GLOBALISATION AND ITS ENEMIES

In November 2017, a large and very interesting conference took place in Amsterdam which was attended by something in the order of one-and-a-half thousand people. The main theme of discussion were projects of the development of global processes founded on opposite types of Ideas of global development and their relations to current geopolitical changes. The key moment of the conference was the speech by theoretician and ideologue of global liberalism Bernard Henri Lévy. In a small lecture, he presented his vision of how the spirit of globalism, the Idea in general in its liberal execution is projected onto current world processes: how they influence the events developing in the Middle East and what globalism’s influence on the developments in Iraq, especially in the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan Erbil. Lévy gives a fundamental ideological basis to all most significant world processes that are taking place with Western participation by building a whole ideological schematic that begins with Aeneas and ends in modern America and Trump. [1] While doing this, he emphasised that he came to Amsterdam specifically in order to tell of the tectonic movements that are taking place in the history of the Spirit as understood by the theoreticians of globalisation. We must note, that such speeches are held each day, as the political events of each year force ideologues of every camp to make note of the most fundamental aspects of the battles they fight.

Before we can examine the positions of one of the main theorists of globalisation, we must remind ourselves, that Bernard Henri-Lévy was at the source of the coup against Khaddaffi and took part in instructing the Libyan Islamist opposition: it was he who appeared as main theoretician of the attack on Assad, having come to fuel the fire of the conflict in Syria; he went to the Ukrainian Maidan and gave a lecture to ‘Pravy Sektor’ [2] and sicced them on the Russians. In short, Bernard Henri-Lévy is our ideological opponent. He is a member of a whole constellation of people who resemble him, similar theoreticians of globalisations, not just ‘nerds’ who write something that no one reads and no one listens to. He is one of those practical thinkers who, at the necessary historical moment, pick up a camera, computer, or assault rifle and go to hot zones to fight for their ideas. Against us.

In Amsterdam Lévy spoke about the Talmud and its Spirit, about the struggle of the Enlightenment, and about the enemies that the struggle is waged against. However, one gets the opinion that only single people understood his message. The entire one-and-a-half-thousand strong Dutch public clearly drew their own conclusion from Lévy’s performance, the essence of which can be reduced to the following: American hegemony has ended and it is necessary to quickly look for contact with the Russians. Someone might have taken the performance of the extravagant liberal philosopher for a joke. But Lévy wasn’t joking.

History is not only subjective, but it has different levels of development. Both short term and long-term history exist. Long-term history is ideological history in which fundamental laws manifest and global movements under the auspices of the change of paradigms take place (Tradition (Premodern), Modern, and Postmodern). This is where the manifestations of the ideologies of liberalism, communism, and fascism are fixed, where the influence of conservatism, Islamism, and other ideological tones are considered. In long-term history the basis is ideology and the sphere of the Idea in general.

Today, we are once again coming to the moment when history takes centre stage. They say, that the war in the Middle East is a war for gas. That is not correct. The war in the Middle East, like any conflict in the world, is a war for Ideas. Not for oil, not for human rights or the status of gays, not for material assets or sales markets. All those who ingeminate about the Federal Reserve System, the Rothschilds or gas fields, fall silent when the ideologues begin to speaking, people who speak the truth about the authentic reasons of any historic processes, who speak about the presence or the absence of the threat of global liberalism.

But there is also the short-term, the history of political processes which are presented by those who research them as autonomous and self-sufficient. “Assad quarrelled with Hussein, which is why problems began in Iraq and Libya” – they affirm.

In short-term politics totally different laws are active, there they talk about oil and gas, about the efforts of diplomacy, about Kissinger’s visits, about if money was invested or not, who sold the others out and who didn’t, if they took Raqqa or just wiped it off the face of the earth. And who was behind it all. All this is a totally different level which fits into short cycles which vary in length from several days or months to 5 or 6 years.

If we forget about long-term history and concentrate ourselves only on daily politics, we turn into Heidegger’s [3], expressing the opinions of everyone and nobody in particular. It would seem, that everyone thinks this way, but when you ask, it turns out that the opinions of different people are different. Sinking into the details of the past is the background which is actually hiding Ideas. Behind the short-term vail long-term politics is hidden. The short-term analyst is a real fool, but he who is cleverer is only hiding real politics (the long-term, i.e. ideology) behind the curtain of short-term chatter. It is difficult to build relations between them. It seems, that these spheres are autonomous. The fate of the fall of the USSR is separate from the fate of the Afghan epic that began once Amin’s palace was captured. But in actual fact, they are linked by the dialectic of ideal, ideological conflict. How? This is the most difficult question.

Strictly speaking, the link between the sphere of ideas and applied politics is located somewhere in the middle. And we should talk of middle term politics in this context., which presumes the building of correct connections between short-term and long-term. This is the area of special services, secret societies, and conspiracy theories. Here institutions are at work that are not correctly represented in neither the short-term nor long-term, in this way being intermediate. By the way, special services and similar shadow structures cannot have an ontology, because if it is discovered they stop being special, and consequently, they stop being services. If they are found, there will be no service. They exist while there is indeterminateness, i.e. there both is and isn’t a service. Even if we penetrate a Masonic lodge, we won’t find anything ‘secret’ there. But it is they who claim to secretly rule the world.

Thus, middle-term politics can be called kratopolitics.  It is kratpolitics that Bernard Henri-Lévy deals with, and as a representative of the liberal, globalist, and Western-centric ideology he understands it very well. He comprehends the tasks and goals of long historic cycles – the long-term, – but, what is more, he participates in short-term politics but does this from the perspective of concrete union of the former and latter. He is a rare kind of practical intellectual.

By the way, general Fuller, a friend of Henry Kissinger, was also present at the Amsterdam conference. This is an example of the complete antipode of Lévy. He is a very influential person, but he has tin eyes. He is an experienced soldier that definitely could execute a complex military operation, but he is absolutely incompetent in the area of Ideas. There is no difference between what Lévy said or didn’t said, because Fuller takes Lévy as an absolute zero. The general is busy with short-term politics, he thinks that he understands everything and is, in addition, very influential, and Lévy speaks about something far away and abstract that has no bearing on reality. Actually, everything is entirely the other way around: Lévy is shot through with the power lines of history while Fuller is his errand boy, only because he does not understand what he is doing and who is planning everything that can be done by him on the strategic and ideal levels. The consciousness that controls Fuller is outside of him: he is just a biorobot in the system of which Lévy is the programmer. Lévy is a consultant of Sarkozy, Hollande, and Macron, but if we are to look at his real capabilities, it turns out that he has none.

Lévy’s main message is that there is one dichotomy: Modernity and its enemies [4]. These enemies still exist and Modernity’s battle against its enemies hasn’t ended yet.  This worldview is based on the idea, that the Modern is all of being, all of a history that moves towards one defined goal. While moving to this goal, it draws in inevitable economic, social, and political transformations that are linked to the destruction of traditional society, of traditional castes, traditional religious institutions, traditional collective identities.

This movement itself is directed towards the global open civil society, world government, and artificial intelligence, which turns the global society into a cyborg society. This ‘objective’ process is seen by the majority of Western people as a train that you buy a ticket for, get on, and off you go. Someone dies and his place is taken by someone else. But the train continues to carry you towards a defined station, and you have nothing to worry about, your place is reserved. This is the majority, and it sleeps while sitting on the train of Modernity. This is not even short-term politics, but shortest-term politics.

But there are those who are worried if the train is going the right way, if everything is all right, if someone doesn’t want to stop the train, mine the rails or fire a missile at it. And what if someone wants to sabotage the time? This is when the concept of Modernity and its enemies shows up. The people driving the train are worried, those who understand who built it and who laid the rails, those who know where it is headed. They are worried about the train reaching its goal. Lévy is worried about is, especially because of the events in the Middle East.

What could Modernity be worried about? From its point of view, time has an irreversible unidirectional character and flows in a single conceptual direction: towards liberation from all forms of collective identity, towards liberalisation, and further yet. Sometimes there are bumps in the road, but nothing else. This is the normal, somnolent version of Modernity: we’re going along, something bothers us, we pull through and ride on. A swamp is drained, a mountain is drilled through, and on we go. But Modernity has other builders who say: hold on, this swamp isn’t just randomly here. Someone built it. And that mountain might not have been there: someone raised it. They get the feeling, that they aren’t facing obstacles, but enemies.  That there exists a subject that is hindering Modernity’s propagation.

The inkling that the project of ‘Modernity’ has enemies is a common ground for worried globalists and modernists, which began with Popper and ended with Lévy, who is responsible for the ideology and knows that he is dealing with an ideological project. Short-term politics has other worries: it knows only obstacles that must be conquered. Those who work with ideology think strategically: it might be possible to build the rails this way, but another way is also possible. Only the engineers of global reality and Modernity understand that everything could be done another way. That is why they are worried: what if someone suggest another variant?

Those who want the Enlightenment, Modernity, the globalists, the supporters of homosexual ‘marriages’ and civil society to fail. They make this subject: an enemy who does not argue about his place on the train, but wants to bomb the rails, poison the driver, or drive the train off a slope. And they do all this knowingly, because they do not agree with the ideology of Modernity itself.

This is what Lévy wanted to say when he came to Amsterdam, that the project of Modernity, the Enlightenment, and liberalisation has to deal with a threat. A threat that consists, for example, of the American not supporting Barzani during the voting about the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. In practice, this resulted in Kirkuk not being returned to the Kurds. Lévy said, that he did not just see a betrayal of the Kurds in this act, but the end of the ‘Greater Middle East’ project, seeing as the Kurds were a key element in this plan and betraying them means betraying the whole project.

Lévy claimed, that Trump’s America has destroyed the battle for Modernity. This is, of course, not just about Kirkuk, but about America removing itself from the role of main outpost of Modernity. America is ceding the line which ISIS built with such difficulty [5]. The country is sabotaging its main mission, Lévy continues, but damn the mission: America either executes the function of the Enlightenment, either it stops being the subject of the new global world. For, according to the intellectual, America is only executing the will of the globalist ideologues. The country was chosen by the very spirit of the Enlightenment to execute the globalist mission, which includes the realisation of the Greater Middle East project, but instead it decided to deal with its internal problems. While looking for a way out, Lévy continues: can Europe take the mission of advancing Modernity on itself? According to him, Europe has three main problems: the spirit of Trump, human rights, and libertinism [6]. In Lévy’s view, it will be necessary to make Macron the new antichrist who propagates globalism in Trump’s stead. This is, of course, funny, but the project is not over by a long shot.

While describing Lévy’s worry, we have a very opportune moment to remember Marx: “A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of communism”. Seeing as Lévy started out as a Marxist, he remembers this formula very well. The spectre of communism is that which inevitably must come into existence from Marx’s point of view. The ghost of Empire is a very dangerous thing from Lévy’s standpoint. It is still an obstacle, but could become an enemy tomorrow. He is worried, that five ghost empires are coming into existence before his very eyes. But three of them are the most dangerous:

– The Russian Empire with its “bloody dictator” and “harsh and totalitarian” Orthodoxy as its foundation.

– The Ottoman Empire.

– The Iranian Empire.

Russia is clear, but as far as the growing Ottoman Empire is concerned, then the US are the main culprits in its emergence. It is because of their unwieldy decisions that they are losing control over Erdogan, begins to grow closer to the Iranians and Russians, and begins his new Ottoman project. What he is doing in Iraq and Syria is a catastrophe for humanity, as Lévy would have it. After all, because of his actions that what was recently an obstacle is now slowly turning into a subject. It is telling, that the carrier of a liberal ideology is speaking about something that can turn from an obstacle into an enemy, from an object into a subject. For the subject can act of its own volition, which means that it not only can blow up the train, but can also build a different track. It becomes especially dangerous when the railroad begins to bass through the territories of such subjects.

The fourth ghost empire is the Chinese Empire. It is a half empire: it partially belongs to one group and partially to another. This balance is far from being clear cut, seeing as they are strengthening their empire with both groups. Lévy is worried by the behaviour of Saudi Arabia: it is the fifth growing ghost empire and is now trying to buy S-400 missile systems from Russia. In all five cases problems appear in the transition from short-term to long-term, which has appeared in the five ghost empires and, as a result, can turn into a real enemy. It is these empires that Lévy and his team are suggesting to begin work on. For in the other case, they have a chance to lose the appellation of ‘ghost’.

We are interested in the opposite: how do we get rid of the ‘ghost’ appellation? In everything. We aren’t yet Russians, but ghost Russians. Russia is still a spectre. We have ghost-sovereignty. But we aren’t just objects any more. They are worried that something is hidden behind the façade of Russia, like behind the Turkish façade. And it is something that they do not control from the outside. We have already turned into ghosts, and the battle will be for the final transformation (or non-transformation) from ghosts and the simulacra of ideas into reality. This potential transition, so it happens, coincides with the final term of our president. The same is happening with Turkey and Iran. Either Erdogan will move towards true sovereignty, or he is overthrown, Iran will either move towards a Shi’a revolution, or it will keep balancing between Tradition and Modernity like it is doing now.

The liberal ideologues see, that in the area of geopolitics not everything is going to plan. Obstacles are turning into ghosts, and this is becoming a real factor. Pressure isn’t working, it is giving opposite results. This is why they want to stress soft power and new technologies. They will tear us open from within in the coming years. They know our weakness. They were very annoyed each time when we spoke of geopolitics and diplomacy, but perked up every time when we talked about the ‘sixth column’, about the liberals and Westernisers within our ranks. They want to hit these five ghost empires in order to return them to the level of obstacles.

This is bad news for those who deal with state security. They have acknowledged our successes in power politics, which is why they decided to strike from within to prevent the ghost from becoming reality. It is very important to fix all this, which is why Lévy is not an individual, but rather an orator of the world government, but not just that, he directly takes part in these processes.

We observe a sharp weakening of the globalisationist project. Its enemy is ready to appear; if we are to use apocalyptic terms, the witness who says “stop, you’re wrong” appears. This is not a symmetrical blow, but it is something serious.

We live in a world of Transition: a transition from the unipolar moment to something else. Even Western analysts are acknowledging that the unipolar moment, the era in which the ideology of Modernity only has to deal with objects and obstacles, has ended. Some kind of alternative subjectivity has emerged, and it either must be returned to existence before the paradigm, or do something more. If they are successful in ripping up the claims to subjectivity of the other empires, we will return to the unipolar moment. However, everyone feels that something is wrong, even on the short-term level. Our successes in Syria are an element of symbolic action of the highest importance. Trump’s declaration about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel is a genius move which moves the situation even more towards a multipolar world that consists of the empires, who will have lost the appellation of ghost. Every civilisation will have its project instead of one universal one.

Whatever scenario becomes reality, the West is sceptical. But the fact that it is sceptical should not bring us happiness. The more they are worried, the more realistically they see the end, the more they will agonise and resist. They will look for weaknesses, which there are very many of. Today we live during a transition, and the transition period is escalating. Will we transform from ghost into reality or will we be thrown to our knees? Any transition is made with great losses and much blood.

Trump’s election changed everything. If Clinton had become president, there wouldn’t have been an invitation to Amsterdam at all. Trump has fundamentally changed the balance of power in the game. Thanks to him, the ghost empires appeared. He has done something that fundamentally affected the long-term structure. When the Americans and Lévy pronounce the name of Trump (you need to see their faces) they are just shaking. Trump is a perfect opponent of Lévy’s project and globalisation in its liberal version in general.

Trump has ripped up the nuclear deal with Iran, which was necessary to support reformist tendencies in the country, lessen the pressure on the West, lowers Iran’s influence in the Middle East, and, by improving relations with Iran’s reformist elites through Iraqi Shiites and Bagdad finally remove it out of the game through an Iranian ‘perestroika’.

Another project of the left-globalists was supporting ISIS in order to create a controlled version of Islam with a limited ideological potential, seeing as IS could only be run with the help of Saudi Arabia. If we are to create a map of the Islamic world from one space which hasn’t seen Sufi ideology in a long time, we see that radical Wahhabi networks are run from Saudi Arabia. Because of the alliance with that country, it was possible to control Salafists, Wahhabis, and a Islamic network that was parallel to Islamic tradition in general.

Accordingly, ISIS itself was a project of the ‘swamp’, which Trump promised to ‘drain’ even during his election campaign. The rapprochement with Iran was an idea of the ‘swamp’. Changing Muslims into their allies by fusing them with ISIS and sending them into a liberal direction was also their idea. The support for ‘reformism’, for the sixth column and the liberal project in Russia were all ‘swamp’ handiwork. We recall Brzezinski’s last visit to Moscow. Yurgens brought him to Medvedev and he proposed a deal: the relinquishment of all claims if Medvedev stood for a second term. Russia’s integration and plugging her into the global liberal project was the ‘swamp’s’ idea, not an escalation. The liberal globalists occasionally make concessions to non-liberal regimes in order to support the internal opposition and in such a way rip them open from the inside. But at a critical moment, they become very harsh.

What Trump has really been consequent in all this time is his sabotage of the ‘swamp’s’ projects. It is already becoming his style. In many things he wavers (between Trumpism and the neocons), he makes an interventionist move one time and a non-interventionist the next time. But everything he is doing is against the ‘swamp’: Hillary, Obama, and their helpers in the establishment. He wavers between Trumpism and the neocons, but he does not waver in his demands for Hillary’s imprisonment. He does not waver in the dismantling of the infrastructure of the former administration in the Middle East. He is destroying the projects that Lévy participated in. He is gradually changing the overseers of fundamental project and conditionally moving forward ‘his’ people: those who aren’t Hillary and Obama’s people. He is conducting a kind of cleansing of the cadres and blocking developments of the past. These have led to the surrender of Kirkuk and other consequences that Libya is sounding an alarm over. Someone continues to work on the earlier project because of inertia, but the new people who came in with Trump are starting to disrupt them more and more actively. Half of the American structures in the Middle East continues to operate according to the old plan, half is already doing something else. This doesn’t mean that Trump has some kind of project. But it is very clear, that he doesn’t have a project like the one the ‘swamp’ has. He is moving more and more towards the neoconservative model while diluting it with ‘Trumpism’.

It is specifically this model that led to his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But this is a globalist nightmare, because Trump doesn’t get anything from it in reality, just like the globalist networks. All American agents in the Middle East, which the American establishment relied on, are now lost. They were instated under Obama, under a situation of “neither Palestinian nor Israeli” for a long time, but the recognition of Jerusalem changed everything radically. Seeing as Obama was seen as an ally of Palestinian ideology by Trump, he accordingly ‘did away with him’ in this matter as well.

In reality, Trump did one irreversible thing: he objectively strengthened our positions in the Middle East. He gave Russia, Turkey, and Iran advantages that might predetermine all of world history. This is definitely serious, because after Syria we are not only seen as victors, but as the only hope for an alternative politics as well. Thus, Trump has moved our status from ghost empire to empire to real Empire one step forward, and the multipolar world with it. Of course, he does not now and didn’t act in our interests but those of the neocons and Israelis against the ‘swamp’, but he is moving towards multipolarity while creating more and more objective preconditions for it. What is more, Trump will act like this in the future right up to the moment where he is stopped: perhaps three years if he isn’t re-elected, or perhaps a second term. In the latter case, the formation of subjects of the multipolar world will be irreversible. However, we probably have only three years for very active work in the Middle East. Trump will continue to disturb the Obamaites and their ‘Greater Middle East’ project.

The conflict within the global ideological system is very serious, but one gets the impression that they have an ace up their sleeve and that they are counting on the sponginess of the Russian elite. If we hold on a bit longer, even if we make ourselves out to be something else, everything will go fairly well. Macron is not a threat to us, Europe isn’t regrouping into a kind of subject, and money won’t help the globalists here. That sad, disintegrating society is incapable of being an alternative to America. Lévy is wrong: only America can do what he wants, Europe cannot do it at all. This is why the future battle will be for America and for the rise of those forces in the ghost empires that could help them stop being ghosts. The entire ideological model will be based on reinstating carriers of the base Enlightenment ideology in government, removing Trump, and rip apart the five empires from the inside out.

The pall of radical Islamism, which was led from Saudi Arabia, makes it possible for Russia to become the guarantor of an Islamic renaissance. If we are to work with the Islamic world, nothing in this day and age will prevent us from becoming the leading force in this area.

Trump did a sly thing that has secured his stability. If he was just a Trumpist, he probably wouldn’t be where he is today. But he found new allies. Of course, we shouldn’t expect anything good from him, but the most important thing for us is the damage he does to the ‘swamp’.

If we are to examine the situation from a wide perspective, then what is now of import is the transition from ghost to enemy itself, the transformation from a spectre of empire into an Empire: this is the main question of the future for all potential enemies of Modernity. The Iranians mixed up everything good to such a degree, that a new conservative revolution might be necessary to prevent the end of traditionalist tendencies. The Turks won’t get far with Kemalism alone. For the imperial tradition they must return to Tradition, to their Sufi, anti-Western roots. We need to leave the condition of ghost-Russia, and if we don’t have a plan when Trump’s term ends, we will really end up in a critical situation. A critical time is beginning for us, and the work of people who represent the real Russia is necessary here. For that we need both an ideological as well as a kratopolitical model. How the ideology will develop, how wie will deconstruct Modernity, how we will liberate ourselves from the manifestations of liberalism: everything will depend on this. The second question is the following: how will we able to top this all off with real political decisions? Many intuitively understand this, but they don’t how to put it together just yet. When honest Russian people come and try to do something, short-term politics just grinds them up.

2018 is the year of ideological war. This is a war for the appearance of the multipolar world in the form of real empires, founded on an anti-Western model. When Lévy says that “our enemies”, he means the enemies of the Enlightenment, of technological progress, of human rights, of individualism. And this is true. This is what it’s about. We want a different future. We are supporters of the project of Tradition. Here it is important to note, that Tradition is an obstacle, it is just a bump in the road for Modernity, but Traditionalism, on the other hand, consists of the forces that will build a cliff in the path of Modernity’s train. Traditionalism is an insurrection against Modernity.

Everything that is really changing the face of the world in the realm of middle-term politics today is done in the Middle East. There, the main factor is becoming the alliance between Russia, Turkey, and Iran, which is significantly dependent on the solution of the Kurd question. It is important to note, that the Kurds are not loyal to anyone and cannot be loyal to anyone by definition. They are only loyal to themselves. They live in their own world, which isn’t ruled by anyone, run by anyone, or watched over by anyone, especially not by the forces represented by Lévy. The only thing we cannot promise the Kurds is a nation state. Purely and simply because the nation state belongs to the past (the Westphalian system) and it won’t solve anything at all. We need to see nation states as metaphors of something bigger: peoples, cultures, etc., i.e. as hints of the ghost empires, polity-civilisations, ‘big spaces’. If we manage to get the Kurds out of waiting for a nation state, then they can become part of the Moscow-Teheran-Ankara axis as well. After all, a Kurd ‘big space’ (not a state) is fully realisable.

Current circumstances lead us to say that we should support all of Islam that is outside of Saudi Arabia. Relations with Egypt and the Maghreb should receive special attention. Morocco and Algeria are currently fully controlled by European intelligence services, and we see the same in Libya. It is time for us to get involved. Now, when Islamism under the control of Saudi Arabia is weakening, the factor of non-Islam (i.e. non-Salafism and non-Wahhabism) is growing stronger. If we thoroughly work on Arab Islam (with the exclusion of the Arabian Peninsula) while pragmatically using Qatar but not throwing all our hope on it, we will get a real chance to break the ‘Greater Middle East’ project.

As far as Israel is concerned, in the current configuration we cannot offer it anything positive. They have unequivocally taken an opposite position while not entering into a direct confrontation: thus, we need to take our own, and in the current situation this automatically means an anti-Israeli position in every field by strengthening our influence in the Arab world. To be precise, we must do this by not recognizing Jerusalem as belonging to Israel and answer Israeli raids both in Syria and the rest of the Arab world more harshly.

There need to be ‘scapegoats’ in any project. In the current circumstances, we might have to sacrifice Saudi Arabia and Israel for a pan-Islamic, non-Wahhabi, anti-Western project if they themselves won’t try to find a place in the Eurasian geopolitics of the Middle East. This will affect our position in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is why, by becoming a friend and defender of the Islamic world and considering the Trump factor, we must begin to think about our relations with these countries.

Even radical Islamism takes on another shape in such a picture, which was our enemy because it was controlled from Saudi Arabia with US and Israeli support. By coming out on the side of the Islamic world in general, Russia can change its relation to it if it, in return, changes its relation to Christians and Sufis and begins to acknowledge the laws of geopolitics. In the current situation and without any Western support, radical Islam could even become our ally under certain conditions. Because today, any anti-Western element is beginning to work in our favour. For example, when the Turks changed their opinion of the Americans, they immediately stopped supporting radicals in the North Caucasus. If the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ remember their Sufi roots and Qatar, which traditionally protects Salafism, moves towards us, Turkey, and Iran even more, the direction of radical Islam might cardinally change.

What we shouldn’t have any doubts about is the fact that Europe definitely won’t become the new centre of globalisation. It has nothing to become this with: neither potential, nor will, nor power. Russia needs to begin to intensively work in Europe with right-wing and left-wing opponents of global hegemony in order to get them to create their own ghost empire, a European Empire resting on populism, i.e. social justice and traditional values. Despite the fact, that the ‘swamp’ is still dominant among European elites, very interesting tendencies are developing. And if Russia will help to destabilise the power of the globalist elites while trying to make contact with revolutionary forces, we can accomplish this. We can use their very methods, for example, technologies to create small forces (the same way they did with the help of many ‘Open Society’ groups in Russia) to disrupt the legitimacy of the liberal dictatorship. If we do this, we can really try to influence Europe.

It is important to note, that European centrists would prefer to deal with us, in economics in any case, rather than the US. Under Trump, the Europeans will free themselves from harsh US tutelage and pragmatic centrists will join up with the left and right. Lévy’s idea that Europe should become the centre of the ‘swamp’ was not to anyone’s liking. On the contrary, a logical conclusion appeared: if Russia is so strong, and everything is as bad in America as Lévy says, then we don’t need to fight with Russia, but trade with her.

Another important factor in Europe is the Islamic one. If we are to take as basis the idea that Islam is now on our side, European Muslims are also on the side of counter-hegemony. Among them are the enormous Turkish diaspora in Germany, the massive number of Wahhabis, and even some native Europeans who converted to Islam (like, for example, Claudio Mutti). The extrication of Europe from the globalist project is an open battlefield. Under current circumstances, we can calmly join the battle for Europe, and not just ‘from the right’, but ‘from the left’ as well, on the side of anti-capitalists and anti-globalists. We should help the creation of a European counterhegemony, which, as a matter of fact, was conceived by the Europeans themselves, for this is one of Gramsci’s terms. What is more, a strong ‘rightist’ upswing is growing in Europe.

In America, we see Trump against the ‘swamp’. America will be sealed off for three years. It is unlikely that it will begin an adventure against North Korea, seeing as that would be good for the neocons but bad for the Trumpists. Trump is trying to keep the balance intact. Relations with Russia will worsen, but this is only of benefit to us. Everything except war and friendship is good for us in Russia-US relations.

As a project, Russia can begin supporting counter-hegemony in America itself, both through the ‘left’ and ‘right’, which is what we’re doing. To do this, we ourselves must believe the myth that our hackers influenced the elections. Of course, we couldn’t have done this, but if they say so, we should construct an image of an All-Powerful Russia that influences the West. This is a war of interpretations in which it will be good for us to support the myth of a Russian presence even further.

________

[1] Aeneas — in early Greek mythology a hero of the Trojan war from the royal line of the Dardanoi.

[2] Right Sector: an extremist organisation of so-called Ukrainian nationalists which is forbidden in Russia.

[3] Das Man – a neuter personal pronoun – a concept introduced by Heidegger in “Being and Time” for the analysis of the unauthentic being of man. He notes, that there is such a concern of contemporary man that turns human life into ‘frightened worry’ and daily life into a wretched existence. The main element of such a worry is its direction towards personal effects and the transformation of the world. On the one hand, this direction itself is anonymous and faceless, on the other hand, it drowns the human being into the faceless world of Das Man, where everything is anonymous. There isn’t and cannot be any subjects of action in this world, nobody solves anything and thus doesn’t have any responsibility.

[4]  An allusion to Karl Popper’s book “The Open Society and its Enemies”

[5]  A terrorist organisation that has been forbidden in Russia.

[6] Cynicism in moral questions, ostentatious godlessness, and full freedom in the sphere of sexual relations.

https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/globalisation-and-its-enemies