A Stepping-Stone out of the Cave: An Interview with Daria Dugin

Here is a fascinating interview with Daria Dugin, the daughter of the philosopher Alexander Dugin. The conversation is wide-ranging and serves to contextualize what is currently happening in the world, namely, the struggle between globalist hegemony and multipolar alliances. This interview is made available through the kind courtesy of Breizh-Info.

Breizh-info (BI): Would you introduce yourself to our readers? Isn’t it difficult for you sometimes to bear the name of Dugin, and thus to be necessarily assimilated to your father?

Daria Dugin (DD): I graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy at Moscow State University with a degree in the history of philosophy. My research focused on the political philosophy of late Neoplatonism, a subject of endless interest. The main line of thought in the political philosophy of the late Neoplatonists is the development of the idea of an omology of the soul and the state and the existence of a similar threefold order in both. Just as there are three bases in the soul, so in the state (and the Platonists describe the Indo-European model, later perfectly theorized in the work of Georges Dumézil) there are also three domains—this model manifests itself in antiquity and the Middle Ages. The existential and psychic understanding of politics is in fact lost in many ways today. We are used to seeing politics only as a technique. But Platonism reveals a deep link between political and psychic processes. There is an urgent need today to restore such a comprehensive view of political processes; that is, to examine “existential politics.”

Daria Dugin.

I am honored to be in the same boat as my father (on the same existential ship), being the daughter of a great researcher of the Tradition, author of the 24-volume work Noomachia (“wars of the mind”—an analysis through the three logos of all the cultures of the world). The fact that we are under sanctions from the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom is also a symbol that we, Dugins, are on the path of truth in the fight against globalism. Therefore, I would say that it is an honor to be born in such a family.

BI: Tell us about your current work?

DD: I am a political observer of the International Eurasist Movement and an expert in international relations. My field of activity is the analysis of European politics as well as geopolitics. In this capacity, I appear on Russian, Pakistani, Turkish, Chinese and Indian television channels, presenting a multipolar world-view of political processes.

My areas of interest are both the European civilization space and the Middle East, where a kind of conservative revolution is taking place—from Iran’s constant confrontation with American hegemony or Syria’s struggle against Western imperialism, to Turkey, which is now showing interesting tendencies to move away from NATO and the Anglo-Saxon geopolitical bloc and is trying to build its foreign policy on a multipolar basis, engaging in a dialogue with the Eurasian civilization. I think it is important to follow the processes in the Middle East region; it is one of the stages of the struggle against imperialism.

On the other hand, I am also very interested in African countries; they represent “The Other” for Europe and Russia, from the analysis of which one can better understand his own civilization. Africa has always been an element of dream for Europeans as well as for Russians—remember Arthur Rimbaud’s Journey to Abyssinia and Harrar, or the Russian poet Nikolai Goumilev, who was inspired by Rimbaud (“African Diary”) and a series of poems about Africa, in which he actually reveals Africa as an unexplored civilization, full of meaning, which Western colonialism cruelly tried to undo and destroy. Today, tectonic shifts are occurring on the African continent, and the confrontation of civilizations: Western and authentically African (so different and unique) is extremely interesting.

For me, a particularly important topic is the development of the theory of a multipolar world. It is clear that the globalist moment is over. The end of liberalism is now at hand—the end of liberal history. At the same time, it is extremely important to understand that a new stage full of challenges, provocations and complexities has begun. The process of creating multipolarity, of structuring civilizational blocs and establishing a dialogue between them is the main task of all intellectuals today. Samuel Huntington, as a realist of international relations, has rightly warned against the risks of a clash of civilizations. Fabio Petito, a specialist in international relations, stressed that the construction of a “dialogue of civilizations” is the central task and “the only way forward.”

Thus, in order to consolidate the multipolar world, the border areas (intermediaries) between civilizations must be treated with care. All conflicts take place at the borders (intermediate zones) of civilizations, where attitudes clash. It is therefore essential to develop a “border” (intermediate) mindset, if the multipolar world is to function fully and move from a “clash” to a “dialogue” of civilizations. Without this, there is a risk of a “clash.”

BI: What is your view on the war in Ukraine? And on the reactions in the West and in the world?

DD: The situation in Ukraine is precisely an example of a clash of civilizations; it can be seen as a clash of globalist and Eurasian civilizations. After the “great geopolitical catastrophe” (as the Russian president called the collapse of the USSR), the territories of the once-united country became “frontiers” (intermediate zones)—those spaces to which the attention of neighbors increased, with NATO and especially the United States interested in destabilizing the situation on Russia’s borders.

In the 1990s, consistent work was initiated with the frameworks of the new governments, of the new states. Ukraine is no exception. The 2014 events in Ukraine, the Maidan, supported so fervently by both Nuland and the famous Bernard-Henri Levy (soldier of ultra-globalization), were a turning point; in fact, they opened the door to the establishment of a direct globalist dictate over Ukraine. Moreover, liberal and nationalist elements, which were more or less neutral before 2014, joined a united front with a globalist and pro-American agenda. For eight years in Ukraine, Russophobia was cultivated by various programs and history was rewritten, until the physical massacre of Russians—the same eibght terrible years for the Donbass with daily bombings. The French public can listen to the documentary filmmaker Anne Laure Bonnel, witness of these eight years in Donetsk, who is not afraid to tell the truth in her films and interviews.

The unanimous support of the West for Ukraine in 2022, the supply of weapons on an unthinkable scale—all this looks like agony—the agony of a globalist regime that is beginning to lose ground to multipolarity. For me, the most important pain is that Europe has succumbed to the influence of globalist propaganda, and instead of remaining neutral, has sided with the war. In many ways, this was certainly the plan of the United States, which had so systematically and continuously provoked the entire conflict by pumping weapons into Ukraine. From the U.S. alone (according to Transparency International), over $658 million was invested in aid to Ukraine between 2014 and 2017.

At the same time, we see that Latin American countries, the Middle East, China and India have not adopted a globalist position. Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro said his country “firmly” adheres to Russia’s position. In Cuba, people were seen carrying Russian flags and Z-symbols during a demonstration on May 1, as mentioned by the German channel ZDF. Argentina has accused the West of having double standards. The country’s vice-president, Cristina Kirchner, said the country was in conflict with London over the Falkland Islands. In Brazil, presidential candidate Lula da Silva said in turn that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was responsible for what was happening in his country. China spoke out against NATO expansion and U.S. provocations. India tried to maintain its strategic neutrality (in the 1990s, India itself was the target of painful U.S. and Western sanctions for refusing to join the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty)—the country whose oxygen the West sought to cut off and deprive of high technology, then stood its ground (largely through cooperation with Russia, which did not join the sanctions and advocated their abolition).

A number of Middle Eastern countries supported Russia’s special military operation (Syria, a long-time Russian ally, knows the battle against globalism better than anyone). There are growing calls for NATO withdrawal in Turkey, and the president refused to approve the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO.

Many African countries, especially those with strong antiglobalist sentiment, have not supported Western criticism of Russia (Mali, Sudan, CAR, Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, Eritrea). These reactions indicate the end of the myth of a “single world space.” Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine has accelerated the formation of a multipolar world and catalyzed many geopolitical processes.

BI: Don’t you think that Russia is isolating itself? What do you think will be the consequences of all this?

DD: I think it is the opposite. Russia is finding new partners and the processes of sovereignty (e.g., economic de-dollarization) are starting to accelerate. Russia is trying to be “punished” by Western countries through sanctions. But the effect on the Russian economy is not very noticeable (“International sanctions against Russia do not seem to impact the daily life of Muscovites,” a journalist mentions in a report by BFM TV). The sanction-policy of the West has been a catalyst for the search for new partners and the de-Westernization of our country.

At the same time, these sanctions have hit European countries hard, becoming a kind of “hara-kiri” for many European economies. This is very disturbing news. But apparently that was also part of the American plot to destabilize the European continent. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Budapest does not support the imposition of ill-considered sanctions against Russia. “Sanctions against Russia are like an atomic bomb; they could lead us not only to not being able to feed our population but also to receiving a mass of migrants at the border,” said the Hungarian Prime Minister.

New blocs have emerged. “Developing countries, including China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and others that refused to take sides, following Western sanctions against Russia, should consider ways to strengthen their economic coordination to withstand further shocks from the West. It is important to note that developing countries should seek a solution through financial and trade cooperation,” wrote a reporter for China’s Global Times. These are very interesting geopolitical processes. So, Russia has not been a victim of isolation—it has been the pioneer of a multipolar world order.

BI: How does the Russian population react to this war, which has obviously already caused a lot of losses on the Russian side?

DD: Any military operation always involves losses. It should be noted that the figures provided by Ukrainian sources (and they are the ones that are broadcast in the Western media) are not correct and should be verified. We are facing a situation of information war in which everything from military reports to figures is politicized.

In the Western media, there is unfortunately hardly any alternative view of events. In 2016, Ofpra produced a dossier on Pravy Sektor (“Right Sector”), an ultra-Ukrainian group: “Pravy Sektor is subject to allegations of anti-Semitism and xenophobia, homophobic demonstrations, illegal detentions and other abuses of power. It created an armed militia, the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps, which was involved in the conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass. Tensions between the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps and the authorities continued until the Corps was integrated into the regular armed forces.”

Those who were looked at with suspicion in 2016, have become heroes in 2022. The wives of the fighters of Azov (a group responsible for the cruel murders of Russians in Donbass) meet the Pope in the Vatican. It is very strange that something that seemed forbidden only two years ago has become mainstream in Europe. Or the meeting of BHL with Marchenko, the former head of the Russophobic and xenophobic radical battalion Aydar (a terrorist organization banned in Russia).

Today, liberalism goes hand-in-hand with xenophobia and Nazism. This is a paradox. But it can be explained if we understand the “totalitarian nature” of modern liberalism. This is the subject of manipulation of information and data.

As for the reaction of the Russians, the overwhelming majority supports the special military operation. In their eyes, it is an understandable defense of Russia’s geopolitical interests and a fight against Russophobia, because a regime has formed in Kiev that denies Russians the right to self-determination (language, culture, identity) and existence. Some elements of society immediately left the country after the outbreak of hostilities—they went to the United States, Europe and Israel. Significantly, Anatoly Chubais, former head of the Russian presidential administration and one of the ideologues and leaders of economic reforms in Russia in the 1990s, left the country. In the 1990s, the Patriotic Front called him a “traitor” and responsible for Russia’s economic difficulties. This is symbolic. There are such cases, for sure.

Everyone around me supports the special military operation, not only in words, but also, for many, in deeds, providing humanitarian aid to refugees and the region. Moreover, they have not only been doing so for the last few months, but for many years—over the same eight years that the West knows so little about.

BI: As a journalist, what do you think about the censorship of RT in the European Union, or of Sputnik, and the silence (if not approval) of a majority of European journalists?

DD: This is an unprecedented case of violation of the “freedom of expression.” Freedom of expression implies the possibility of different points of view, sometimes unpalatable to the authorities. RT and Sputnik are not instruments of Russian propaganda, but platforms for discussion. I watched many programs of RT France, and they were interesting because they included experts with an alternative point of view to that of the mainstream media. The fact that journalists in Europe did not react in any way to these blockades shows the “totalitarian” nature of the entire Western media world. This is very sad. Let’s hope that the re-information media will remain active and will hasten the destruction of the disinformation block.

BI: In France, the economic consequences are already being felt (notably the increase in gas prices). How can a vicious circle be avoided?

DD: The anti-Russian sanctions are beginning to drain the European economy. Le Pen, during the debate with Macron, rightly called them “hara-kiri” for the French economy. But let’s think—who needs a weakened Europe? Afflicted after COVID, weakened by anti-Russian sanctions, Europe will have to focus all its forces on the issue of rescuing its own economy. In such a situation the beneficiaries are the USA, which will manage to establish its control over the continent.

An independent Rimland is unacceptable for the Anglo-Saxon civilization. The growing anti-American and anti-NATO sentiment (in France, note, Mélanchon, Le Pen, Zemmour and many other candidates have actively criticized France’s membership in NATO and called for an almost Gaullist scenario of 1966) is a threat to the world domination of the USA. Therefore, the idea of anti-Russian sanctions was implemented with the self-serving aim of weakening the region. The EU elites have acted as intermediaries, proxies of the globalists in this enterprise, and have dealt a blow to the welfare of peoples and European populations.

BI: A final word?

DD: I urge all readers to think critically and question the reports published by the media. If the Western liberal elites insist so much on supporting Kiev and demonizing Moscow, it is because there is a profit logic behind it. Everything must be questioned. This is an important principle that allows us to keep a sober eye.

In a society of spectacle, of propaganda and of the totalitarian nature of Western systems, doubt is a fundamental stepping-stone to get out of the cave.

Featured image: “Plato’s Cave (Study for a Monument),” by Tom Hopkins; painted in 1986.

The End of Universalism

Europe believed in universalism. It believed that cultural, religious, human, political borders were chimeras that could be erased. It believed that outside Europe the others were other selves, with the same wills, the same passions, the same objectives. Other selves that aspired, in their secret desires, to become like Europeans. It believed that values and ideas could be exported, that it was enough to formerly colonize, to normalize today, and if necessary, by means of war.

The World: a European Reflection?

Universalism was not without ambiguity. By seeing in the other a being still in the state of nature, which had to be “developed” in order to transform him into a complete and accomplished man, universalist thought was the bearer of wars and tragedies. The first colonial period (1880-1960) was an attempt to export universal values. Then, in spite of its failure, Westerners continued to try to paint the world in their own image. This was the great era of achieving development, of an intellectual colonization to which elites lent themselves, flattered to enter the Western world and to be invited to world conferences. Modernization was to follow the path of Westernization.

But there was a hitch, first in 1979, when the Iranian mullahs claimed that they wanted to modernize their country without westernizing it. This was probably an accident of history, which continued with Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. But democracy, which was no longer just a political regime but a political ideology, had to be the strongest. Universalism, so sweet and syrupy in its language, provoked bloody wars whose wounds have not yet finished damaging the world. Yugoslavia (1991-2001), Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003), Syria and Libya (2011-) for the main ones. Democracy was to be exported with bombs and thus reshape the faces and peoples of these countries. Political planning on an international scale failed. These countries rejected the West and its universal values. At the same time, former empires, which had been destroyed, woke up and wanted to influence the world scene: Russia, China, India; they too had technological modernity but without Western values.

In the West itself, universalism was rejected in favor of a return to indigenism; Latin America and Africa were the laboratories for this. Africa, which was supposed to advance at a forced march with elections, democracy and public aid for development, experienced an unprecedented fragmentation. In Europe itself, the assimilation and integration of non-European populations is becoming more and more complex; far from wanting to adopt European ways of life, they wish to preserve their cultures and their specificities. Universalism is being defeated within Europe itself. Thus, we have a world that is increasingly united by globalization, increasingly technologized and connected, but also increasingly fragmented and diverse because universalism has failed.

Accelerate when Failing

The characteristic of an ideology is not to recognize its failure and never to lay down its arms—when it fails, it accelerates. The end of universalism therefore means the acceleration of its defense; hence the passive or active interventions in Syria and Libya, while the failure of Iraq was obvious. Hence the refusal to see the world as it is, to think about empires reborn, to understand the motivations and ideologies that underlie the actions of other countries and peoples. To recognize the failure of universalism is to recognize the failure of nearly two centuries of world politics.

Yet this end of universalism is good news. Because it is a sentimentalism and an idealism—it has led to war; it has upset regions; it has weakened Europe. By systematically putting the debate on the level of values and morals, it has prevented any understanding and conciliation. Universalism is an intellectual break with the classical vision of man and of the relations between nations, based on human nature and the relations of forces.

The end of universalism is not because the idealists recognized their failure, it is because other peoples rejected it, because it is contrary to their cultures and their interests. Because it was born in Europe and exported to the areas held by the West, Europe is in the front row of its disappearance. The external and internal wars that Europe is now experiencing signal the end of universalism, even if many do not want to recognize it. The very project of the European Union, based on the dissolution of nations in an imperial bureaucracy, is a failure, as nations, notably Germany, are taking back their power interests. The new century that has begun is therefore at odds with the two previous centuries because of this disappearance of universalism.

School of Realists

For France and Europe, another path was possible. Far from the systematic adherence to universalism, the French school of political economy and then the school of geography proposed a realistic study of exchanges between nations. The world vision conveyed by François Guizot, Frédéric Bastiat and Alexis de Tocqueville was in opposition to the thinking of the idealists, particularly in their opposition to colonization. During the colonial period, Marshal Lyautey knew how to take into account the cultural differences of the peoples and to rely on the specificities of Morocco to ensure its economic development without undermining its historical identity.

The French school of geography, initiated by Paul Vidal de la Blache, anchored its research in the primary study of the geographical terrain and human occupation; a realistic and critical study that has never ceased to exist despite the pre-eminence of the idealist strand.

The end of the monopoly of the dollar, the establishment of a Chinese monetary zone, the fight against American legal norms, the desire of some to build an Islamic empire, the rejection of European cultures for the rediscovery of local cultures are all manifestations of the end of universalism. We thus return to the beginning of the 19th century, when the world had several empires and Europe had not yet conquered it, but with the technology and technical modernity of the 21st century. The end of universalism is therefore not a return to the past but a continuation of history.

Jean-Baptiste Noé is a French historian, who has authored of many books and articles, and is the editor-in-chief of the journal Conflits. We are thankful to the Institut des Libertés (Paris) through whose gracious generosity we are able to bring you this article. Translated from the French by N. Dass.

Featured image: “The Artist Moved by the Grandeur of Antique Fragments,” by Henry Fuseli, ca. 1778-1779.

The Clash of Realism and Liberalism

We need to understand what is happening to us and around us. To do this, common sense is not enough; there must be methodologies. So, let us consider the SMO (the Special Military Operation in the Ukraine), in the context of a discipline like International Relations (IR).

There are two main schools of thought in international relations: realism and liberalism. These we will discuss, although there are others; but these two are the main ones. If you are not familiar with these theories, don’t try to guess what is meant here by “realism” and “liberalism.” The meaning of the terms is taken from the context.

Thus, realism in IR is based on the recognition of the absolute sovereignty of the nation state. This corresponds to the Westphalian system of international relations that emerged in Europe as a result of the 30 Years War that ended in 1648. Since then, the principle of sovereignty has remained fundamental to the system of International Law.

IR realists are those who draw the most radical conclusions from the principle of sovereignty and believe that sovereign nation states will always exist. This is justified by the realists’ understanding of human nature: they are convinced that man in his natural state is prone to chaos and violence against the weakest, and that a state is therefore necessary to prevent this. Furthermore, there should be no authority above the state to limit sovereignty. The landscape of international politics thus consists of a constantly shifting balance of power between sovereign states. The strong attacks the weak; but the weak can always turn to the stronger for help. Coalitions, pacts and alliances are formed. Each sovereign state defends its national interests on the basis of cold, rational calculation.

The principle of sovereignty makes wars between states possible (no one can forbid someone from above to wage a war, because there is nothing higher than a state); but at the same time peace is also possible, if it is advantageous for the states; or in a war there is no unambiguous outcome.

This is how realists see the world. In the West, this school has always been quite strong and even prevalent. In the US, it remains quite influential today: about half of American politicians and IR experts follow this approach, which during the Trump presidency dominated. Most Republicans (except neocons) and some Democrats lean towards it.

Now consider liberalism in IR. Here the concept is very different. History is seen as a continuous social progress. The state is only a stage, on the road to progress; and sooner or later it is bound to fade away. Since sovereignty is fraught with the possibility of war, one must try to overcome it and create supranational structures that first limit it and then abolish it altogether.

Liberals in IR are convinced that a world government must be established and humanity united under the most ‘progressive’ forces—i.e., the liberals themselves. For liberals in IR, human nature is not a constant (as it is for realists) but can and must be changed. Education, indoctrination, media, propaganda of liberal values and other forms of mind control are used for this purpose. Humanity must be turned liberal and everything illiberal must be exterminated and banished. These are the “enemies of the open society,” the “illiberals.”

After the destruction of the “illiberals,” there will be global peace—and no one will be at war with anyone. For now, war is necessary, but only against the “illiberals” who “impede progress,” challenge the power of the liberal global elites and are therefore not “human” at all, and can therefore be dealt with in any way—up to and including total extermination (including the use of artificial pandemics and biological weapons).

In the near future, according to this concept, states will be abolished and all humans will intermingle, creating a planetary civil society, one world. This is what is called “globalism.” Globalism is the theory and practice of liberalism in IR.

The new version of liberalism has an addition: artificial intelligence will dominate humanity; people will become first genderless and then “immortal;” they will live in cyberspace and their consciousness and memory will be stored on cloud servers. New generations will be created in a test tube or printed by a 3D printer.

All this is reflected in the Great Reset project of the founder of the Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab.

Liberals make up the other half of politicians and international relations experts in the West. Their influence is gradually growing and sometimes exceeds that of IR realists. The current Biden administration and the majority of the US Democratic Party are liberals in this sense. Liberals are also dominant in the EU, which is the implementation of such a project, as it aims to build a supranational structure. It was IR liberals who conceived and created the League of Nations and then the UN, the Hague Tribunal, the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the IMF, the World Bank, the WHO, the Bologna education system, digitalisation. All globalist projects and networks are all the work of liberals. Russian liberals are an integral part of this global sect, which has all the characteristics of a totalitarian sect.

Now let us apply this explanation to the NWO (New World Order). After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine became a tool of both liberals and realists in IR—precisely a tool of the West. The liberals in the MoD encouraged Ukraine’s integration into the global world and supported its aspirations to join the European Union and NATO (the military wing of globalism). The realists in the MoD used Ukraine in their interests against Russia. To do so, it was necessary to make Ukraine a nation-state, which contradicted the purely liberal agenda. This is how the synthesis of Ukrainian liberalism and Nazism, against which the SMO fights, was formed. Nazism (Extreme Right, Azov and other structures banned in Russia) was necessary to build a nation and a sovereign state as quickly as possible. Integration into the European Union required a playful and comically pacifist image (Zelensky). The common denominator was NATO. This is how liberals and IR realists achieved Russophobic consensus in Ukraine. When necessary, they turned a blind eye to Nazism, liberal values and gay pride parades.

Now to Russia. In Russia since the early 1990s under Yeltsin, Chubais and Gaidar liberalism has firmly dominated IR. Russia then, like Ukraine today, dreamed of joining Europe and joining NATO. If this had required further disintegration, the Kremlin liberals would have been willing to do that too. But at some point Yeltsin himself and his foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov adjusted the agenda slightly: Yeltsin resented separatism in Chechnya; Primakov deployed a plane over the Atlantic during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. These were weak signs of realism. Sovereignty and national interests were invoked, but only hesitantly, tentatively.

Real realism began when Putin came to power. He saw that his predecessors had weakened sovereignty to the extreme, caught up in globalisation; and that the country was consequently under foreign control. Putin began to restore sovereignty. First of all, in the Russian Federation itself—the second Chechen campaign, the deletion of sovereignty clauses from the Constitution, etc. Then he began to deal with the post-Soviet space—the August 2008 events in the South Caucasus; Crimea and Donbass in 2014. At the same time, it is indicative that the international expert community (SWOP, RIAC, etc.) and MGIMO continued to be completely dominated by the line of liberalism. Realism was never mentioned. The elites remained liberal—those who openly opposed Putin and those who reluctantly agreed to submit to him.

The SMO has, like a flashback, illuminated the situation in the Russian Ministry of Defence. Behind Ukraine there is an alliance of liberals and partly realists in the Ministry of Defence, i.e., the forces of globalism that have turned against Russia. For liberals (and Biden and his administration [Blinken and Co.], like Clinton and Obama before him, belong precisely to this school), Russia is the absolute enemy, because it is a serious obstacle to globalisation, to the establishment of a world government and a unipolar world. For American realists (and in Europe realists are very weak and barely represented), Russia is a competitor in controlling the space of the planet. They are generally hostile; but for them supporting Ukraine against Russia is not a matter of life and death. The fundamental interests of the United States are not affected by this conflict. It is possible to find common ground with them; not with liberals.

For IR liberals, however, it is a matter of principle. The outcome of the SMO will determine whether or not there will be a world government. Russia’s victory would mean the creation of a fully multipolar world in which Russia (and China and, in the near future, India) would enjoy real and strong sovereignty, while the positions of the allied entities of the liberal West, which accept globalisation and are willing to compromise their sovereignty, would be dramatically weakened.

In conclusion, liberalism in IR is changing to include gender politics, information and hybrid warfare, artificial intelligence and post-humanism. But realism is also changing: confirming the logic of S. Huntington (incidentally, a proponent of realism in IR), who spoke of the “clash of civilisations;” the main actors are not states but civilisations, what he calls Big Spaces. Thus, realism is gradually shifting towards the theory of the multipolar world, where the poles are no longer nation-states, but states-continents, empires. This is also clearly visible in the course of the SMO.

In terms of various theories of international relations, the SMO is simultaneously a conflict between:

  • unipolarity and multipolarity
  • realism and liberalism in IR
  • small identity (artificial Ukrainian Nazism) and large identity (Eurasian brotherhood of Russia)
  • the civilisation of the land (Land Power) versus the civilisation of the sea (Sea Power), in the battle for the coastal zone (Rimland), which geopolitics claims
  • the failed state and the resurgent empire

Before our eyes, and with our hands and blood now—right now—the great history of ideas is being made.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “Monopoly” by Bernhard Gillam; published in 1883.

The Fate Of The World Order Is Being Decided In Ukraine

Recently, the Italian journal Il Tempo asked Alexander Dugin a series of questions, in which he places the conflict in the Ukraine within the context of the greater struggle against globalism. We are grateful to Geopolitica for this opportunity to bring you the English version of this important discussion.

1. Let’s start at the beginning. When and why did the conflict in Ukraine begin?

Alexander Dugin (AD): This is a constant of geopolitics. Its roots go back to ancient Russia, when the Western Russian princedoms of Volhynia and Galicia fought with the Eastern Russian princedoms, primarily Vladimir Rus’, for control of Kiev. Kiev and Kiev’s great princely throne passed from hand to hand. Later, the Grand Duchy finally passed to the east of Russia—Vladimir and Moscow, and the western Russian lands came under the power of the Polish-Lithuanian Duchy.

Moscow reclaimed the territories of present-day Ukraine, divided between Poland, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire for centuries.
Thus two identities were formed: the Great Russian (Muscovites) and the Little Russian (modern inhabitants of western Ukraine). The Cossacks of Little Russia joined Russia in the 17th century.

Alexander Dugin. Photo Credit: Geopolitica.

The Russian Empire under Catherine reclaimed Novorussia from the Turks (all the territories of modern Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea). So, Russia bought back territories to the north from Poland—Chernigov, Kiev, etc. Finally, Stalin reclaimed Galicia from Austria and Poland during World War II.

The territory of the Ukrainian SSR consisted of different territories and different ethnic groups mixed between Velikorussians and Little Russians.
The West has sought to create an artificial Ukrainian nation since the 19th century. Geopolitician Mackinder was the Entente High Commissioner to the Whites and created a plan to build Ukraine independent from Russia as the main link in the cordon sanitaire between Russia and continental Europe. The Bolsheviks did not allow this to happen and incorporated the Great Russian and Little Russian territories of Western Russia into the USSR.

The new generation of Western geopoliticians—Brzezinski, etc.—again bet on the separation of Ukraine from Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, all of the territories of the Ukrainian SSR, along with Crimea, became part of Ukraine. But within the territory of Ukraine there were two peoples—one pro-European, the other pro-Russian. It was a frontier between two civilizations—Russian-Eurasian and Western. The West relied on only one, the pro-European one, and in order to accelerate the creation of a nation in Ukraine that never existed, allowed a Russophobic version of Ukrainian Nazism to spread.

Putin began to strengthen the sovereignty of Russia as a state and civilization. Then the West supported Ukrainian neo-Nazis and radical Westerners in the 2013-2014 Maidan coup d’etat. Putin responded by reuniting with Crimea and supporting Donbass. Kiev, backed by the West, established a neo-Nazi government in eastern Ukraine and began shelling Donbass and launching regular punitive raids. At the same time, Ukraine was rushing to join NATO, attempting to develop nuclear weapons, developing illegal bioweapons in biolaboratories created with the participation of Hunter Biden, and preparing to attack Donbass and then Crimea.

Russia this time launched a preventive special military operation against the Kiev regime. Its goals were the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine—all of Ukraine, not just Eastern Ukraine.

It was the West that initiated the separation of Ukraine from Russia. Brzezinski said that without Ukraine, Russia would never be able to become an Empire; that is, an independent geopolitical and sovereign power. Putin listened to his words, because Brzezinski was right. But chess is a game for two.

The fate of the world order is now being decided in Ukraine—Russia’s victory and its very entry into a tough phase of confrontation with the West, which stands behind the Kiev regime, will mean the beginning of a multipolar world. China supports Russia precisely because China itself, in a multipolar world automatically, becomes an independent pole. The hegemony of the globalist liberal West will collapse. The change in the architecture of the world is almost always, alas, through military action.
But the blame for this lies with the West and the globalist leadership of the United States. Under Trump, who was already committed to a multipolar world, such a harsh situation probably would not have arisen.

2. Is there a civil war in Ukraine or a clash of civilizations?

AD: Both. First of all, it is the clash of civilizations that Huntington wrote about. The border between Russian and Western civilizations runs through Ukraine, dividing it in two. The West wanted to establish control over all of Ukraine. Putin has not allowed this to happen.

The nature of the civil war has to do with two positions in Ukraine itself, as I explained earlier. Eastern Ukraine was occupied by Russophobe-nationalist politicians for 8 years after Maidan. The civil war was essentially fought during this time; but in its most acute form it was expressed in the regular extermination, by the AFU and Nazi formations, of the civilian population of Donbass.

3. For our readers – can you explain what is a unipolar world and what is multipolar?

AD: Unipolarity is a world order in which there is only one decision-making center (Washington); hegemony belongs to only one military bloc (NATO); only one system of values (liberal democracy, LGBT+, gender politics, cancel culture, Great Reset, etc.) is recognized as universal and obligatory on a planetary scale. This is what liberal elites, and above all the Biden administration, American neocons and globalists like Soros, Schwab, etc. insist on today.

A multipolar world implies the existence of several civilizations—Western, Russian, Chinese (these three poles already exist and brightly declare themselves), as well as Indian, Islamic, Latin American (they are on their way); and in the future African. This means that there will be not one but several centers of decision-making (today it is Washington, Beijing and Moscow, but tomorrow there will be more), several regional hegemonies (large spaces), several ideological systems (liberal, Chinese-Communist-Confucian, Orthodox-Eurasian, as well as Islamic, Hindu, etc.) In a multipolar world, the Western monopoly of military, economic value, which is ideological and cultural will be abolished.

This is what the tense confrontation in Ukraine is all about. This is a military conflict accompanying the change of the world order and the transition to multipolarity.

4. Why do you think Russia represents a traditional society and the modern West the Antichrist?

AD: Because Russia stands for traditional values, conservative values—Church, power, family—while the West stands for the exact opposite—postmodernism, atheism or indifference to religion, abolition of states in favor of a One World Government, gay marriage, transgender people, etc. We know how progressives view traditional society. But we don’t think about how traditional societies see the “progressive” West. And they see it as a “civilization of the Antichrist.”

5. Can the operation in Ukraine lead to a new structuring of the world?

AD: Yes, that is exactly what it is for.

6. Can we assume that 50-60 years from now we will know that Russia had secret treaties with China and India regarding this “special military operation?”

AD: I don’t think we are talking about pacts. Putin discussed the special military operation with Beijing; that’s for sure. But events are unfolding so radically that India and other potential poles of the multipolar world are watching Russia’s successes and the West’s reaction rather than being actively involved in the situation. Once Russia wins, everyone will take advantage of the new opportunities offered by multipolarity. But Russia alone will have to bear all the burden. This has often been the case in history.

7. Regarding the “name” of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, many in Italy wonder why it cannot be called “war” in Russia. On the other side of propaganda and polemics—what is that supposed to mean?

AD: Putin thereby shows that this is not Russia’s war with Ukraine, it is something akin to an anti-terrorist operation, in the vein of what the U.S. and NATO conducted in the Middle East or in Afghanistan. This is a war not with the country and especially not with its people, who are historically the same as us, but with the political pro-Western top brass and neo-Nazi terrorist groups.

8. In a recent interview you used the concepts of “The Great Reset” and “The Great Awakening” as two global parties existing in the world.

AD: Yes. Everything is clear with the “Great Reset”—it is the ideology of globalists and liberals who seek to consolidate their planetary power at any cost, using new means for this purpose—global networks, total control, mind control, medical totalitarianism, destruction of traditional sexes, and in the near future the intermingling of humans with machines, etc. Pandemics, wars, conflicts, etc. will be used for this purpose.

But all people must understand the true goals of the globalist elite, go against the peoples, not only of hostile countries (like Russia or China today), but also against their own peoples. That is why the persecution of “Great Awakening” elites is being carried out by both Americans (as we see in the example of Trump supporters) and Europeans (unprecedented pressure on populists).

The Great Awakening is the realization that it is necessary to confront not each other, not the people against the people, but the ideology and hegemony of world elites. The Great Awakening is a new anti-globalist international, designed to unite all supporters of multipolarity and even the most controversial and extravagant ideologies that oppose liberalism.

9. Military action with weapons in hand makes the side that started it the object of criticism. If Ukraine is a battleground between the two parties questioned above, won’t the image of the side that Russia represents deteriorate?

AD: Yes, further demonization of Russia, a wave of Russophobia, and the media discrediting Putin and Russia is the price we have to pay for a multipolar world—especially when the world press remains unipolar. If globalists had listened to their opponents, it wouldn’t even come to war. But for the West, any conversation is a monologue. The interlocutor, the Other, does not exist for the West. And there is no other way for Russia to insist that there is an Other in this conflict. We have tried everything.

10. You speak Italian, and you have close ties with our country. From your point of view, what is the fate of Italy?

AD: Italy is probably the closest country to us Russians among Western European states. We love it in spite of everything. But Italy is not sovereign; it is part of the West, controlled by the EU and the USA. And because of this, any voice of an Italian, or an Italian with support or understanding of Russia at such a difficult time for us, is so valuable.

We are fighting for a multipolar world where Europe and its countries can regain their sovereignty and their independence. Russia today has started a geopolitical revolution. And sooner or later the other nations will get involved in it and understand its meaning and appreciate its message. And it seems to me that the Italians will be the first to do this.

Featured image: “Battle of Kulikovo, 1380,” by Pavel Ryzhenko; painted in 2005.

The Failed End Of History And Russia’s War Against The Liberal World Order

Fukuyama’s Thesis Of The End Of History

From an ideological point of view, the world still lives in the shadow of the controversy of the 1990s, between Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. No matter how much the theses of both authors have been criticized, their importance has not been diminished, since the dilemma still remains and, moreover, is still the main content of world politics and ideology.

As I recall, in connection with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and then the USSR, the American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama formulated the “end of history” thesis. It boiled down to the fact that in the twentieth century, and especially after the victory over fascism, the logic of history was reduced to the confrontation of two ideologies—Western liberalism and Soviet communism. On the outcome of their confrontation depended the future, and therefore the meaning of history. And now, according to Fukuyama, the future has arrived, and this moment was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the coming to power in Moscow of liberals who recognized the ideological supremacy of the West. Hence the “end of history” thesis. According to Fukuyama, history is a history of wars and confrontations, hot and cold. In the second half of the twentieth century, all the confrontations and wars were reduced to the opposition of the capitalist, liberal West against the communist East. When the East collapsed, the contradictions disappeared. The wars stopped (as it seemed to Fukuyama). And, accordingly, history ended.

The End Of History—Postponed, But Not Rejected

In fact, this theory is the basis of the entire ideology and practice of globalism and globalization. Western liberals are still guided by it. It is the idea advocated by George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, Bernard Henri Levy, Hillary Clinton and… Joe Biden.

Liberals admit that not everything has gone smoothly since the 1990s. Liberalism and the West have faced different problems and new challenges (political Islam, the new rise of Russia and China, populism—including in America itself in the form of Trump and Trumpism, etc.). But globalists are convinced that the end of history has been somewhat delayed, but it is inevitable and will come soon enough. Under the slogan of a new effort—to make the end of history a reality and irreversibly consolidate the global triumph of liberalism—the campaign of globalist Joe Biden (Build Back Better, meaning “Back to globalization again—and this time more successfully, more thoroughly rebuilding the rear”) took place, inscribed in the planetary program of Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset.” That is, Fukuyama and his thesis have not been discounted—just the implementation of this plan, ideologically flawless from the point of view of the liberal worldview in general, has been postponed. Nevertheless, over the past 30 years, liberalism has continued to permeate society—technology, social and cultural processes, the spread of gender politics (LGBTQ+), education, science, art, social media, etc. And it has not only been about Western countries, but even of such semi-closed societies as the Islamic countries, China, and Russia.

The New Phenomenon Of Civilizations

Back in the 1990s, another American author, Samuel Huntington, contrasted Fukuyama with an alternative vision of world processes. Fukuyama was a convinced liberal, an advocate of World Government, denationalization and de-sovereignization of traditional states.

Huntington, on the other hand, adhered to the tradition of realism in International Relations; that is, he recognized sovereignty as the highest principle. But unlike other realists who thought in terms of nation-states, Huntington believed that after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR, there would be no end to history, but new actors would compete with each other on a planetary scale. As such, he named the “civilizations” and predicted in his famous work (Clash of Civilizations) their clash with each other.

Huntington proceeded from the following: the capitalist and socialist camps were not created in a void, by abstract ideological designs, but on quite certain cultural and civilizational foundations of different peoples and territories. These foundations were in place long before the New Age and its simplistic ideologies. And when the dispute of modern ideologies ends (and it did with the disappearance of one of them, communism), the underlying contours of ancient cultures, worldviews, religions and civilizations would emerge from beneath surface shapes.

The True And False Enemies Of Global Liberalism

Huntington’s rightness became particularly evident in the 2000s when the West confronted radical Islam. By that time Huntington himself had died before enjoying his theoretical victory, while Fukuyama admitted that he had jumped to conclusions and even put forward the thesis of “Islamo-fascism,” after whose defeat the “end of history” would come, but not before.

Nevertheless, Huntington’s correctness was not limited to political Islam. Moreover, Islam was in practice so heterogeneous that it did not form a unified force against the West. And it was convenient for Western strategists to manipulate the Islamic threat and Islamic fundamentalism factor to justify their interference in the political life of Islamic societies in the Middle East or Central Asia. A much more serious process was the quest for full sovereignty by Russia and China. Again, neither Moscow nor Beijing confronted the liberals and globalists with any particular ideology (especially since Chinese communism recognized economic liberalism after Deng Xiaoping’s reforms). These were two civilizations that had developed long before the New Age. Huntington himself called them Orthodox (Eastern Christian) civilization in the case of Russia and Confucian civilization in the case of China, quite rightly recognizing in Russia and China a connection to deep spiritual cultures. These deep cultures made themselves known precisely when the ideological confrontation between liberalism and communism ended in a formal, but not real (!) victory for the globalists. Communism disappeared, but the East, Eurasia, did not.

Victory In A Virtual World

But the proponents of the end of history have not been complacent. They are so enmeshed in their fanatical models of globalization and liberalism that they do not recognize any other future. And so, they began to increasingly insist on a virtual end to history. As in… if it’s not real, let’s make it look like it is. In essence, the policy of controlling consciousness, through global information resources, network technology, the promotion of new gadgets, and the development of models for merging people with machines, has been bet on. This is the “Great Reset” proclaimed by the creator of the Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab, and adopted by the U.S. Democratic Party and Joe Biden. The essence of this policy is as follows: while the globalists do not control reality, they completely dominate virtuality. They own all the basic networking technologies, protocols, servers, etc. Therefore, based on a global electronic hallucination and total control over the consciousness, they began to create an image of the world in which history had already ended. It was an image. Nothing more. But the tail seriously decided to wag the dog.

So, Fukuyama retained his importance; no longer as an analyst, but as a global political technologist, trying to impose perceptions stubbornly rejected by much of humanity.

Putin’s War On The Liberal Order

As such, Fukuyama’s assessment of the special military operation in the Ukraine is of some interest. At first glance, it might seem that in this case his analysis becomes altogether irrelevant, as he simply repeats the common clichés of Western anti-Russian propaganda that contain nothing new or convincing (in the style of banal Russophobe journalism). But upon closer examination, the picture changes somewhat, if we ignore what is most striking: the rabid hatred of Russia, Putin, and all those forces that oppose the end of history.

In an article published in the Financial Times, Fukuyama in the very title expresses the main idea of his claims about Russia: “Putin’s war on the liberal order.” And this thesis in itself is absolutely correct. The special military operation in the Ukraine is a decisive chord in the assertion of Russia as a civilization, as a sovereign pole of a multipolar world. This fits perfectly with Huntington’s theory; but it completely contradicts Fukuyama’s “end of history” (or the Popper/Soros open society).

Yes, that’s exactly it—the “war on the liberal order.”

The Ukraine’s Key Role In Global Geopolitics

The importance of the Ukraine for the rebirth of Russia as a fully independent world power has been clearly recognized by all generations of Anglo-Saxon geopoliticians—from the founder of this science, Halford Mackinder to Zbigniew Brzezinski. Earlier it was formulated as follows: “Without the Ukraine, Russia is not the Empire, but with Ukraine it is the Empire.” If we put the term “civilization” or “multipolar world pole” instead of “Empire,” the meaning becomes even more transparent.

The global West staked on the Ukraine as the Anti-Russia, and for this purpose instrumentally gave the green light to Ukrainian Nazism and extreme Russophobia. To fight against the Orthodox civilization and multipolar world any means were good. Putin, however, did not accept this turn and entered the battle; but not with the Ukraine, but with globalism, with the world oligarchy, with the Great Reset, with liberalism and the end of history.

And here is where the most important thing came out. The special military operation is directed not only against Nazism (denazification—along with demilitarization—is its main goal), but even more against liberalism and globalism. After all, it was Western liberals who made Ukrainian Nazism possible, supported it, armed it, and pitted it against Russia—as the new pole of the multipolar world. Even Mackinder called the lands of Russia “the geographical pivot of history”—that was the title of his famous article.

For history to end (a globalist thesis, the goal of the “Great Reset”), the pivot of history must be broken, destroyed. Russia as a pole, as a sovereign actor, as a civilization simply must not exist. And the diabolical plan of the globalists was to undermine Russia in the most painful area, to pit the same eastern Slavs (that is, in fact, the same Russians), and even the Orthodox. To do this, Ukrainians needed to be placed inside the globalist matrix, to gain control over the consciousness of society with the help of information propaganda, social networks, and a giant operation to control the psyche and consciousness, which millions of Ukrainians have fallen victim to in recent decades. Ukrainians have been persistently inculcated with the idea that they are part of the Western (global) world, and that the Russians are not brothers, but bitter enemies. And Ukrainian Nazism, in this strategy, coexisted perfectly with liberalism, which it instrumentally served.

The War For A Multipolar World Order

This is exactly what Putin has engaged in a decisive struggle with. Not against the Ukraine, but for the Ukraine. Fukuyama is completely right in this case. What is happening today in the Ukraine is “Putin’s war on the liberal order.” It is a war with Fukuyama himself, with Soros and Schwab, with the “end of history” and globalism, with real and virtual hegemony, with the Great Reset.

Dramatic events—and this is a universal dilemma—they decide the fate of what the coming world order will be. Will the world become truly multipolar, that is democratic and polycentric, where different civilizations will be given a voice (and we hope that this is exactly what will happen—this is the meaning of our future victory)? Or (God forbid!) it will finally sink into the abyss of globalism, but in a franker form, where liberalism will now not oppose Nazism and racism, but merge inseparably with it. Modern liberalism, ready to use Nazism and ignore it when it comes to the interests of nations, is the true evil. Absolute evil. It is this, and it is this, that the war is being waged about right now.

Fukuyama’s 12 Theses Based On One False Premise

Another recent text by Fukuyama, “Preparing for Defeat” in American Purpose, a publication of the American “neocons” (neoconservatives), as vocal representatives of liberal Nazism, deserves some attention. In it, Fukuyama offers 12 theses of how, in his view, events will unfold during the conflict in the Ukraine. Let us cite them in their entirety. Let’s say right away that we are talking about complete disinformation and enemy propaganda, and it is in this capacity—fake news—that we cite this text:

“Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion. Russian soldiers were evidently carrying dress uniforms for their victory parade in Kyiv rather than extra ammo and rations. Putin at this point has committed the bulk of his entire military to this operation—there are no vast reserves of forces he can call up to add to the battle. Russian troops are stuck outside various Ukrainian cities where they face huge supply problems and constant Ukrainian attacks.”

The first sentence is the most important. ” Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine.” Everything else builds on the fact that it represents absolute truth and is not questioned. If we were dealing with analytics, it would start with a dilemma: if the Russians win, then…, if the Russians lose, then…. But there is no such thing here. “The Russians will lose because the Russians can’t help but lose, which means the Russians have already lost. And no other options are considered, because that would be Russian propaganda.” What is this? This is what liberal Nazism is all about. Pure ideological, globalist propaganda, placing the reader instantly from the beginning in a virtual world where “history is already over.”

Then everything becomes predictable; only adding to the hallucination. We are dealing with an example of a “psy-op,” a “psychological operation.

“The collapse of their position could be sudden and catastrophic, rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition. The army in the field will reach a point where it can neither be supplied nor withdrawn, and morale will vaporize. This is at least true in the north; the Russians are doing better in the south, but those positions would be hard to maintain if the north collapses.”

No proof. Pure wishful thinking. The Russians must be losers because they are losers. And this we hear from the model loser Fukuyama, whose predictions have all been demonstrably disproved.

On the whole, everything is built on the assumption that Moscow was preparing for an operation that was to take two or three days and culminate in a victorious greeting with flowers from the liberated population. As if the Russians were such idiots that they did not notice the thirty years of Russophobic propaganda, the West’s coaching of neo-Nazi units, and a huge, by European standards, not badly armed (by the same West) and trained in Soviet times (and the training was serious back then) army, which was going to start a war in Donbass and then in the Crimea. And if a special operation by the Russians in such a situation was not completed in two weeks, it is a “failure.” Another hallucination.

The West Sacrificed The Ukrainians

And then Fukuyama says a rather important thing:

“There is no diplomatic solution to the war possible prior to this happening. There is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine given the losses they have taken at this point.”

This means that the West continues to believe its own virtual propaganda and is not going to compromise with Russia and implement a reality check. If the West waits until Russia is defeated to begin negotiations, they will never begin.

“The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless. The only helpful thing was the General Assembly vote, which helps to identify the world’s bad or prevaricating actors.”

In this thesis, Fukuyama is referring to the need to dissolve the UN and create in its place the League of Democracies; that is, fully subordinate to Washington, states that are willing to live under the illusion of “the end of history.” This project was formulated by another liberal Nazi Russophobe McCain and has begun to be implemented by Joe Biden. Everything is going according to the “Great Reset” plan.

“The Biden administration’s decisions not to declare a no-fly zone or help transfer Polish MiGs were both good ones; they’ve kept their heads during a very emotional time. It is much better to have the Ukrainians defeat the Russians on their own, depriving Moscow of the excuse that NATO attacked them, as well as avoiding all the obvious escalatory possibilities. The Polish MiGs in particular would not add much to Ukrainian capabilities. Much more important is a continuing supply of Javelins, Stingers, TB2s, medical supplies, comms equipment, and intel sharing. I assume that Ukrainian forces are already being vectored by NATO intelligence operating from outside Ukraine.”

With the first sentence, however, one can agree with Fukuyama. Biden is not prepared to launch a nuclear duel that would immediately follow the announcement of a no-drone zone and other direct steps for NATO to intervene in the conflict. And “the Ukrainians defeat[ing] the Russians on their own” sounds cynical and cruel, but the author does not understand what he is saying: the West first pitted the Ukrainians against the Russians and then allowed the Ukrainians to be left alone with the Russians by refraining from effective assistance. The Ukrainians win virtually only in a world where history is over. And they should, in Fukuyama’s thought, be happy about it. It’s just a question of defeating the Russians.

“The cost that Ukraine is paying is enormous, of course. But the greatest damage is being done by rockets and artillery, which neither MiGs nor a no-fly zone can do much about. The only thing that will stop the slaughter is defeat of the Russian army on the ground.”

When Fukuyama utters the words “the cost” is “enormous,” it is clear from his nonchalant expression that he does not know what he is talking about.

Putin And The New Beginning Of Populism

Next, Fukuyama reflects on the fate of President Putin. All in the same vein of daydreaming about the end of history. In no uncertain terms, he declares:

“Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?”

Another thesis built entirely on the first premise. The defeat of the Russians is inevitable, which means that Putin is finished. And if the Russians win, then Putin is just beginning. This is what matters, no longer for the delusional Fukuyama, but for us.

“The invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who prior to the attack uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin. That includes Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro, Éric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, and of course Donald Trump. The politics of the war has exposed their openly authoritarian leanings.”

First, not all populists are so directly influenced by Russia. Matteo Salvini, under the influence of the liberal Nazis and Atlanticists in his inner circle, has changed his previously friendly attitude toward Russia. One should not exaggerate the pro-Russian sympathies of the others either. But here again there is a curious point. Even if we accept Fukuyama’s position that the populists are Putin-oriented, they only lose if the Russians are defeated. And in the case of victory? After all, this is “Putin’s war with the liberal order.” And if he wins it, then all the populists win along with Moscow? And then the end of the global oligarchy and the “Great Reset” elites.

A Lesson For China And The End Of The Unipolar World

“The war to this point has been a good lesson for China. Like Russia, China has built up seemingly high-tech military forces in the past decade, but they have no combat experience. The miserable performance of the Russian air force would likely be replicated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which similarly has no experience managing complex air operations. We may hope that the Chinese leadership will not delude itself as to its own capabilities the way the Russians did when contemplating a future move against Taiwan.”

Again, this is all true if “the Russians have already lost.” And if they have won? Then the meaning of this lesson for China would be just the opposite. That is, Taiwan will return to its native harbor faster than one might assume.

“Hopefully Taiwan itself will wake up as to the need to prepare to fight as the Ukrainians have done, and restore conscription. Let’s not be prematurely defeatist.”

It would be better to be realistic, and view things as they are, taking all factors into account. But maybe the fact that the West has ideologues like Fukuyama, hypnotized by their own delusions, is good for us?

“Turkish drones will become bestsellers.”

Now fragments of these “bestsellers” are being collected by bums and looters in the dumps of the Ukraine.

“A Russian defeat will make possible a “new birth of freedom,” and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.”

Here’s the brilliant great conclusion: Fukuyama already knows about “the defeat of Russia,” as he knew about “the end of history.” And then, globalism will be saved. And if not? Then there will be no more globalism.

And then—”welcome” back to the real world, to the world of peoples and civilizations, cultures and religions, to the world of reality and freedom from the totalitarian liberal concentration camp.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “Aeneas fleeing from Troy,” by Pompeo Batoni; painted in 1753.

The Body(ies) of Jesus And The Human Body—The New Testament And Current Events

The present article does not aim to outline a “theology of the body.” In other words, we will not attempt to look at the New Testament anthropology that seeks to distinguish between body, soul and spirit. It is other passages that have drawn our attention, not unrelated to concerns expressed today:

  • What happened to Jesus? What does it mean that his body has “risen”?
  • At one time, the analogy of the Church as the “body of Christ” became central to Catholic discourse. What do the passages of the apostle Paul really say about this? Is this discourse still relevant?
  • Some Christians, and even non-Christians, describe the state of the world as they see it as “apocalyptic” and relate it to passages in this book, especially the one that speaks of bodies marked by “the Beast” (Rev 13:16-17. What does this passage mean?

The links that unite these three themes are not simply that they all speak of the body: the first sheds light on the second, and the second reveals the importance of the third.

1. The Glorious Body Of Christ

The most extraordinary thing that the New Testament says about the human body is undoubtedly that which concerns the body of Jesus after he “rose from the dead”—hence the word “resurrected,” which comes from Latin. According to Mt 28:6, angels said to the women who came to the tomb: “He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said.” But where is he then? They say, “Behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.” But that same evening he showed himself to the apostles (who were ten at the time). Their reaction is described as follows: “They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost” (Lk 24:37). Then the apparition invited them to touch it: “It is really me,” said Jesus, transformed by the resurrection, and he ate a piece of grilled fish in front of them (Lk 24:43). The numerous testimonies about these manifestations of Jesus during forty days do deserve to be looked at; but let us ask the question that interests us: what happened to his body? How can a material body become present in one place and then disappear just as suddenly?

Less than a year before, three of the apostles, Peter, James and his brother John, had been given a certain insight on the top of a mountain, probably Tabor, when Jesus’ body changed before the eyes of these apostles, and Moses and Elijah appeared at his side—according to Mt 17, Mk 9 and Lk 9:28-36. To describe this body as they saw it, the testimonies collected by Matthew and Mark use the Aramaic verb “altered” (in Greek “metamorphosed”), and a light emanated from the body and clothes of Jesus. The testimony collected by Luke speaks simply of the “glory” that was manifested. This property of “glory” that was manifested at that moment helps us to perceive a little of the reality of what must have happened at the tomb where the body of the crucified Jesus was laid. {See also, “Le mystère du tombeau vide,” and this video on the shroud of Turin, which has had a million views]:

As a quick summary, one could say that the “rising from the dead” is not only a physical phenomenon, affecting the body of Jesus, passing through the linen cloths (shroud and bandages) and leaving them collapsed as a result of a kind of sublimation, but a passage into glory. What John believes is not simply a logical interpretation of what he sees (he was present at the burial; he saw that nothing had been moved), but the fact that the body of Jesus has obviously (in his eyes) entered into glory. Therefore, we must not look for him all around. Jesus had made it clear: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mk 12:25). In fact, the few apostles present end up leaving, certainly taking the shroud with them, without really understanding what has happened (Lk 24:12 insists on Peter’s astonishment), while the holy women remain, wonder where the body is.

In the perspective of the resurrection, Paul will emphasize that men are called to share the glory of Christ by uniting themselves to him—and even the cosmos is involved (Rom 8)—if the material body of Christ has entered into glory, then matter is also called into it; ultimately, at any rate.

It is in this same perspective that we must look at the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, that is to say as a double means divinely invented to come and touch the materiality and the life of the beings that we are on earth, already communicating to them something of the glory of Christ—the Aramaic Christians rightly call the “Mass” “Qurbana;” that is to say, the fact of touching [God], or of being touched [by Him]. Let us note that the Eucharist is not only a reality of body-matter but also of the blood-life of Christ, which is genially anthropological.

The glance here taken at the glorious body of Christ is certainly rapid and very incomplete, but it is sufficient to situate and approach another “body of Christ,” that of the Pauline analogy with the Church. And to glimpse some serious questions.

2. What Does (Or Does Not) The Pauline Analogy Of The “Body Of Christ” Say?

It was the apostle Paul who compared the church to a body—no other New Testament passage uses this analogy. What did he mean?

Three passages from the Pauline writings:

In his first letter to the Corinthians, which dates from about 57 AD and is one of his earliest letters, Paul wants to emphasize the interdependence and mutual support that must exist among all those who follow Christ. To do this, he uses the image of the body applied at that time to the highly organized Roman Empire, where each person is presumed to have his or her own place and thus to contribute to the smooth functioning of the whole:

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit… Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” (1 Cor 12:12, 27).

Where does Paul get the idea that Christians form the body of Christ? Again, from the analogy with the Roman Empire, of which it was said that, as a “body,” the emperor is its “head” or “chief” (these are two words in modern French, but there was only one before, the word “chief” meaning first of all “head”). In the same way, Paul will also say that Christ is the “head” (chief) of the body that is the Church; but he does not say it yet in this letter. It must be said that there is a difficulty to consider: the Roman emperor is in Rome; he is part of the Roman empire; he is its head. The risen Christ, on the other hand, is neither in Rome nor in Jerusalem but in Heaven; he is not part of the whole which he directs. Can he be said to be its “head”? The Pauline analogy is and will remain shaky.

So, we have to wait until the letter to the Colossians, around 61, to see this statement appear: “He (Christ) is the head of the body [that is to say] of the Church; [19-23] Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking[e] in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:18, 24).

The only explanation Paul provides for his statement that “Christ is the head” is suggested by the second sentence: he aspires to unite his own humanity to that of Christ (“if I live, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”, he writes in Galatians 2:20), to the point of continuing for his own time—for the Church—a part of the mystery of redemption by offering himself. As for the idea that the Church continues the incarnation of Christ, it is absent from Paul’s thought; no doubt he would have considered it useless and absurd—in any case, it has had great success in Western theology—that is, “Christus prolongatus.”

The letter to the Ephesians, around 62, does not teach anything more. Paul simply adds a growth perspective, not so much in 1:22-23 which is a rather obscure passage [“he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:22-23). “the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:6)—but in 4:16: “from whom [Christ] the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. through the gospel” (Eph 4:16).

The verses that precede verse 16 prevent the misunderstanding that would consist in imagining “building in love” as a project to be carried out—what Paul wants to say concerns concrete persons, namely, “we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:12-13). This is the work of the Holy Spirit who, by his power (Rom 15:13), makes us children of God: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” (Rom 8:14). It would be dangerous to take this verse of Eph 4:16 (and the analogy of the Church with the body of Christ) out of context and to make a project out of it.

The passage continues as follows: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:15-17).

See also these other passages that evoke the power of the Spirit at work:
“for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1Th 1:5).

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 6:19-20).

“He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

“God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.” (Heb 2:4).

The Future Of The Pauline Image

It seems that this is precisely what has been done in the West (the verse has been taken out of context and made into a project). If one seeks to exalt the power of the Pope who is in Rome, the Pauline image was bound to serve. Indeed, if the head of the Church is in Heaven, there is at least someone on earth who is part of the Church (as the head is part of the body) and who can play the role of head—the bishop of Rome. It was enough to think about it. Paul’s essentially sociological metaphor then becomes a theological concept that leads to the conception of the Church as a pyramidal construction with a summit.

Jesus, on the other hand, had not thought of this. To evoke the future Church, he uses two analogies. First of all, obviously, that of the bridegroom and the bride, widely prepared in the Old Testament and then used by Paul (Eph 5:32). It is the image of God’s relationship with his people, and the one, alas, very little used afterwards, of the vine (or of the trunk of the vine) and of the branches—this image being much richer than we think. [The vine has roots, which draw their water from the Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, the eighteen centuries of pre-Christian preparation; and its leaves must receive the sunlight, which will transform the sap into food—this is the work of the Holy Spirit]. In the world of the Latin Fathers and theologians, the analogy that emerged was neither that of the bridegroom and the bride, nor that of the vine, but that of the “body of Christ” taken from Paul.

However, other analogies would have been possible, for example that of the Letter to Diognetus (around the year 200), which makes the Church the soul of the body; that is the world: “What the soul is in the body, Christians are in the world. The soul is spread throughout the members of the body like Christians in the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet it does not belong to the body, just as Christians dwell in the world, but do not belong to the world.” Too bad, this beautiful analogy was not retained—if Christians form a body (of Christ), they can hardly be at the same time a soul (of the world); the images clash. And if we want to say that the humanity of Christians is called to unite with that of Christ (to live with him, to think with him, to act with him, etc.), it is not necessary to have recourse to a concept such as that of the “body of Christ.”

Let’s jump to 1943 and Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, in which this concept of the “body of Christ” will reach its peak—unless it is in the writings of the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which we will look at a little later.

In Mystici Corporis, a concern for conceptual clarity leads to the addition of the adjective “mystical” to the expression “Body of Christ” because, obviously, there is no question of denying that the physical body of Christ is in the glory of Heaven. Jesus has two bodies, one mystical-ecclesial and the other glorious. It is simple. But is it so clear? We must first understand what the purpose of the encyclical was. Like Leo XIII, Pius XII wanted to oppose a conception of the Church “which would be only ‘spiritual’ (pneumaticum), in which the many Christian communities, although divided among themselves by faith, would nevertheless be united by an invisible bond,” the text states. In fact, the concern is to explain that the bond that must unite Christians is above all obedience to the Pope. The argument flows naturally:
“Christ… without ceasing to govern the Church mysteriously by himself, nevertheless directs it visibly through him who holds his place on earth [the Pope], for since his glorious Ascension into heaven, it no longer rests on him alone, but also on Peter as on a foundation visible to all. That Christ and his Vicar together form but one Head.” QED..

For the sake of form, Mystici Corporis says a few brief words about the Holy Spirit: “Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Divinum illud, expresses this presence and this operation of the Spirit of Jesus Christ in these concise and nervous words: ‘Let it suffice to affirm that, if Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is its soul’.” But how does one go about listening to a soul?

Logically, this text conceives of the Pope as an intermediary of holiness, a kind of funnel receiving this holiness from Christ and transmitting it to the ecclesial pyramid of which he is the summit, so that it drips down to reach the simple faithful who are below. Tt says here: “[Christ] divinely enriches with supernatural gifts of science, intelligence and wisdom his Pastors and Doctors, first and foremost his Vicar on earth.” We would like to believe that…

Impasses Of The Abusive Use Of The Pauline Image

Our analyses may seem severe, but they will be even more so with regard to what becomes of the doctrine of the “Body of Christ” in Teilhard de Chardin. There, the very imperfect Pauline analogy of the Church-body is mixed with faith in the Eucharistic body, which is not an analogy—Teilhard not being the first to operate this dubious mixture. In 2016, Jean-Marc Moschetta reminded us of his objective: “Teilhard thus proposes a modernized Christian reading of the universe that integrates the intimate scientific knowledge of matter with the Pauline vision of the Body of the Universal Christ: a cosmic body in a phase of sublimation under the transforming action of the energies of love.”

Thus, we slip from “the Church, the body of Christ” to “the world, the body of Christ”: “There is only one Mass in the world, in all times: the true host, the total host, is the Universe which, always a little more intimately, Christ penetrates and vivifies… the whole of Nature undergoes, slowly and irresistibly, the great Consecration. Only one thing is being done, basically, since always and forever in Creation: the Body of Christ” (Teilhard, Le Milieu Divin, 1957). And if one has not yet understood, Moschetta quotes Moltmann (Jésus le Messie de Dieu), who explains in other words: “It is from the experience of the Eucharist of the Church that his [Teilhard’s] vision of the ‘eucharization’ of the cosmos is born; that is to say, of the change of the cosmos in the Body of Christ. In the end, his evolutionary Christology is nothing less than the vision of the cosmic Eucharist by which God is worldized and the world is divinized.”

How will the texts of Vatican II get out of these traps and very ideological confusions?

In no less than 9 conciliar documents, we find the expression “Body of Christ” nearly 50 times, with or without the adjective “mystical,” and that is without counting all the times when the term “body” mentioned alone also designates the Church. On rare occasions, the expressions “Body of Christ” or “Body of the Lord” designate the Eucharist, and this among passages where “Body of Christ” designates the Church. By the way, which Church do the documents refer to: the one on earth? This is most often the case. More rarely the expression designates the one in heavenly glory, and even more rarely both at the same time—depending on what one wants to say in the context. It should also be noted that the glorious body of Christ appears very little, so that the question of how many bodies He has is avoided. In such a vague context, speaking of the Eucharist as the “Body of Christ” (even though there is also blood) can still give the impression of a third body, a “Eucharistic” or “sacramental” body. Confusion is not far; it does not take much then to take the step of making Jesus a myth with N bodies—Teilhard had done it and he is not the only one. The idea of separating the Jesus of history from a mythical and universal Christ-Logos is also at the heart of the “theology of religions” that Cardinal Ratzinger denounced in Dominus Iesus in 2000.

By proposing a sort of definition: “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, the Head and his members” (mystico Iesu Christi Corpore, Capite nempe eiusque membris), the document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, undoubtedly wanted to bring about a clarification. But in so doing, it makes the glorified Christ part of His “mystical body.” Another dubious clarification: to speak of the Eucharist (twice), this same document replaces “Christ” by “Lord” in the expression “body of Christ” and uses it only to speak of the Church and with the adjective “mystical.” This is commendable but perhaps derisory. There is nothing to prevent one from playing with words and saying that “the body of Christ feeds the body of Christ,” which then invites Christian assemblies to feed themselves in self-centered and self-made celebrations—which have indeed flourished in great numbers after the Council! If one wants to look at the Eucharistic mystery and speak about it, one must do so in relation to the glorious body of Christ (and with the heavenly liturgy, as the Orientals say), as we have seen above. Otherwise, it is perhaps better to say nothing about it.

And this is not the only problem. What is the meaning of the statement in Presbyterorum Ordinis (on the ministry and life of priests, December 1965): Christ builds the body of Christ? The two passages: “the ministry [of Christ]… constantly builds up the Church here below so that it may be the People of God, the Body of Christ” (cuius ministerium, quo Ecclesia in Populum Dei, Corpus Christi et Templum Spiritus Sancti, hic in terris, indesinenter aedificatur); and: “Christ himself builds, sanctifies and governs his Body” (Christus Ipse Corpus suum exstruit, sanctificat et regit). Let us pass over the challenge to the logical mind. Isn’t building one’s own body a mythical piece of language, far removed from the rich simplicity of the New Testament, and above all one that opens ideological doors that should remain closed? Is the Church a building site under construction, preparing for a beautiful and kind world to come? Or is it a people of God’s children animated by the Holy Spirit and organized by the apostles in the struggle against the forces of evil, in view of the Second Coming of Christ?

The widespread misuse of the expression “body of Christ” has created a smokescreen that prevents us from seeing and formulating the problem of the future of the Church and the world in the face of evil. Confronting the power of evil is a recurring theme in the book of Revelation. This book often speaks to us of the bodies over which this power is exercised, particularly in the famous passage where the “number” of the beast is mentioned. This passage interests us, not because of the 666, but because it brings us back to reality, far from the elucidations made about the Church-body.

3. The Body Confronted By The Hold Of Evil

“Also it [the Beast] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:16-17).

Let us note that John cannot specify what will be or where exactly the mark will be, which he imagines to be a kind of anti-mark compared to what he sees among Christians: some indeed wore a sign of the cross marked on the forehead according to the prescription of Ezek 9:4.6—because of the day of extermination as the text of Revelation reminds us in 9:4—while others wore it on the hand or rather on the wrist, as the Coptic Christians of Egypt still courageously do today. [Tertullian (±157- ±220) indicates it in this passage: “This letter Tau of the Greeks is indeed our T, the shape of the Cross which it prefigured as it would be [one day] on our forehead” (Adversus Marcionem, III, 22,6).] In fact, John tries to say as best he can what he perceives; we can think that the “mark of the Beast” that he sees is not located on a precise place of the body, but, which is very confusing for him, in the body.

In any case, this is what those who compare this passage to the “vaccine” obligations that are or have been imposed as Green Pass in many countries under the pretext of “covid” are thinking. In fact, the “mark” left by gene therapies (fraudulently called “vaccines”) is in the body, in its cells, with consequences that we can hardly measure yet, except that we can already see that many children are dying from them. But let’s remember that according to the US legislation, genetically modified living organisms belong to the firm that has registered the patent of their modification. Will humans belong to the owners of such firms? Will Christians still belong to Christ (1Co 15,23; Jn 10,3.12)?

This violence against the body reaches every cell: this has never been seen before—and on a global scale! But one must be able to see. If one professes that Evil does not exist, one cannot perceive anything of its evil action, and even less of its objective which is twofold: to destroy souls (in relation to their eternal salvation), and to destroy bodies (i.e., to eradicate humanity, which would already be done if Evil could have done it by itself). These are the two aspects of this project and the influence evil exerts. Corrupting souls, this influence pushes to large-scale killings; and to corrupt souls—to which evil does not have direct access—it has to go through the bodies, or more exactly through their psychology, their emotional or cultural links, their vital needs, etc. And the most effective angle of attack will always be the fear of inevitable death. Precisely, “that through death he [Christ] might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb 2:14-15).

The priority concern of the Christian tradition is obviously souls, following the words of Christ: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28). But at the same time, the concern for bodies, called to be temples of the Spirit (1 Cor 3:16), is a constant in this tradition: the works of mercy. Christians see in the suffering bodies that of their Savior on the cross, who accepted to be a victim of the hold of evil over the world. And they are aware of the stakes that are linked to the bodies, as they are revealed in Genesis (Noah), in the apocalyptic speeches of Jesus (Mt 24 and Lk 21), in the Apocalypse, and in a certain number of other minor texts, where it is a question of threats weighing on humanity and/or exterminations.

In fact, today we see very powerful people imagining to eliminate a part of the world’s population, some justifying themselves by an alleged ecological concern: saving the planet. But, as Pope Benedict XVI has written, the real problem is that “the economic and social costs deriving from the use of common natural resources should be established in a transparent way and should be borne entirely by those who enjoy them and not by other populations or by future generations” [Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), n. 50: AAS 101 (2009), 686. This quotation is reproduced in Pope Francis’ Laudato Si at no. 195]. Those who claim to be saving mother earth are the very owners of the companies that pollute and denature it the most.

As Pope Francis writes, “Is it realistic to expect that those who are obsessed with maximum profit will stop to think about the environmental effects they will leave to the next generations?” [Pope Francis, Encyclical Laudato Si, 2015, no. 190.]

Moreover, according to the point of view of demographers, who reason at 50 and 100 years of distance, the phenomenon of depopulation that seems to be generalized is already formidable in itself, because once set in motion, it accelerates of its own accord and becomes almost impossible to curb. And many other causes of death threaten humanity: famines, wars, massive abortions, sterilizations, poisoning by pollution or… by misguided medicine, etc.

The worst moral perversion is the one that presents as good this violence and these crimes—except pollution of course, because the powerful of this world see it as a threat to themselves too. Faced with these people who pose as saviors of the goddess earth—and even as eradicators of, in their eyes, a surplus—(true) Christians can only denounce this diabolical reversal of perspectives: it is the universe and the earth that were made for man and not the other way around. And thanks to redeemed humanity, this universe and this earth are even called to enter into glory (Rom 8; Rev 19-20), by virtue of the entry into glory of the body of Jesus Himself! But this becoming can only take place through a process for which Paul (1 Cor 15:23-28) and Revelation (19:11-21) have described the necessary stages. It is urgent that this be reiterated (and first rediscovered), for such is the great hope for this world, in which we live with our bodies.

4. In Conclusion

Even without addressing its anthropology, the New Testament perspectives on the body are rich and multiple; their key, we believe, is found in what is revealed about the glorious body of the Risen One. Indeed, it is through finality that the human body, despite its sufferings, can be understood in its greatest truth—at the same time as the very reason for our universe can be understood.

The human body is made for glory. This is finally what the theology of the Church as the body of Christ veils, for if it is a body—according to the rather shaky image borrowed by Paul from what was said of the Roman Empire—it is not precisely a very glorious body. And was it necessary to build a theology exalting the Church as a continued Christ-like humanity (no one knows what that means in itself), and exalting its earthly head, the Pope?

Incidentally, in another context or at another time, Paul would probably have used a different image for the Church. Living today, he would have been interested in the global phenomenon of computers and the computer model. All the parts of the computer are necessary for it to function (1 Cor 12), some are less noble (and less expensive) than others, but all the parts work together so that the growth of information is harmonious (Eph 4:16); and the computer’s processor is Christ (Col 1:18). Then, a few years after Paul, in the West, an encyclical entitled Mystici Computeri would be published which would explain: since the processor in Heaven is not very functional in practice, it is necessary to connect to the replacement processor on earth, which is in Rome, so that it can coordinate and control the whole thing—the Holy Spirit simply providing the basic software. Note that these images have an advantage over Paul’s: they include the idea of updates (e.g., Councils), which the body image does not. Obviously, there can be bugs in the updates.

What the New Testament tells us about bodies helps us to see the reality of the appalling dramas that are developing in our world, and of which children are the first victims (the worst being the pedo-criminality of the “elites”). At the same time, it reveals to us a formidable hope–at least if we rediscover the revealed sense of history, apparently very forgotten. Children force us to remain realistic and humble, in the physical reality. Didn’t Christ give children as a model? But He added this warning: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea… So it is not the will of my[b] Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Mt 18:5-6, 10-14).

Theologian and Islamologist, Father Edouard-Marie Gallez is the author of the magisterial  Le messie et son prophète (The Messiah and His Prophet), published in Paris in 2005 (and awaiting an English translation), which is an 1100 -page study that reconnects the origins of Islam to factual history by showing that the Koran and Islamic legends developed gradually over time. This study paved the way of current research into early Islam. See Roots of Islam and the Great Secret. Father Gallez also participates in research groups on early Christianity and its influence.

Featured image: “Resurrection of Jesus,” Isenheim altarpiece, by Matthias Grünewald, ca. 1515.

The Prescience Of Rudyard Kipling

In 1896, English writer and political observer Rudyard Kipling published a short poem titled, “The Deep-Sea Cables”:

The Deep-Sea Cables

The wrecks dissolve above us; their dust drops down from afar --
Down to the dark, to the utter dark, where the blind white sea-snakes are.
There is no sound, no echo of sound, in the deserts of the deep,
Or the great grey level plains of ooze where the shell-burred cables creep.

Here in the womb of the world -- here on the tie-ribs of earth
Words, and the words of men, flicker and flutter and beat --
Warning, sorrow and gain, salutation and mirth --
For a Power troubles the Still that has neither voice nor feet.

They have wakened the timeless Things; they have killed their father Time;
Joining hands in the gloom, a league from the last of the sun.
Hush! Men talk to-day o'er the waste of the ultimate slime,
And a new Word runs between: whispering, "Let us be one!"

The late nineteenth century was the halcyon age of the British Empire, an empire for which Kipling is often remembered (or, more accurately, detracted) as an “apologist.” It is rare to find a mention of Kipling in the popular press without a damning association, with his 1899 verse encouragement of the American takeover of the Philippines, “White Man’s Burden.”

On that reading, and given Kipling’s reputation as the “unofficial poet laureate of Empire,” it would be justified to explicate “The Deep-Sea Cables” as a typical pith-helmeted glorification of British rule over the planet—now, with the laying of the submarine cables, aided by the cutting edge of communications technology. With the “deep-sea cables” spiderwebbing the ocean floor, Kipling seems to be anticipating, the world will finally, as the British Empire aimed for all along, “be one.”

I take a very different view of “The Deep-Sea Cables,” and a very different view of Kipling. The later British Empire subject Eric Blair, who very much wrote in Kipling’s shadow, when he wrote about imperialism as George Orwell, adopted a cynical view of British rule which Kipling, the usual interpretation goes, was too tally-ho and forward-march to understand. However, if we take Kipling on his own terms, and read the poem for what it says, I believe we arrive at a much darker vision for the touted unity of humanity than one finds when “The Deep-Sea Cables” is read flat against the page and in the darkroom redlight of post-imperial autopsies. “The Deep-Sea Cables” was not encomium but Greek tragedy, a warning against the hubris of men who think they have become like the gods.

In the September, 2019, issue of The Kipling Journal, I find an intriguing note about “The Deep-Sea Cables,” linking it to a couple of other Kipling poems “in which we are treated to a glimpse of a huge blind sea monster, which an underwater earthquake hurls up to the surface.” Godzilla some sixty years in advance, perhaps. But I think the analogy is more than coincidental. The 1956 Japanese movie Godzilla, like “The Deep-Sea Cables,” can also be read two ways. On the one hand, Godzilla is a campy horror flick—more for laughing at than for being frightened by—about a monster (so obviously a guy in a rubber suit) lurching out of the Pacific Ocean to stomp around Tokyo. On the other hand, Godzilla is a commentary on war, imperial politics, and the nightmare of nuclear holocaust. “The Deep-Sea Cables,” too, can be read as a celebration of empire; or, as I read it, as a warning about human pride, about the false ecumenicism of what today I think we would call “globalization.”

To get a sense of what Kipling was trying to say in “The Deep-Sea Cables,” let us start with the last line of the poem. Here, we find the word “Word” curiously capitalized. This is the hinge of the work.

In a 2015 essay in Modern Fiction Studies, Heather Fielding interprets the capitalization this way: “As the capitalization of ‘Word’ indicates, Kipling ascribes a clear moral authority to the unifying power of the telegraph wires, which enable communication and in the process draw subjects of different nations toward a ‘common good’ that was certainly imperial, Christian, and British in nature.” In the endnote following this sentence Fielding drives the point home further: “Of course, Kipling’s vision of the common structure uniting mankind is an imperialist one. As Bernhard Siegert argues [in Relays: Literature as an Epoch of the Postal System, trans. Kevin Repp. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999], ‘[t]he command given… in the “deserts of the deep” was not to become one, but to become ‘British.’” Again, the standard “Kipling as imperial apologist” interpretation.

But consider that Rudyard Kipling, although notoriously difficult to pin down theologically was a product of a British education, and as such would no doubt have been more than passingly familiar with the Holy Bible. Even if Kipling was an atheist, as he himself seems to have said, he would have known the foundational text of Christianity much better than most in our contemporary secular culture do. The Bible would have been baseline for his literary development, storehouse for the imagery and phrasing which a poet deploys in his crafting of lines. In the Bible, in the Gospel of St. John, we read of the “Eternal Word,” Who came into the world, which knew Him not.

The capitalization of “Word” in Kipling’s poem has nothing at all to do with the glorification of empire, nor of being British, nor of being Christian. Kipling was no Pollyanna, no evangelical soapbox orator. Kipling’s odd use of the capitalized “Word” is a warning, with unmistakable Biblical overtones, that man is arrogating to himself a power which he does not understand, and which has the potential to ruin him.

Working backwards from the last line, the rest of “The Deep-Sea Cables” follows from this single capitalized word. At the beginning of the poem, we find ourselves at the bottom of the pitch-black sea, with the wrecks of the vessels which men have built “dissolv[ing]” above us and “drop[ping] down from afar.” The world of men is distant from this deep, dark place. The surface of things, the ships and commerce and battles of nations, is another world, one which, heretofore and while the old technology has prevailed, has left this abyssopelagic cosmos undisturbed. “Blind white sea-snakes” live here, slithering in “great grey level plains of ooze.”

But now there is a new trick that men have learned, a new Promethean moment in their history. It is on this otherworldly muck-bottom that the cables which men have laid—and by Kipling’s day submarine telegraph cables were already a highly-developed technology—repose, providing a home for mollusks. This unpeopled deep is not where men ought to go—this is the strong sense of Kipling’s poem overall.

The Biblical motif of the poem continues. It is impossible for me to read the second stanza, about “the womb of the world” at the sea floor, “the tie-ribs of earth” where the planet is mortised and tenoned, without thinking of the first chapter of Genesis, of God’s awful might in calling forth the bottomless waters out of nothingness. Or of the Book of Job, wherein God taunts a member of his puny human creation who dares inquire after the ways of the Almighty:

Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said:
Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? Gird up thy loins like a man; I will ask thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof,
When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of a womb;
When I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands?
I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors:
And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves.

Hast thou entered the depths of the sea, and walked in the lowest parts of the deep?
(Job 38: 1-11, 16)

Once we have this Biblical context in place, the poem knits together, and in a way very unlike the glib celebration of the British Empire that many scholars understand “The Deep-Sea Cables” to be. This is Godzilla, a shudder at what is going to come out of the “ooze,” the “waste of the ultimate slime” if men keep “whispering” words in the blind, deaf, and dumb deep, “Joining hands in the gloom, a league from the last of the sun”—where men ought not go. In their hubris, Kipling is saying, men are making a new dispensation, a new “Word” for the world. This is not empire; this is something that men do not understand. And it will cost them dearly in the end.

Kipling senses that the old world of politics and dominion—the ships whose wrecks filter down as rotted powder from above (and Kipling would have been completely aware, of course, that the British Empire rested on naval prowess)—is meaningless in the new age of instantaneous information sharing. Some people have called this network of telegraph cables “the Victorian internet,” which may sound outlandish at first, given the extraordinarily slow (by today’s standards) rates of information transmission of which even the best telegraph cables were capable. But I think the internet metaphor is more apt than might at first appear. It seems that Kipling’s poet’s antennae were sensing, in “The Deep-Sea Cables,” what a later inspired writer, Marshall McLuhan, tried working out in the 1960s—namely, that new modes of communication exert profound, transformative influence on human society. Whispers across cables thrill the pride of man—we are becoming one! But as the second stanza gives way to the third and last, we find this chilling turn: “For a Power troubles the Still that has neither voice nor feet./They have wakened the timeless Things; they have killed their father Time.” This is no longer empire. This is now myth, the eternal retelling of the same story of man’s rise and fall.

Who is “Father Time?” In the deep of the underworld, Tartarus, dwelt the old, wild gods, the Titans, imprisoned there by the Olympians, the bright and shining deities (“Zeus” comes from an Indo-European root meaning “to shine”) who banished the horrible Titans to their prison in the bowels of the earth. While there are many theories on the etymology of the name of one of the Titans, Cronus, in Kipling’s day the most common would probably have been “Father Time,” thought to derive from the Greek word chronos. Cronus was identified in Roman mythology with Saturn, the god of bounty. In ancient Rome, the Temple of Saturn was where the imperial treasury was housed.

Cronus as Saturn, Saturn as the god blessing the political dominion of Rome over the known world. But once a line is crossed, the god no longer blesses, but destroys. In the myth of the Titans, all was well until Saturn, Cronus, “Father Time,” thought that his children were going to usurp him, just as he had usurped his father and mother, the heavens and the earth. Fearing this rebellion by his offspring, Cronus ate his children one by one. The god turned on his empire. The Titan devoured what he had brought forth.

Rudyard Kipling was no Boy Scout cheerleader for progress and the British Empire. He was, above all else, a poet, a man with a mystical connection to the incantatory power of words. “The Deep-Sea Cables” represents one of the most prescient and accurate foreshadowing of the dangers which men were stirring up—“the timeless Things” which men were “waken[ing],” the “Power troubl[ing] the Still” which men were disturbing with their globalist chatter in the primordial deep.

Jason Morgan is associate professor at Reitaku University in Kashiwa, Japan.

Featured image: “Rudyard Kipling,” by Sir Philip Burne-Jones, painted in 1899.

The Blackening Of Europe

We are so very pleased to present this excerpt from the first volume of The Blackening of Europe, by Clare Ellis, which is an extensive and thorough study of the political undertaking to erase Europeans from Europe. Dr. Ellis’s work is meticulous, and those who might object that this is all a “conspiracy theory” will be hard-pressed to counter the facts and the data that she establishes. Please also read the review of this book.

Dr. Ellis received her PhD from the University of New Brunswick and is now preparing Volumes 2 and 3 of The Blackening of Europe for publication with Arktos whose kind generosity has made this excerpt possible.


In addition to having their major cities and capitals transformed into global cities dislocated from their nation-state, their blue and white collar jobs out-sourced, their wages and thus jobs undercut by cheaper immigrant labourers, their houses bought by transnational foreigners, their traditions and political culture undermined and altered to accommodate the plurality of immigrants’ ethnic identities and align with cosmopolitan visions of the future, their national identity scrubbed free of any notion of their ethnicity and descent, and their leaders and other European elites making and implementing ground-breaking decisions without democratic consultation, native Europeans are also not afforded special rights to protect, celebrate, and enhance their unique and collective ethnic identities and ways of life. Instead, they are compulsed into political subjection and silenced through various methods of state-enforced coercion such as multiculturalism, political correctness, and punishment of dissent.

British philosopher Roger Scruton explains that the postmodern anti-national Western elite (cosmopolitans) are ‘oikophobes’, or those who are averse to their home:

[T]he oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.

Oikophobes consider themselves as ‘defender[s] of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism’. To better explain this view, one only has to return to Kymlicka’s theory of rights. As mentioned above, Kymlicka grants privileges to minority ethnic immigrant groups in the form of polyethnic rights, and he affords national minority groups group-differentiated rights, which include self-government rights. Both of these groups have special privileges, such as the right to preserve their distinct cultures and ethnic identities, and they also have individual rights. Although pluralistic cosmopolitanism means that different ethnic groups are merely one cultural group among many with no single one being official, and although it holds that all cultures and ethnicities should be preserved and celebrated, Europeans are not included within this ‘enlightened’ cosmopolitical project.

Kymlicka does not grant positive recognition or afford special rights to the majority ethnic group of European nations, i.e. indigenous Europeans, and implies that the identity of the majority is not based on race, ethnicity, heritage or culture, but is defined only in terms of language, multiculturalism, democracy and universal liberal individual rights. In other words, the European societal cultures and ethnic identities are not to be preserved in the way that national minorities are granted special permission to do so: non-European Old-World cultural and ethnic groups are encouraged by various government programs, policies, and acts to embrace, preserve and celebrate their past, identity, history, heritage and culture. European ethnic majorities are only granted individual rights, which, it is assumed, have come to define their societal cultures and identities since 1948 with the introduction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the onset of large-scale non-European immigration in the 1960s, and the implementation and institution of multicultural ideology from the 1970s onwards.

In fact, the ethnic identities of Europeans are stripped altogether from the national identity of their own nations, i.e. national identity now means being multicultural and cosmopolitan. They are told to reject their own historical culture, their heritage, their ethnic identity because of its racist, imperialistic, ethnocentric, and supremacist characteristics, and to fill the vacuum with new liberal and cosmopolitan behaviours, such as a hearty embrace of universal liberal values and ‘enrichment’ by distinctively non-European ethnic cultures. As such, the sense of a collective identity for European ethnic groups has been replaced by a government-instituted ideal-type model, an Enlightenment culture that is neutral to the characteristics that legally define non-European ethnic groups and national minorities, such as culture, history, and race. This neutralization has resulted in diminished European traditions, cultural practices, and heritage, the privileging and trumping of foreigner rights over indigenous European native rights by the granting of special rights and recognition to ethnic minorities, and the violation of the right to self-determination, which includes the right of European majorities to an ethnic identity and the right to preserve, enhance, and celebrate it. This means that ethnic European majorities have undergone a radical transformation in their identity over the last forty-five years, from a European-based ethno-cultural distinctiveness to an ‘enlightened’ universalism not defined by race, ethnicity, culture, or heritage.

One of the leading definitions of ethnicity within the social sciences stems from the German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920). He argued that ethnicity is not fixed; it is not something objectively known, being as it is a social construct. It is ‘a form of “social closure” in which a group excludes others in order to obtain a status advantage over them’. Alan Simmons, Professor of Sociology at York University, Toronto, argues that modern-constructionists ‘view ethnicity, ethnic pride, and ethnic nationalism as modern inventions’ that appeared in the context of the nineteenth century. Postmodern constructionists view ethnicity as ‘not singular and fixed, but rather multiple and flexible’ such that immigrants are ‘fragmented’ people who have ‘hyphenated and hybrid forms’ of ethnic identity. Turkish-American philosopher Seyla Benhabib writes that immigrants have ‘multiple, overlapping allegiances which are sustained across communities of language, ethnicity, religion, and nationality’ and that these

developments have arisen as a result of cultural pluralization arising from migration, ethnic multiculturalism, cultural diversity of all kinds and the growing demands for the recognition of different life choices.

Taking the above definitions of ethnicity into account, Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism, even if it grants temporary group rights and is based on the expectation that minorities will assimilate to liberal values, can be interpreted as a form of stereotyping, in that it grants special group rights to minorities. It contradicts both the modern and postmodern social constructionist view of ethnicity by emphasising the objective existence of the ethnic identities of minorities.

It is difficult to reconcile the fact that minorities, on the one hand, claim they are transnational or cosmopolitan and thus have multiple identities, but then, on the other hand, demand multicultural ethnic immigrant rights — i.e. they have ethnic solidarity in distinction to the individual rights only of the majorities, who are viewed as world citizens. In fact, claims about the ethnic solidarity of ethnic minority groups challenge cosmopolitan ideals. Despite this, Kymlicka implies that ethnicity is a real and important characteristic of peoples who differentiate themselves from, and more importantly, self-identify themselves in contrast to one another, which is especially noticeable in the form of societal culture, and thus require special rights enabling them to preserve, enhance, and celebrate their uniqueness. However, European ethnic majorities are the only ethnic groups that Kymlicka ignores. Thus, he might be perceived as being anti-ethnic-European identity.

Maritain’s Political Relevance

The work of political philosophy of Maritain (1882-1973) is of the utmost importance and remains for us a sure guide to get our democracies out of the impasse in which they are engaged.

Our Western democracies are sick. The participation of citizens has decreased, because many no longer feel represented or think that elections do not change anything, regardless of the candidates elected, as the important decisions are taken elsewhere. This crisis in our political systems highlights the two historical versions of democracy. The first, which can be called “substantive democracy,” recognizes the notion of the “good,” with politics defined as the search for the common good. The second, “procedural democracy,” sidesteps the question of the “good” by simply issuing rules so that each person, free to determine his or her own “good,” pursues his or her own ends.

Maritain foresaw these two versions of democracy, but he died (in 1973) before “procedural democracy” could take hold, taking its own logic to its logical conclusion, which is what we are seeing today. If Maritain is known to be an ardent defender of the democratic regime, he is also an ardent defender of “substantial democracy,” which is why this attachment did not prevent him from remaining throughout his life an assertive anti-modernist, in particular in that he never ceased to defend the classical philosophy inherited from Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose reception he contributed to widen—it is thus a misnomer to label him as a “Christian democrat.” In order to understand this, let us briefly summarize Maritain’s conception of democracy.

It is based first and foremost on a vision of society, of man and his freedom, which is rooted in the teachings of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Man is a social animal and society a natural reality: the central question of politics is therefore to determine the conditions that allow man to live well, that is to say, according to virtue, which is acquired through education and asceticism, an exercise that requires effort but whose crowning achievement is the gaining of freedom, which alone allows for the mastery of passions. Thus, “man is not born free, except in the radical powers of his being: he becomes free,” writes Maritain in Principes d’une politique humaniste (Principles of a Humanist Politics). The freedom that leads to a relative autonomy of the person does not consist, therefore, in emancipating oneself from all rules or in choosing those that suit us, but in conforming to a natural order willed by God that goes beyond us—man is not the primary source of meaning, he is part of a whole, in an ordered universe from which he cannot emancipate himself at will. This approach to society places at the center the notion of the good, the good of the person and the good of the community; the person being subordinated to society in the temporal order, and society to the person in the spiritual order (cf. Du régime temporel et de la liberté , On the Temporal Regime and Freedom), politics being defined as the service of the common good.

This general framework having been established, Maritain takes note of the end of Christendom, that is to say of a religiously homogeneous Christian society governed according to Christian principles—”sacred Christendom” which Maritain admired in spite of certain excesses, such as the fact of putting force at the service of God in a context certainly different from ours. In short, the religious pluralism of our societies—religion no longer discriminates in terms of rights—imposes other relationships between the spiritual and the temporal. Starting from this inescapable observation, Maritain defends the idea of a communitarian and personalist democracy—its proper end is the common good, essentially the right earthly life of the multitude. It is thus at the same time material and moral; and it is opposed to individualism, the society not being a simple aggregate of independent individuals which ignores intermediary bodies and the notion of common good.

This organization presupposes an eminent respect for the dignity of the human person, which is why Maritain defends a demanding conception of human rights, whose philosophical foundation is the natural law, which is “a participation in the eternal law”: “In reality,” he writes, “if God does not exist, there is no obligatory power of the natural law” (La loi naturelle ou loi non écrite). Maritain was aware, however, that it is impossible to develop a common rational justification of these rights among beings of different cultural, philosophical and religious traditions. On the other hand, he thought, “men mutually opposed in their theoretical conceptions can arrive at a purely practical agreement on an enumeration of human rights” (L’Homme et l’État , Man and the State).

His substantive conception of democracy led him to distinguish the nation, which is a community generally created by nature, from the political body or political society, a human reality born of reason, of which the State is only a part, an instrument at the service of the whole. The appearance of the State was in itself a progress. Unfortunately, it developed at the same time as the modern absolutist conception, which led to the notion of absolute sovereignty, first of the king, then of the nation (or of the people), a notion that Maritain vigorously rejects. “In the eyes of a sound political philosophy,” he writes, “there is no sovereignty, that is to say, no natural and inalienable right to a transcendent or separate supreme power, in political society. Neither the Prince, nor the King, nor the Emperor were really sovereign, although they bore the sword and the attributes of sovereignty. Neither is the State sovereign, nor even the people. God alone is sovereign. [Of the people as a political body we must say, not that it is sovereign, but that it has a natural right to full autonomy, or to govern itself” (L’Homme et l’État , Man and the State). And to do this, Maritain employs the notion of vicariance developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, the leader being vicar of the multitude. He recognized the legitimacy of the diversity of regimes to designate this leader, far from a certain idolatry of democracy, however, “a state of civilization where men, as individual persons, designate by free choice the holders of authority, and where the nation controls the state, is of itself a more perfect state” (Les droits de l’homme et la loi naturelle, The Rights of Man and Natural Law). Although the Enlightenment, Rousseau and Kant had permeated democratic thought, Maritain saw in the emergence of this regime a profound historical process of which the Gospel was a generating principle, as Bergson had noted.

Another Democracy

Today, the Maritainian conception of democracy has become suppressed. He himself did not see coming all the logical consequences of the modern thought which sought the complete emancipation of the human will from any limit imposed from the outside, whether it comes from God, nature, culture or tradition. The modern dogma is that man must be able to build himself alone and to decide alone what he is, even up to the choice of his sex. The natural law, unbearable limit to the desires of man—desires that are transforming quickly into rights today—was swept away in this movement amplified by the moral revolution of the 1960s. A profound distortion of human rights followed, diverted to the benefit of a blind egalitarianism in the name of an absurd fight against any “discrimination.” Thus, human rights have undergone an indefinite extension of subjective rights that are more and more delirious and that have emptied themselves of all substance, making them even harmful to the common good and rendering any “purely practical agreement” between civilizations, as Maritain hoped, totally utopian.

In short, today a meaningless procedural democracy triumphs, subject to the tyranny of minorities well established in the circles of power and the media, which has led to the erasure of politics, already well undermined by the supremacy of economics in the context of liberal globalization. This democracy no longer offers an exciting common destiny to its citizens—it consecrates the fracture of the country between a privileged fringe and a declassed majority that no longer feels represented; it can only lead to a populist reaction in the best of cases, to chaos or to an authoritarian regime in the worst.

This is why it is urgent to rethink another version of democracy, the substantial one whose outlines Maritain has traced for us. In this sense, he has opened up a path towards which we must turn one day.

Christophe Geffroy publishes the journal La Nef, through whose kind assistance we are publishing this article.

Featured image: “The Rain It Raineth Every Day,” by Norman Garstin, painted in 1889.

The Anti-Globalist World Alliance And Its Manifestos

Recently, an important step was taken to work diligently to free ourselves from globalist control. To that end, the Anti-Globalist World Alliance (AWA) was formed over Christmas of 2021.

The aims of AWA are certainly worthy of support. It has set out to be a policy think-tank, educational center and training facility which will nurture future anti-globalist leaders, politicians, writers and thinkers. There has never before been a body entirely dedicated to systematically winning back our world from the agendas and mandates of the globalist elite. The time for the “great replacement” of these elites and their agendas certainly has come.

The founder of AWA, Peter Redpath, kindly explains what this Alliance is all about and what it hopes to achieve. Please support AWA, go to their website, download the Manifestos, sign on, and spread the word!

No matter what a person’s political persuasion might be, over the past couple of year, it has become perfectly obvious that the contemporary world has become increasingly subjected to arbitrary totalitarian political and health mandates that have flown in the face of ordinary common sense and of the exercise of traditional Western and global civil liberties and natural human rights. As our Manifesto explains,

“Given the continual growth and expansion of arbitrary totalitarian political mandates made under the guise of universal healthcare and welfare, on Christmas Day 2021, leading intellectuals and shapers of public opinion from different professions in the US, Canada, and abroad met online to affix their signatures to a historic Global Renaissance Manifesto. They did so to mark the temporal starting point, on an international scale, of a contemporary commonsense cultural rebirth, analogous to several historical renaissances that have previously existed within the West (such as the 8th-9th century Carolingian Renaissance and the 14th-century Italian Renaissance).”

The signatories of this Christmas 2021 Manifesto agreed that, chiefly through the flawed educational principles of the Western Enlightenment (which rejected millennia of common sense truths about the nature of the human person, the human soul, philosophy, science, metaphysics, ethics, religion, and God) and the colleges and universities they built—which tended to reduce the whole of truth to positivistic science (mathematical physics and its principles)—the contemporary world had reached such an extreme of cultural lack of common sense that a need existed to issue a historic Renaissance Manifesto and to establish an Anti-Globalist World Alliance to inaugurate a World Cultural Common sense Renaissance.

Many contemporary intellectuals suffer from a misguided conviction that, because it celebrated itself as an “Age of Reason”—a period of time that brought to the forefront of popular consciousness individual human learning, science, progress, and human rights—Enlightenment intellectuals and the educational institutions they had built had lifted the West out of some fictional intellectual dark age that these thinkers had pejoratively referred to as of “the Middle Ages.” For the first time in human history, Enlightenment principles, they falsely claimed, had discovered the nature of true science upon which true human learning, philosophy, progress, human rights, economics, politics, and the triumph of human freedom over backward religion could finally be established.

While Enlightenment principles did advance Western and global culture technologically, and while Enlightenment political thinkers did articulate some political and economic principles that advanced political and economic science to some extent, their intentional divorce of science from wisdom and prudence constituted the actions of a fool. The globalist elites have used this foolishness to convince all of us to agree to walk into their prisons, “for our own good.” They continually try to convince us that their agendas and plans are “progressive” and therefore desirable. And those that disagree are labeled as “science deniers,” “racists,” and so on. As recent events have shown us, nothing could be further from the truth. None of us expected a pandemic to be a political opportunity for the elites.

What we need instead is a Renaissance of freedom, which can only come about when we stop accepting elitist models of governance and collective/social morality. This can only be done when we free ourselves from the mental prisons into which we have been cast by those who continually sell us narratives about “freedom” and “progress”—while their “science” is an anodyne, a lullaby even to put us to sleep—and while we slept, we were enslaved, and cast into a true “dark age.”

A Renaissance is an awakening—and therefore the Anti-Globalist World Alliance will nurture and further anti-globalist thought, anti-globalist culture, and anti-globalist politics.

Join us—and regain your true human right—your freedom!