On especially the dissident right, there is a faction within both the federal apparatus and many factions outside of it that are no longer interested in maintaining the Carthaginian trade empire lead by the United States. Ever since the collapse of the USSR and the veil of a rules based international order was torn, the United States was left aimless and imperialistic. This has resulted to dire circumstances for both at home and abroad. This essay will be making the case that the United States should begin to prepare itself for multi-polarity once again, and the attempt to maintain the status quo will result in either a third world war or a second American civil war.

Please note that this essay is making the argument for Americans of the dissident right. If you are a right winger of a foreign country, there is little need to make the case as to why the United States should not be your overlord. As such, “the perspectives of the international community” that are not related to American life will be disregarded for the rest of this essay.

The Genesis of the Empire

The Origin of the American Empire is being the ‘successor’1 of the British Empire to combat communism. This stance was cemented in the United States becoming both the manufacturing center, financial center and naval hegemon of the world. As with all empires, it needed an imperial myth. A myth in this context is the moral story that is told to justify policies and actions. A basic example of a myth in action is with the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal. This myth can be used to justify political, social, and economic equality. If one starts arguing with the material facts and truth claims of the myth, then they have missed the point. Few people genuinely believe that Romulus and Remus grew up on wolf milk. The purpose of that myth was to establish why Rome was not called Rem.

For the case of the United States, there was two imperial myths sold to the interventionist and isolationist. Those myths were to “Spread Liberal Democracy” and “Defeat Communism.”

For the standards of empire, having two myths that do not overlap is an extremely rare occurrence. Most imperial myths have supporting myths to fuel the primary myth. The Spanish and Portuguese empires colonized the new world for gold, God and glory and made it to Asia by sailing around Africa to fuel the primary myth of being a sword against Islam and for the Catholic faith. Once it was determined that Islam was no longer a threat to the Iberians and the Protestants of Europe were not going to go away, it lost faith in the imperial myth. It is no coincidence that the decline of the empire began in the 1600s when both realities were self-evident. Beforehand, all actions of the Spanish and Portuguese was in service to the primary myth of fighting for Catholicism. This principle is a universal one for empires. The USSR’s was for spreading communism, Napoleonic France’s was for spreading the revolutionary ideals, and the caliphates’ was for spreading Islam.

So why the two myths? Americans have historically been majority anti-imperialist. George Washington’s farewell address explains this line of thought in detail, but the following is the best summation:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” – George Washington, 1796.2

The origins of American anti-imperialism is too broad of a topic for this essay, but the relevant point is that this faction always has to be appealed to in order to maintain governance of the country. When the cold war was beginning, the primary faction of isolationists were conservatives. For the conservatives willing to go along with the cold war, the myth they were told was to “fight and defeat communism.” The argument goes that if the Marxist-Leninists were not defeated, they would eventually succeed in global revolution. To be fair to the future neocons, that was the intention of the communists, so the pitch was not outlandish. The ones who did not buy the myth were organizations like the John Birch Society, who were slandered and suppressed by the neoconservatives such as William F. Buckley and other republicans for imperial opposition. The John Birch Society considered the imperial apparatus itself to be a communist ploy for one world government.

For the utopian liberals and leftists, the myth they were told and believed in was to spread liberal democracy like they were on a crusade. The ones who did not buy into the myth on this faction were usually Stalinists. Their purge from American leftist circles is a topic for another time as well, but suffice to say that those two myths were the unified coalition to justify the American empire. It was also done, somewhat accidentally, in secret. The American empire was originally called the “Rules-Based International Order.” It could claim such legitimacy because in theory, Britain, France, China and the USSR were co-equals in enforcing this order. After the Suez crisis and the victory and instability of communist China, the only two genuine enforcers were the USA and the USSR. Thanks to consequences of geography however, the USSR was not really able to explicitly and independently intervene in affairs farther from the states directly boarding her. The United States picking up the slack is what gave the infrastructure to be the sole enforcer of the order once the USSR collapse. From the years leading up to and especially after the collapse, one imperial myth was fulfilled, the other emboldened, and whose consequences we now see over the debates of foreign policy.

One Myth Over; the Other Overstretched

The start of problems for the American empire was that the conservative myth of destroying communism was achieved when realist policies that influenced republican officials did not expect it to happen anytime soon. Quoting Jeffery Sachs being interviewed about his time in Russia shortly after the collapse of the USSR:

“Yeltsin said at the time that

“I want us to be a normal country, we want a normal economy Mr Sachs, we want a normal democratic political system, we want to be friends with the United States.”

and I, in my nativity, said to him:

“President Yeltsin, I can assure you that the American people will want to partner with Russia. To have a future of peace and economic cooperation-”

I was completely convinced of it. I thought this was the most historic moment imaginable. I was pinching myself- Can you believe you are sitting in the Kremlin hearing from the President of Russia the end of the Soviet Union?! …

I was wrong. Because as soon as the Soviet Union ended what did the deep state [the American empire] say? Well, they said that this great! Now we need to dismember Russia to! …

The idea was: Cold war over? Ha! That’s ridiculous! Now we go on to surround Russia.” -Jeffery Sachs, on the Tucker Carlson Show3

The end of the Soviet Union has been a mortal blow for keeping the right on the imperial plantation. Mind you, the death of the USSR happened during the rise of both Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. Isolationism was and still is regaining ground in the American electorate and has accelerated with the Iran war. For the will of the empire to survive, it would have to either gamble on a new right-wing myth or try to convince the right that the left is correct, IE, spread liberal democracy. For a brief moment, the new half-successful attempt at a right wing myth was fighting Islam due to 9/11. This myth followed a similar fate to the previous. Fighting Islamic terror was fighting Osama Bin Laden. Once he died, the right returned to a new isolationism. It also quickly died due to the fact that the big ask of the myth was to somehow defeat all of Islamic Civilization. That has been a fight going on for over a thousand years. Even if all of the United States were Evangelical fanatics that were completely bloodthirsty for Sunni and Shiite blood, that would be a nigh impossible ask without triggering some sort of doomsday scenario.

For the second option, it resulted in a split within the right wing. For those who were convinced of spreading liberal democracy, Reaganomics, constitutionalism, secular republicanism, they became and remained the neoconservatives. The ones that were not, still not and no longer convinced are now the dissident right.

With the context of how the empire was constituted and why it is in crisis, the case can be made that the only way to save the USA is to liquidate the empire, hence: Imperial Liquidation.

The Primary Reason: The Death of the Myth and the Left’s Eternal Monopoly on the Current One.

Bluntly put, there is currently no right wing justification for the American empire that wouldn’t undermine its ideology. All the material manifestations of the empire has been the replacement of the native God of The Holy Trinity with foreign pantheons, the auctioning off of the family through free trade, and the hollowing out of the country for the sake of the colonies. Every right wing impulse of what is valuable; God, family and country, has been systematically sacrificed for the sake of maintaining dominance of the rules-based international order. Now that the United States no longer has foreign reds to worry about, (China’s credibility as an ideological rival on the basis of liberalism versus communism is dubious at best) much of the right realized how many domestic reds have usurped the institutions of both the United States and imperial apparatus. Furthermore, much of the right, even if not explained in these terms, can sense that much of the left’s power comes from the connections of the empire. This power manifested in NGOs, international groups such as the WEF, international organizations such as the UN and IMF. All of these groups are known for their anti-American dispositions and actively fund leftist and globalist networks both stateside and abroad. The funniest at the time, most revealing in retrospect, was the balance sheet for USAID. Half a million was spent to promote atheism in Nepal, twenty million spent to promote Sesame Street in the middle east, and two million was spent for trans surgery in Guatemala.4 Unfortunately, the focus of this revelation was either the ludicrous titles of these expenses or more understandably the fraud involved. Few on the right realized the network that is developed with said fraud. Now the left has a propaganda network in Nepal, future Arab gay networks that stem from a few children internalizing Sesame Street messaging, and leftist surgeons in Guatemala to convince Latinos to abort their own kids, castrate themselves, then traffic themselves stateside for cheap labor. Now compound these networks, both the open and secret ones, to encompass the entirety of American influence.

How is the American right wing suppose to defeat the left without dismantling international influence? It can’t.

This bitter pill is the ultimate determiner for the right wing. Is it ready to sacrifice the empire for the sake of the Union? Even better framing, is the right wing ready to give up the empire for the sake of the American nations? Is the Southerner ready to give up cheap labor from Mexico to give his kids an opportunity for a demographically homogeneous future? Is the west coast tech bros ready to give up their cheap labor from India so that the surfer stereotype can have a job to support his family? Is the New York trader ready to give up financing abroad so he can invest in his homeland and the future inheritance of his children? While these questions will be answered correctly by some, most will default to following self interest and immediate incentives. As of the current moment, that entails maintaining the imperial apparatus, and thus maintaining the liberal apparatus. Any social, political or economic movement that supports the maintenance of American international power in its current form has to reconcile being the handmades of liberal chauvinists. This is much of the political class, and their constituents want to return to Reagan and Nixon. That type of politician was the perfect concession for the right wing. It bribed them with cheap goods from the empire and non-interference with their lives in exchange for consent to maintain American power. It was akin to developing a “middle-class labor aristocracy” where instead of bribing the silent majority to not establish socialism, it bribed the silent majority to either not establish a third position, or reverse the social and economic gains of the liberals.

That bribe only works when the priority of the right was material conditions, which usually meant cheap goods and plentiful work. For the younger right who’s priorities are more transcendent, whether it is racial preservation, return to tradition, or a second reconquista, that bribe no longer works, presuming that the ruling class can even deliver on the bribe anymore.

(As a long aside, there is a pathology of the right wing being dependent on the existence of the left wing to give it meaning, and being reliant on left wing institutions as well. Most right wingers hate Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and universities. However, if those institutions would disappear overnight, the right wing would be without ideological infrastructure and networking hubs for perpetuating right-wing politics. The same story would play out with immediate imperial liquidation. The right wing would objectively suffer short term materially due to growing dependent on said material despite the cost. Furthermore, if we magically pulled out of the UN, NATO, and suppressed every foreign lobby group in the US, the isolationist would be satisfied without purging the imperialists from government. Said imperialist would likely botch any pullback plan out of spite similar to what happened with the Brexit vote. At that time, ignorance was a factor, but the point still remains. The solution to said problem is the right unifying behind an ideology that would make the cost of liquidation and governmental cleaning worth it. Like many things in this piece, this topic deserves an entire essay for itself, but it would have been practically a sin to not mention this critical issue at least in passing.)

Fundamentally, that is the dilemma of the empire. There are other issues that come with the empire that are immediate, but second-order. Mass immigration, trade, interventionist foreign policy, being the reserve currency, the exporting of manufacturing, the lawlessness of cities, universities being leftist training camps, foreign lobbies having undo influence, big business having duplicitous influence, I could go on. These are all real issues, and many will have to be fixed first for both practical and political reasons, but keep in mind the connection of those problems to the empire. Mass immigration is how we get our slave labor, our currency is how we maintain financial leverage on the world. Foreign manufacturers grant us cheap goods to fuel the empire. Foreign and business lobbies is how we maintain ties with our vassals. Mayors govern by the terror of the mob to keep Americans compliant. Universities are where future imperial bureaucrats are trained with the imperial values. Attempts to reform the second order problems of empire will eventually result in conflict with the rest of the imperial apparatus.

The primary objections for imperial liquidation from the dissident right is either American chauvinism or a imperial usurpation. The former case is a right wing attempt at subversion that will destroy the imperial apparatus and will be addressed momentarily. The latter case being the attempt at changing the ideology of the empire to being something more right wing, like spreading monarchism throughout the world. While admittedly usurpation would be the best case scenario for America, it is unlikely to occur due to the remaining imperial myth being fully leftist. There was a test case though for this kind of usurpation, not because the union wanted to, but because it had to. It resulted in the dissolution of both the empire and the union itself.

The Eastern Bloc, a Warning to the United States.

Anatoly Chernyaev was the deputy head of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Beforehand, he had worked in the Central Committee since 1961. He also has sections of his diary published to the wider world. In said diary, he elaborates on the Soviet position in geopolitics, and the current loss of faith for it being the leader of the communist world. He hoped that perestroika would have salvaged the union, but to no avail. Frankly, quoting most of it elaborates the similar situation the Soviets were in as the American empire is now.

“This year [1973] showed the inertial nature of the Soviet Union.

The economy was in a state of depression. But not the kind of depression that is normal for a capitalist economy and that is a part of cyclical renewal. It was the beginning of stagnation and irreversible decline. Because it was a state-run economy that relied on party discipline and the careerism of the nomenclature, it continued to exist, but could not develop.

This was starting to be felt, if not understood, by the ruling stratum. Even smart and well-informed people like Inozemtsev and Arbatov could not suggest anything besides stopgap measures, which did not take us outside the stalled system.

It became clearer and clearer that ideology was falling victim to the hopeless economic stagnation. As a quasi-religion, it was dead at the core. Nobody believed in its dogmas, from top to bottom.

For the first time, official ideology (as a theory) met with internal opposition, which could no longer be stifled by Stalinist means. Sakharov and the dissident movement appeared; they criticized and condemned Soviet power by appealing to its own laws and policies.

[…]

Soviet socialist ideology lost its role as a world (essentially expansionist) factor. Enrico Berlinguer’s famous formula – “The momentum of the October Revolution has dried up” – accurately reflected the situation. Communist parties that had some kind of social base in their countries started to break away from the paternalistic roof of the CPSU, following the tracks of “Euro-communism.” The small parties that were insignificant at home and entirely financially dependent on us also rejected the Soviet model for their countries. The USSR ceased to be a symbol of hope and inspiration, a source of enthusiasm. But communist parties without the USSR or against the USSR were doomed. So against their will, they remained loyal to proletarian internationalism.

Thus, the International Communist Movement also continued to exist only by inertia. It did not want, nor was it capable, to carry out even the role of a propaganda mouthpiece and defender of its one-time revolutionary “forbearer.” The feverish efforts of Ponomarev’s CC Department to preserve at least a formal shell of the ICM [International Communist Movement] revealed a growing helplessness.

[…]

In the socialist camp, in our external empire, the trouble was more noticeable. Contrary to expectations, the intervention in Czechoslovakia did not strengthen the socialist system, but became an additional reason for its decay. The burden of fueling a decent standard of living in our allied countries grew heavier for the Soviet people. The connection of economic development of these countries to the Soviet market and the Soviet model of industrial development caused increasing dissatisfaction. The groveling servility of the ruling stratum of our satellites increasingly distanced the power from the people, among whom anti-Soviet sentiments were growing, fueled by powerful Western propaganda.

You could say that the socialist camp also existed by inertia from this time forward, rather than on the basis of mutual interest.5 – Anatoly Chernyaev, 1973.

Related to the lost of confidence in spreading communism, the intellectuals became self diluted as a coping mechanism, in which the apparatus went along with.

“[Brezhnev’s declining health and political blunders] played into the hands of the conservatives and ideologues, who determined the social atmosphere. It became more and more gloomy and hopeless. The “creative intelligentsia” either showed its finger behind its back, or sought refuge in the eternal truths of love and everyday worries, or lulled itself and the public with reminders about the nobility and heroism of their fathers and grandfathers in the recent and distant past.

In the apparatus of power (I don’t know about the state, but in its main apparatus, the CC, in some of its departments, especially the International Department), a circle of people formed who played by the “rules of the game” and became aligned with the most enlightened and freethinking part of the scholars in the humanities institutes of the Academy of Sciences, in newspapers and magazines, and increasingly felt a sense of responsibility for their country.

Inwardly, spiritually and morally (at the level of culture) they already separated themselves from their superiors. The leadership was alien to them and unpleasant even on a human level, in basic interactions.6 – Anatoly Chernyaev, 1973.

All that to say, the Eastern bloc was in a similar situation in the seventies and eighties as the American empire is now. The ruling class of the USSR lost faith that the communist movement was being led by them, and if they could even do a good enough job at leading it. In that moment, the USSR had a choice of either reforming or rotting. Gorbachev and Deng chose to reform. The conservatives of the USSR chose to rot.

The conservatives were under the impression that since the tactics of Lenin and Stalin worked in their era, surely they would work again. The lack of will from the military to back them destroyed such illusions. The ‘liberals’ of their era, the intelligentsia, resorted to self-dilution to numb the pain of the material conditions of their imperium. The vassals of Romania, East Germany, Poland and the others began to loose faith in themselves as their master lost confidence.

In said attempt to reform, Gorbachev had to make a grand choice, should he change the imperial myth or maintain it? He chose to change it.

The imperial myth of the Eastern bloc was that the Soviet Union was the vanguard of world communism, and that everyone followed it for guiding the revolution, whether they wanted to or not. In Eastern Europe, this manifested with Soviet troops on the streets and permanent dependence on Moscow. This was tenable so long as the myth held. Beginning with the secret speech and the resulting Sino-Soviet split, that imperial myth began to falter. Little coincidence that the grand stagnation of the 70s followed with said mythical de-legitimization. Gorbachev’s attempt to give autonomy for the Eastern bloc to establish communism in its own way, completely shattered the myth of Soviet hegemony. Once that myth was shattered, the question on most of the soviet nationals was whether to maintain the “home union” itself, much less communism itself. This is why I stated previously that the conservatives chose to rot. They chose to side with the dying myth instead of establishing a new one with at least the chance of life in it. The imperial state of the Eastern Slavs, a state that had existed for hundreds of years, was destroyed thanks to prioritizing communism over the nations of the union.

Deng was the example of a successful mythical reformation. Instead of trying to become the soviet torch-bearer of the revolution, Deng made it clear in his actions and policies that the revolution would not be led by China. He sacrificed the myth that China was fighting for global communism for the alternative myth of national rejuvenation. The new myth that came about was not China for the benefit of communism as it was prior, but communism for the benefit of China. The resulting restructuring of China as a corporate state with red aesthetics is irrelevant for this discussion. What was important was that the narrative that Deng and his successors instilled saved China from meeting a similar fate to the Soviet Union. The fundamental lesson of both red countries was that myths only maintains its power so long as the physical and/or spiritual conditions permit it.

Gorbachev attempted to extend the myth by condemning the spiritual conditions while the physical reality no longer matched the ideal. To be fair to Gorbachev, his attempt at rejuvenation was a far better mindset to have then the conservatives. His errors were trying to abandon Stalinist control methods when the entire apparatus became dependent on them. At the same time, Stalinist control methods were also becoming untenable. As an analogy, if the eastern bloc was a house, then Stalinism was the quickly crumbling and decaying foundation. Gorbachev wanted to change the foundation without completely leveling the house. The conservatives wanted to keep the crumbling foundation. Both would result in the complete collapse of the union, but at least Gorbachev was not slothful in the demise of it.

The American right needs to think like Deng Xiaoping instead of Gorbachev or especially the conservatives.

Thinking like the Soviet conservatives, wanting to maintain the liberal empire when the enforcers, Straight White Christian Men, are no longer interested in doing so will result in ruin. It resulted in a decade of ruin and chaos in Russia, and that will be replicated here if the empire is not liquidated.

Advocates for Imperial Usurpation/Subversion.

Rome succumbed because her gods succumbed ; her empire came to an end because her theology ended. In this way does history place in relief the grand principle which is hidden in the depths of the human conscience. – Juan Donoso Cortes7

The right wingers who disavow the liberal-constitutionalist status quo and yet support the American empire are preparing themselves to be in a world war scenario. As it was impossible for the USSR to maintain the eastern bloc without being the leader of communism, the United States cannot in one moment be the leading advocate for liberal democracy while becoming a country that quotes Schmitt, De Maistre and Evola. These quotations are also an undermining of much of the revolutionary mythos of the United States. One cannot hold this “truth” to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, while acknowledging immutable differences of people and acting accordingly.

Knowing this contradiction, the liberal-democrats of Europe will seek independence from the United States on the basis that it is or has become anti-democratic. This will trigger the American deep state to intervene. Much of American influence stems from the fact that Europe is in a permanent state of impotence. Even if the Europeans maintain a liberal order in their countries independently from the United States, (which said assertion is contradicted by much of the CIA’s actions during the cold war, such as Operation Gladio and other anti-communist & anti-fascist activities. Furthermore, many of the “leftist” organizations in Europe receive direct funding from the USA8. It also contradicts historical precedent. Independent European liberalism has resulted in fascism, socialism or Bonapartism) this poses a threat that Europe would be able to stand up to American dictates, and later, prevent American interventions in other parts of the globe. This potential of a rising power is a mistake that the deep state does not want to make again, since the old presumption of liberal ideology leading to American dependence was refuted with the rise of China. It also helps that most of the European countries have had empires of their own, some globe spanning. The precedent is that Europe are a continent of rival powers, and the gut reaction will be to keep them servile.

Keeping this geopolitical reality in mind, the only options for justifying the status quo of American power is to become explicitly chauvinistic or begin an ideological crusade on the basis of the new ideology. The chauvinistic option is absolutely unfeasible. The culture of Americans has already conquered much of the world and has absolutely dominated Europe. Americans show off their cultural strength with Coca-Cola and Hollywood compared to Colts and Howitzers. For all practical terms, this has already been done.

The second option will cause a civil war at best or a world war at worst. Imperial usurpation by necessity requires maintaining much of the apparatus, and thus much of the liberal bureaucrats who run it. Attempting to expand or reform the empire on non-liberal grounds will result in global conflict with said liberal apparatus because it threatens their legitimacy and employment. If We, the People, elected divine-right monarchists to congress and to the presidency, and have them order the CIA to begin backing restorationist movements, the CIA would at best, deny the order since the empowerment of absolutist monarchists in Europe would later hamper American influence and control. What would be more likely, is that the CIA, FBI and other three letter agencies would declare said government to be anti-democratic, (even if the monarchists won with 99% of all votes cast, since the presumption is that the democracy cannot choose anti-democracy) call on NATO via the first paragraph of its charter to defend democracy,9 and treat Americans how Washington treated whiskey lovers.10 To counteract this, the hypothetical right-winger would have to find a way to recruit, fund and develop a right-wing CIA, FBI, DOJ, etc. that are loyal to the right wing ideology, and employ them to take the jobs of the old three letter agencies. That would also be at least a civil war scenario.

To be frank, most right wingers would not want half of the US torched for the sake of liberty in Iran.

One Small Sidenote:

This essay is not focused on the material conditions or class dynamics of the empire for two reasons.

First, the material conditions of the apparatus has had extensive work by others from various philosophers. A weekend looking into contemporary and Victorian right-wing anti-capitalism is sufficient for understanding the forces of incentives and those who guide and are guided by said forces. While a bit lengthy for one piece, The Circulation of Capital and Elites by Lucian Gray is a relatively quick summary of the current paradigm in American Capitalism. In short though, Davos Plutocrats, the Silicon Plutocrats, and the Qatari Rentiers will all sell out the US to China via the empire. None of these three factions are a desirable ruling class.

Second, throughout the histories of many grand empires, they usually collapsed when either the polity becomes divided as what happened to the Mongols and Charlemagne, or when the enforcers lost the will to maintain it. Even when the material conditions of the latter case were abysmal, the nation(s) of the empire did not loose the will to maintain it. This will was present in the H.R.E, Byzantium, China, and others. Even when religious disunity fractured the H.R.E, Byzantium was raided by every flavor of nomadic hordes, and China constantly fell to warlords and foreign rulers, the enforcers did not loose the will to keep their empires going. The H.R.E and Byzantium lasted for one thousand years, and it took centuries of constantly attacking both for the former to finally loose heart and the latter to go out in a blaze of glory. China never lost that will, and thus was able to reform itself into a modern nation state.

Very few modern writers elaborated on the spiritual aspect of imperial maintenance, and some Americans were inarticulate in describing this feeling. It mostly manifests as questioning why did we even fight in the second world war? All of this just to spread gayness global, and so on and so on.

Empires do not live on bread and circuses alone, the spiritual food required for this beast is poisonous, and her soldiers no longer want to dine on it.

Save the States, Destroy the Empire.

The American empire is inherently a leftist institution and requires leftist morals to maintain. The demographic required to maintain it, Straight White Christian Men, are no longer interested in maintaining it, and are beginning to organize both inside and outside the political norms of the empire. There is no bribe worth offering to these young men to maintain the empire when the bribe would require liquidating such a large portion of it, the elder statesmen consider the cost too high. The choices are clear, sink with the empire or swim without it.