It Is Unlikely That We Can Avoid A Third World War | Martin Armstrong

Piero Messina: Fukuyama advocated the end of history. Huntington spoke of a clash of civilizations. Is it possible to imagine a third way?

Martin Armstrong: Our greatest threat is centralized control; that is what doomed communism. I agree with Huntington that the clash of civilizations will be based upon cultures and religion mainly because of centralized attempt to impose a unified culture.

 

 » It is unlikely that we can avoid world war. 

Governments need war because their debts are no longer sustainable. 

They will use the war as the excuse for defaults – as was the case for WWII. 

They will create Bretton Woods II with the IMF digital currency as the reserve. «

At the end of the 1980s, the reference geopolitical model was the unipolar world, based on Western primacy. What cultural, military, and economic pillars is the Washington Consensus based on? Is it true freedom?

The military in economic pillars that dominate Washington today have nothing to do with freedom. They have to do with people who were unwilling to accept the collapse of communism. Whereby the enemy was transformed by communism to ethnic racism.

With the birth of the BRICS, is it possible to talk about a multipolar option? What are the limits that you see in this geopolitical dimension?

The birth of the BRICS was caused by these people we call the Neocons who engaged in ethnic racism and targeted Russia by removing them from the world economy under SWIFT. This woke up many in the world, realizing that the dollar was now being weaponized and was no longer a monetary instrument exclusively. Nations began to realize if they did not conform to the commands of Washington, then they to could be removed from SWIFT. Thus they have divided the world economy bringing to an end globalization.

Your analysis and studies seems to reveal several critical issues regarding the stability of the so-called Western system. There is a profound crisis of democratic systems, there is a lot of mistrust towards mainstream information and above all there are “agents” external to the institutions (an example above all is the activity of George Soros) who seem to influence the choices of governments in the United States and Western Europe. What could happen in the immediate future and in the coming years?

It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. We live under republics in which case the people are represented and have no right to vote on critical issues. Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government compared to a monarchy or dictatorship which cannot be bribed. In a republic, all representatives lacking term limits are up for sale to the highest bidder. This has resulted in the collapse of confidence in government both in Europe and the US which have fallen below 30% – the lowest since WWII. External agents such as George Soros, Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, push personal agendas which has further undermined the confidence in our systems. It is the government that decides if we go to war or not. The people are never asked.

 » It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. 

We live under republics in which case the people are represented and have no right to vote on critical issues. 

Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government. «

We invite you to make some reflections on the geoeconomic dimension. The global capitalist system is based on the indebtedness of sovereign states. Is this a sustainable situation? Who will pay the bill in the end?

The sovereign debt crisis that we face has appeared often throughout history. It is unsustainable because governments act in their own self-interest and will always expand debt to retain power. Historically, these systems collapse when they issue new debt to pay off the old, and no one is there to buy the new debt. Once they can no longer continue to borrow new money, then inevitably, they collapse.

Your predictive model is based on precise calculations. The cycles of history and the economy thus seem to chase each other along the time span of history. If I’m not mistaken, you compared the current context to the crisis and dissolution of the Roman Empire. Is it correct?

History repeats because human nature never changes. The Roman Empire is but one example from history of its success and failures. It lasted longer than anyone because it did not impose cultural regulations. The Christians called them pagans because they had so many Gods. That was the product of their policy of freedom of religion. Athens had Athena, Northern Europe had Thor, so they did not try to change the culture of the lands they conquered. They created a common market where someone in Britain could sell products to someone in Rome. So the freedom of religion, low taxation, freedom of movement, and a common market combined to create the Pax Romana.

Is it still possible to avoid a large-scale world conflict?

It is unlikely that we can avoid world war. Governments need war because their debts are no longer sustainable. They will use the war as the excuse for defaults – as was the case for WWII. They will create Bretton Woods II with the IMF digital currency as the reserve.

Pope Francis has been talking about a piecemeal Third World War for years. From your point of view, is what the Holy Father claims can be shared? What are the main weapons of this possible Third World War?

I believe we have a third world war that will begin piecemeal with the Middle East, Iran vs Israel, Europe vs Russia, north Korea vs Japan and South Korea, China vs Taiwan. But they will eventually merge together.

Have you argued that the true wealth of a state is its people? Why did we forget about all this? Above all, who is it convenient for?

The wealth of every nation is its people. That has been proven with the rise of Germany and Japan after WWII. This is the essence of Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand.” But those in government prefer Marx, for he advocates that the state has the power to manipulate the people. So, Governments have forgotten it and reject Smith because Marx provides them with more power.

Is it correct to claim that your analysis succeed in covering the intersection of geopolitics, global markets and economic confidence? Can you explain to us in a simple way how your Socrates predictive model works? By the way, why did you name it just like the Greek philosopher?

I named my computer model after Socrates because the oracle of Delphi had said that he was the smartest man in Greece. He tried to prove the oracle wrong and the process proved it to be correct. He was put on trial and sentenced to death because he knew too much. My computer has taught me a lot in geopolitics, we had a major bank in Lebanon in the 1980’s and they asked if I could create a model on the Lebanese pound. I put the data in the computer and it came out and said their country would fall apart in 8 days. I thought something was wrong with the data. When I told the client, they asked me what currency would be best, and I said the Swiss Franc. Eight days later the civil war began. Obviously they saw the movement of money themselves and came to me for the timing. The same thing happened with a client in Saudi Arabia who was a big shipper. He called me asking me what gold would do tomorrow because Iran was going to begin attacking shipping in the gulf. So once again, there was advanced information about war. By 1998, I understood how the computer was forecasting such events. I warned in June at our London conference that Russia was about to collapse. The London financial Times had snuck into the back of the room and reported that forecast on the front of their newspaper on June 27th 1998. Russia collapsed about 6 weeks later.

Are unpredictable events, such as the terrorist attack in Moscow, also considered among the parameters of your predictive model? A “black swan” type event can change the course of history and geopolitical relations?

Yes, we saw the capital flows shift a day in advance, up to a week in advance in the case of the attack in Israel. The defense stocks began to rise even with 9/11 the government used our model to look at who bought puts on airlines in the days before. Someone always knows when they’re going to do these types of events. And they move their money either to profit or to avoid a loss. The computer is tracking everything. It cannot tell me which person has done it. Just that the move is about to take place.

Quoted from:
Piero Messina (May 1, 2024) - Interview with Martin Armstrong.

 

 » America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece. «

 

See also:

Martin Armstrong (May 1, 2024) - Will Russia Push the Button?

On Realism and War with China | John Mearsheimer

Lex Fridman: The communication gap between China and the United States seems to be much greater than that of what was the former Soviet Union and the United States.

 

Mearchiavelli, Machiavelli's revenant.

 

John Mearsheimer: It’s an interesting question. A lot of people describe the Cold War as an ideological competition above all else.

Communism versus liberal democracy or communism versus liberal capitalism, whatever. I actually don’t believe that. The Soviets were realists to the core. Stalin was a realist par excellence, and ideology did not matter much in Stalin’s foreign policy. And if you look at Soviet foreign policy after World War II, throughout the Cold War, they were realists to the core. And in those days the Americans were realists. Sure, a lot of liberal ideology floating around out there, but the Americans were realists. One of the reasons we avoided a shooting match between the United States and the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1989 was because both sides understood the basic balance of power logic.

 

The US-China competition is somewhat different. But first of all, the Chinese are realists to the core. I’ve spent a lot of time in China. I am basically a rock star in China. The Chinese are my kind of people. They are realists. They speak my language. It’s the United States that is no longer very realist. American leaders have a very powerful liberal bent and tend not to see the world in realist terms.

 

That’s fascinating. So the Chinese are pragmatic realists and think of the world as a competition of military powers?

 

Yeah, you are actually right. And I think we will avoid war. The problem with the Americans is, it’s not just their liberalism. It’s the possibility that we will pursue a rollback policy. During the Cold War the American grand strategy towards the Soviet Union was: containment, containment, containment. We now know from the historical record that the United States was not only pursuing containment. We were trying to rollback Soviet power to put it bluntly. We were trying to wreck the Soviet Union. And I would not be surprised moving forward with regard to China if the United States pursues a serious rollback policy.

 

So you’re saying throughout history the United States was always pursuing rollback policies? 

Look, you don’t respect the power of other nations. You fear the power of other nations.

 

Will there be a war with China in the 21st century?

 

I don’t know. But my argument is yes, there will be war with China. 

 

Quoted from:
Lex Fridman interviews John Mearsheimer - Nov 17, 2023. (transcript) (video)

 

 See also:
John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 

The Destruction of the United States as we know it | Martin Armstrong

I have studied many forms of government. I have found that Republics have always crumbled to dust because they are the most corrupt form of government one can create. Even a Dictatorship or Monarchy is never so corrupt, for they are not suspectable to bribery as Republics. The criticism of Democracy has come from the Greek philosophers who saw the people as too stupid to make decisions. Our representatives look down upon us the same way. 

 

 » If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, 

you will succumb in every battle. «
Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Many wanted to believe that the Roman Republic was a democracy. Yet, this democracy was a total facade, for it was always under aristocratic rule – not the common people. We too live in a facade where they tell us who is the enemy and we are expected to fight and die who their pleasure. We have no right to vote should we go to war against Russia or China. Rome was the same way. The people had no real rights in this regard.

Assuming they do not take up Alexander Soros’ bold implicate to assassinate Trump so he can flood the United States with his Open Society that disregards culture, religion, and ethics, the computer is forecasting a tumultuous post-2024 election in 2025. History repeats for human nature never changes. What we will see post-2024 is the destruction of the United States as we know it.

Quoted from:
Martin Armstrong (Mar 05, 2024) - The 2024 Election – Will Your Vote Even Matter? 

 

See also:

L. David Linsky (2023) - War and Regime Change soon in the US?

Google's woke AI makes Vikings black and the Pope a Woman

The men of today boast of the ever growing extent of the modifications they impose on the world, and the consequence is that everything is thereby made more and more ‘artificial’.

The falsification of everything has been shown to be one of the characteristic features of our period, but falsification is not in itself subversion properly so-called, though contributing directly to the preparation for it. Perhaps the clearest indication of this is what may be called the falsification of language, taking the form of the misuse of certain words that have been diverted from their true meaning; misuse of this kind is to some extent imposed by constant suggestion on the part of everyone who exercises any kind of influence over the mentality of the public.

René Guénon
1927

Javier Milei - Latin America's Prime Golem Zionist | Alexander Markovics

During campaign events, he recites the Torah. At events, he lights Jewish menorah candles instead of extinguishing them like Grzegorz Braun. He stands unwaveringly by Israel’s side and calls Vladimir Zelensky his friend. His name is Javier Milei; he is a self-proclaimed ‘anarcho-capitalist’ and intends to convert to Judaism after his presidency.

Argentina's 'chainsaw messiah' President Javier Gerardo Milei.

An unleashed libertarian, chosen and promoted by his country's financial oligarchy, the Koch brothers and George Soros.

 Spiritually counseled by his dead dog, Milton Friedman and Chabad-Lubavitch. A hero to Wall Street.

 

[...] Milei sees himself, inspired by the zeal of the convert, in the succession of Moses as the great liberator of the Argentine people. In his anarcho-capitalist interpretation of Judaism, God is a libertarian who does not mind if people sell their internal organs or their own children to alleviate their misery. In his view, this represents ‘the natural order of things’. Yet, his first public appearances since taking office suggest that his real loyalty might lie with another state than Argentina. At the public lighting of a menorah, he proclaimed his ‘unwavering commitment to the State of Israel’, which likely refers to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. He follows the apocalyptic worldview of many evangelical Christians, who are becoming increasingly numerous in Latin America and see Israel as the ‘bearer of light’ in the fight against darkness.

[...] Both in Latin America and Europe, we can observe a type of right-wing populist politician who declares US and Israeli interests as the raison d’état, sacrificing the geopolitical interests of their own country. Strache, Pazderski, and Gauland now find their tragic counterparts at the other end of the world in Milei and Noboa Azin. The motivation is the desire for recognition by demonised politicians, as well as economic dependencies and/or philosemitism. What increasingly sounds absurd has roots that reach deep into Western occultism: in the Jewish-Kabbalistic mysticism of the early Middle Ages, we find the figure of the Golem. This is a human-like figure created from clay through magic, often with immense powers, serving its Jewish master as a will-less proxy. The theme was processed, among others, by the Austrian writer Gustav Meyrink in his novel 'The Golem'. Today, more and more politicians from Europe and Latin America are made into such golems through blackmail and dubious promises — Strache from Austria is a tragic example of how such politicians ultimately end. The path of the Polish politician Grzegorz Braun shows us that patriotic politics against Zionism is possible.

Quoted from:
Alexander Markovics (Feb 15, 2024) - On the Way to Golem Zionism in Latin America?

 Assisted by his rabbi Shimon Axel Wahnish, Milei cries at the Wailing Wall.

February 6, 2024.

I told Tucker Carlson 'We are Fighting the same Enemy' │ Alexander Dugin

I think Russian and Western patriots have exactly the same enemy. And my recent conversation with Tucker Carlson, with whom I had the chance to speak here in Moscow during his visit, has totally convinced me about this. Because we started immediately to speak as brothers to each other, not as enemies who fight each other. Tucker Carlson is absolutely not pro-Russian. He's a liberal and an American patriot, and I am a Russian patriot. 

 

Saint George killing the dragon, the common enemy of the human race.

Obviously, we have many things in common but also disagreements concerning geopolitics, multi-polarity, Protestantism or Liberalism, for example. But in spite of all these, the main core of our world vision is the same. We are both fighting for Christianity, for the faith, for the roots, for the tradition, for the eternity, and for the human dignity. And we are fighting exactly the same enemy. So we need to take inspiration from each other. I am considered to be the main anti-Western Russian thinker. But I love Western tradition and admire Western philosophers. I am a follower of Plato, of Heidegger, of Aristotle, and of Christian thought in the West and in the East. We are totally free to have this inspiration from the classical heritage of each other because the Russian tradition has maybe the same roots as the Western one.

 

Plato, Aristotle, Greece, Rome, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Mediterranean culture - all that we have in common. And we try to preserve, to conserve and to save something of it because the modern Western elite eliminates anything that has real classical roots. In that sense, we are in the same boat and on the same front line with American and Western European patriots. It is not about either West or East. It is about tradition and roots versus globalism and its artificial, anti-human and nihilist hegemony. That is our common enemy.

 

Quoted from:

Dimitri Simes Jr. (Feb 15, 2024) - Alexander Dugin and Pepe Escobar on Russia’s Fight against Globalism. (complete video)

Tucker, Putin, and the Apocalypse │ Alexander Dugin

Why is Tucker Carlson’s interview considered pivotal for both the West and Russia?

 Tucker Carlson (Feb 8, 2024) - The Vladimir Putin Interview. (video)

 

Let us start with the simpler part: Russia. Here, Tucker Carlson has become a focal point for two polar opposites within Russian society: ideological patriots and elite Westernisers who nonetheless remain loyal to Putin and the Special Military Operation. For patriots, Tucker Carlson is simply ‘one of us’. He is a traditionalist, a right-wing conservative, and a staunch opponent of liberalism. This is what twenty-first-century emissaries to the Russian tsar look like.

Putin does not often interact with prominent representatives of the fundamentally conservative camp. The attention the Kremlin pays him ignites the patriot’s heart, inspiring the continuation of a conservative-traditionalist course in Russia itself. Now it is possible and necessary: Russian power has defined its ideology. We have embarked on this path and will not deviate from it. Yet, patriots are always afraid we will. No.

On the other hand, the Westernisers sighed with relief: see, not everything in the West is bad, and there are good and objective people, we told you! Let us be friends with such a West, think the Westernisers, even if the rest of the globalist liberal West does not want to be friends but only bombards us with sanctions, and with missiles and cluster bombs, killing our women, children, and the elderly. We are at war with the liberal West, so let there at least be friendship with the conservative West. Thus, Russian patriots and Russian Westernisers (increasingly more Russian and less Western) come to a consensus in the figure of Tucker Carlson.

Tucker going through the roof (as of Feb 11, 2024).

 

In the West, everything is even more fundamental. Tucker Carlson is a symbolic figure. He is now the main symbol of the America that hates Biden, liberals, and globalists and is preparing to vote for Trump. Trump, Carlson, and Musk, plus Texas Governor Abbott, are the faces of the looming American Revolution, this time a Conservative Revolution. To this already powerful resource, Russia connects. No, it is not about Putin supporting Trump, which could easily be dismissed in the context of war with the United States. Carlson’s visit is about something else. Biden and his maniacs have effectively attacked a great nuclear power through the hands of Kiev’s unleashed terrorists, and humanity is on the verge of destruction. Nothing more, nothing less.

The globalist media continue to spin a Marvel series for infants, where Spider-Man Zelensky magically wins with superpowers and magical pigs against the Kremlin’s ‘Dr. Evil’. However, this is just a cheap, silly series. In reality, everything is heading towards the use of nuclear weapons and possibly the destruction of humanity. Tucker Carlson conducts a reality check: does the West understand what it is doing, pushing the world towards the apocalypse? There is a real Putin and a real Russia, not these staged characters and settings from Marvel. Look what the globalists have done and how close we are to it!

 

 'Ukraine' in the 1911 edition of Russia's eternal enemy's Encyclopædia Britannica.

It is not about the content of the interview with Putin. It is the fact that a person like Tucker Carlson is visiting a country like Russia to meet a political figure like Putin at such a critical time. Tucker Carlson’s trip to Moscow might be the last chance to stop the disappearance of humanity. The gigantic billion-strong attention to this pivotal interview from humanity itself, as well as the frenzied, inhuman rage of Biden, the globalists, and the world’s citizens intoxicated with decay, testify to humanity’s awareness of the seriousness of the situation.

The world can only be saved by stopping now. For that, America must choose Trump. And Tucker Carlson. And Elon Musk. And Abbott. Then we get a chance to pause on the brink of the abyss. Compared to this, everything else is secondary. Liberalism and its agenda have led humanity to a dead end. Now the choice is this: either liberals or humanity. Tucker Carlson chooses humanity, which is why he came to Moscow to meet Putin. The whole world understood why he came and how important it is.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (Feb 8, 2024) - Tucker, Putin, and the Apocalypse.

 

» Do the United States need this? « (video clip)

Carl Schmitt's » Land and Sea « │ Alexander Dugin

In 1942, Schmitt published the most important work, Land and Sea. Together with the later text Planetary Tension between the East and the West and the Confrontation of the Land and the Sea, this constitutes the most important document of geopolitical science. 

 

Destruction of Leviathan by Gustave Doré, 1865.

 » World history is a history of the battle of sea powers against land powers
and of land powers against sea powers. «
Carl Schmitt, 1942.

The meaning of opposing land and sea in Schmitt comes down to the fact that we are talking about two completely different, irreducible and hostile civilizations, and not about variants of a single civilization complex. This division almost exactly coincides with the picture drawn by Mackinder, but Schmitt gives its main elements of thalassocracy (sea forces) and tellurocracy (land forces) an in-depth philosophical interpretation related to basic legal and ethical systems. It is curious that Schmitt uses the name Behemoth for land forces, and Leviathan for forces of the sea, as a reminder of two Old Testament monsters, one of which embodies all land creatures, and the other all creatures of water, the sea.

 

 » The holy king of Gods and men I call, celestial law  (Nomos) the righteous seal of all. «

Orphic Hymns to Nomos 63 (2nd or 3rd century AD).

The Nomos of the Earth exists without alternative for most of human history. All varieties of this Nomos are characterized by the presence of a strict and stable legalizing (and ethical) form, which reflects the immobility and fixity of the land, the Earth. This connection with the Earth, the space which is easily amenable to structuralization (fixed borders, constancy of communication paths, invariable geographical and relief features), gives rise to essential conservatism in the social, cultural and technical spheres. The totality of the Earth’s Nomos constitutes what is commonly called the history of the traditional society. 

 

In such a situation, the water and the sea are only peripheral civilizational phenomena, without intruding on the ethical sphere (or intruding sporadically). Only with the discovery of the World Ocean at the end of the 16th century does the situation change radically. Mankind (and first of all, the island of England) begins to get used to the marine existence, begins to realize itself as an Island in the middle of the waters, a Ship. But the water area is very different from the land. It is impermanent, hostile, alienated, subject to constant change. The paths are not fixed in it, the differences in orientations are not obvious. The Nomos of the Sea entails a global transformation of consciousness. Social, legal, and ethical standards are becoming fluid. A new civilization is born. Schmitt believes that the New Time and the technical breakthrough that opened the era of industrialization owe their existence to the geopolitical phenomenon of the transition of mankind to the Nomos of the Sea. Thus, the geopolitical confrontation of the Anglo-Saxon world of the external crescent acquires a sociopolitical definition from Schmitt: 

 

» The Nomos of the Sea is a reality hostile to traditional society. « 

 

The geopolitical confrontation between land and sea powers acquires the most important historical, ideological and philosophical meaning.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (1997) - Foundations of Geopolitics.

 

See also:

Carl Schmitt (1942) - Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation.

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.

Carl Schmitt (1955) - The Planetary Tension between Orient and Occident and the Opposition between Land and Sea.

The Defeat of the West │ Emmanuel Todd

Emmanuel Todd, historian, demographer, anthropologist, sociologist and political analyst, is part of a dying breed: one of the very few remaining exponents of old school French intelligentzia. Todd was the first Western intellectual, already in 1976, to have predicted the fall of the USSR in his book La Chute Finale (The Final Fall), with his research based on Soviet infant mortality rates [...] The first nugget concerning his latest book, La Défaite de l’Occident (The Defeat of the West) is the minor miracle of actually being published last week in France, right within the NATO sphere: a hand grenade of a book, by an independent thinker, based on facts and verified data, blowing up the whole Russophobia edifice erected around the 'aggression' by 'Tsar' Putin.

 

Behemoth, the land monster (land forces), and Leviathan, the sea monster (sea forces), killing each other.

Engraving by William Blake (1757–1827).

Todd focuses on the key reasons that have led to the West’s downfall. Among them: the end of the nation-state; de-industrialization (which explains NATO’s deficit in producing weapons for Ukraine); the “degree zero” of the West’s religious matrix, Protestantism; the sharp increase of mortality rates in the US (much higher than in Russia), along with suicides and homicides; and the supremacy of an imperial nihilism expressed by the obsession with Forever Wars. Todd methodically analyses, in sequence, Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Germany, Britain, Scandinavia and finally The Empire. Let’s focus on what would be the 12 Greatest Hits of his remarkable exercise:

1. At the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022, the combined GDP of Russia and Belarus was only 3.3% of the combined West (in this case the NATO sphere plus Japan and South Korea). Todd is amazed how these 3.3% capable of producing more weapons than the whole Western colossus not only are winning the war but reducing dominant notions of the “neoliberal political economy” to shambles.
2. The “ideological solitude” and “ideological narcissism” of the West – incapable of understanding, for instance, how “the whole Muslim world seems to consider Russia as a partner rather than an adversary”.
3. Todd eschews the notion of “Weberian states” – evoking a delicious compatibility of vision between Putin and US realpolitik practitioner John Mearsheimer. Because they are forced to survive in an environment where only power relations matters, states are now acting as “Hobbesian agents.” And that brings us to the Russian notion of a nation-state, focused on “sovereignty”: the capacity of a state to independently define its internal and external policies, with no foreign interference whatsoever.
4. The implosion, step by step, of WASP culture, which led, “since the 1960s”, to “an empire deprived of a center and a project, an essentially military organism managed by a group without culture (in the anthropological sense)”. This is Todd defining the US neocons.
5. The US as a “post-imperial” entity: just a shell of military machinery deprived of an intelligence-driven culture, leading to “accentuated military expansion in a phase of massive contraction of its industrial base”. As Todd stresses, “modern war without industry is an oxymoron”.
6. The demographic trap: Todd shows how Washington strategists “forgot that a state whose population enjoys a high educational and technological level, even if it is decreasing, does not lose its military power”. That’s exactly the case of Russia during the Putin years.
7. Here we reach the crux of Todd’s argument: his post-Max Weber reinterpretation of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, published a little over a century ago, in 1904/1905: “If Protestantism was the matrix for the ascension of the West, its death, today, is the cause of the disintegration and defeat.” Todd clearly defines how the 1688 English 'Glorious Revolution', the 1776 American Declaration of Independence and the 1789 French Revolution were the true pillars of the liberal West. Consequently, an expanded 'West' is not historically 'liberal', because it also engineered “Italian fascism, German Nazism and Japanese militarism”. In a nutshell, Todd shows how Protestantism imposed universal literacy on the populations it controlled, “because all faithful must directly access the Holy Scriptures. A literate population is capable of economic and technological development. The Protestant religion modeled, by accident, a superior, efficient workforce.” And it is in this sense that Germany was “at the heart of Western development”, even if the Industrial Revolution took place in England. Todd’s key formulation is undisputable: “The crucial factor of the ascension of the West was Protestantism’s attachment to alphabetization.” Moreover Protestantism, Todd stresses, is twice at the heart of the history of the West: via the educational and economic drive - with fear of damnation and the need to feel chosen by God engendering a work ethic and a strong, collective morality - and via the idea that Men are unequal (remember the White Man’s Burden). The collapse of Protestantism could not but destroy the work ethic to the benefit of mass greed: that is, neoliberalism.
8. Todd’s sharp critique of the spirit of 1968 would merit a whole new book. He refers to “one of the great illusions of the 1960s – between Anglo-American sexual revolution and May 68 in France”; “to believe that the individual would be greater if freed from the collective”. That led to an inevitable debacle: “Now that we are free, en masse, from metaphysical beliefs, foundational and derived, communist, socialist or nationalist, we live the experience of the void.” And that’s how we became “a multitude of mimetic midgets who do not dare to think by themselves – but reveal themselves as capable of intolerance as the believers of ancient times.”
9. Todd’s brief analysis of the deeper meaning of transgenderism completely shatters the Church of Woke – from New York to the EU sphere, and will provoke serial fits of rage. He shows how transgenderism is “one of the flags of this nihilism that now defines the West, this drive to destroy, not just things and humans but reality.” And there’s an added analytical bonus: “The transgender ideology says that a man may become a woman, and a woman may become a man. This is a false affirmation, and in this sense, close to the theoretical heart of Western nihilism.” It gets worse, when it comes to the geopolitical ramifications. Todd establishes a playful mental and social connection between this cult of the fake and the Hegemon’s wobbly behavior in international relations. Example: the Iranian nuclear deal clinched under Obama becoming a hardcore sanctions regime under Trump. Todd: “American foreign policy is, in its own way, gender fluid.”
10. Europe’s “assisted suicide”. Todd reminds us how Europe at the start was the Franco-German couple. Then after the 2007/2008 financial crisis, that turned into “a patriarchic marriage, with Germany as a dominant spouse not listening to his companion anymore”. The EU abandoned any pretention of defending Europe’s interests - cutting itself off from energy and trade with its partner Russia and sanctioning itself. Todd identifies, correctly, the Paris-Berlin axis replaced by the London-Warsaw-Kiev axis: that was “the end of Europe as an autonomous geopolitical actor”. And that happened only 20 years after the joint opposition by France-Germany to the neocon war on Iraq.
11. Todd correctly defines NATO by plunging into “their unconscious”: “We note that its military, ideological and psychological mechanism does not exist to protect Western Europe, but to control it.”
12. In tandem with several analysts in Russia, China, Iran and among independents in Europe, Todd is sure that the US obsession – since the 1990s - to cut off Germany from Russia will lead to failure: “Sooner or later, they will collaborate”, as “their economic specializations define them as complementary”. The defeat in Ukraine will open the path, as a “gravitational force” reciprocally seduces Germany and Russia.

[...] Whatever the deadline, inbuilt in all this is a total Russia victory – with the winner dictating all terms. No negotiations, no ceasefire, no frozen conflict – as the Hegemon is now desperate spinning.

Quoted from:
Pepe Escobar (January 18, 2024) - How the West Was Defeated.

 

 

See also:
Emmanuel Todd (January 11, 2024) - La Défaite de l'Occident. 

 Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest To Affluence To Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

William Strauss & Neil Howe (1997) - The Fourth Turning.  

 Alexander Dugin (1997) - Foundations of Geopolitics.

Samuel P. Huntington (1993) - The Clash of Civilizations.

John Bagot Glubb (1978) - The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival.

Carl Schmitt (1942) - Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation. 

The Time of the Civilisational States │ Alain de Benoist

The way in which, since the 1990s, the Chinese authorities, claiming to have ‘Asian values’, have rejected criticism in the name of the human rights ideology is significant. In January 2021, at the Davos Forum, Xi Jinping said, ‘Just as no two leaves in the world are the same, no two histories, no two cultures, no two social systems are the same. Each country is unique in all these areas, and no country is superior to another. There is no need to worry about differences, but rather about attempts to impose a hierarchy between civilisations or to force some of them to align themselves with another in terms of history, culture or social system.’

 » The logic of great spaces does not have a universalist scope. The paradigm is no longer national, but spatial.’ «

Carl Schmitt, 1941.

The recognition of the crisis of universalism and Western hegemonism thus goes hand in hand with the feeling that the era of the international order based on the conflicting balance of nation-states has ended, as Carl Schmitt foresaw as early as the 1930s. The rise of civilisational states signals the entry into an era in which the world order is no longer reduced to the unstable equilibrium of nation-states. As civilisational norms become a pivotal point in geopolitics, the main competition is no longer the traditional one between nation-states but the one between civilisations. Civilisational states give rise to a new mode of sovereignty that is no longer that of nation-states. 

 

[...] The notion of the civilisational state is even more reminiscent of the ‘great space’ (Großraum) theorised by Carl Schmitt to rethink international relations beyond the codification of relations between nation-states. A ‘great space’, Schmitt says, requires a ‘great people’, a vast territory and an autonomous political will. ‘Empires’, he writes, ‘are those ruling powers that carry a political idea radiating out into a determined great space from which they exclude, as a matter of principle, the interventions of foreign powers.’ And he adds this essential reminder: ‘The empire is more than an enlarged state, just as the great space is not just an enlarged micro-space.’ ‘The logic of great spaces does not have a universalist scope. It only integrates the historical evolution of the great territorial powers influencing third countries. The paradigm is therefore no longer national, but spatial.’

Quoted from:
Alain de Benoist (Apr 26, 2023) - The Time of the Civilisational States.

 

See also:

Carl Schmitt (1941) - Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte. Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht. (Great Space International Law with a ban on intervention by powers alien to the area. A contribution to the concept of empire in international law.)
Carl Schmitt (1940) - Großraum gegen Universalismus. (Great Space vs. Universalism.) 

Usury | Ezra Pound

The first thing for a man to think of when proposing an economic system is: WHAT IS IT FOR? And the answer is: to make sure that the whole people shall be able to eat (in a healthy manner), to be housed (decently) and be clothed (in a way adequate to the climate). 

 

 

 

Another form of that statement is Mussolini’s:

DISCIPLINE THE ECONOMIC FORCES AND EQUATE THEM TO THE NEEDS OF THE NATION.

The Left claim that private ownership has destroyed this true purpose of an economic system. Let us see how OWNERSHIP was defined, at the beginning of a capitalist era during the French Revolution.

OWNERSHIP is the right which every citizen has to enjoy and dispose of the portion of goods guaranteed him by the law. The right of ownership is limited, as are all other rights by the obligation to respect the rights of others. It cannot be prejudicial to the safety, nor to the liberty nor to the existence, nor to the ownership of other men like ourselves. Every possession, every traffic, which violates this principle is illicit and immoral.

Robespierre.

 

The perspective of the damned XIXth century shows little else than the violation of these principles by demoliberal usuriocracy. The doctrine of Capital, in short, has shown itself as little else than the idea that unprincipled thieves and antisocial groups should be allowed to gnaw into the rights of ownership. This tendency ‘to gnaw into’ has been recognised and stigmatised from the time of the laws of Moses and he called it neschek. And nothing differs more from this gnawing or corrosive than the right to share out the fruits of a common co-operative labour.

 

Indeed USURY has become the dominant force in the modern world.

 

Moreover, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, which, as we have seen, amounts to 4 or 5 thousand million pounds sterling in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather a Stratum, of rentiers, i.e, persons who live by “clipping coupons” who take absolutely no part in any enterprise, and whose profession is idleness. The exportation of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still further isolates this rentier stratum from production, and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country living on the exploitation of the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.

V. I. Lenin, quoting Hobson in ‘Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism’.

Very well! That is from Lenin. But you could quote the same substance from Hitler, who is a Nazi (note the paragraph from ‘Mein Kampf’ magnificently isolated by Wyndham Lewis in his ‘Hitler’) – ‘The struggle against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the National Socialist programme; the struggle of the German nation for its independence and freedom.’

You could quote it from Mussolini, a Fascist, or from C. H. Douglas, who calls himself a democrat and his followers the only true democrats. You could quote it from McNair Wilson who is a Christian Monarchy man. You could quote it from a dozen camps which have no suspicion they are quoting Lenin. The only people who do not seem to have read and digested this essay of his are the British Labour Party and various groups of professing communists throughout the Occident.

Milton Friedman — Lie for hire.

Thomas Piketty — Worse than Jewspapers.

Some facts are now known above parties, some perceptions are the common heritage of all men of good will, and only the Jewspapers and worse than Jewspapers try now to obscure them. Among the worse than Jewspapers we must list the hired professors who misteach new generations of young, who lie for hire and who continue to lie from sheer sloth and inertia and from dog-like contempt for the wellbeing of all mankind. At this point, and to prevent the dragging of red herrings, I wish to distinguish between prejudice against the Jew as such and the suggestion that the Jew should face his own problem.

DOES he in his individual case wish to observe the law of Moses? 

Does he propose to continue to rob other men by usury mechanism while wishing to be considered a ‘neighbour’?

Quoted from:
Ezra Pound (1939) - What is money for?

 

Fed Governors — Prevent the dragging of red herrings.

 

Larry Fink — Considered a ‘neighbour’?

See also:

Neema Parvini (2022) - The Liberal Political Theology.
Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver.

TPR (2014) - Modern Money Mechanics — The Alchemy of Neo-Feudalism.

Asatizah of Al-Munawwar (2013) - The Dazzling Proof for the Return of our pure Money. The Judgment on Fiat Currency.

 Serhii Hrabovsky (2010) - Lenin. Money. Revolution.
Nikolai Starikov (2010) - The Conspiracy of the Counterfeiters.
Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - The Bankster's Paradise Conspiracy Theory.
Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - The Magic of Money.
Gaetano Mosca (1898) - The Rulers and the Ruled.