Samuel Gabriel's avatar
Samuel Gabriel
SamuelGabrielSG@primal.net
npub1dw6j...eya5
Explorer of Cyberspace Writing: samuelgabrielsg.substack.com Art: samuelgabrielsg.redbubble.com Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/2xiLBXYetJ8rOK5I10kRPb
Samuel Gabriel's avatar
SamuelGabrielSG 2 weeks ago
Stuff like this is why you will never see any real gun reform in the US. Why would anyone ever let the Government take their guns? The Government takes your guns so you can't protect yourself. Then when danger happens the police stand down or cower and people are left to die. image
Samuel Gabriel's avatar
SamuelGabrielSG 3 weeks ago
image There are two competing worldviews shaping U.S. foreign policy debates right now. Each worldview reflects a different understanding of how the world should work, who holds power, and what the end state should look like. These differences are not theoretical. They produce real consequences for the United States and for people around the world who depend on stability. The Dugin Worldview One of these worldviews comes from the ideas associated with Aleksandr Dugin and his vision of a multipolar world. Variations of this worldview increasingly appear in the rhetoric of figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, especially in how they talk about U.S. power, alliances, and America’s role in the world. A core feature of the Dugin worldview is that the United States should stop acting as a global stabilizer. The U.S. does not need to be defeated in a direct war. It only needs to be weakened, neutralized, or pushed out of its stabilizing role so it can no longer enforce rules, hold alliances together, or shape outcomes beyond its borders. Under this worldview, the world is divided into regional power zones. Russia dominates its region. China dominates its region. Other major powers dominate theirs. There is no single power capable of stabilizing trade, security, or deterrence across regions. For that system to work, long-standing U.S. alliances must fracture. This helps explain why breaking the U.S. relationship with Israel is treated as especially important within this worldview. Israel functions as an anchor ally in a U.S.-led system. Weakening or severing that relationship breaks stability and replaces it with broker politics, where countries like Qatar gain influence by playing multiple sides in a more fragmented world. That end state may be rational from a Russian or multipolar perspective, but it is bad for the United States. A world where the U.S. is no longer able to stabilize the system is a world with weaker deterrence, more regional conflict, and greater instability that eventually feeds back into American economic and security costs. The Trump Worldview: Conditional Internationalism The other worldview reflects Trump’s approach to foreign policy, which is often mischaracterized as isolationism but is not. To the observer, when you look at his foreign policy, he does engage internationally, but it is always under certain conditions. It has to be reciprocal, and it has to be aligned with U.S. interests. He’s a Conditional Internationalist. Under Conditional Internationalism, the United States stays strong and engaged in the world, but engagement is not automatic. Allies matter, but they are expected to contribute. Trade matters, but it must be fair. Security commitments exist, but only when interests are aligned and reciprocity is real. The U.S. does not withdraw from the world, and it does not act as a charity or a referee for free. It uses leverage to shape outcomes and keep the system stable, while walking away from relationships that do not serve American interests. The practical result of Conditional Internationalism is that the U.S. continues to function as a stabilizing force. Trade routes are protected. Energy markets are more predictable. Major wars are deterred because escalation carries real consequences. Smaller countries are less vulnerable to domination by regional powers because there is still a strong system holding things together. Why This Matters The difference between these two worldviews is not academic. One leads to a world where the United States remains strong, engaged, and able to protect its interests while demanding fairness and reciprocity. The other leads to a world where the U.S. retreats, alliances fracture, and instability becomes permanent. That is why arguments that push America toward isolation or the abandonment of anchor alliances do not weaken globalism. They weaken the United States and accelerate a shift toward a system that works against U.S. interests. These two worldviews are competing right now. And which one wins will shape not just U.S. foreign policy, but the kind of world Americans and millions of others have to live in.
↑