Texts

Orazio Gnerre. Millenium Project

Talking about geopolitical coherence for a country that has forgotten all the strategic agreements of understanding with Jamahiriya’s Libya seems excessive to me. Italy urges to be able to identify its own strategic paradigm, and possibly place it in the changing world. Our previous government stood out for its excellent close relations with Russia, with the former Soviet bloc countries like Belarus, with Turkey, with North Africa (before the illegitimate aggression of Libya by NATO ), with China… Now we have instead a technical government imposed on us by the Europeanist line, composed from person who worked for NATO, finance and multinationals. Our own prime minister Mario Monti has been called “the man of Goldman Sachs”. It is clear that these conditions do not grant the formulation of a coherent own geopolitical line. With regard to the Padanian independentism, it had its political representation in “Lega Nord”, a party that was in government with the previous executive. As its first instances were to be ascribed to secessionism, it now proposing a less improbable federalism. However from the resignation of former premier Silvio Berlusconi the popularity of “Lega Nord” is declining, and in these days were consumed a series of scandals (whose timing might seem “artificial”) that have seen the collapse of its credibility. As regards the phenomenon known as "neo-borbonic" (but you can say the same about "neo-Habsburg"... ), this is not inserted in the political scene at all, but results from a fair recovery of regional cultural identity and from a more honest confrontation with the flaws of the process of unification of the nation, founded on liberal, capitalist and anti-popular ideological basis (in this regards the opinion of Antonio Gramsci about the “Southern question” are illuminating). We have examined the subject in some of our seminars, analyzing the relationship between the Italian Reunification and geopolitics, emphasizing the Anglo-Saxon interference in the politics of Piedmont, and the influence it exerted on ideological groups that have played a key role in the unification process, contextualizing the event in the global scenario that the British Empire was shaping according to its business interests, since the Crimean War (see "The Two Sicilies and the Crimean War” by Angelo D'Ambra, Nomos III and Nomos IV). Altough each independentist proposal found to be inadequate to the reality of facts and is definitely outdated compared to the necessity of creation of large strategic poles functional to the transition to multipolarism, we can not but recognize that local sovereignties were the first to be swallowed by the centripetal force of the mondialist process, which saw in the British trade policy the precursor of the next U.S. unipolarism. The Napoleonic Jacobinism on the one hand, and every liberal ideological derivative the other have played a prominent role in this process, now on behalf of France, now on behalf of England – in each case on behalf of an illuminist and ideological worldview, based on the dogmas of the Rule of law, of the economics divorced from organic or state constraints, of the need to create a global supranational organism. Anyway any recovery of the local culture is desired, although it must always be framed in a correct view of international politics, in a total alterglobalist proposal and, last but not least, in a healthy clarity of analysis to compare it objectively with reality , a feature that in most cases in these circles is missing.

Tim Kirby. A multipolar world

Russian’s don’t understand the absolute certainty that Anglo-Americans feel about their system. From the moment of their birth Americans are told that their system is clearly and demonstrably the best and most natural for all. It is the apex of the evolution of ideas. “Bringing democracy to nation X” is seen as the best thing that could possibly happen. It is always in the “best interests” of the people of said nation, even if that nation needs to be bombed and thrown into years of upheaval in order for democracy to be brought.

The Great War of Continents

The patterns of “conspiracy” are extremely miscellaneous. In this sphere the greatest popularity indoubtedly goes to the concept of the “Judaic-Masonic” conspiracy, so spread today in the most different circles. On principle, this theory deserves the most severe study, and we must recognize that we have no complete and serious scientific analysis of this theme, despite hundreds and thousand works either “exposing” this conspiracy, or “substantiating” its non-existence. But in the present work we shall examine a completely differente conspirologic pattern, based on a system of coordinates distinct from the “Judaic-Masonic” version. We shall try to describe in general the planetary “conspiracy” of two opposite “occult” forces, whose secret opposition and the invisible fight predetermined the logics of world history. These forces, in our opinion, are mostly characterized neither by national specificity nor by their belonging to a secret organization of Masonic or para-Masonic kind, but because of a radical divergence in their geopolitical orientation. As to the explanation of the final “secret” of these opposing forces, we are inclined to see it in the difference between two alternative and mutually excluding geopolitical projects, which stand aside of national, political, ideological and religious differences, and unite people of the most contradictory opinions and beliefs into one single group. Our conspirologic pattern is the pattern of “geopolitical conspiracy”.

MANIFESTO of the French New Right

The French New Right was born in 1968. It is not a political movement, but a think-tank and school of thought. For more than thirty years—in books and journals, colloquia and conferences, seminars and summer schools, etc.—it has attempted to formulate a metapolitical perspective.
Metapolitics is not politics by other means. It is neither a "strategy" to impose intellectual hegemony, nor an attempt to discredit other possible attitudes or agendas. It rests solely on the premise that ideas play a fundamental role in collective consciousness and, more generally, in human history. Through their works, Heraclitus, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx all triggered decisive revolutions, whose impact is still being felt today. History is a result of human will and action, but always within the framework of convictions, beliefs and representations which provide meaning and direction. The goal of the French New Right is to contribute to the renewal of these sociohistorical representations.

Claudio Mutti Globalization as the Antichrist's project

Claudio  Mutti (director of Italian EURASIA magazine)

Globalization as the Antichrist's project

Interview for GRA-news by N. Speranskaya

Q. - What is your view of the modern world order/international system? Do you consider the current world order to be ‘just’? If yes, then why? If no, how do you think it might be changed? Is it already changing?

A. - If, as heirs of the Greek culture, we accept the Aristotelic point of view and think that the order is a harmonic disposition (táxis) whose cause is the universal Intellect (noûs), then we are obliged to say that the actual international system not only is not a just one, but neither can be called an order. It is not an order, because it is not founded on noûs, but on epithymía, i. e. on that immoderate appetite which historically has manifested itself as usurocratic imperialism and is represented at the highest degree by the United States of America.

Fabio Falchi Globality and thallasocracy

Fabio Falchi (Italian geopolitist)

Globality and thallasocracy

(inteview for GRA-news by N.Speranskaya)

What is your view of the modern world order/international system? Do you consider the current world order to be ‘just’? If yes, then why? If no, how do you think it might be changed? Is it already changing?

First of all, it’s necessary to consider that in Carl Schmitt’s opinion the empty, neutral and unidentified space which initiated the British thalassocracy, was replaced by new “global” space, designed by modern mass and transport media during the 20th century. So, British thalassocratic hybris flows into the conquering of infinite air aequor. A logic connection link these different moments. The world power which has comprehended these moments, making them on its own, is the hegemonic world power of our times: United States.

Daniele Scalea Modern World System

 

Daniele Scalea (Italian political analyst)

Modern World System

(interview with GRA-news by N.Speranskaya)

1.     What is your view of the modern world order/international system?  Do you consider the current world order to be ‘just’? If yes, then why? If no, how do you think it might be changed? Is it already changing?

The current international system is characterized by some prominent features:

-      a closed world circuit: since 15th century geographical explorations and improvement in transport and communication technologies have de facto realized a “one world”. What happens in any country of the world echoes all over the globe. Who acquires a sufficient supremacy of power could aspire to world empire;

-      a mono-polarization of power: the process of globalization begun in the 15th century was coupled, until recent times, to a progressive concentration of power towards the West and, ultimately, to a one-nation world hegemony by US;

-      a more recent and opposite tendency to multi-polarization: recently the US hegemony has begun to deteriorate and the unipolar order appears limping. After some centuries of mono-polarization towards the West, and then especially North America, new powers scattered all over the world are now emerging.

 

Jure Vujic MULTIPOLARITY AS THE IDEA

Jure Georges Vujic, french and croatian writter and geopolitolog

MULTIPOLARITY AS THE IDEA

      The premises of the modern world order and international system are already found towards the end of the 1648 Westphalian period of the right of gens and nation, based on the principle of respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity. The entire concept of modern world order emerging in the wake of the French Revolution and materializing in Wilson’s 1919 League of Nations and the Yalta division is a negation of the principle of “jus publicam europeanum”, and just like the gradual anglosaxonisation of international law  and international relations, serves the purpose of Anglo-American global hegemony. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the American derivation of the “new world order” is a culmination of such Anglo-American concept of international relations that is setting the stage for the internationalization of regional conflicts, introduction of permanent and emergency ad hoc international law: the right to interference, humanitarian intervention, and a wave of preventive military interventions that we witnessed in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, as well as in Haiti. 

Jarosław Tomasiewicz : "The world system is not just"

- What countries, groups of countries, or social and political forces might be able to challenge American Hegemony and how?

- The strength of the Core lies in its central position - there is no system without the Core and various Periphery elements are in  opposition not only towards the Core but also towards each other. I  don't know if there is any possibility for (e.g.) a Moscow-Beijing  axis  - is convergence stronger than antagonism? The only real  counterweight to the Core could be a broad coalition of all Periphery  elements but that coalition has no ideological binder. Such a  coalition needs an ideological alternative to liberal universalism - a  "pan-particularism"  that appreciates every difference. But this  ideology would be infected by relativism and therefore will become a  copy of liberal multiculturalism.

- What do you think about the ideas of Globalism (i.e., a ‘One World’ world government) and/or global governance? Is such either possible or desirable?

- I think the idea of global government is simply utopian. I don't  think global governance is possible - but in my opinion globalist  elites are interested only in control of some strategic points and  branches that make it unable to create any alternative center of power. 6a. In my opinion no single theory could explain reality. We should  use a combination of the civilizational theory of Feliks Koneczny  (modified but simplified by Samuel Huntington); the dependency theory  (developed into the "world-system" theory by Immanuel Wallerstein);  the biopolitical concept of Leszek Moczulski; and classical  geopolitical theories.

The Greater Europe Project

The only feasible alternative in present circumstances is to found in the context of a multi-polar world. Multi-polarity can grant to any country and civilisation on the planet the right and the freedom to develop its own potential, to organise its own internal reality in accordance with the specific identity of its culture and people, to propose a reliable basis of just and balanced international relations amongst the world’s nations. Multi-polarity should be based on the principle of equity among the different kinds of political, social and economic organisations of these nations and states. Technological progress and a growing openness of countries should promote dialogue amongst, and the prosperity of, all peoples and nations. But at the same time it shouldn’t endanger their respective identities. Differences between civilisations do not have to necessarily culminate in an inevitable clash between them – in contrast to the simplistic logic of some American writers. Dialogue, or rather ‘polylogue’, is a realistic and feasible possibility that we should all exploit in this regard.

The Rediscovery of Ethnic Identity

The monumental events following the tall of the Berlin Wall (November 9, 1989) and the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union (December 25, 1991) brought about a radically new geopolitical order. They meant not only the end of the bipolar world and the partition of Europe as a result of the Yalta and Postdam agreements, but also the exhaustion of a turbulent cycle more than 70 years old, which defined a century of unprecedented violence. The end of this terrible period does not mean the “end of history” or the disappearance of force in relations between states.

Battle for Eurasia (I)

During the last 10 years there was a tidal wave of revolutions at the post-Soviet spaces (in Central European and Central Asian countries). These revolutions — at least those of them that ended — caused the change of power and political re-orientation of the above-mentioned states. All those changes had one similar violence-excluding scenario. All of them were portrayed by mass media as democratic revolutions, led by younger people, who needed freedom and wanted to break free from pro-Soviet, semi-democratic corrupted political systems. Those «color revolutions» or «Orange revolutions» (named after revolution in Ukraine) were presented to us as a logical and complementary continuation of «velvet revolutions». This was the way Eastern European countries started to unyoke themselves from the Soviet Union. We’ll see however that these political changes were neither coincidental, nor caused by political will of opposition. Those were carefully planned geostrategic operations,which were organized and controlled from without the countries of action. 

Pages