QUESTION: If we contain Russian barbarism, then who will contain American barbarism?
ANSWER: Well that is not an honest statement right? It posits a false moral equivalency rather than the truth that each party is half-right. Moreover, it is easier to correct the half-right anglo island dweller political ideology, but very difficult to correct half-right russian-steppe low trust and pervasive corruption. The answer of course is to close borders, and bring capital to people rather than people to capital, and cause internal reformation through capitalism, trade, and prosperity, rather than export of cancerous low trust behavior to higher trust countries.
So, if you mean, who will correct American perception of the value of extending democracy – which requires a high trust society – rather than just limiting protecting property rights (borders, human rights/liberty, capitalism/property rights)? Then that is an honest question.
If you mean that you think that the world will naturally adopt borders (common property), human rights(mind and body), and capitalism (private-property), that is possible. But then again, we cannot have any of these things unless we insure others and they insure us – by intervention when asked.
Russia is correct in its criticism of american ideological error in failing to understand the importance of authority in heterogeneous low trust polities with complex borders. More primitive people require more authoritarian governments. More advanced peoples require less authoritarian governments. Democracy is a luxury good of advanced, high trust homogenous societies with absolute nuclear families. I
As far as I know the USA largely plays sheriff, and is incorrect only in the sense that (a) we do not require Europe(Germany) to carry its own water, (b) we are wrong that democratic governments are superior to authoritarian governments.
Why? Because democratic and authoritarian governments are mere reflections of the demands of homogeneity-high trust and diversity-low trust societies, not reflections of good intentions.
We are also wrong in that we should support the formation of more governments into smaller polities to solve problems due to artificial or legacy borders that prevent the formation of higher trust polities. So we should support secession. The problem is that if we support secession that will be also supported at home and the ability of the government to finance playing sheriff to the world will dissipate even more quickly.
My preference is to increase awareness of the fallacy of borders/democracy and the importance of property/liberty, and to advocate separatism and secessionism at home so that we may incrementally lose the ability to project wars.
I suspect the opposite will happen: that new redistribution of economic power will cause existing large states to attempt to expand privilege (influence) and control (rents) and that the world will continue on its present course toward Huntington’s conflict.
Libertines should try to keep in mind that the purpose of the cosmopolitan movement was to retain Jewish separatism, identity, law, ethics, morality and custom, while justifying their expansion into any and all economies and walks of life, without paying the high costs of land-holding that host populations constantly pay and whose narratives place upon them so many obligations. And we also forget that that the purpose of the anglo-puritanical movement was religious anti-statism using the same jewish model, but that by divorcing it from militialism, and associating itself with more easily seduced women and socialists, that the puritanical movement could overtake academy and state and create the Cathedral.
The way to fix this, which I argue in propertarianism I think fairly persuasively, is to return to science and action from belief and verbalism, and make each of us accountable for the rights that we must pay for in order to possess them.
Learn: Jury, Testimony, Law, Property-en-toto, and Evolutionary Strategy. The reliationship between family structure and trust; and between homogeneity and borders and trust. The relationship between trust and economic velocity. The relationship between the evolution of free riding, the rate of evolution of law, trust and economic velocity.
The relationship between homogeneity, property, family, law, truth, trust and economic velocity.