The Rising North and Stratocratic Revival

Facing the technocratic void with martial order, divergence, and heroic impulse

Rose Sybil contends that globalism’s true danger is a self‑replicating technocratic anticulture, rejects colonial scapegoating, and urges the Global North to cast off performative humanitarianism and build a stratocratic, post‑Keynesian order that revives authentic cultural vitality.

Reducing globalism to a matter of scale — merely a globalized form of hegemony — or equating it with cultural imperialism or colonialism is a way of avoiding the deeper, systemic problems. This kind of humanistic-utopian analysis creates a convenient scapegoat by placing the blame solely on White populations for everything wrong in the world. But this is a false moral simplification. White people do not possess all agency in global affairs — many other actors participate in and benefit from the same systems — but we do bear a particular responsibility: not to wallow in guilt or pursue performative atonement/condemnation, but to rise above the age and confront its deeper pathologies.

Throughout history, empires have extended their influence across regions (I would argue that the expansion is always their eventual downfall but I will save that for later). This cultural exchange results in the birth of new cultural forms. These exchanges flowed in both directions, between majority and minority populations, requiring a degree of compatibility or cultural genesis, which would accelerate through war. However, today’s issues go far deeper than questions of influence. Calls to return to smaller regional hegemonies overlook the power vacuum created by rapidly advancing technology and its insidious, invisible infrastructure that constantly reshapes human organization. Reducing the issue to one of scale misses a crucial distinction: there is a qualitative difference between the cultural interactions of historical empires and the globalized systems we now confront. What we are witnessing is not simply the global imposition of a dominant culture, but the rise of an anticulture force that spreads autonomously and subsumes those it empowers. While this phenomenon is not entirely new, its global scope is without precedent.

One of my central criticisms of anti-colonialism from the right is not that colonialism is beyond critique, but that these critiques often rely on simplistic solutions and scapegoats — constructing a convenient boogeyman while idealizing others who continue to perpetuate the globalist, victim-centered moral framework. In doing so, they inadvertently concede power to the very globalist paradigm they claim to resist. Retrosynthetic simulacra do not truly oppose the Alchemical Simulacrum (see: “Simulacra and the Dialectical Defeat of the Right”).

Technique and Technology Are Active Components of Cultural Authenticity

The most insidious consequence of colonialism is the expansion of technological infrastructure that mechanizes human life. This mechanization extends into the moral architecture of globalism, which erodes meaningful distinctions and reduces individuals to interchangeable parts, recasting dysfunction as victimhood and perpetually seeking a victimizer. No heroic culture ever aspired to appease all peoples but ruthlessly enforced order when organic compatibility was lacking. Yet, even when motivated by humanitarian ideals, spreading our technique is fundamentally corrosive. Greed inevitably follows utopian ambition, as the material void consumes all that came before.

Continue reading to see how a disciplined Global North can break from mechanized decay and ignite true cultural ascent.

When people claim that colonialism destroyed local infrastructure and insist we must now “rebuild” it to encourage remigration, they fail to grasp the underlying problem of the superfluous excess, that nothing is ever enough. Pouring money into improved living conditions or reconstructing European-style infrastructure in Africa to encourage them to leave continues their dependence on us and does not confront our own discomfort with inequality. Improving their living conditions also only leads to more refuse, and ultimately replicates the same extractive cycles, only now facilitated by domestic elites who either serve external interests or become disconnected from the needs of their own people. The superfluous inherently corrupts and primitive peoples are not exempt from this. The true damage wrought by colonialism was the integration of primitive societies into a mechanized, technocratic system that disfigured their original paths of development. It is an abomination to give the technique and technologies born of our competitive impetus to another race or subspecies. It harms all of our creative impetus (see: “The Lost Heroic Age: Part Six”).

Our technique has expanded the lowest elements of society while corroding cultural foundations, promoting materialism at the expense of meaning. In all past civilizations, once this expansion is reached, it collapses, but our technique arbitrarily prevents this cycle of renewal on a global scale, which has led to massive expansion of primitive populations since colonialism. Efforts to “rebuild” the third and developing world deepen dependency rather than foster true resilience, largely because we cannot understand the internal coherence of those cultures as much as our infrastructure is likely overwhelming to them. Primitive societies require a minimal balance with nature and the freedom to evolve organically. Their way of life must emerge from within, not be reconstructed using alien frameworks imposed from without. What is unnaturally inflated must be allowed to collapse if it is to return to a grounded, local identity. Attempts to prevent this natural cycle will result in mutual ruin. Cultural regeneration must be rooted in their own life force, their technique an extension of their unique competitive impetus, not external intervention. Life flourishes in divergence, not enforced integration.

The Myth of Military Technology as A War Deterrence

Some argue that without access to advanced technology, primitive cultures remain vulnerable to domination by more powerful nations. This line of thinking fails to consider the long-term consequences of arming societies with tools they did not organically develop. Introducing advanced weaponry or high-level technologies does not prevent conflict; it escalates it. Rather than deterring aggression, it raises the stakes of every dispute, transferring the burden of restraint to actors who lack impulse control.

We see this dynamic clearly in the India–Pakistan conflict. The presence of nuclear weapons in both countries has not ushered in stability; it has merely raised the threshold for catastrophe. Attempts to equalize fundamentally unequal systems — through weapons, economic tools, or governance models — inevitably cause instability. When artificial parity is imposed, it results in a revolt of the subordinate against the superior, not harmony between them. Equalization without grounding in civilizational continuity creates volatility, not peace.

Nationalism is a Western colonial product. It is a tool for continuing to rule the post-colonial world. The Indian tradition is inclusive. Pakistan and Bangladesh are the Islamic frontiers of Indian civilization.

The above quote by Alexander Dugin illustrates the previously mentioned scapegoating that ignores the deep historical complexities of the region. Long before colonialism, the Indian subcontinent was embroiled in centuries of religious conflict. Sikhism itself arose as a militant response to Islamic expansion. Without British intervention, Islamic rule would have dominated the entire region. Indian nationalism is not a mere byproduct of colonial governance; it is rooted in centuries of struggle between vastly divergent cultures and the loss of traditional caste hierarchies that became unsustainably bottom-heavy.

Proto-liberal, utopianist figures like Gandhi advocated for inclusion and blamed the British Empire for everything, but Gandhi’s idealism arguably paved the way for the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan. This event led to the mass ethnic cleansing of Hindus and other religious minorities. Pakistan’s very inception was predicated on a refusal to coexist with Hindus, making any call for unity under a shared colonial victimhood both ahistorical and politically naïve.

Inclusion by a dominant power results in self-erasure when it embraces more primitive groups that fundamentally reject its cultural or civilizational order. Pakistan was born of such rejection. This conflict is a stark example of the dangers of moralizing inclusion, especially when coupled with advanced military technologies like nuclear weapons. If India is to be understood as a civilizational state, what does it mean when those on its borders refuse to acknowledge its cultural legitimacy or leadership?

Efforts to equalize fundamentally unequal societies — through foreign aid, military support, or the spread of globalist technology — risk destroying life. The well-intentioned humanitarian impulse to integrate all cultures into a shared system mirrors, in many ways, the colonial logic it claims to oppose. In the end, both lead to disintegration rather than renewal. If left in minimal balance with nature, the third and developing world could once again form authentic cultures, self-regulate their populations, and allow their best individuals to rise.

We must form a confederation of the Global North (including parts of Asia) against the material void to leave these populations in a minimal balance with nature. We must not perpetuate misguided humanitarianism, consumerism, or a morality rooted in victimhood, but recognize that our current technique harms everyone, albeit in different ways. It is the spiritual duty of the heroic to overcome the trader — not by blaming entire groups, but by confronting a deeper cultural infection and recognizing that we are becoming subject to the will of our technique and infrastructure. We cannot save anyone; we must restructure ourselves to prevent future exploitation by the shadow will of our own technique so that we can use our tools instead of them consuming us (see: “Consumption as a Cancer to Living Beings”).

A Post-Keynesian Post-Democratic Solution

This brings us to the urgent need for alternative monetary systems and governance structures. The flaw in cryptocurrencies is that, despite their decentralizing promise, they replicate the same abstraction that underpins fiat currencies, and remain vulnerable to speculation, volatility, and parasitism. Similarly, a return to a gold-backed standard is not a solution but a nostalgic regression. We must resist the impulse to retreat into the recent past that offers no genuine departure from the underlying trajectory we are further along. At the root of the problem lies the mistaken belief that money is a neutral instrument. Every monetary system carries embedded values, incentives, and power structures. What is needed now is not a retreat or a digitized rebranding of old systems, but a radically different monetary principle that eventually leads away from constant currency exchange. To get there, we need not just a vision of where to go but also an intermediary framework that facilitates one-directional transfers into the system but not out.

We must envision a post-Keynesian, labor-exchange-based economy oriented toward relocalization, craftsmanship, and the deliberate dismantling of hyperproduction and overconsumption while putting Faustian men at the helm of technological development instead of investors. This would require a complete rethinking of how contribution is defined and incentivized. Taxes, in their truest historical sense, are abstractions of conscription — an obligation to one’s polity. In a meaningful society, all individuals would offer time to their communities, and men would bear responsibility for rulership and protection in a stratocracy. Such an economic vision must serve a post-democratic political model, one that is made for and by the people but without the entropic effects of universal suffrage and the commodification of public opinion. Rulership should emerge from merit, service, and alignment with civilizational aims.

The current trajectory of Imagio DEI is not justice but destruction through equalization. It forces those meant to lead into servility to those whose only goal is to flatten what is naturally unequal, even if it costs every people their dignity. In the stratocratic society I envision, there would be an agrarian class for those wishing to direct their niceness and empathy and live more simply by choice. Unlike the helots, merited mobility and local bonds would prevent the genetic and spiritual stagnation seen in insular societies like late Sparta. It would just allow for a reversal of roles of rulership.

Children would be raised within their cultural communities, grounded in real bonds. As boys approach manhood, they would enter the local chapter of the stratocracy. This is the sorting stage — academics, trades, combat, sciences, and tech development are all part of the system. By their teens, many would enter the federal branches for deeper training and deployment. Those unfit or not wanting to compete in fighting, skilled trade, sciences, tech development, or scholarly paths would take up the farming role. They would stay at the local level, feeding the community and the stratocracy, but left to their dignity and much free time for creative pursuits. Bartering and micro-development would thrive without being strangled by taxation. AI would track time investment to the commons, replacing taxes, and contributions would be rewarded through systems like elderly care credits, childcare volunteering, and shared commons funding.

Land and rulership would not pass through bloodlines alone, but through earned rank. Leaders would rotate between federal and local posts, maintaining a balance of vision and rootedness. Local decisions would be handled via direct vote, while federal matters would be overseen by a shifting council representing all localities. The federal level exists to build alliances between regions, not to dominate them. Regional kings could be lines that help form this system, with spiritual and wartime authority, and either a veto or permanent seat on the federal council. Even within kingly lines, succession is not a birthright. The best-suited candidate from the family is chosen, blending Roman republican ideals with monarchical stability.

Local stratocrats would act as both executive and legislative branches — no need for a separate police class. Civic decisions would be handled directly by those with the most responsibility, pulling from Athenian democracy and early American totalizing localities. The local stratocracy voting on issues in their domain allows for local cultural genesis and utilizes the best form of direct vote on a small scale. Bureaucracy only emerges when the direct vote is extended too far, as what happened in Athens, or abstracted into a state of representatives instead of rulers.

This system allows the most competent to rise and lead, to drive innovation and culture, while staying grounded in authentic communities. When people have real bonds, earned hierarchies, and high aims, there is no need for guilt-driven projection onto primitive peoples. Let them be taken back by nature; we will be too busy reaching for the stars.