The main enemy of Russia, is of course the Anglo-Saxon globalist elite and their lackeys within Russia itself. Historically, relations between Russia and Europe were not always friendly. However, before the person bearing the “secondary simplification” satanic globalist forces all the healthy movement in Europe automatically become our allies – at least strategic. Such a Union is necessary if we want to bring to the Tribunal the representatives of the Anglo-Saxon elite, whose hands are stained with the blood of the peoples of the world. We must remember that Russia – the fortress state is the main enemy has always been inside.The influencers are the main risk for the Russian state. We should learn from their own history and continue to avoid one’s own mistakes.
In geopolitical terms, the direct participants in the conflict are Armenia and Azerbaijan, both of which generally have friendly relationships with Russia. Russia has closer ties with Armenia through political, economic and military partnerships, but Russia and Azerbaijan do not consider each other as enemies. Nagorno Karabakh is now controlled by Armenia and there are no Azeris at all, while earlier they were about half the population. Yet not even Armenia recognizes the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh as a sovereign state.
Among all civilizations, only the Western civilization has presented itself as universal, pretending to be in this way “the civilization” (singular). In formal terms, now nobody replicates it, rather in reality the great majority of men and women who live outside of the European or American space reject this dominion, and continue to be rooted in different historical-cultural types. This is what explains the current resurgence of civilizations. Huntington concluded, concerning that, that the planetary dominion of the West will face new challenges. He advised being conscious of this danger, to prepare oneself for the reappearance of certain premodern forms in the postmodern era, and to try to protect oneself against them to guarantee the security of Western civilization.
As against liberalism and Marxism, eurasism considers the economic sphere to be neither autonomous nor determining for socio-political and state processes. According to the eurasists’ belief, economic activities are only a function of various cultural, social, political, psychological and historical realities. We might express the eurasist relation to the economy, rephrasing the Gospel truth: ” not the man for the economy, but the economy for the man “. Such relation to the economy can be called as qualitative: the thrust is done(made) not on formal digital indexes of economic growth, a significantly wider spectrum of indexes is allowed, in which the economic force is clean is considered in a complex with others, predominantly having social character. Some economists (in particular Joseph Schumpeter) already tried to introduce qualitative parameters into economics, separating the criteria of economic growth from those of economic development. Eurasism sets the issue from an even wider perspective: what matters is not only economic development, but economic development combined with social development.
Analyzing civilizations and their relations, confrontations, development, and interconnections is such a complex problem that results can be obtained which are not simply different, but totally opposite depending on the methodology and the level of research. Therefore, in order to obtain even the most approximate conclusions, it is necessary to apply a reduction which brings a number of criteria down to a single, simplified model. Marxism unambiguously prefers the economic approach, which becomes a substitute and the common denominator for all other disciplines. Liberalism, in essence, though less explicitly, does as well.
A qualitatively different method of reduction is offered by geopolitics which, although less known and less popular, is nonetheless no less effective or less illustrative in explaining the history of civilizations.
So, Mr. Boot, if you and the rest of your wretched and disloyal IF/NC associates want to go to the Democratic Party and side with IF/NC’er Hillary Clinton, please go immediately and trumpet your departure from the roof tops. After all, what could be more appropriate than today’s Copperheads — a kind of snake that sneaks and strikes without warning — joining the Democratic Party, the original incubator and home of the Civil War’s Copperheads? In the decade before that war, Massachusetts’s Senator Charles Sumner was speaking when he saw one of his pro-slavery foes enter the Senate Chamber and walk toward his seat. Sumner stopped and asked, I paraphrase here, the other senators to witness that a slug was slithering across the chamber’s floor looking for a chair to adhere to. For the Republican Party, the movement of the entire IF/NC crowd to the Democratic Party would be a Godsend, a veritable slithering slug migration that would find no shortage of fellow slugs waiting for them in Hillary’s camp, and there probably would be enough chairs for all of them to adhere to.
Strategies of preservation and expansion of power of hegemonic structures and subordinating States result that in each state of the periphery a specific hegemonic power structure is formed. Therefore, we qualify political movements that fought, throughout history, power structures, both locally and internationally, as a counter-hegemonic movements. These movements staged “ideological deviations” manufactured in order to escape the ideological subordination in peripheral countries, which in the peripheral countries is the first link in the chain of subordination. Throughout the twentieth century, when these movements achieved the power, whether in the only formally independent states or in colonial dependencies, these countries began to transit a process of political, economic and ideological insubordination. These movements, were fighting for industrialization or they pursued it, in any case, as a tool to “break” the subordination, as the hegemonic power structures had been allocated to these countries the role of producers of raw materials.
Atlanticism (in New Age) in its ideological sense is identical to Liberalism and capitalism of the Anglo-Saxon type. In Liberalism, everything – both form and content – is “modern” (i.e., anti-traditional). The complete antithesis of liberalism (= “the spirit of the New Age”) is traditionalism or fundamental conservatism (“right Eurasianism”). Socialism (more widely understood as ranging from Marxism to anarchism, corporatism, or syndicalism) is modern in form, but traditional in content. It outwardly matches the “spirit of the New Age,” while internally it is opposed to this spirit.
Applying this model to analyzing the Soviet period in Russian history, we obtain the following picture: the national-statist, patriotic factor in the USSR was the expression of the substantial side of socialism, its undoubtable conservatism embodied in the purely Eurasianist vector. The bearers of this radically conservative Eurasianism were housed in the army and the GRU.
The Party and the Cheka (KGB) operated with the formal ideological side of socialism which possessed certain common features with liberalism (“spirit of the Enlightenment,” faith in “progress”, etc.) To a significant degree, this modern form served the anti-modern content in more effectively confronting liberalism, which is modern in form and content. The Party, in this role, was represented a veiled National Bolshevism and served Eurasia. But purely theoretically, at certain times and in certain sectors of the ideological structure (the form of socialism), a weakening of the formal structure could have happened with opened the opportunity for contacts, dialogue, and even convergence with the liberal camp. In such a case, the ideological weapon of the modern form of socialism drew not from within, against liberalism and against its modern content, but from without, against the anti-modern, traditional, and Eurasianist content of real socialism. Only in this special case does it make sense to speak of Atlanticist sides of communist ideology, the party apparatus, and its most effective weapon, the KGB.
However, the main reason for the historical suppression of geopolitics is the fact that it too openly reveals the fundamental mechanisms of international politics which various regimes often prefer to hide behind vague rhetoric or abstract ideological schemes. In this sense, it is possible to cite the parallel with Marxism (at least in its, scientific, analytical aspect). Karl Marx more than cogently revealed the mechanics of relations of production and their connections with historical formations, just as geopolitics exposes the historical demagogy of foreign policy discourse and shows the real deep levers which influence international, inter-state, and inter-ethnic relations. But if Marxism is a global revision of classical economic history, then geopolitics is a revision of the history of international relations. The latter explains the ambivalent attitude of society towards geopolitical scholars. The scientific community stubbornly refuses to tolerate them in their midst and harshly criticizes them, often without even noticing that, on the contrary, authorities use geopolitical calculations to formulate international strategy. Such, for example, was the case with one of the first geopoliticians, the true founding father of the discipline, Sir Halford Mackinder. His ideas were not accepted in academic circles, but he himself directly participated in the formulation of English policies for the first half of the 20th century, laying the theoretical basis for the international strategy of England which was passed on to the US in the middle of the century and developed by Mackinder’s American (or, more broadly, Atlanticist) followers.
First of all, we are talking about France. She actively financed the Libyan campaign, and the “Libyan rebels” who were supported by the entire West, virtually created LIH (DAESH) and gave them weapons. Already there is a huge amount of public information about the transfer of weapons to the Syrian opposition Libyans, this is obvious, and nobody hides. But the United States and the EU are the victims of terrorism – 9/11, and France – Friday the 13th in Paris.
If you factor out the geopolitics and try to explain these events in some other way, immediately accumulated so many contradictions that or we’ll be forced to turn to the theory of global conspiracy, or to some other extravagant forms of analysis, or just spit on the attempt to explain the world and just say: Shut up and eat, make a career, in general, receive some momentary satisfaction, leave to rest … But, then for example, you flew on holiday to Egypt and never returned. Exploded in a plane over the Sinai.