Multipolarism and Globalism, the two geopolitical Cosmovisions and their spiritual backgrounds
During the so-called Cold War, we lived in a bipolar world. At least, this is what most people think. But how bipolar was it really? There were two superpowers (USA and Soviet Union), with their respective geopolitical areas of influence (West and East), trying to control the world resources and the world population, and competing with each other.
In reality, this bipolar system was an experiment. West (“American”) and East (“Soviet”) were (since the death of Stalin) not really enemies, but rather two systems working as tools in the service of the same masters. The globalists controlling both of them, were trying to see which of the both systems worked “better” (better for them, obviously) in order to achieve their final goal; total world domination after the destruction of a natural multipolar world and a pluricultural order (of sovereign nations), based on organic communities.
Knowing this, it is not surprising anymore to see how many of the current top-globalists (Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, etc) serving as warmongers for Washington´s imperialism, are former Communists from the Trotskist branch.
During four decades this two systems were put into work. Both of them are internationalist. Marxist communism calls even himself internationalist, and financial capitalism, based in the power of money, is with no doubt international as well, because capitalists know no borders... and because money has no homeland.
The states where the liberal octopus of capitalism was implemented, gave (and gives) to the citizens the illusion of “democracy” (power of the people), the illusion that they are really choosing it´s representatives. Most of the people living in the “First World” believe this even nowadays, when everything is becoming more and more Orwellian, and our so-called democratic politicians are showing their real puppet nature. But in the capitalist system, were due to the usury of the banksters money can grow out of nothing, the power is not in the hand of the people, but in the hand of those who control the money... and money is not democratic.
On the other hand, in many Communist countries, some quite interesting phenomenon happened: Orthodox Marxist communism, being anti-traditional, and atheistic; as well as globalist and internationalist (having the same materialistic and octopus-like nature as capitalism), started to develop in different ways in each country, merging the socialist economic system with the character of each nation, of the organic community where it took power. (This did not happen in the capitalist countries, that were and still are under extreme brainwashing and under a huge cultural and social imperialism coming from the USA: with subversive elements such as Hollywood, mass media, destruction of the own language, of the own heritage, etc)
This was a very natural thing: Communism adapted himself in each country, Communism was absorbed in each country, and not the opposite way, as it was originally planned by the globalists, who wanted to implement an antinatural, cold and rootless dictatorial system upon the world.
The split inside of Communism started already with the power struggle between Stalin –who was more nation oriented- and Trotsky – who preached a globalist borderless communism with his “permanent revolution”). So, for instance, in North Korea, Communism merged with the ancient Korean traditions with its rich culture, and its national idiosyncrasy, and the leader Kim Il Sung developed the Juche ideology; a typical Korean kind of socialism. In Romania Nicolae Ceausescu was a big admirer of the national heroes of the glorious past, in the Middle Ages.
So, what originally was a cold, soulless system intending to destroy traditional values as “reactionary”, once implemented in a particular country was absorbed by the national idiosyncrasy taking its traditions as a way of resistance.
There is an interesting parallelism with Christianity. Many consider Christianity an ancient kind of Communism, and there is some truth about that. When Christianity came to power in Rome, during the first centuries they prohibited all other religions, the Pagan ones, in the Empire and imposed theirs with dogmatism and violence upon all, they were Universalist, ancient globalists. But after some time, Christianity was absorbed into the nations, and developed differently in each parts of the world, sometimes including syncretism with the old Tradition. This can be observed in the Orthodox branch of Christianity and its national churches: there is the Greek Patriarchate, the Serbian one, the Russian one, and so on. In the Russian case, the Czar was the head of State, and of the Church, this being equivalent with Japanese traditional religion Shinto, were the Tenno - the Emperor - was at the same time national and religious leader.
This same phenomena happened with Islam; there is an Iranian proverb that claims “Islam did´nt conquer Persia, but Persia conquered Islam.” Zoroastrianism and Mazdeism had an important role in shaping the Persian Shia current. And in todays Islamic Republic of Iran, there is a Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei, who is as well religious and national leader at the same time). Also the Ottoman Caliph in the recent or with the Roman Emperor in the ancient past.
The fact that Communism (like Christianity in the past) was developing in each place according to its traditions was very dangerous for the globalists (Trotskists as well as Liberals). So, the tendency of national-communism had to be stopped.
That´s why they decided to suppress the “Eastern side”, to bring an end to the Cold War and the bipolarity; and using from now on only the capitalist liberal system as the only acceptable one. The Soviet Union and the countries from the Warsaw pact were an experiment, and they were not useful anymore, because the “masters” behind the scenes realized that it was the capitalist system the one serving better their objectives.
This was the birth of the “New World Order” proclaimed by Bush father, hoping that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and the other Eurasian nations would be deprived of national sovereignty and enslaved with liberalism. During the ´90, Gorbachov and Yeltsin tolerated and fomented the plunder of Russian wealth by the oligarchs and international finance. But with the beginning of the new century, national sovereignty started to be restored by President Putin, that´s why he is being slandered in the West, with epithets like “authoritarian”, “dictator”, etc.
The freedom offered by liberalism could be explained very succintly as follows: It offers the choice between coca-cola and pepsi, or between mcdonalds and burgerking. It is nothing more than Consumerism, pure materialism, were profit is everything that matters…
All the countries that did not want to be ruled by this so-called democratic system, or did not collaborate with it, were the few remaining Communist ones like Cuba and North Korea and the Third-Positionists, non-aligned, like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria. Globalists decided that they must be taken down, one by one. First of all this countries were to be mediatically demonized (the concept of “axis of evil” was popularized in this context), threatened and eventually, as a last step, destroyed by wars in the name of freedom and democracy.
In the particular case of Syria, one fact that is not so good known is that before the crisis started, President Assad was planning to build the Four-Seas strategy, to turn his nation into a trade hub among the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea. As a sovereign country with a stable currency and a national bank not owned by the Rothshilds, this could have made of Syria a very mighty geopolitical intersection. And in Libya, by the way, Gaddafi tried to introduce the gold dinar, this would have been a real strike against the deceptive international dollar-based economy.
To return to the times of bipolarity:
This two globalist systems, used by USA and its allies (the so-called “free world”) on the one side and the Soviets and theirs on the other; were respectively, as we know, capitalism and communism. Both of this ideologies are not opposites as many believe, but “blood-brothers” coming from the same origin, from the same materialistic worldview, from the same weltanschauung or cosmovision, which is linear and believes that progress in infinite, without realizing that the natural resources of the world are not infinite.
To put it in other words: Capitalism and Communism are two faces of the same coin.
Returning to spiritual parallelism; it is also possible to claim that Communism was the answer to Capitalism in the XIX Ct. like Christianity was the answer to Judaism in the Ist one.
Judaism is an Ethnic religion. They call themselves the chosen people, and this concept developed negatively in some branches of Judaism, being misused as a feeling of racist superiority and the divine right to rule oppressively all the ones who did not belong to their ethnic religions, the goyim. Jesus came to redeem the Jews from the miscarriage, therefore he was killed by the Pharisees, like the Prophets before him. Zionism is a contemporary version of Phariseism. After that, Paul tried to extend the message of Judaism (that there is an absolutist God, a creator separated from his creation, that will recompense you if you him, and punish you if you don´t) to all people in the Roman empire, creating, or inventing, (with the teachings of Christ) a “Judaism for Gentiles”. Karl Marx can be viewed as the St. Paul of the XIX Century; teaching the necessity of economic wealth for all, not only for the “elite” of Capitalists.
The difference between Judaism and the other ethnic (Pagan) religions of Antiquity, is that Judaism is the first religion (of the ones that still exist today) that considers itself to be the absolute truth, and that all other spiritual paths are wrong, all other ways to the Tradition are nonsense. It developed from henotheism (believing that Yahweh was the most powerful god but there also existed other gods of the other peoples) to a strict monotheistic jealous submission to Yahweh as the only God. Later, this particularity was “inherited” as well by Christianity and Islam, but only to a certain degree. Because like Communism in secular socio-economical modernity, Christianity and Islam adapted themselves to the different countries were they spread, across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa and later the Americas)
In Christianity, two diffent currents developed in the European Middle Ages: the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. The firsts supported the Vatican and the Pope inconditionally, being religiously very dogmatic and intollerant; while the Ghibellines were nation-oriented and did support multipolarity, under the rule of a King or Emperor, which should became symbolic religious-national leader. There is a paralleism with Communism here as well, and we could see Stalin as the Ghibelline and Trotsky as the Guelph.
Concerning Imperium and imperialism, this are two different and actually opposite concepts. While Imperium integrates, composing a continental unity of tellurocratic nature that respects each culture of the different peoples inside it; imperialism is a modern mercantile parody with no boundaries to any soil, with the only “homeland” being money; and it does not compose or integrate, but on the contrary, imposes and disintegrates, dividing and conquering, by force or by deception, considering itself the only possible system; or the “absolute truth”.
Nowadays, after the Cold war, there is only one imperialism, an international and mercantilistic one, which is also known as globalism, or zionism (modern phariseism).
This imperialism is becoming everyday more powerful and destructive, because the masses don´t realize what the real danger is, and who the real enemies are. Plutocracy, and usury (capitalism) are the tools of this system; which to be more effective, works to idiotize the masses (with mass media, TV, Hollywood films, etc), and to split them (for instance Sunni vs Shia in the Muslim world, or Christians vs Muslims in the Balkans; but also men vs. women in our already secular western societies, or children vs parents).
In Geopolitics, there are two streams permanently combating each other: Atlanticism or talassocracy (represented by UK & France in the colonial past; and nowadays mostly by USA); and Continentalism or tellurocracy; which is the Eurasian concept, and used to be represented by the Central Empires in the past, and nowadays mostly by a newly rising Russia.
Atlanticism is a globalist geopolitical system, which through commerce –liberalism- wants eventually to impose its system upon all the world – because, as we said before, it believes to be the only truth; the only valid system. Continentalism, on the other hand, believes in a multipolar worldview, not in an unipolar globalistic one; but in a multipolar system with different power blocks, each one with it´s own area of influence.
One of this power blocks would be Eurasia from the Canary Islands to Vladivostok. Other, for instance the Arab world (Nasser and the Baath ideology in Iraq and Syria), other a united Latin America (Perón and Chávez followed this idea). And also Northern America, because the USA is a bi-oceanic and continental power, which has enough natural wealth by itself and does not need to pillage the resources (oil, gas…) of foreign sovereign countries thousands of kilometres away under the false pretext of “democracy”, and of imposing it´s socio-economical worldview (the globalist one), which is considered by their puppet politicians not only the most desirable one, or the most acceptable, but the only one possible, the “absolute truth”.
This is the secularist dogmatism of the Kali Yuga.
Continentalism stands for autarchy, for full soveraignity. Self-sufficiency, true independence. For conserving the traditional boundaries with nature, spirituality, family, nation. Atlanticism, on the contrary, needs import-export in order to survive. So, it stands for mercantilism, and it is attached to materialism, to mammonism, And this is the dangerous breeding ground for the practice of financial speculation, and for the demonic practice of the creation of money out of nothing; which enslaves all peoples with usury.
Continentalism wants friendly relations between all peoples and nations. Territorial and political integration should be made by mutual approval, and cultural exchanges are welcome and desirable; but with no interference in internal affairs. Atlanticism, which is controlled by a parasitic “elite” of bankster-crooks, needs to invade and loot foreign nations in order to survive, because this is in full accordance with it´s parasitic nature.
It is important to point out, as Parvulesco said, that we must not integrate Russia in the “EU”, but to integrate the “EU” in Russia (which despite the debacle of the ´90, continues keeping its traditional idiosyncrasy almost intact, what can not be said of the West).
The imperial ideas of German Geopolitician Karl Haushofer, working for an Eurasian Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo axis, should be studied, spread and developed in order to counteract the imperialist thesis of Angloamerican-Zionist Sphere (Atlanticism), which always are trying to sabotage the traditional commercial terrestrial roads of Eurasia and to split Eurasian peoples even more putting them against each other on a confessional basis or using the so-called “Islamic terrorism” (in reality saudi wahhabi terrorism made by the CIA) as a Trojan horse with the creation of “Al-Qaeda” as a useful tool against national soveraignity and independence, as we saw in Yugoslavia, Chechenya, Libya or Syria.
To conclude: Multipolarism and Globalism are the only two real antagonic systems struggling against each other, and NOT capitalism and communism, which were invented as a distraction and as a deception.