Laura Loomer vs. Multipolarity
American supremacy attacks cvilizational diversity.
Constantin von Hoffmeister examines Laura Loomer’s critique of multipolarity point by point, rebutting each of her arguments while arguing that they mistake an irreversible geopolitical reality for a hostile ideological project.
Laura Loomer's recent condemnation of multipolarity marks one of the clearest attempts within the American Right to define the emerging new international order as an existential threat rather than an inevitable transformation. Her arguments deserve careful examination, not because they are unique, but because they reflect assumptions that have become increasingly common in debates about the future of global power.
Loomer presents her first argument in the simplest possible terms. She claims that multipolarity exists to destroy American supremacy. According to her, Russia promotes the doctrine because it seeks the decline of the United States, while China, Iran, and other governments adopt the same language for the same reason. In her account, multipolarity is not a description of the international system but a political weapon aimed directly at Washington. The disappearance of American predominance therefore becomes the central objective of every state that speaks of a multipolar world.
This argument mistakes consequence for intention. Multipolarity does not begin with hostility towards America. It begins with the observation that the distribution of power has already changed. China possesses industrial capacity on a scale unseen in modern history. India has become a continental power with global ambitions. Russia remains one of the world’s foremost military powers despite unprecedented sanctions. Regional actors such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia, and others increasingly pursue independent policies rather than automatic alignment with Washington. These developments did not emerge because someone wrote books about multipolarity. The books appeared because the balance of power was already shifting. The decline of unipolarity is therefore not a revolutionary program but a recognition of political reality. No empire has remained permanently dominant. History moves through changing distributions of power, and every generation mistakes its own arrangements for permanent truths until events prove otherwise.
Loomer’s second argument portrays multipolarity as an alliance between Russia, China, Iran, Islamist movements, and other governments united by hatred of the West. She presents these actors as members of a single ideological front whose common purpose is the destruction of Western civilization. Under this interpretation, every state that speaks of multipolarity belongs to the same hostile camp regardless of its own interests or historical experience.
This confuses coincidence with unity. The countries commonly associated with multipolarity frequently disagree on questions of territory, economics, religion, and regional influence. India maintains strategic rivalry with China while participating in organizations that include Beijing. Turkey remains a NATO member while purchasing Russian military equipment. Saudi Arabia cooperates with Washington while simultaneously expanding relations with Moscow and Beijing. Iran and Russia share interests in some regions but not in every sphere. Brazil follows its own priorities, while Indonesia pursues another course entirely. There exists no single ideological headquarters directing these governments towards one objective. What unites them is not identical beliefs but the desire to preserve greater freedom of action. Multipolarity does not require permanent friendship among its participants. It merely assumes that several independent centers of power exist simultaneously.
Loomer’s third argument claims that multipolarity functions primarily as Russian propaganda. According to her, Moscow employs information campaigns, media personalities, and sympathetic commentators to persuade Western audiences that American leadership should end. The doctrine therefore appears as little more than a sophisticated psychological operation.
Propaganda cannot manufacture geopolitical reality. It may exaggerate events or shape perceptions, but it cannot create factories, armies, populations, technological industries, or national interests. The emergence of several major powers has measurable economic and military foundations independent of any Russian information campaign. China did not become an industrial giant because of Russian messaging. India did not become the world’s most populous country through propaganda. American debt, political polarization, and industrial decline cannot be explained by foreign influence alone. Every great power produces narratives supporting its own interests. Washington has done so for generations, just as London, Paris, Moscow, and Beijing have done before it. To reduce structural transformation to propaganda mistakes symptoms for causes.
Loomer’s fourth argument describes multipolarity as the greatest threat to Western civilization itself. She presents American predominance as the final guarantee of Western survival. Once that predominance disappears, she argues, the civilization that produced Europe and North America will inevitably collapse beneath hostile external forces.
This assumes that civilization depends upon imperial management from a single capital. Yet Western civilization existed for centuries before the United States emerged as the world’s leading power. Classical Greece, Republican Rome, medieval Christendom, Renaissance Italy, imperial Spain, Bourbon France, Victorian Britain, and many other historical forms flourished under very different political arrangements. Civilizations possess cultural continuity independent of whichever state temporarily occupies first place. Indeed, empires often weaken the societies they lead by drawing them into endless military commitments, financial burdens, and ideological universalism. A civilization survives through confidence in its own traditions, institutions, and people rather than through permanent global supremacy.
Loomer’s fifth argument attacks thinkers associated with multipolarity, especially Alexander Dugin. She argues that such figures openly desire the destruction of the United States and therefore reveal the true intentions of the entire doctrine. Since some advocates welcome the end of American predominance, she concludes that multipolarity itself must be directed against America as a nation.
This moves from particular individuals to universal conclusions. Every major political tradition contains voices motivated by hostility towards rival powers. During the twentieth century, many American strategists openly sought the collapse of the Soviet Union. That did not mean every supporter of American leadership desired the destruction of the Russian people. Likewise, criticism of American global predominance does not necessarily imply hatred of America itself. Many advocates of multipolarity distinguish between the American nation and the international system established after the Cold War. They argue against universal political structures, not against the existence of the United States. Agreement or disagreement with that distinction remains a matter of political judgment, but it should not be erased.
Loomer’s sixth argument maintains that Western commentators sympathetic to multipolarity serve as useful instruments of hostile governments. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, she argues, they spread narratives that weaken national unity and encourage America’s enemies.
Such reasoning risks replacing debate with suspicion. Political disagreement has always existed within free societies. Citizens may oppose intervention abroad, criticize alliances, question sanctions, or advocate different grand strategies without acting as foreign agents. Once every dissenting argument becomes evidence of hidden allegiance, public discussion gives way to accusations instead of analysis. Democratic societies depend upon distinguishing disagreement from disloyalty. Otherwise every political controversy becomes a search for traitors rather than an examination of competing ideas.
The deepest weakness in Loomer’s argument lies elsewhere. She assumes that the preservation of peace depends upon one state remaining permanently supreme. History suggests the opposite. Concentrated power often tempts its holder to expand beyond necessity because few external restraints remain. A world containing several powerful civilizations does not eliminate conflict, but neither did unipolarity. The decades following the Cold War witnessed repeated military interventions, regime-change campaigns, sanctions, and expanding geopolitical confrontation despite the absence of any peer competitor. The central question is therefore not whether one prefers America, Russia, China, or any other power. The question is whether lasting order is more likely to emerge from permanent global predominance or from a balance among several enduring centers of civilization. Multipolarity answers the second question. Its critics answer the first. That disagreement concerns the structure of international politics itself rather than merely the ambitions of any single state.
If you enjoy Constantin von Hoffmeister’s writing, order his new book, The Fate of White America, here.