BRICS is an acronym referring to an alliance between five major economies on four different continents: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
The total population of BRICS nations is 3 billion. Of these, nearly 2.7 billion people live in India and China alone. This means that Asian people make up about 90% of the population of BRICS. BRICS has developed into an emerging economic bloc ready to challenge the fading Euro-Atlantic dominance of the world economy. In half a century, America’s contribution to the global GDP has shrunk from over 40% to merely 20%. Since 1980, the European Union’s share has declined from 30% to just over 15%. On the other hand, the five BRICS nations’ share of the global economy doubled in the past decade to reach almost 33%. Between 2008 and 2017, BRICS contributed more than 56% of the total economic growth in the world.
Of course, this can largely be attributed to the booming Chinese economy (as opposed to the economic disaster that is South Africa), but a country like Russia has been working hard on the diversification and expansion of its economy and in 2017 even managed to come close to wiping out their trade deficit with China.
The shift of economic power away from the traditional strongholds of the West might be seen as a judgment for its apostasy, but what is often missed is how large the white population of BRICS is – about 250 million. There are just as many, if not more, whites living in BRICS countries than in the United States – and these whites have made a massive contribution to the BRICS economic boom. What prospects does the BRICS partnership hold for white people within it?
1. The first great advantage is that unlike the EU, BRICS adheres to a strict policy of non-interventionism concerning domestic issues. Thus, within BRICS there is little pressure on say, Russia, to open its borders or to institutionalize gay “marriage.” The BRICS partnership can thereby serve as a barrier for whites against the liberal imperialism of the elites hell-bent on destroying Western Civilization. The big potential threat, China, has also proven itself to be far less imperialistic than its Western counterparts.
2. This aspect of non-intervention also has a negative side, as senior BRICS members thereby refuse to address the issue of the Afrikaner genocide in South Africa. On the other hand, opportunities for white South Africans to resettle in Russia in a non-antagonistic environment may also arise from the partnership.
3. As a bloc based around economic rather than political cooperation, the emergence of a BRICS pillar in the global economy might provide other white nations, e.g. from Eastern and Central Europe, an alternative to the binding pressures they suffer under Brussels.
4. Should white secessionist movements in South Africa or Brazil be successful, BRICS could offer them a non-interventionist platform for engaging in international trade, should they be sanctioned by Cultural Marxist governments. Additionally, should the West continue to distance themselves from BRICS, the chances of them intervening on a military level against said movements would be far less.
5. Another potential negative, however, could be if BRICS governments decide to introduce a kind of open-borders policy within the bloc, which would lead to the demographic destruction of the Russian people in particular.
There are therefore a number of potential positive and negative prospects for the future of whites within BRICS. Of course we cannot tell what the future holds, but should BRICS maintain as foundational the Theory of Multipolarity, and not stray from its current course of voluntary economic cooperation without political interventionism – which is admittedly not a given – there are reasons for white people around the world to be optimistic about their chances of survival within such an alliance.