Responding to Shaun Mcguire :Diversity the Strategy....Dispossesion your Destiny
A Critical Comparison of American Ideological Anti-Racism and Chinese Civilizational Nationalism in a Multipolar World. Why the west will lose unless they throw away the equality myth
Every moral system—whether divine, civic, or evolutionary—must grapple with what it exists to protect. Is it the abstract rights of interchangeable humans? The marketplace of ideas? Transnational corporations ? The dignity of the weak? Or is it the survival and flourishing of a people, with memory, boundary, and soul?
China has made its answer clear: it will protect Han supremacy, ethno-national cohesion, and civilizational continuity at all costs. It does not care if the New York Times or USAID calls it racist. Its morality is not cosmopolitan—it is civilizational.
America has made the opposite choice. It will protect the narrative of anti-racism even as its cities collapse, its people overdose, its families disintegrate, and its elite networks are suborned by hostile foreign powers. Its morality is not rooted in history or kinship—it is floating, unmoored, ideological.
We have a major problem. We are uniquely vulnerable, and we have no answer to a ethnocentric superpower, willing to ally with regimes we wouldn’t. Willing to use tribal divisions, within the foreign populations we imported against us. Willing to mobilize the Black minority to cause destruction, and endlessly demand more and more as payment for their racial grievances. We have no ability to counteract this, the only thing our elites can do is call it racist…. but only White people care, and we have already imported a voting population, that among citizens under 30 years of age is already majority non-white. a Voting population that don’t care about America, and merely want to loot it.
Earlier today, Shaun Mcguire Posted a video, in which he claims that Tucker Carlson and other’s focusing on the Epstein Files is serving the interests of foreign governments.
This reminded me of an article I read, by a deep state academic who was writing for the Department of Defense. So before I begin this essay, I want to briefly explain the document I’m drawing from. The PDF titled The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism is a 2013 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by Thayer Limited, LLC. The author’s goal is to expose how deeply rooted racism—especially Han Chinese racial superiority—is in China’s worldview, and how it shapes the country’s politics, foreign policy, and national identity. He explains that China sees itself as the world’s rightful center of civilization, and ranks other peoples on a racial ladder: White people (“white devils”) are seen as physically beautiful but culturally decayed, while Black people and other dark-skinned groups (“black devils”) are viewed as backward, dirty, and beneath serious interaction.
Interestingly, the author struggles with a contradiction. He openly admits that Chinese racism is a major source of strength for China. Their ethnocentrism gives them unity, confidence, and national focus—qualities that help them pursue long-term goals with discipline and cohesion. But this idea seems counterintuitive to him. As someone from a Western liberal framework where “diversity is our strength” is a core belief, he seems confused or even disturbed by the fact that China is strong because of its racialism, not despite it. He recognizes that China’s racism helps it resist internal dissent, maintain loyalty, and project power abroad—but he clearly wishes this weren’t true, and doesn’t quite know how to process it.
In this essay I am going to explore these issues and explain what this Author, and Shaun Mcguire both got wrong, and how Mcguire is himself an example of dual-loyalty being allowed influence within our public sphere, and his attempt to push for supression of Carlson and other’s focus on the Epstein case is the same problem over and over : cultish adherence to Anti-racism is weakening us.
The worst part is while, there are many true believers, but when “Diversity is our strength” and anti-racism was first implemented by our elites, it was done for strategic reasons, because they believed they needed to win the elite’s of the third world.
before we begin I want to talk about, specifically how china, which is operating within a framework where nation-states represent specific races, sees White Civilization:
According to the report:
White people are considered “tame barbarians” or “white devils.”
These are people with whom the Chinese can engage diplomatically or economically. They are still viewed as racially and culturally inferior, but not beyond interaction.The Chinese admired the West—particularly the U.S.A, Britain and Germany—when they was unicultural.
Specifically, they respected the United States when it was dominated by Anglo-Teutonic people, and Protestant values, and had a cohesive identity, and emphasized White Supremacy as a foundational national value.But modern multiculturalism is seen as weakness.
The Chinese now perceive multiculturalism as a “sickness” and a symptom of American/White/Western decline. They believe the Western obsession with anti-racism, diversity, and inclusion makes the U.S. vulnerable and fragmented. They do recognize that the opposite, White tough guy type still exists, to be clear. they just understand he is hated in his own country.Chinese racism frames the West as both inferior and flawed.
The West is seen as hypocritical: morally self-righteous about racism while collapsing under its consequences. The Chinese believe their own racism is not only natural but superior because it maintains unity and national strength.
2. “White Barbarians” vs. “Black Barbarians”: The Hierarchy of Inferiors
The report outlines a "sliding scale of inferiority" in Chinese racial thinking:
“White Barbarians” (“white devils”)
These include Europeans, Americans, Russians, etc. They are racial inferiors but civilized enough to be reasoned with, exploited or potentially even taken on as vassals or allies. But a different kind of vassal then they forsee for Africa (subjugation. We are fit to have our own rulers, Africans will require Chinese leaders in their countries) China typically has backed third worldist movements, but there is increasing discussion within the chinese elite about the possibility for coming to terms with White anti-liberal regimes (Like Hungary and Orban, the AFD, and Slovakia with Robert Fico) or Anti-Liberal, White far right dissidents as potential revolutionary allies. So far much of this outreach to the White far right has been conducted through allies like North Korea. Who once brought Dennis Mahon of W.A.R (White Aryan Resistance) to North Korea where he had a state dinner with North Korean military officials who expressed admiration for Fascism and National Socialism and wished him Luck and hoped for future cooperation. This term comes from older Chinese traditions of viewing European foreigners as uncultured but not completely savage. Whites, particularly White males, are, as well, considered physically attractive in a way that Dark skinned Blacks, Indians, and Hispanics are not. The author in his reporting on Chinese cultural views of the west, and the Chinese Elite’s view of the west makes note of this Chinese racial ideology and the place for White people within China’s racial hierarchy of the world as:Culturally fallen: Once admirable for their disciplined, masculine, scientific, and law-abiding societies (especially Anglo-Americans and Germans), White societies are now perceived by the Chinese as decadent, overly multicultural, and weakened by political correctness.
Aesthetically superior: Despite this perceived cultural and moral decline, White people—particularly men—are often viewed by Chinese observers as physically attractive, sexually desirable, and biologically “high status.” There is a persistent fascination with white skin, light hair, and facial features, especially among Chinese youth and media consumers .
The report states:“White people are often admired for their physical beauty but looked down upon for their political correctness, emotional fragility, and cultural surrender.”
This duality leads to a complex perception:
White societies are no longer seen as threats—but as useful, manipulable, and even potential partners… IF their inherent decadence and degeneracy can be overcome
there’s a fetishization of White physical appearance in media, advertising, and relationships.
Chinese men in particular may feel both inferior and resentful toward White men, seeing them as attractive to Chinese women but morally weak .
This contrasts sharply with Chinese views of “Black barbarians,” who are seen as culturally AND physically inferior, lacking beauty or civilizational value. Chinese state media, as well as pop culture, often reinforces these stereotypes.
In short:
White people: Seen as aesthetically desirable but culturally decayed.
Black people: Seen as both culturally and physically inferior, unworthy of admiration or alliance.
“Black Barbarians” (“black devils”)
These refer especially to Africans and darker-skinned peoples. They are seen as “savage inferiors” beyond hope of civilization, often viewed as dirty, violent, or animalistic. This racism is deeply embedded in Chinese culture and even affects foreign policy.Chinese view Africans in particular as needing “Chinese leadership” because they are too childlike or incompetent to govern themselves.
The report explains that Chinese racial attitudes toward darker-skinned people retard relations with the Third World because they regard darker skin as a marker of backwardness, criminality, and low status.
3. Why This Matters Strategically (According to the Report):
Chinese racism gives them internal cohesion but alienates them from large swaths of the global population.
The U.S. could exploit this by highlighting China’s hypocrisy in the Third World—especially in Africa—and present itself as the true anti-racist, inclusive power.
China sees Western obsession with racial equality as a strategic weakness, one they absolutely aim to exploit—but the report suggests this can be reframed by the U.S. as a strength that appeals globally.
Key Principles Behind Chinese Racial Typology/Hierarchical-Stratification:Racial Hierarchy: Civilized ↔ Uncivilized spectrum based on race, skin tone, and conformity to Han norms.
Eugenics + Superiority: Belief in genetic and cultural superiority of Han; admiration of controlled breeding and IQ.
Strategic Hypocrisy: May claim “non-white solidarity” in diplomacy but hold deeply racist beliefs and both the elite and average chinese sympathize with Whites over the third-world privately.
Overconfidence + Fragility: Racial chauvinism contributes to unity—but blinds China to diplomatic backlash.
Now for the essay
Below you will find an Index
Chapter 1: Introduction — Morality, Strategy, and the Collapse of the West
Can a society survive by universalizing moral ideals that others reject?
comparative critique :
Shaun Maguire’s accusation that Tucker Carlson is “serving foreign interests” by criticizing elite corruption ala “The Epstein Files'“;
The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism report’s claim that Chinese racism is a strategic vulnerability.
This essay argues that both Maguire and the DoD report misdiagnose the strategic realities of the 21st century. China’s ethnocentric cohesion is not a weakness—it is a shield. American anti-racism has metastasized into ideological blindness, leaving the nation vulnerable to internal fragmentation, foreign infiltration, and elite capture. In a multipolar world, moral universalism has become a strategic liability.
Chapter 2: Maguire’s Logic — Dissent as Disloyalty and the Weaponization of “Unity”
I unpack Shaun Maguire’s claim that Carlson’s criticism aids foreign powers like China.
I analyze McGuire’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand:
Criticism of elite wrongdoing is framed as disloyalty, while actual dual-loyalty (e.g., to Israel or global capital) is normalized.We Explore how “national unity” is weaponized to suppress dissent and protect transnational elite interests.
I argue that if Epstein, Mossad, or Zionist networks are blackmailing U.S. elites, silence is complicity—not patriotism.
Key claim:
American anti-racism has evolved into a form of secular blasphemy law that protects real strategic vulnerabilities—like elite dual loyalty—from scrutiny.
Chapter 3: The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism — A Misread by the West
We Recap and critique the DoD report’s framing of Chinese racism as a liability.
Demonstrate that China’s racial nationalism produces:
In-group cohesion
Policy discipline
Resistance to foreign infiltration
Contrast this with the U.S. approach:
Hyper-fragmentation of identity
Policing of speech over substance
Inability to distinguish loyalty from identity politics
I argue that far from being a weakness, Chinese ethnocentrism functions as a civilizational immune system—what liberal societies have dismantled. Poetically, our lack of a natural immune system, and attacks on the xenophobic poor meant to protect us as that immune system mimics the effects of GRIDS/HIV (Gay Related Immune Disorder Syndrome) but at a civilizational level. Without the immunity we are certain to die of even minor illnesses.
Chapter 4: From Global Governance to Multipolar Realities — The Elite Strategy That Failed
I trace the post-Cold War unipolar strategy of American-led global governance.
U.S. as global police
Anglo-American-EU elite caste (military, tech, finance, academia)
Soft power via diversity, immigration, and "anti-racist imperialism"
given examples:
U.S.-Afghan dual nationals installed post-2001
Francafrique strategy of absorbing elite loyalty through luxury, culture, and dependency
Importing foreign technical elites (Indian, Chinese, African) as a global talent filter
Core strategic flaw:
This only worked in a bipolar/unipolar world (in terms of helping the USA win the cold war and keeping third world elites tied to the USA’s global hegemony). In a multipolar world, dual loyalties now pose a national security risk, not just an optics problem.Case studies:
Chinese diaspora entangled with CCP organs and tech espionage
Hindu supremacist infiltration of Western politics via Indian diaspora (Ramaswamy, Sunak)
Mexican-flag-waving protestors in LA burning U.S. flags in majority-Hispanic states
The Israel Lobby
My argument:
Diversity that was imported for moral legitimacy and global soft power is now a Trojan horse. The belief that anyone can “become American” ignores the return of tribal loyalty and civilizational blocs.
Chapter 5: The Blindspots of American Anti-Racism — From Moral Good to Strategic Suicide
I analyze how anti-racism ideology— supposedly meant to overcome injustice(Actually meant to keep Third World elite’s invested in the west and integrated into a Western-centric global elite —has become a suicidal universalism:
Silences discussion of loyalty, identity, and belonging
Treats national boundaries and civic identity as racism
Equates critique of elite ethnic networks with “hate speech”
Explore how Zionism and Jewish in-group preferences are immune from critique under this regime.
The Maguire problem: A Jewish-American accuses critics of Epstein Blackmail ring or Mossad/AIPAC infiltration of “helping China”
But the real subversion is the immunity of tribal elites from accountability
We Examine how anti-racism functions as a religious orthodoxy:
Heretics are canceled
Blasphemy is punished
No distinction is allowed between rational concerns of loyalty and “racism”
Conclude with the strategic paradox:
China weaponizes racism to fortify its nation.
America weaponizes anti-racism to destroy itself.
Chapter 6: Conclusion — Multipolarity and the Return of the Tribe
Reiterate the central contrast:
China: Civilizational self-confidence, strategic ethnic homogeneity, and loyalty-centered governance
USA: Fractured moral universalism, elite capture, and cultural self-hatred
Argue that the return of multipolarity—China, Russia, India, Islam, etc.—means that tribal cohesion, not liberal moralism, will define 21st-century power.
We reframe the stakes:
The West must rediscover the difference between tolerance and suicide.
A moral system that delegitimizes belonging, ancestry, and loyalty cannot survive a world that embraces them.
Tolerance and altruism are positive evolutionary traits meant to maintain peace and further cooperation within the in-group.
When exploited by Out-groups for their own benefit, much like the Cuckoo bird, it leads to civilizational death.
Final warning:
If America does not re-establish who it belongs to, and what it serves, it will become a territory without a people, ruled by elites without a nation, in a world that still believes in both. And Our American people will suffer the consequences: As of now, our future, as exemplified by the LA riots, is becoming a minority, much like South Africa where Whites exist as 7% of the population- And 90% of taxpayers- in a country where the non-White demographics form an unbeatable electoral coalition that cares only for what it can extract from us, and from the state, to serve the in-group, and the nations of origin.
Chapter 1: Introduction — Morality, Strategy, and the Collapse of the West
The collapse of nations often comes not from military defeat, but from internal contradictions—beliefs held so sacred they become immune to criticism even when they corrode the pillars of sovereignty. In the twenty-first century, the most sacred of these is the Western dogma of diversity and anti-racism. A doctrine born from noble intentions—to rectify historical injustice and affirm human dignity—has evolved into an unassailable moral system that forbids discussion of its unintended strategic consequences. This is not merely a cultural issue; it is a question of national survival. In an era marked by the re-emergence of multipolarity, rising civilizational states, and renewed tribalism, the ideological commitments of liberal democracies—particularly the United States—have become a source of fatal weakness.
Two recent texts exemplify the fault lines of this ideological war. The first is a video and associated commentary by venture capitalist Shaun Maguire, who accuses political commentator Tucker Carlson of indirectly aiding foreign adversaries—particularly China and Russia—by amplifying narratives of elite corruption tied to figures like Jeffrey Epstein. The second is a lesser-known but deeply revealing 2013 report titled The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism, prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment. The report presents Chinese racial chauvinism as a strategic liability—arguing that China’s ethnocentrism will hinder its soft power projection and alienate the developing world. Both Maguire and the Pentagon’s analysts accept the same moral axiom: that a universalist, anti-racist, diversity-driven vision of global order is not only morally good but strategically necessary for prosperity. They do not have the ability to mentally model an alternative that isn’t a marvel villain, and are thus on the backfoot when it comes to China. They do not have an answer for Chinese loyalty to China, or for dealing with the Chinese ability to influence groups within the west, against the west. Their answer is the only answer they know : call it racist and assume that will make the opposite side give way. This essay challenges that premise from both moral and realist perspectives.
The author of The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism contends that racism is a universal human trait, but that the West—unlike China—has gone through the moral labor of acknowledging and rejecting it. The report characterizes Chinese ethnocentrism as a legacy of Confucian hierarchy, Communist eugenics, and civilizational pride, and claims this will alienate Africa, the Islamic world, and other nonwhite populations. But this assumption fails to ask a deeper question: what if the rest of the world does not share Western moral priorities? What if the Third World values strength, hierarchy, and sovereignty over liberal morality? And what if Chinese racism—far from being a liability—is the key to its civilizational unity and geopolitical rise?
Meanwhile, Maguire’s framing of dissent as foreign subversion exemplifies the increasingly religious nature of liberal ideology. His warning that criticism of Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence, or the suggestion that America’s political class may be compromised by foreign blackmail, is somehow “serving China” reveals the extent to which anti-racism and elite protection have fused into a single dogma. In Maguire’s view, raising legitimate questions about transnational elite corruption is more dangerous than the corruption itself. This is not a defense of American sovereignty—it is its inversion.
The rise of China exposes these contradictions with brutal clarity. While the United States dissolves its national identity into a raceless, borderless, universal abstraction—where anyone from anywhere can “become American” by affirming progressive values like sodomy and feminism—China doubles down on Han supremacy, national pride, and civilizational continuity. The U.S. imports foreign populations at scale and demands no assimilation, rather they are encouraged to keep their own culture and language and to even create their own little ethnic enclaves, while demanding the White population make room for them. China recruits its diaspora into a tightly monitored loyalty network designed to advance state objectives. The contrast could not be starker.
And yet, according to the U.S. national security establishment, it is China that is at risk of global alienation—because it refuses to practice Western-style anti-racism. This is a strategic fantasy. The reality is that all non-western countries admire China's unapologetic nationalism, and more still are alienated by America's aggressive exportation of gender ideology, racial guilt, and cultural deracination. America's diversity is no longer a strength—it is an ideology, one that blinds policymakers to the nature of real-world power.
The fallacy at the core of Maguire’s argument, and the Pentagon’s, is that morality and strategy are synonymous. This was plausible in the post-Cold War unipolar moment, when American liberalism could present itself as both ethically superior and materially dominant. But that moment is over. We are returning to a world of rival civilizations—China, Russia, India, Islam—each with its own values, interests, and hierarchies. In such a world, the universalist project becomes not a strength, but a vulnerability: a system that invites loyalty to everything but the nation itself.
Consider the demographic implications. If a society defines itself not by shared ancestry, culture, or history, but by adherence to an ideology of inclusion, what happens when that ideology ceases to function? What happens when large portions of the population identify more with their ancestral homelands than with the country of their citizenship? What happens when foreign nations become powerful enough to rival the U.S., and the “immigrant success stories” embedded in its infrastructure begin to shift their allegiance?
These are not hypothetical questions. They are already playing out—in the Chinese diaspora’s connections to the CCP, in the Indian diaspora’s growing alignment with Modi’s Hindu nationalism, in Hispanic-American protests where U.S. flags are burned and Mexican flags waved in defiance. Yet to even notice these patterns is to risk social and professional ruin. The discourse has become so saturated with the moral vocabulary of anti-racism that strategic prudence itself is treated as bigotry.
This essay proceeds in six chapters. First, it will dissect Shaun Maguire’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand: framing critiques of elite loyalty as unpatriotic, while ignoring the real implications of foreign influence and tribal infiltration. Second, it will critically analyze the Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism report, showing how the very traits it condemns—racial solidarity, cultural continuity, in-group preference—are what give China its geopolitical strength. Third, it will examine the strategic shift from unipolarity to multipolarity, arguing that the globalist elite strategy of importing foreign technocrats to bind the world to America has backfired under new conditions. Fourth, it will explore how American anti-racism has become a form of political religious fundamentalism, one that cannot tolerate rational discussion of its failures or side effects. Fifth, it will expose how real loyalty threats—from Zionist networks to diasporic political movements—are protected from criticism by the same ideological blindness that celebrates “diversity” as a moral absolute.
The conclusion will ask a simple but urgent question: Can a civilization that dissolves itself in the name of moral inclusivity survive against those that do not?
Chapter 2: Maguire’s Logic — Dissent as Disloyalty and the Weaponization of “Unity”
In a time of accelerating fragmentation, where faith in American institutions is crumbling and elite corruption is no longer secret but systemic, one might expect the nation's most powerful voices to call for transparency, accountability, and reform. Instead, figures like Shaun Maguire—venture capitalist and former CIA analyst—issue stern warnings not to question too deeply. In his recent video post, Maguire suggests that Tucker Carlson’s criticisms of America’s ruling class, including his discussion of Jeffrey Epstein and potential Israeli blackmail operations, are not merely reckless but strategically damaging. “You’re doing China’s work for them,” he says in essence. The implication is clear: dissent equals disloyalty.
This rhetorical move—conflating critique with betrayal—is not new. It echoes Cold War McCarthyism and the post-9/11 “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” logic. But in Maguire’s case, the targets are not communists or jihadis, but American citizens who suspect that their political class has been compromised by transnational elites, foreign intelligence, or ideological commitments that no longer serve the nation. His logic reveals a deeper pathology: an emerging global-”nationalist” fusion that treats anti-elite dissent as more dangerous than elite malfeasance.
Consider the stakes of the argument. If Jeffrey Epstein was indeed operating a sexual blackmail ring with ties to Mossad—a theory with circumstantial support but blocked from serious public inquiry—then the moral urgency lies in exposing and prosecuting those responsible. But for Maguire, the threat lies not in the blackmail, but in its exposure. “Don’t talk about it,” he warns, “because foreign adversaries will use it to divide us.” This is not a call for national unity; it is a demand for ideological obedience.
And yet, Maguire frames his position as patriotic. He is Jewish-American, and his discomfort with discussions of Epstein’s ties to Israel may be understandable on a personal level. But from a strategic standpoint, this becomes a textbook example of the dual loyalty problem—a problem American anti-racism ideology has rendered unspeakable. The charge is not that Jewish Americans are inherently disloyal. Rather, the point is that in a system unwilling to discuss tribal or foreign influence out of fear of being called racist or antisemitic, actual subversion becomes invisible. This is a structural weakness—one China, Russia, and other civilizational actors are not encumbered by.
The deeper irony is that Maguire accuses Carlson of “doing China’s work” precisely because Carlson dares to highlight America’s internal rot. But if China benefits from the exposure of American elite corruption, that is not Carlson’s fault—it is the fault of the corrupted elite. To shift blame onto the messenger is a moral inversion. It protects those with real power by labeling their critics as traitors. It echoes the logic of imperial Rome, where to criticize the emperor was sedition, no matter how justified the grievance.
This logic has become increasingly common among the American elite. Whenever a whistleblower, populist, or investigative journalist raises uncomfortable truths—about mass surveillance, financial exploitation, or foreign lobbying—they are accused of aiding “foreign adversaries.” Yet these critics are not aiding China or Russia; they are diagnosing the internal collapse of a system that cannot govern itself honestly. Maguire’s accusation is emblematic of an elite that has lost the ability to distinguish between itself and the nation. It is no longer “we the people”; it is “we the managers,” and questioning their legitimacy becomes un-American by default.
But the most dangerous part of this argument is the redefinition of unity. Maguire suggests that “we” must stick together against China, Russia, and other rivals. But who is we? Is it Americans united by shared ancestry, culture, and loyalty? Or is it a managerial elite committed to maintaining a global system of ideological control—one that privileges international finance, foreign lobbies, and racial redistribution over national cohesion?
The truth is that Maguire's “unity” is not organic; it is manufactured. It is not a product of shared blood, history, or civic virtue. It is a paper-thin consensus forged by fear—fear of being labeled a traitor, a racist, or a conspiracy theorist. This kind of unity does not strengthen nations; it silences them. It leaves them vulnerable to real foreign subversion precisely because it renders strategic questions—Who are we? Who rules us? What are their loyalties?—off-limits.
And here we arrive at the most explosive but unavoidable implication: if we accept that foreign states—like Israel or China—have networks of influence within our government, media, and financial institutions, then we must be allowed to discuss this openly. To say that such influence should not be mentioned because it serves China’s interests is to permanently cripple American sovereignty. This is not “patriotism”—it is surrender by censorship.
Furthermore, Maguire’s logic does not hold up under closer scrutiny. If Carlson’s comments about Epstein, Mossad, or dual loyalty truly harm America’s global standing, then the problem is not the comment—the problem is the reality it describes. If foreign intelligence agencies have leverage over American decision-makers, then the strategic imperative is to expose and purge, not to conceal. Censorship is not counterintelligence; it is complicity.
It is worth noting that many of the world’s most effective and enduring civilizations—China, Japan, Turkey, Israel—actively police loyalty and punish foreign influence. The U.S., however, has institutionalized the opposite. It elevates foreigners to positions of political power. It celebrates diasporic loyalty. It treats national self-preservation as xenophobia. In such a system, Shaun Maguire is not an outlier—he is a symptom of ideological capture.
Finally, let us ask the question Maguire refuses to ask: What if America is collapsing from within because it has no coherent identity left to defend? What if the real service to China is being done not by critics like Carlson, but by the gatekeepers who insist that no one may speak of the emperor’s nudity? In this light, Maguire’s plea for silence becomes less a strategy than a superstition. He is clinging to a moral framework that no longer maps to geopolitical reality—a framework in which silence is safety, and honesty is betrayal.
But in the real world, empires fall when they can no longer tell the truth about themselves. Maguire may believe he is defending American unity. But if that unity depends on suppressing public awareness of elite blackmail, tribal loyalty, or strategic self-delusion, then it is not unity at all—it is managed decline. And it will not save us.
Chapter 3: Multipolarity and the Death of the Globalist Strategy
The world in which the American elite strategy was formulated—post-Cold War, unipolar, and ideologically triumphant—no longer exists. For several decades following the Soviet collapse, U.S. policymakers believed they stood at the end of history: liberal democracy had won, and globalization would spread its values inexorably. This belief was not merely academic—it structured an entire system of governance, migration, commerce, diplomacy, and military intervention. The assumption was simple: the United States, as the global hegemon, would serve as the central hub of an emerging global order governed by technocrats, enlightened bureaucrats, financial elites, and multinational institutions.
But that order is collapsing. The twenty-first century is defined not by the spread of liberalism but by the return of civilization-states—China, India, Turkey, Iran, Russia—each asserting distinct cultural identities, geopolitical interests, and developmental paths. This transition to multipolarity is not merely a shift in balance; it is a profound epistemic rupture. The globalist elite imagined a world governed by rules and values that transcended ethnicity, tradition, and borders. That vision has been exposed as utopian and brittle. And as the world fragments, the very policies designed to integrate it—mass migration, elite diaspora absorption, cultural openness—are now undermining the West itself.
To understand how we arrived here, we must revisit the logic of unipolar globalism. The post-Cold War American empire was not built solely through military power. It was built through ideological prestige and economic magnetism. The United States became the default destination for the world's educated elite, not because it offered cultural kinship or historical belonging, but because it offered access to wealth, technology, and social advancement. The implicit deal was clear: “Come here, contribute your skills, and join the global ruling class.” The assumption was that these elites—Indians, Chinese, Nigerians, Arabs—would shed their tribal loyalties and adopt the values of cosmopolitan liberalism. Some did. But many did not.
This strategy worked for a time because the countries of origin were too weak to offer an alternative. In 2001, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and helped form a new government, many of the key ministers were Afghan-Americans—U.S. citizens who had lived in the West for decades. These men, such as Hamid Karzai, were chosen not because of their local legitimacy but because they were culturally intelligible to the American bureaucracy. Similarly, France has long relied on a neocolonial strategy toward its Francophone African dependencies: grooming the children of African elites in French schools, integrating them into Parisian society, and using their dependency to secure favorable economic and political outcomes. Black African presidents fly to Paris on weekends, drink French wine, sleep with white women, and return to rule their homelands in accordance with French interests.
This system of global elite circulation relied on three assumptions:
That the U.S. and its allies would remain unchallenged as the apex of global prestige.
That imported elites could be trusted to abandon tribal loyalties and serve the Western order.
That racial, religious, or ethnic identity would dissolve in the acid bath of liberal universalism.
All three assumptions have failed.
China is now a peer power, with a confident civilization-state model rooted in Han supremacy, Confucian hierarchy, and techno-authoritarian governance. India, under the BJP, is no longer the secular experiment of Nehru but a Hindu nationalist project that sees itself as the inheritor of a thousand-year war against Muslim and Western rule. Russia has fully embraced Orthodoxy, imperial nostalgia, and ethnic nationalism. Turkey has revived neo-Ottoman dreams under Erdoğan. The West is no longer the only game in town.
In this new world, diasporas no longer dissolve—they mobilize. Chinese-Americans are increasingly embedded in CCP loyalty networks. Indian-Americans are increasingly influenced by Hindutva ideology. Muslim immigrants retain global Sunni loyalties and, in many cases, support Islamist causes. Hispanic-Americans—particularly Mexican-Americans—are beginning to engage in revanchist rhetoric, declaring the American Southwest to be rightful Mexican territory. Some protest waving Mexican flags and burning American ones. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect the limits of assimilation and the failures of ideological governance.
And yet the American system continues to treat these developments as taboo. To question the loyalty of dual citizens, or to restrict political participation based on ethnic or national background, is considered “racist.” But such taboos did not evolve in a multipolar world. They were created in a unipolar fantasy, where the U.S. could afford to be open because it had no real competitors. That world is gone.
Take the case of Vivek Ramaswamy—an American-born entrepreneur and political candidate with obvious connections to the Indian business elite and clear rhetorical sympathies with Hindu nationalism. Or Rishi Sunak—prime minister of the United Kingdom, married into one of India’s wealthiest business families, and surrounded by advisors with ties to Modi’s BJP. In a sane civilization, such men would be vetted for foreign influence and dual loyalty—not out of bigotry, but out of strategic prudence. No country on Earth—not China, not India, not Israel—would allow such individuals to attain power without intense scrutiny. But in the West, the very act of asking the question is treated as moral heresy.
This blindness stems from the ideological primacy of anti-racism. To the liberal mind, it is better to risk foreign subversion than to be accused of racial bias. This is not morality—it is neurosis. And it is being ruthlessly exploited by those who have no such scruples.
China, by contrast, demands ethnic loyalty and rewards diaspora cooperation. Chinese-Americans in positions of influence are courted, pressured, surveilled, or even coerced into supporting Beijing’s interests. Similar patterns can be seen in Turkish, Iranian, Indian, and even Israeli diasporas. The strategic logic is clear: diaspora populations are not neutral—they are bridges of influence. To treat them as atomized individuals rather than embedded networks is to misunderstand the nature of realpolitik.
Yet the U.S. persists in its outdated model. It continues to import foreign populations, elevate foreign-born elites, and encourage transnational identity—all while insisting that loyalty must be colorblind. It celebrates as moral victories things which other civilizations interpret as terminal decline. And it persecutes as racist anyone who points this out.
This is why Shaun Maguire’s warning is not just incorrect—it is suicidal. To accuse Carlson of “doing China’s work” by exposing elite corruption is to ignore the real way China wins: not by dividing America with information, but by outcompeting America with coherence. China does not need to invent American dysfunction. It merely needs to wait while the U.S. dismembers itself in pursuit of moral abstractions that no other civilization shares.
In conclusion, the American globalist model worked only when the U.S. held unchallenged ideological, financial, and military hegemony. Now that multipolarity has returned, the very tools once used to bind the world—openness, diversity, ideological evangelism—have become strategic vulnerabilities. The post-Cold War elite strategy of importing foreign talent to reinforce U.S. supremacy no longer works. It creates power centers of divided loyalty within the homeland. It erodes national cohesion. And in a world of competitive tribes, it makes the West uniquely fragile.
What is needed now is not more censorship or moral panic. It is clarity: an acknowledgment that the rules have changed, and that survival will depend not on being the most virtuous empire—but the most coherent nation.
Chapter 4: The Moral Inversion of “Anti-Racism” and the Delegitimization of Identity
In the postwar West, a new moral dogma emerged that rapidly metastasized into the governing logic of its institutions: anti-racism. Initially grounded in liberal humanism and a desire to correct the injustices of slavery, segregation, and colonial domination, anti-racism evolved from a reformist ethic into an absolutist ideology. Its core premise—that racial distinctions must be erased in favor of universal human identity—was weaponized into a civil religion. In this religion, questioning diversity became heresy, acknowledging group differences became hate speech, and protecting one’s ethnic or cultural heritage became white supremacy.
But as this doctrine hardened into orthodoxy, it lost all capacity for introspection. It could no longer distinguish between ethical pluralism and strategic suicide. As it globalized—through NGOs, the U.S. State Department, academia, and media—it became not a tool of justice, but of dissolution. Nations that refused to submit to its metaphysics—like China—were called morally troubling. And the most existentially absurd consequence of all: those who refused to dispossess themselves in the name of anti-racism were cast as villains, while those who destroyed their heritage for global harmony were celebrated as progressives.
The paper The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism is an exemplar of this inversion. Its premise is that China’s refusal to embrace racial diversity—its preference for Han ethno-nationalism, its hostility to Blackness, and its cultural insularity—poses a long-term danger to China’s global standing. The implicit claim is that by failing to mirror the West’s post-racial utopia, China is handicapping itself diplomatically, economically, and morally.
But this claim only makes sense within a very narrow moral and historical framework—one that sees moral universalism as the apex of evolution. From the Chinese perspective, the report is absurd. Why would a successful, cohesive civilization-state dismantle its own identity to appease a Western ideology in crisis? Why should a rising power imitate the self-destructive habits of the declining hegemon?
Consider what anti-racism has demanded of the West:
That national identities be made porous so that immigrants can be integrated on equal footing without expectation of cultural assimilation.
That demographic majorities be dissolved through open immigration, in order to produce “equity” between races and ethnicities.
That public discourse erase ancestral loyalty, blood ties, or historic memory, replacing them with vague appeals to universal belonging.
That criticisms of Jewish tribal loyalty, Indian Hindutva diaspora influence, or Chinese political infiltration be silenced, lest one appear racist.
The result is a civilization that cannot define itself, defend its borders, or assert its interests—because to do so is to exclude, and exclusion is the cardinal sin. This is not ethical evolution. This is systemic collapse by moral blackmail.
Meanwhile, the very populations celebrated by the anti-racist regime do not reciprocate the ideology. Second-generation immigrants increasingly show stronger ethnic attachment to their parents' homeland than to their country of birth. Indian-American tech and business elites openly support Modi’s Hindu nationalist project. Chinese-Americans participate in soft-power campaigns for the CCP. Muslim immigrants form ethnic enclaves that reject Western social norms. Hispanic-American activists fly the Mexican flag while declaring the American Southwest to be stolen land. None of this is accidental. It is the logical consequence of an empire that refuses to impose boundaries—physical, cultural, or civilizational.
And yet, to observe these realities is to risk excommunication. You are not allowed to notice that diversity has trade-offs. You are not allowed to ask whether your own people have a right to remain a majority in their homeland. You are not allowed to assert that identity—real, inherited, and unchosen—is a legitimate basis for nationhood. Anti-racism has delegitimized identity itself. Not identity for all people, of course—only for those deemed “historically dominant.”
White Americans, ethnic Europeans, or founding populations are told that their national identities are “constructed” and therefore illegitimate. But Palestinians, Tibetans, and Indigenous peoples are told their identities are sacred. Zionism is treated as heroic ethnic nationalism—but any American echo of that sentiment is neo-Nazism. Israel can be a Jewish state; America must be a global shopping mall.
This is not ethics. This is doublethink.
Shaun Maguire’s warning about criticizing elite Jewish influence ties directly into this paradigm. When he says such criticism “does China’s work,” what he’s really saying is that certain identities may not be scrutinized—because doing so violates the sacred dogma of anti-racism. But what he cannot or will not see is that this very prohibition is what makes the American system vulnerable to foreign influence.
A regime that cannot acknowledge tribal loyalty, diaspora politics, or ethno-religious networks is a regime that cannot defend itself. Israel openly uses its diaspora for intelligence collection, lobbying, and narrative control. China does the same. India, too. But the U.S. insists on pretending that all citizens are interchangeable units of merit, floating above ethnicity. This illusion makes it impossible to recognize patterns of subversion, dual loyalty, or in-group preference. And it allows real enemies—foreign and domestic—to operate under the cover of moral untouchability.
This is why anti-racism is not merely a failed idea. It is an inverted morality. It takes the natural instinct to preserve one’s people, culture, and way of life, and casts it as evil. It replaces the organic order of human difference with a homogenized monoculture of economic utility and consumer identity. It turns dispossession into virtue and self-defense into hate.
And most dangerously, it moralizes defeat. The more a Western nation loses its coherence, its demographics, and its sovereignty, the more its leaders proclaim moral superiority. “Look how tolerant we are,” says Sweden, as bombs explode in Malmö and rapes skyrocket in Stockholm. “Look how inclusive we are,” says Britain, as Muslim grooming gangs target thousands of native girls. “Look how post-racial we are,” says the United States, as its founding population becomes a statistical minority and its institutions serve foreign lobbies.
This is civilizational madness. No other power on Earth behaves this way. And the longer it continues, the more inevitable Western decline becomes.
In conclusion, the ideology of anti-racism—once a noble rejection of dehumanization—has become a totalitarian system that punishes rootedness, pathologizes belonging, and demands the dissolution of all particularism. It cannot coexist with national identity. It cannot permit sovereign decision-making. And it cannot survive in a multipolar world where every rising power unapologetically affirms its own tribe, culture, and destiny.
The West will not be saved by becoming more anti-racist. It will be saved, if at all, by recovering the right to say: We exist. We are a people. And we will not be replaced.
addendum and case studies
In the architecture of postwar liberalism, the United States and its Western allies adopted a worldview that conflated moral universalism with strategic strength. Out of the ashes of fascism and colonialism came a moral mandate: diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism were not just moral goods—they were national virtues. This moral narrative became tightly interwoven with American globalism and power projection. But what if this narrative is no longer strategically sound? What if its continued application, in an emerging multipolar world, is not just a weakness—but a civilizational suicide pact?
The Western faith in multiculturalism is premised on a radical assumption: that all human groups are equally capable of assimilating into a single civic identity, and that the host society must make infinite moral and institutional concessions to accommodate that assimilation. Yet this model, born in the unipolar American century, now reveals itself to be obsolete.
The Collapse of the Assimilationist Model
Take Sweden—a country that built a high-trust society on shared ethnicity, Protestant work ethic, and egalitarian civic norms. When Sweden extended that trust universally, importing large numbers of non-assimilated populations from Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, the results were catastrophic. In a single generation, Sweden went from one of the safest societies in the world to one with skyrocketing rape, gun crime, and bombings. Integration failed not because Swedes were insufficiently kind—but because they extended moral instincts meant for in-group members to cultural and civilizational out-groups. The result was chaos.
A similar crisis is underway in the United States.
Hispanic Riots and the Limits of Loyalty
In Los Angeles and other cities, riots increasingly feature crowds waving Mexican flags, burning the American flag, and declaring that "the Southwest belongs to Mexico." These are not isolated incidents—they are expressions of a broader political and demographic reality: Hispanics are now the majority in several U.S. states. Many in the second and third generations retain a primary loyalty to Mexico or pan-Hispanic identity. This is not an indictment of genetics or culture—it is a warning about political realism. A state cannot long survive if its rising demographic majority feels more affinity for a foreign nation than for its own.
If the U.S. becomes, in effect, a Greater Mexico, this is not simply a change in flavor—it is a change in regime. It is the replacement of a historical people and political order with something new, likely less liberal, less democratic, and less loyal to America’s founding ethos.
Case Study: The Israel Lobby and Tribal Power in American Politics
One of the clearest examples of the failure of universalism to address real tribal power comes not from immigration—but from elite overrepresentation. Jewish Americans, who comprise roughly 2% of the U.S. population, are responsible for more than 50% of donations to the Democratic Party and 25% of those to the GOP. All eight Ivy League universities currently have Jewish presidents, and many of them have student bodies with Jewish pluralities, despite their small demographic share.
On its face, this may be presented as meritocratic or coincidental. But in a country where ethnic representation and equity are scrutinized in every other domain, the Jewish overrepresentation in elite institutions is considered immune from critique. Any inquiry is met with accusations of antisemitism. But this taboo ignores a deeper problem: power without accountability, and loyalty without reciprocity.
When individuals who identify strongly with Israel or with Jewish tribal in-group preference ascend to positions of power in media, finance, academia, and government, the potential for foreign-aligned influence is not hypothetical—it is structural. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the ADL, and other Zionist organizations wield disproportionate influence over both domestic policy and foreign affairs. Criticism of Israel in Congress is career suicide. Foreign aid to Israel is sacrosanct. Israeli spying scandals, such as the Jonathan Pollard case or Epstein’s likely intelligence ties, are buried or dismissed.
This is not to say all Jewish Americans are disloyal, or that tribal loyalty is inherently wrong. But it must be judged by the same standards applied to all other diasporas. If Chinese scientists working with the CCP are investigated for national security risks, and if Indian tech elites aligned with Modi's BJP raise concerns of foreign ideological infiltration, then Jewish-American power must also be subject to scrutiny—particularly when it shapes U.S. policy in ways that clearly benefit Israel at the expense of American interests.
This double standard reveals the failure of universalist anti-racism. It disables the state from making rational distinctions about loyalty, threat, and identity. In a world of competing tribes, the only people forbidden to act as a tribe are historic Americans.
Case Study: Mike George and the Chaldean Mafia in Detroit
Another revealing example of tribal consolidation and elite capture involves the rise of Arab-American and Chaldean-American influence in metro Detroit. One prominent figure, Mike George, ascended to a position within the U.S. Small Business Administration and, with the backing of the Chaldean Mafia, helped orchestrate a quiet economic takeover of large swathes of Detroit's commercial landscape. Today, nearly every gas station, liquor store, and party store in metro Detroit is owned by Chaldean or Arab-American families.
This is not merely an economic success story—it is a case study in how diaspora networks can consolidate power rapidly when left unchecked, often bypassing traditional civic channels. The integration of organized ethnic networks into federal institutions (such as the SBA) allows them to leverage U.S. resources to build enclave economies and political fiefdoms. Meanwhile, local African-American and working-class white populations find themselves economically displaced and politically irrelevant in their own cities.
This too is a failure of the anti-racist framework. The state is so committed to denying group differences that it fails to guard against tribal capture of public institutions. Worse, those who raise concerns are tarred as bigots. But again, the issue is not race or religion. It is loyalty, power, and sovereignty.
Case Study: The Francafrique Backfire — How Elite Integration Became a Strategic Liability for France
In the aftermath of decolonization, France pursued a strategy of neo-imperial continuity through what became known as Francafrique: a complex web of political, economic, military, and cultural ties binding France to its former African colonies. At the heart of this system was a policy of elite co-optation—inviting African political and business elites into the French sphere of influence, educating them in Paris, integrating them into the French economic ecosystem, and cultivating personal loyalties through diplomacy, patronage, and privilege.
This strategy worked remarkably well for several decades. Many African heads of state—such as Félix Houphouët-Boigny (Ivory Coast), Omar Bongo (Gabon), and Denis Sassou Nguesso (Congo)—were staunch Francophiles. They sent their children to French boarding schools, vacationed on the Riviera, and invested their nations’ mineral wealth into French banks and luxury apartments in Paris. France, in return, offered them military support, economic aid, and political cover in international institutions.
But in the long term, this strategy produced the opposite of what France intended.
The Revolt of the Trained Elites: Ibrahim Traoré and the Pan-African Rejection of France
Recent years have seen a dramatic collapse of French influence in the Sahel. In particular, the rise of Captain Ibrahim Traoré, the charismatic military leader of Burkina Faso, marks a generational and ideological break from Francafrique. Traoré, while not a Paris-trained technocrat, is the political product of decades of African frustration with France's paternalistic grip. His rhetoric—calling for African unity, rejection of French neocolonialism, and open alignment with Russia and China—has resonated deeply across the region.
Traoré represents a broader trend among African militaries and youth movements: the children of Francafrique have turned on their former patrons. In Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, French troops have been expelled, embassies attacked, and French businesses nationalized or sanctioned. France is increasingly being replaced by Russia’s Wagner Group, Turkish arms suppliers, and Chinese infrastructure projects.
Rather than loyalty, France’s attempt to integrate elites has bred resentment, especially as corruption, inequality, and dependency have worsened under Francophile regimes. These elites are now seen by their own people as compradors and traitors—while the emerging anti-French leaders portray themselves as anti-colonial revolutionaries reclaiming African sovereignty.
The Trojan Horse Within: The African Diaspora and the Crisis of French Identity
Simultaneously, the African diaspora that France cultivated—through migration, student programs, and postcolonial labor policies—has become one of the most alienated and oppositional political blocs within France itself. Despite billions spent on urban renewal, social welfare, and multicultural outreach, many African and Arab-descended communities in France remain poor, overpoliced, and socially segregated.
The result is a volatile mix of anti-French, anti-white, and anti-republican sentiment, particularly among second- and third-generation immigrants. Waves of riots, like those in 2005 and again in 2023 after the killing of Nahel Merzouk, demonstrate that this population does not feel integrated into the French nation. In many cases, they express open hostility to the French Republic, its values of laïcité, and its colonial legacy.
This diaspora has increasingly become:
A voting bloc aligned with anti-colonial, leftist, or Islamist political factions.
A source of interethnic violence, street crime, and civil unrest.
A symbolic reminder of France’s failure to reconcile its colonial past with its modern liberal ideals.
Ironically, the very populations once groomed to be France’s bridge to Africa have become internal adversaries, undermining national cohesion and fueling populist backlash across the political spectrum.
Strategic Consequences
France’s integration of African elites was supposed to ensure influence and gratitude. Instead, it created:
A parasitic class of comprador elites, now discredited and overthrown.
An unassimilated diaspora, radicalized by racial and historical grievance.
A backlash in both Africa and France, leading to the erosion of French soft power, domestic stability, and foreign strategic depth.
In geopolitical terms, Francafrique has imploded. Paris now finds itself encircled—its embassies torched abroad, its urban suburbs in flames at home. This is not the legacy of benevolent empire. It is the cost of believing that power could be preserved through elite mimicry and postcolonial theater.
Comparative Analysis: France’s Failed Integration vs. China’s Racialized Control
France’s strategy in Africa—based on elite integration, shared language, and cultural assimilation—sought to maintain imperial influence through soft power and mutual dependency. Yet, this strategy ultimately backfired. African leaders educated in France grew resentful of their subordinate status, while France’s African diaspora became a destabilizing force at home. Today, French flags are burned in Ouagadougou and waved in French suburbs by protesters demanding justice—not unity.
China, by contrast, has pursued an entirely different model, one rooted not in inclusion, but in distance, hierarchy, and domination—and paradoxically(to western liberals), it is proving more effective.
China’s Model: Control Without Integration
China does not attempt to integrate African elites into its national identity or culture. Instead, it treats African states and leaders as clients, not partners. This relationship is marked by:
Strict racial hierarchy: Chinese political culture views Africans as inferior but strategically useful. As outlined in The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism, Africans are classified as “black devils”—primitive, dirty, and untrustworthy. But China doesn’t try to change this view—it leverages it to justify dominance.
No illusion of equality: Chinese officials do not flatter African elites with lofty rhetoric of fraternity or shared civilization. They make cold, transactional offers: infrastructure for loyalty, loans for access, weapons for obedience. There is no confusion about who is in charge.
Infrastructure colonialism: Through projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China builds roads, ports, railways, and telecom infrastructure in Africa—projects financed with Chinese debt and built with Chinese labor. African dependency increases, but no ideological loyalty is required.
Elite grooming without assimilation: While China does bring some African elites to study in Chinese universities, they are not granted cultural prestige or political inclusion. They are trained as clients, not as equals. Their job is to represent Chinese interests upon return—not to become honorary Chinese.
No internal diaspora threat: Unlike France, China does not import large African populations. The few Africans in cities like Guangzhou are tightly policed and periodically expelled. China faces no domestic blowback from the African world it exploits—its population remains racially homogenous and ideologically unified.
The Strategic LessonFrance’s failure stems from its belief that influence could be maintained through moral persuasion and elite mimicry—that African leaders would remain loyal because they were made honorary Frenchmen. But the resentment bred by postcolonial inequality and hollow flattery eventually broke the spell.
China, by contrast, has no illusions of universal brotherhood. Its racialism is not hidden—it is systematized. Africans are not invited into Chinese identity, but into Chinese orbit. This cold clarity has allowed China to exert greater influence across Africa without the risk of internal blowback or ideological confusion.
In geopolitical terms, China treats Africa as a resource and a battlefield—not a fraternity. And in doing so, it has achieved what France could not: control without collapse.
The Fallout of the Globalist Bargain
During the unipolar moment, the U.S. attempted to globalize itself. Elites believed that American liberalism, pluralism, and economic opportunity would allow them to filter foreign talent, co-opt foreign elites, and rule the world with a hybrid Western elite. This model assumed that the U.S. would remain the only pole of global gravity.
But the rise of multipolarity—China, India, Iran, Turkey, Brazil—changes everything. Now, diaspora elites no longer need to assimilate fully. Their home countries have wealth, prestige, power, and strategic leverage. And many of them retain ideological loyalty to those homelands. The American refusal to acknowledge this is not moral—it is suicidal.
The question for the West is whether it can re-learn what older civilizations never forgot: you cannot survive without boundaries—physical, cultural, or civilizational. The era of infinite openness is ending. What comes next is a reckoning.
Chapter 5: Foreign Subversion, Dual Loyalty, and the Taboo of Naming Power
As we have explored in prior chapters, the ideology of anti-racism and universalism has not only left Western states ideologically disarmed—it has made them institutionally blind to one of the oldest and most basic features of politics: tribal loyalty. Nowhere is this blindness more consequential than in the West’s refusal to confront the reality of foreign influence, subversion, and dual loyalty within its ruling class. The fact that this subject is considered radioactive only proves the point. A civilization that fears naming its vulnerabilities is a civilization that will be ruled by them.
At the heart of this issue lies the question: Who governs us, and whose interests do they serve? The Shaun Maguire tweet that sparked this discussion suggested that questioning elite loyalty—especially in reference to Jewish-American elites and Israeli influence—serves the interests of China. But this is a grotesque deflection. If an elite is compromised, blackmailed, or serves a foreign state over their own people, then it is not China who undermines America—it is the compromised elite and the regime that protects them.
Let us take the Jeffrey Epstein affair as case study. It is, on the surface, the most explosive intelligence scandal of the century. A man with no clear source of wealth, with ties to Mossad, CIA, and various global elites, hosted hundreds of powerful men at properties equipped for surveillance and sexual blackmail. He was protected by multiple governments, lightly prosecuted for heinous crimes, and later mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances in federal custody. His associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted—but none of his high-profile clients were charged, investigated, or even named. To this day, the contents of Epstein’s blackmail files remain classified.
If this had been a Russian or Chinese operation, there would be bipartisan outrage and federal task forces. But because Epstein’s ties point toward Israel, the media and government response has been muted, evasive, or outright hostile to inquiry. This silence is not accidental—it is enforced by the same anti-racist moral framework that prohibits discussion of Jewish tribalism, Zionist influence, or the role of diaspora networks in elite governance.
Let us be very clear: criticism of Zionist subversion is not “antisemitism”, -infact, such a thing may not even exist, or ever existed-. Just as we may scrutinize the CCP’s influence over Chinese-Americans in business or academia, or the BJP’s reach into the Indian diaspora, we must be able to interrogate how American Jews—especially those deeply embedded in finance, media, and government—interface with Israeli interests. If some of these individuals are more loyal to a foreign ethnostate than to the country of their citizenship, then this is not a matter of race or religion—it is a matter of national security.
Shaun Maguire, himself Jewish, frames this inquiry as dangerous because it may “aid foreign governments.” But this presumes that the American people are children, incapable of moral discernment. It presumes that acknowledging elite corruption or infiltration must lead to scapegoating or pogroms. This is not only condescending—it is manipulative. If the American ruling class is compromised by a foreign government, the people have a right to know, and to act accordingly. That is not doing China’s work—it is self-determination.
This raises the broader issue of diaspora politics, especially in the context of multipolarity. In the Cold War, U.S. elites could afford to co-opt diaspora figures—whether Jews, Arabs, Iranians, or Indians—because the home countries of these groups were either client states or non-competitive. There was little risk of dual loyalty because the United States was the only power that mattered. But in today’s world, India, China, Israel, Iran, and Turkey are all emergent or established powers. Their diasporas are no longer passive—they are organized, funded, and leveraged for strategic advantage.
We already see this in:
The CCP’s covert support networks across North American universities and tech companies.
The BJP’s control over Hindu nationalist groups in the Indian-American community.
Turkish lobbying and surveillance of dissidents through mosques and Turkish cultural centers in Europe.
Saudi influence over Mosques spreading Wahabism
ISIS, largely influenced by Saudi interpretations of Islam, built a new country, largely from islamic radicals in the west or else-where migrating to Syria, the same nation of migrants could be built anywhere.
The enormous influence of AIPAC, the ADL, and affiliated groups in American electoral politics, censorship regimes, and Middle East foreign policy.
And yet, the American political class dares not speak of it. Not because the facts are unclear—but because the ideology of anti-racism forbids distinguishing between a loyal American citizen and a foreign-aligned ethnic insider.
Let’s take a practical hypothetical: suppose in the coming years, a future populist administration attempts to ban foreign nationals from owning American media outlets, land, or strategic industries. A perfectly rational national security move. What will happen? It will be labeled racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic—depending on which ethnic networks are affected. Civil rights lawsuits will follow. Elite media will run stories about immigrant grandmothers being evicted. The State Department will issue apologies to allies. The policy will die.
Because in the current regime, diversity is not a strength—it is a shield for subversion.
Every other nation recognizes this. China does not allow foreign media ownership, restricts diaspora loyalty to the homeland, and ruthlessly suppresses foreign-aligned elites. India rewards Hindutva loyalty and bars criticism of the caste system or the nationalist state. Israel explicitly defines itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people and forbids non-Jews from claiming equal national status.For Westerners they make a show of a small minority of Arabs,Christians, Druze, Circassians and Africans, but in reality these groups are kept out of power, and cannot marry jews. Turkey monitors its diaspora through mosques. Iran uses its Shi’a networks to project influence. All of this is seen as normal—except in the West, where merely noticing the same behavior invites accusations of TREASON and exile from polite society, you will be instantly marginalized by the elites if you cease pretending that diversity is our strength.
In fact, in many of these civilizations, tribal loyalty is expected. Diaspora Jews are expected to support Israel. Chinese-Americans are praised when they uphold “the honor of the Han.” Indians are congratulated for defending Modi and Hindutva abroad. Only in America is ancestral loyalty a crime—and that is only for Whites.
That is the ultimate moral inversion. Every group is allowed to defend its interests, support its people, and use its diaspora for leverage—except for the founding stock of America. They alone must be raceless, placeless, and faceless—dispossessed in the name of global equity. To notice this is to be called a white nationalist. But the truth is unavoidable: the only identity not allowed in America is American identity—if American means anything rooted in blood, soil, memory, or tradition.
This is why the conversation must change. It is not enough to defend free speech or call for populist reforms. The West must recover its ability to distinguish friend from enemy, loyalty from opportunism, citizen from infiltrator. It must reclaim the right to ask: Who are you with? Whom do you serve? Where does your loyalty lie? These are not racist questions. They are existential ones.
In conclusion, the refusal to address foreign subversion, dual loyalty, and diaspora influence is not a moral high ground—it is a surrender. And those, like Shaun Maguire, who argue that naming power is aiding our enemies, are not defending America—they are defending a crumbling order whose taboos will bury the nation it once ruled. The future belongs to those who can see clearly, speak honestly, and act decisively. And that future is closing fast.
Chapter 6: Conclusion — The Reckoning of a Civilization That Forgot Itself
The essays and documents we have examined—Shaun Maguire’s warning, The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism, and the broader ideological architecture of anti-racism—reveal a core contradiction in the modern Western order: it is a civilization that demands moral universality, while others pursue power; that preaches inclusion, while others practice selection; and that prohibits group interest for its majority, while permitting and celebrating it for every minority and foreign group.
This contradiction is not merely philosophical—it is strategic. It explains why the United States, once the uncontested hegemon, is spiraling toward political collapse, cultural dissolution, and demographic irrelevance. And it explains why rising powers—China, India, even Israel—view the American experiment not as a moral beacon, but as a cautionary tale of ideological suicide.
The core arguments are now clear:
Moral universalism, when institutionalized as an anti-racist imperative, turns group loyalty into pathology and self-defense into bigotry.
Diversity, when elevated above truth, merit, or cohesion, disables a society’s ability to make rational, interest-based decisions.
Multipolarity, as the dominant trend of the 21st century, renders obsolete the strategy of globalizing the American identity by dissolving national ones.
Diaspora politics, once a minor risk, now become strategic threats when former client nations become peer competitors—be it China, India, or Israel.
Elite disloyalty, often dismissed as conspiracy or antisemitism, becomes a tangible national security threat when blackmail, foreign influence, and dual allegiances go unexamined and unchallenged.
These are not abstract problems. They are lived realities—seen in the riots of Los Angeles, where Hispanic Americans burn the U.S. flag and wave the Mexican one; in the espionage cases of Chinese-American scientists working with the CCP; in the unbreakable lobbying power of AIPAC and the enforced silence over Epstein’s network; in the caste-bound support for Hindu nationalism among Indian tech elites; and in the dispossession of the historic American population, now mocked and marginalized within its own country.
And still, men like Shaun Maguire warn that speaking openly about these problems serves foreign powers. But it is not the truth that serves China, or any other adversary. It is the lie—the lie that diversity is always a strength, that anti-racism is always a virtue, that foreign-aligned elites are just fellow citizens, and that Americans should never ask who governs them and why.
It is that lie that keeps the Western system vulnerable. It is that lie that prevents necessary reform. It is that lie that blinds the people to their own unraveling.
A civilization that cannot tell the truth about itself will not survive the century.
And here, we return to a deeper philosophical point. Every moral system—whether divine, civic, or evolutionary—must grapple with what it exists to protect. Is it the abstract rights of interchangeable humans? The marketplace of ideas? Transnational corporations ? The dignity of the weak? Or is it the survival and flourishing of a people, with memory, boundary, and soul?
China has made its answer clear: it will protect Han supremacy, ethno-national cohesion, and civilizational continuity at all costs. It does not care if the New York Times or USAID calls it racist. Its morality is not cosmopolitan—it is civilizational.
America has made the opposite choice. It will protect the narrative of anti-racism even as its cities collapse, its people overdose, its families disintegrate, and its elite networks are suborned by hostile foreign powers. Its morality is not rooted in history or kinship—it is floating, unmoored, ideological.
And so, we must ask: What will the future choose?
The answer is not yet written. But history suggests that those who believe in something more than abstractions—who love their people, protect their traditions, and enforce their boundaries—are those who endure. Evolution favors organisms capable of cooperating, and protecting in-group from out-group. And Karl Schmitt, when analyzing the nature of politics taught us that fundamentally, politics is the barrier between friend vs foe, and kinship vs enmi Those who cannot name their enemy, who will not guard their gates, and who denounce self-preservation as hatred, are those who fade into memory.
This is not a call to hatred. It is a call to clarity.
what they call supremacism. I call sovereignty.
It is not a call to exclusion for its own sake. It is a call to choose—deliberately and unapologetically—who we are.
The West can still recover. But only if it casts off the suicidal ideology that disarms its people, welcomes its enemies, and criminalizes its own instincts. Only if it names what must be named, reclaims what has been ceded, and refuses to die for the approval of those who seek it.
We stand at a threshold. To step forward, we must look backward—not with nostalgia, but with reverence. Not to recreate the past, but to remember what it means to belong, to endure, and to pass on what is ours.
There is no diversity without difference. No freedom without boundaries. No peace without truth.
And no future for a people unwilling to fight for their own.