning with the imperatives of its strategic positioning—appearing, at best, morally self-righteous and, at worst, marked by myopic and delusional tendencies.  This was best displayed in the pivot of justification during WW1 and WW2, where in the former era it was seen as the height of immaturity to become embroiled in a foreign war, only later to metamorphosize the conflict into a grandiose moral crusade against evil, where dissenters were summarily castigated as unequivocally malevolent ^​5​. Furthermore, America still tends to search for a great central evil within its enemies, as opposed to recognizing the multifaceted tapestry of nationalistic uprisings, occasionally colored by radical ideological shades. Every enemy becomes a cartoon, driven both by madness and calculated hatred of all life.

“In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to ‘be liked’ or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague — and for the Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” – George F. Kennan

With world peace meeting a tide of unprecedented evil as the guiding principle, America allowed itself to enter World War 1 and demand total uncompromising victory where before it would have demured rationally, precipitated the shattering of the European continent, and directly contributed to the onset of World War II. The narrative, espoused and widely embraced by the populace at the time, stands in conspicuous contradistinction to other geopolitical forays undertaken by America—often executed sans the explicit endorsement of the voting public. The year 1898, notable for its transformative significance, witnessed the United States acting unilaterally to acquire colonies—Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii—eschewing any intention of conferring statehood upon them. The debates, fervently conducted within the media of the time, spanned multifarious dimensions, encompassing economic, religious, and the purportedly justifiable pursuit of manifest destiny.

There was no morality or ethics applied to the decision for conquest, and it was left to the people to decide on the real reason when silence was presented. Self-interest becomes justified as ideology, which once codified can be wielded henceforth. The acknowledgement this reality broils constantly within the voter base, popping to the surface to question America’s forays into the Middle East and South America.

Carrol Quigley also notes this behavior in “Tragedy and Hope.” Each civilizational entity exhibits a stratification into core, secondary, and peripheral units, radiating outward akin to resonant echoes. Within the confines of the European West, this core has undergone cyclic transpositions at intervals spanning centuries. America, in its nascent stages, occupied a peripheral status, yet through the conquests and triumphs aforementioned, it metamorphosed into the fulcrum of the entire Western world. Contrasted against this is the British Empire, which was often acquired by individuals and private firms and then incorporated into the government later ^​6​. Balance-of-power tactics meant it could support whichever powers it wanted on the rest of the European continent and abroad. This distinct form of British Imperialism, however, rotted from within largely due to Liberal anti-imperialist movements of the time and the development of global trade meaning they no longer needed to own areas to acquire the goods they desired. Their reach simply cracked and fell apart like a thin weathered shell, and its remains are feasted upon presently.

America, the great offspring of this hybrid model of commerce and critical moral certitude, deftly balanced these conflicting civilizational personalities as the de-facto global hegemon after the power vacuum created after WWII. The rest of the world, on the other hand, now refuses and often refutes these justifications and it has become clear that the moral crusade of American Liberalism falls upon deafened ears.

All the while citizens are prompted to engage in the daunting task of adjudicating whether these eruptions of stateraft are underpinned by unilateral clandestine Machiavellianism or driven by adventurous moralism—an exercise to be conducted safely in the crucible of public opinion, far from where things actually matter.

The Gravitational Well of the World Island

Why do we speak of West vs. East at all, always as if conflict is written in the stars? One theory which explains why the same wars seem to flare up across history sits at the very core of geopolitics itself, known as The Geographical Pivot of History. Halford Mackinder, a preeminent exponent of this theoretical framework, elucidates how the prefix “geo” in geopolitics underpins the impetus compelling nations to assert dominion over key territories in their quest for security and sovereignty.

The Heartland is what we know as Eurasia, a vast interior of land dominated by steppes and forest, with a crescent of geographically distinct regions encircling it ^​7​. Within this immense landmass, two substantial population centers – Europe and Indo-Asia – are delineated by belts of seas and deserts. Approximately two-thirds of the global populace inhabits this fiercely contested “world island.” The civilizations adorning this geopolitical theater exhibit profound disparities in every conceivable aspect, the most profound schisms arising from the juxtaposition of four preeminent religions: Christianity, Buddhism, Brahmanism, and Islam. Beyond this interior “pivot area” extends an expanse encapsulating Germany, Austria, Turkey, India, and China, while the outermost reaches encompass Britain, Australia, the United States, and Japan.

Everything comes back to the World Island of Eurasia and those powers who seek to control it, as any civilization which holds dominion over the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world’s resources.

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world.” – Halford Mackinder

With this understanding of how geography influences power, this makes Britain’s conquering of India not only economically but strategically relevant. By taking a position in the inner circle to prevent Russia from allying with the inner crescent powers, Britain positions itself within the inner echelons, acting as a bulwark against potential alliances between Russia and the powers residing within the inner crescent. Within this outlook, European historical trajectories assume a subservient role to their Asiatic counterparts, a consequence of Europe’s compelled unification in the face of Asiatic incursions and territorial expansions from the East similar to the Northern Viking invasions binding Britain together at the precipice of total destruction.

This theory certainly has its critics, many of whom doubt it has any relevance to 21^st century concerns. Analogous to neorealism, advocates maintain that while it may not serve as the definitive panoptic equation, it undeniably commands attention within the minds of statesmen and policymakers. We need look no further than geopolitical icon Zbigniew Brzeziński who builds a comprehensive case for how America and its Western allies in NATO craft their foreign policy to create the current destabilized Eurasian status quo.

He who controls East Europe controls the heartland, who controls the heartland controls the world island, who controls the world island controls the world, and if nobody controls the heartland then all the better. The long-term strategy is to prevent collusion in the region and create security dependence, keep tributaries pliant and protected, and withstand “the barbarians” from coming together ^​8​. Russia is determined to control the pivot area, as is Europe; levying blame against any actor has little utility in addressing what your next move ought to be, which is the only aspect you control. You can make that move with the spirit of peace, but the immediate reason is survival, which is why if America vanished tomorrow the first act of the Union of Decentralized Multipolar Powers would be to seize the territories of their desire; Taiwan, the Balkans, etc.

Historically the Balkans invited conflict between three empires: Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia. World War 1 put an end to this, resulting in the current power struggle between Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Brzeziński states that while China expresses reservations about Western values, it contends that these values can be either circumscribed or even subverted. This starkly contrasts Russia’s historical and existential antagonism toward the West, perceiving Westernness as inherently antagonistic to its core identity. Japan, reliant on American military support against China, navigates a delicate position, harboring disapproval toward American hegemony and the extant status quo.

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.” –  Zbigniew Brzeziński, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives

The United States endeavors to disseminate Western influence in the guise of “democracy” and liberal values, staging Western Europe as a strategic vantage point. The overarching objective in asserting dominance over Eurasia is to champion national pluralism, positioning itself as a leader while meticulously averting the appearance of an meddling superpower. Many nations in this nationalistic tableau once again find themselves bifurcated amid the gravitational pulls of Eastern and Western influences through academic subversion, propaganda, and trade pressures.

An analysis of this geopolitical landscape, employing a neorealist framework intricately layered over the tenets of the Heartland Theory, intimates an unstoppable funneling of interests into this region until a definitive victor emerges. And even if you believe these nations should possess their own sovereign identities and independence, you must be aware that if it cannot be secured by its own organizational capacity and strength of will, then it must be guaranteed by another power at least as powerful enough to check the inevitable forces that will seek to control the World Island. 

A counterbalance to this objective has risen from the East, a contender known by many names but which we shall refer to as Eurasianism, also known as Duginism. Aspiring to extricate itself from the entanglements of the Marxist, Fascist, and Liberal paradigms entirely, it propounds a novel political universalism designed to dismantle what it perceives as the perilous Western hegemonic dominion menacing the entire expanse of the World Island. This ideological insurgency represents a repudiation of postmodernity, post-industrialism, liberal ideation, and globalism.

At the forefront of this intellectual insurgency stands Aleksandr Dugin, an Anti-Liberal luminary positioning himself as the cerebral vanguard in the struggle against imperialism and racism, both of which he contends are Western contrivances. His most straightforward political schema seeks to transcend ideological categorization, constituting a loose strategy to combat liberalism on every conceivable front—a comprehensive war waged against a multifarious reality, yet not a mere continuum of historical precedents.

“Globalization is thus nothing more than a globally deployed model of Western European, or, rather, Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism, which is the purest manifestation of racist ideology.” – Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory

Eurasianism asserts that racism is an unmitigated evil, and that both globalism and the very concept of progress are racist. It avows that any system premised on hierarchical judgments of superiority or inferiority is fundamentally racist, advocating for the wholesale abolition of evaluative assessments directed at values or societies ^​9​. However, ethnos and ethnocentrism are essential to this worldview, as is nationalism alongside a Marxist critique of capitalism (which is seen as wholly Western.) Every human identity is acceptable, except for the individual. The Liberal conceptualization of freedom, heralded as essential, is construed as freedom for rather than freedom from, encapsulating a liberating ethos that conspicuously circumvents the individual. In a categorical repudiation of Western universality, Eurasianism posits the transient and localized nature of such phenomena, concurrently asserting that diverse peoples and cultures can harmoniously coexist within their respective temporal cycles as long as they do not impede on the self-determination of others.

This project finds particular resonance within the precincts of the political Right, garnering adherence from nationalists and European identitarians who seek an exodus from contentious racial discourses, gravitating toward the more robust terrain of ethnography. While at the very heart of Eurasianism sits anti-imperialism and is appears singularly aimed at destroying Western influence by grasping for Third World adherents in almost identical fashion to the Soviets, there are many who hold it close to their hearts as a utopian ideal of positive ethnocentrism.

This philosophical stance bears semblance to the deep ecological convictions of Pentti Linkola, a proponent of fostering maximal biodiversity within natural ecosystems. Within Linkola’s radical environmentalism, the paramount peril to the sustenance of life emanates from its own excess, with humanity emerging as the preeminent transgressor of the planet’s delicate equilibrium ^​10​. Why should humans be treated any differently than animals in regards of life and ecosystems, whom are routinely culled and contained when they threaten the balance? Envisioning an anarcho-primitivist utopia, Linkola advocates the obliteration of advanced technology, the abolition of all vehicular transport, and severe handicaps on humanity’s ability to impact nature in any way. His envisioned societal structure entails individuals dwelling exclusively in their hometowns, reflective of their ethnic biomes. With no investing or stock markets, humans are restricted subsistence living, assumedly after the great genocidal engines are entombed forever. Government of a few wise men is all that exists, and perhaps most importantly all cats are annihilated.

“How can anyone think so insanely that the human life has the same value and mankind, the same morality, independent of numbers? It is lucid to me that every time a new child is born, the value of every human in world decreases slightly. It is obvious to me that the morality of the population explosion is wholly unlike than when man was a sparse, noble species in its beginning.” – Pentti Linkola

Balance must always be vigilantly pursued and negotiated, when even saving an endangered bird results in a threat to the ecosystem. The deep ecologist – otherwise known as the ecofascist – is the only serious environmentalist, having through about the problem all the way to the bottom and proffers forthright a radical panacea. A seismic transformation is incumbent, demanding the implementation of drastic measures to engender a protracted stasis within the intricate fabric of the ecological system.

The parallel to draw here, then, is to say that anyone acting as if a balance of multipolarity will naturally emerge absent a hegemon is either deluded or lying to you for their own geopolitical ambitions.

The populist zeal for ideological multipolarity, while clearly an international movement wielded to destruct Western hegemony, at the very least ascertained the depth of the problem and seeks to establish a balance of power in the World Island. It seems to address how geopolitics of the preceding centuries speak of these zones of conflict as inviting invasion, or possessing some sort of spirit which demands conquest. This framework posits that territories historically subjected to invasion may perpetually find themselves susceptible to further incursions, and specific geographic locales are ostensibly ordained as pivotal nodes for trade, agrarian cultivation, or resource extraction. The conundrum that lingers, however, pertains to the potential deployment of this ostensibly peaceful revolution by state actors as a disingenuous façade to obfuscate their own latent imperialistic aspirations. The veracity of whether ancient and intricate empires such as China and India can transcend the realm of ephemeral alliances remains a subject yet to be proven.

At this point it is important to establish that the fears of Russian expansion are not unfounded, and Russia has a long history of both invasion and political subversion of its neighbours. This is accounted in detail in “The Russian Empire and the World: 1700-1917” by John LeDonne who shows that Russia’s geopolitical interests force it to continually engage what we have described as the pivot area, and these geographic constraints will always be important. When scholars aver that this region appears susceptible to invasion, such assertions find rational grounding, with a primary rationale being the coveted access to strategically significant ports. LeDonne, in his seminal work, posits the Heartland as an emergent cultural core, akin to an organism forged through a tumultuous internal struggle, one that inherently seeks interplay with other heartlands ^​11​. The wellspring of Russia’s dynamism, propelling its expansion during an era of relatively diminished threats, lies in the convergence of three formative groups shaping the Russian psyche: the Teutonic Order, the Byzantine Empire, and the Chinggis Horde.

By the onset of the 18th century, an intricate web of commercial interconnections had been meticulously woven across the Eurasian world, laying the foundation for the geopolitical antagonism between Russia’s expansive Heartland and Britain’s maritime Coastland. Russia, driven by a strategic imperative to counter perceived ascending powers to the West, embarked on a calculated destabilization campaign targeting core regions in its proximity, beginning with Sweden which started as an ally in the Northern War. Gradually it exploited internal problems culminating with the Treaty of Nystad which essentially placed Sweden under Russian control. Noteworthy additional episodes included a religious conflict with Turkey, manifesting in the reclaiming of Constantinople, the Cossack settlement in Ukraine, and a colonial trade dispute with the Levant. The epoch recognized as the zenith of Russian imperialism encountered a substantial rebalancing with the emergence of German unification, propelled in part by the encroaching Russian threat, among other catalysts. Collaborative alliances among European powers emerged as a counterforce to restrain the formidable Russian bear, and peering through the jungle of belief and moral justification we can find decidedly predictable trends.

Delving into heroic or villainous inquiries concerning these engagements is fraught with the peril of moral grandstanding, potentially devolving into propositions advocating the wholesale decimation of entire populations. The defining characteristic of Game Theory is simply recognizing that a game is being played, and you do not have the luxury of pretending it is not. All the motivations, beliefs, agendas, and prejudices are bound up in the constraints and, therefore, the moves available to each player.

A more pragmatic lens involves an examination of the geographic constraints intrinsic to the vast Eurasian landmass, allowing for conjectural calculations regarding the strategic aims of rational, sovereignty-seeking powers in the short term. Probing the depths of history to find “blame” for current situations only has the benefit of assuaging guilt from populations collected as audience, it has little impact on plausible predictions. This is how America could side with the Communists to defeat the Nazi threat in an ostensible war of good vs. evil, then employ the Nazis later in the interest of defeating the Communist menace. Even a pacifist can rise to violence in the name of pacifism when demanded a pressurized binary choice.

Ideology and identity always attempt to scale themselves and on a long enough timeline can change constraints, and perhaps change the game. Ideas are mountains that birth people, but that does not mean it is sensible to take your eye off the game being played.

Peace Means Never Retreating

When Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum speaks of the freedom offered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, his ideal freedom is retreating from the natural world. Leveraging technology and science with the goal of reducing human suffering to zero while increasing materialist prosperity to a maximum, it is an audacious rebellion rooted in the creation of an autonomous universe, extricated from the inequitable laws that govern our shared history. This is the dream of the individual who does not want to become God but rather stand outside of His dominion in a negative space of nervelessness. It is a full retreat into safety far from the desire for sovereignty, which requires a defiant relationship with the world and holding stable dominion over it at the transactional cost of suffering.

The freedom pursued by the aforementioned Davos Culture is the inverse of this understanding, separating us more and more from the natural world and into a vast enclosed space comprised of bespoke systems, a tantrum disentanglement from the natural world crafted to thrust individuals into a glittering cave marked by an unsettling disequilibrium with the unknown. This secular-humanist mission embodies a departure from the traditional coordinates of anarchic freedom that undergirds the great works of mankind.

Most importantly, this is a utopia designed for the sovereign individual, hypothetically secured by a singular juggernaut. It is not obvious that even in the present day that the idealistic individual stands a chance against the collectives gathering to corrupt it,

It is extremely difficult for nations, having once achieved self-awareness through the intense and violent struggles of history to retreat from that into gilded cages. Even those nations decimated by war and contained by geopolitical realities will often conduct war by alternative modalities. Richard Werner’s “Princes of the Yen” presents an illuminating example with Japan after their defeat during World War 2 and how the Japanese economy recalibrated its policy dynamics to wage warfare transcending traditional battlefields in the burgeoning theatre of globalized trade.

Contrary to popular belief, Japan’s ascent to the echelons of the world’s second-largest economy did not hinge upon the conventional mechanisms of free markets ^​12​. In stark contrast to the post-war fate of Germany’s war economy overseer, Albert Speer, languishing in incarceration after the demise of Nazi Germany, Japan observed its wartime counterpart ascend to the pinnacle of political power as the Prime Minister. The wartime bureaucratic elite, permitted to remain at the levers of control, managed to complete the system of the “total economy” initiated before the start of the war. This transformative phase witnessed the expunging of company shareholders, the elevation of managerial cadres, and the imbuing of employees with motivation through the instrumentality of company unions and the guarantor of job security. Confronted with the specters of recession, unemployment, and the ominous prospect of communist incursion, juxtaposed against the external menace of potential estrangement from the global trade nexus, the military junta discerned that Japan’s survival in this adversarial crucible hinged upon its holistic robustness. Rooted in the palpable agency of central planners, this alternative system remarkably outperformed its counterparts – especially in America – in a testament to its efficacy.

“The latest macroeconomic theories argue that money is ‘neutral’—just a veil over the tangible economy. The big mysteries in economics—why we still have business cycles, stock market booms and busts, large-scale unemployment, and crises—are said to have nothing to do with money.” – Richard Werner, Princes of the Yen

In the aftermath of the monumental defeat suffered by the Axis powers, the Japanese system, meticulously preserved under American oversight, functioned as a formidable bulwark permitted to counter the looming specter of Chinese Communism. While it may appear unthinkable that America would allow its direct enemy to continue upon the same path with the same system driven by the same people from the first declaration of war upon American soil, readers will recall that this calculus of interest occurs all the time.

The Japanese war apparatus seamlessly pivoted toward the domain of global trade, the evolved war economy viewing commerce as a novel theater of conflict, deploying an unwavering internal focus on the expansion of market share while eschewing the conventional tenets of profit maximization. Post-war, this orientation precipitated the displacement of myriad American and European enterprises, commencing with the textile industry and progressively permeating domains such as steel and shipping. From the mid-1980s onward, Japanese foreign investments virtually eclipsed other contenders in steering the currents of international capital flows, with Japanese capital exerting its influence to procure assets globally and engendering the establishment of manufacturing facilities in locales such as Scotland, Wales, and Northern England. The American Midwest similarly bore witness to the production of Japanese automobiles, and noteworthy bastions of U.S. corporate prowess, including the Rockefeller Center and Columbia Pictures, found themselves under the ownership aegis of Japanese entities. These successes, however, contained the seeds of their downfall; the sustainability of this aggressive system, tethered as it was to perpetual growth, ultimately proved untenable and cannibalistic if not granted enough space.

The Japanese policymakers received clear hints by its Western allies that it would be allowed to join the OECD provided it deregulated international capital flows, liberalizing the Japanese market. The impetus for rapid growth within late 20th-century globalism hinged on two factors: firstly, a world trade system – epitomized by the United States – which afforded Japan the opportunity to encroach upon the market shares of all other nations; secondly, the adept capacity to consistently channel new credit into productive sectors. The imperative for Japan to heed the international call for transformation was unmistakable: confronted by Japan’s burgeoning trade surpluses, the global community could elect to insulate itself from Japanese imports, thereby relegating Japan to the confinement of its domestic markets. The Japanese economic shift that occurred during the 1990s – once again by the clandestine hands of central planners and bureaucrats – reshaped the nation into what it is today. However, any notion of this evolution stemming from a spirit of enlightenment or altruism would be erroneous; rather, it was a coercive imposition on the Japanese economy, compelling adherence to novel constraints under the duress of an economic gun to the head.

The most obvious question is, did the players in the Japanese shadow government really succumb to ideological enlightenment, or release their hands from the levers of control? Furthermore, is the same war occurring by other means? This question assumes paramount importance in our present inquiry, for as the national configuration undergoes metamorphosis owing to novel technological constraints and influences, the very nature of warfare fully embraces modalities categorized as “by other means.” The Japanese are a proud and ancient people, with immediate territorial concerns that cannot be alleviated by far flung American influence. Westernization stripped of its Anglo character merely provides Japan a foreign status quo to master and eventually recalibrate to its own interests. The purely transactional nature of the Japan/American relationship would imply each side has hidden schemes in preparation for a multipolar eventuality.

If we understand war as an aggressive conflict with the purpose of one nation destabilizing, conquering, or overtaking the status quo of another, we can identify entire constellations of assaults, thus establishing unprecedented theaters of aggression from which retreat is rendered impossible.

Another example taken from the East is China, who is currently fighting cold war against the West through economics and organized crime. As Jonathan Manthorpe laid out in his incisive “Claws of the Panda,” China’s theatre in the domain of commerce – the expansive “One Belt, One Road” initiative – epitomizes its proactive acquisition of substantial interests, notably in struggling nations, with a particular emphasis on port cities. This project is geared toward the establishment of trade dominance, emblematic of China’s plot to transcend what it categorizes as the “Century of Humiliation.” While China has successfully garnered a formidable position in the domain of manufacturing, its reliance on American markets coupled with a perceived deficiency in product innovation has thus far precluded it from adopting strategies akin to those pursued by Japan. Consequently, this has compelled China to open more intricate and multifaceted fronts in the ongoing Whisper War of influence and destabilization ^​13​.

The roots of this conquest begin in Maoist China. The sophistication of the MSS – China’s military intelligence network – had survived since the reign of Mao and was instrumental in the deployment of civilian spies throughout the world, including American weapons labs but even more significantly within Canada. The United Front, originally conceived under Mao and expanded during the tenure of Xi Jinping, adopts an expansive perspective, perceiving all Chinese foreign nationals as potential fifth columnists. Their directive is to constantly approach these individuals using ethnic appeals to help the motherland, most aggressively with students and businesspeople. Operating with a pervasive network of agents across the realms of finance, real estate, research and development, and political spheres, a handbook from the Chinese Communist Party proudly proclaims their capability to exert influence even in the electoral landscape of Toronto.

“The CCP’s principal channel for influence in Canada has been the Canada-China Business Council. This was founded in 1978 at the instigation of the Montreal-based Power Corp., headed by Paul Desmarais. He liaised with the CCP’s most effective propagandist in the worlds of Canadian business, politics and academia, Dr. Paul Lin of the department of Asian studies at McGill University. Power Corp., together with the aristocracy of Canadian banks, resource companies and technology enterprises, remain core members of the council. For much of the last 50 years, the political clout of the council has made it the true overseer of Canadian policy toward China.” – Jonathan Manthorpe

How did all this begin? Believe it or not, China was eagerly welcomed through the gates. It began with Canadian spearheading a plan to loan China money to buy Canadian wheat, initiating an era of Canadian advocacy for Chinese business partnerships much to the outrage of America who was, at the time, eyeing the Maoist Communist government as an opponent. Pursuing its own relationship with China as a gesture of independence under Pierre Trudeau’s leadership, Canada even championed China’s inclusion in the United Nations as the rest of the world was icing them out. This diplomatic overture, however, inadvertently flung open the gates to an influx of Chinese spycraft, much to the chagrin of the future Liberal Party who initially advocated for the unique bond as a beacon of international amity.

The Sidewinder Report in 1999 explained how over 200 Canadian corporations had fallen under the control of CCP. This network of subversion extended beyond the corporate realm to encompass strategic real estate acquisitions, conferring upon the CCP a distinctive sphere of influence that permeated local political landscapes.  Despite an Amnesty International report on Canadian infiltration, the Canadian government has been notoriously slow to act, if acting at all. Through these methodical stratagems, the Chinese Communist Party has insidiously established a strategic launching pad that directly extends into the United States, penetrating the very heart of the Western Imperium. All of this without even an overt declaration of hostilities.

It is essential to understand how modern states adopt their campaigns to new dimensions, including corporate and even criminal enterprises and blurring the lines that are so crucial to a liberal individualist’s understanding of power relationships. When Hong Kong was handed back over to China, there was a rush of Hongkongers flooding into Canada, leveraging established immigration routes to Chinese-controlled areas. In the wake of this planned transition, Brian Mulroney founded the Immigrant Investor Program to attract these individuals with the stated goal of boosting the economy, but in the aftermath studies showed around ⅓ of them were criminals or used fraudulent documents. The Hong Kong Triads were filtering into the East Coast of Canada.

During this period, Vancouver emerged as a favored haven for Chinese high-stakes gamblers, colloquially referred to as “whales” and comprising the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These elite figures strategically utilized Canadian casinos as a central hub for an intricate money laundering apparatus. Hockey bags laden with cash were dropped off for seamless conversion into chips, conspicuously absent of any funds originating from Canadian financial institutions. The substantial capital influx – as uncovered in Sam Cooper’s “Wilful Blindness” – emanated from clandestine Chinese banking operations clandestinely running within Canadian borders, under the oversight of Chinese bureucrats ^​14​. At the forefront of investigative efforts was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) Silver File, an assemblage of exhaustive trafficking investigations that systematically interconnected these subterranean financial institutions to Silver International—an titanic cash house acting as the linchpin for a Hong Kong-based cartel known as the Big Circle Boys. The amassed funds underwent intricate cycling processes, ultimately funneling through channels affiliated with Mexican and Iranian criminal orgs. Moreover, these financial currents extended their reach to South American terrorist groups, thereby elevating the investigative purview and rendering it germane to the intelligence endeavors of the Five Eyes Intelligence Network.

Boasting a cadre exceeding 1000 operatives within the Canadian landscape, the Big Circle Boys have been known to domestic immigration and law enforcement agencies since the 1990s, exhibiting a curious resilience against deportation efforts. Transitioning into the early 21st century, the Big Circle Boys, leveraging their industrial apparatus situated in the strategically vital Golden Triangle, committed wholeheartedly to the production of synthetic narcotics, specifically fentanyl. This nefarious enterprise operated in full view of intense CCP surveillance back in the homeland, having obtained explicit sanctioning from the party while orchestrating a public façade that the criminals were fleeing persecuting back home.  In fact, documents showed them regularly traveling to China and maintaining high-up relationships with high-ranking CCP members. The culmination of these quasi-bureaucratic trafficking endeavors saw the Triads responsible for nearly the entirety of fentanyl manufacturing and distribution across the North American expanse.

This is all to say, the Chinese government is directly involved in the heroin market in Canada and the United States, and the proliferation of fentanyl that plagues its citizens.

“Fentanyl killed so many Canadians last year that it caused the average life expectancy in B.C. to drop for the first time in decades. But for crime kingpins, it has become a source of such astonishing wealth that it has disrupted the Vancouver-area real estate market.” – Sam Cooper

The CCP t is not only pushing immigrants and then converting them into spies to steal valuable information, but organized crime organizations pushing poison onto Canadians and Americans alike. This is a game Canada did not think it was playing, or that any nation should play. A hot war is messy, emotional, and can become terminal if morality leeches into it. However, consider how much easier it is to subvert a nation from within when massive segments are addicted to the latest in synthetic narcotics, creating not just a burgeoning antisocial class but most importantly an economic drain on the government.

Canada thought it could wish its way into a world of tolerance buoyed by fair discussion, but the nature of the game is that it’s being played whether or not you’re at the table. The present landscape serves as a poignant testament to the consequences that accrue from an oversight of novel theaters in international conflict, accentuating the perilous outcomes attendant upon the reluctance to employ imaginative acumen in preemptively circumventing the inexorabilities that pervade the geopolitical sphere. Peace is only truly known by those who are playing the game, as even the spectators will find themselves as part of the prize.

The Inescapable Nature of Things

To the student of international politics it appears clear that ancient rivalries persist in new forms, and the end of history was not shepherded by secular humanism, education, and technology. Our individual identities change as our collective organizations change, and this is what is now demanded of us by history. A multipolar power distribution would most likely invite familiar aggressions amplified by mind-blowing technology and lubricated by active minds wielding wild ideologies. The nationalist forms we understand will exist within ecosystems we must scramble to master, thereby breaking free from the prison of 19^th and 20^th century prejudices.

How do we define the boundaries of optimal competition in a world that we now understand can never truly stand outside of nature? The Davos Regime seeks to chase individualism right to its logical bedrock while merging it with advanced spycraft to fully separate man from the world; this solution, once apprehended, collapses the individual. Another solution proposed by Neoreactionary (nrX) advocates is to solve the anarchy of global affairs by creating a singular court controlled by a sovereign artificial intelligence, one that would address all global concerns fairly. Eurasianism could achieve balance only be employing the extremes of ecofascism, which shares its aims with other anarcho-privativist wholesale rejections of modernity. And then of course there is the current state of affairs in which technology and globalization forces diametrically opposed civilizational forces into a bipolar dialectic, within the tension of which draws every group on Earth whether they like it or not.

Imperialism comes with extreme inwardness and awareness of exogeneous factors beyond one’s direct control; it comes when you understand the system and understand to achieve sovereignty you must interface with it, not retreat from it into realms of harmless pleasure. The question isn’t how to achieve anything as individuals, but how to create networks that can achieve sovereignty for how we define the people in a world where the highest state-organisms find themselves lost in a fog of information, plagued by tumors of anarchic faiths over which universal morality holds no power.

As ideology reallocates itself alongside morality in the sector for those things which we act in service of but cannot truly be guided by, we find ourselves reintroduced to what the Medieval leaders knew all too well: everything acts in service of the group, as they are the engines of these moralities, ideologies, and faiths. The quest for maintenance of this engine makes traitors of all its caretakers, but this is why it is crucial not to lose oneself in pseudo-Darwinian flights of selfish justification. At the bedrock of all this is the populous of the group, and the people are more complex than they have ever been which places new demands on the forms required to coordinate them.

1. 1.

   Papic M. Geopolitical Alpha: An Investment Framework for Predicting the Future. 1st ed. Wiley; 2020.
2. 2.

   Cline E. 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. 2nd ed. Princeton University Press; 2021.
3. 3.

   Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster; 2011.
4. 4.

   Morgenthau H. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power And Peace. 5th ed. Knopf; 1978.
5. 5.

   Kennan G. American Diplomacy. University of Chicago Press; 2012.
6. 6.

   Quigley C. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. Dauphin Publications; 2014.
7. 7.

   Mackinder H. Heartland: Three Essays on Geopolitics. Spinebill Press; 2022.
8. 8.

   Brzezinski Z. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. 2nd ed. Basic Books; 2016.
9. 9.

   Dugin A. The Fourth Political Theory. Arktos; 2012.
10. 10.

    Linkola P. Can Life Prevail? Arktos; 2012.
11. 11.

    LeDonne J. The Russian Empire and the World, 1700-1917: The Geopolitics of Expansion and Containment. Oxford University; 1999.
12. 12.

    Werner R. Princes of the Yen: Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Econom. Routledge; 2003.
13. 13.

    Manthorpe J. Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada. Cormorant Books; 2019.
14. 14.

    Cooper S. Wilful Blindness: How a Network of Narcos, Tycoons and CCP Agents Infiltrated the West. Optimum Publishing International; 2021.
15. 15.

    Spann O. The True State: Lectures on the Demolition & Reconstruction of Society. Independently published; 2022.