Olavo de Carvalho Debates Aleksandr Dugin (I)

Tuesday, 08 March 2011 01:08

On March 7, 2011, The Inter-American Institute's President, Olavo de Carvalho, and leader of the International Eurasian Movement, Alexandr Dugin, started a written debate on the topic "The USA and the New World Order." Professor de Carvalho is a philosopher currently residing in the United States. He teaches the Institute's 5-year Philosophy Seminar to more than 2000 international students, and his opinion columns are published twice a week in Brazilian newspapers. Professor Dugin is Vladimir Putin's geopolitical strategist, leading organizer of the Eurasian Movement, and considered the most influential Russian thinker of the post-Soviet era.

Below we reproduce the rules laid down by the organizers of the debate and the introductory essays written in response to the question posed to both debaters:

DUGINOLAVO22

1) This debate will be conducted in English and will be simultaneously published on this blog, on Olavo de Carvalho's and on International Eurasian Movement websites.

2) There will be an introductory article of both debaters (maximum limit of 24000 characters, blank spaces counted) which will respond to this question:

"What are the historical, political, ideological and economic factors and actors that now define the dynamics and configuration of power in the world and what is the U.S. position in what is known as New World Order?”

3) Then, there will be two rounds of replies. (suggested - but no strict - maximum limit of 120000 characters).

4) And finally the debaters will send their concluding articles. (maximum limit of 18000 characters, blank spaces counted).

5) The suggested schedule is the one below (subject to change):

March 7th - Introductions
March 21th - Dugin
April 4th - Olavo
April 18th - Dugin
May 2nd - Olavo
May 9th - Conclusions"

Olavo de Carvalho responds:

Words change their meaning, weight and value according to the situations of speech. Upon entering this debate I must clarify from the outset that it is not a debate at all. The very idea of a debate presupposes both an opposite symmetry between the contending parties, from the point of view of their convictions, and some direct symmetry of their respective socio-professional status: intellectuals discuss with intellectuals, politicians with politicians, professors with professors, preachers of religion with preachers of atheism, and so forth.

As for convictions, if we understand this term as only general statements about the structure of reality, mine do not differ from Professor Dugin’s in many essential points. Does he believe in God? So do I. Does he think a metaphysics of the absolute is possible? So do I. Does he wager that life has a meaning? So do I. Does he understand traditions, homeland, and family as the values that must be preserved above supposed economic and administrative conveniences? So do I. Does he see with horror the globalist project of the Rockfellers and Soros? So do I. It is not possible to organize a debate between two people who are in agreement.

On the other hand, from the standpoint of the actual positions we occupy in society, our differences are so numerous, so deep and so irreducible that the very proposal of putting us face to face has a certain comic incongruity to it. I am just a philosopher, writer, and professor, committed to the quest for what seems to me to be the truth and to educating a group of people who are so kind as to pay attention to what I say. Neither these people nor I hold any public job. We do not have any influence on national or international politics. We do not even have the ambition – much less an explicit project – for changing the course of history, whatever it may be. Our only hope is to know reality to the utmost degree of our power and one day leave this life aware that we did not live in illusions and self-delusion, that we did not let ourselves be misled and corrupted by the Prince of this World and by the promises of the ideologues, his servants. In the current power hierarchy of my native country, my opinion is worthless, except maybe as a negative example and an incarnation of absolute evil, which is a source of great satisfaction to me. In the country where I live, the government considers me at worst an inoffensive eccentric.

No political party, mass movement, government institution, church or religious sect considers me its mentor. So I can give my opinion as I wish, and change my opinion as many times as it seems right to me, with no devastating practical consequences beyond the modest circle of my personal existence.

Now Professor Dugin, the son of a KGB officer and the political mentor of a man who is the very incarnation of the KGB, is the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time – a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that extends throughout four continents. To say that Professor Dugin is at the center and pinnacle of power is a simple matter of realism. To implement his plans, he has at his disposal Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movement which today operate under the banner of his “Eurasian” project. As for myself, I not only lack a plan even for my own retirement, but my only available war resources are my dog Big Mac and an old hunting shotgun.

This tremendous existential difference (fully illustrated by the attached photos) makes our opinions, even where their verbal expressions coincide to the letter, signify entirely different things in the framework of our respective goals. The answers to the questions that inspire this debate will show this, I hope, as clearly as do the photos.

OlavoDuginweapons

There are two questions: who are the actors in the world scene and what is the position of the United States in it?

As for the first question: aside from Catholic and Protestant Christianity, which I shall address later on, the historic forces that today contend for power in the world array themselves into three projects of global dominance, which I will tentatively call the “Russian-Chinese,” the “Western” (sometimes mistakenly called “Anglo-American”) and the “Islamic” projects.

Each of these has a well documented history, which shows their remote origins, the transformations they have undergone in the course of time and the current status of their implementation.

The agents that personify these projects today are as follows:

1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, and particularly the secret services of these two countries.

2. The Western financial elite, as represented particularly in the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

3. The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of several Islamic countries and the governments of some Muslim countries.

Of these three agents, only the first can be construed in strictly geopolitical terms, since its plans and actions correspond to well-defined national and regional interests. The second, which is more advanced in the implementation of its plans for world government, places itself explicitly above any national interests, including those of its countries of origin, which serve as its base of operations. In the third, conflicts of interests between national governments and the overarching goal of a Universal Caliphate are always ultimately resolved in favor of the latter, which, though currently existing only as an ideal, enjoys symbolic authority founded upon Koranic commandments that no Islamic government would dare overtly challenge.

The conceptions of global power that these three agents strive to implement are very different from one another because they owe to heterogeneous and sometimes incompatible inspirations.

Therefore, they are not similar forces, or as it were, species of the same genus. They do not fight for the same goals and, when they occasionally resort to the same weapons (for example, economic warfare) they do so in different strategic contexts, where employing such weapons does not necessarily serve the same objectives.

Although nominally the relationships among them are competitive and antagonistic, sometimes even of a military nature, there are vast areas of fusion and collaboration, as flexible and changeable as they may be. This phenomenon disorients observers, producing all sorts of misguided and phantasmagorical interpretations, some in the form of “conspiracy theories,” others as self-proclaimed “realistic” and “scientific” refutations of those theories.

A good deal of the nebulosity in the world scene is produced by a more or less constant fact, to whit: each of the three agents tends to construe in its own terms the plans and actions of the other two, partly for deliberate propaganda purposes, partly due to a genuine misunderstanding of the situation.

The strategic analyses by all involved each reflect the ideological bias that is proper to it. Even though they attempt to take into account the totality of available factors, the Russian-Chinese scheme stresses the geopolitical and military viewpoint, the Western scheme the economic, and the Islamic scheme the dispute among religions.

This difference reflects in turn the sociological composition of the ruling classes in the respective geographical areas:

1) Stemming as it does from the communist nomenklatura, the Russian-Chinese ruling class is essentially made up of bureaucrats, intelligence service agents and military officers.

2) The preponderance of financiers and international bankers in the Western establishment is too well known to require further discussion.

3) In the various countries of the Islamic complex, the authority of the ruler depends essentially on approval by the umma – the multitudinous community of authoritative interpreters of the traditional religion. Even though these countries show great variety in their domestic situations, it is no exaggeration to describe the structure of their ruling power as “theocratic.”

Thus, for the first time in the history of the world, the three essential modalities of power – politico-military, economic and religious – find themselves personified in distinct supranational blocks, each of them with its own plans for world dominance and its peculiar mode of action. This does not mean that they do not act on all fronts, but only that their respective historical views and strategies are ultimately delimited by the modality of power they represent. It is not far-fetched to say that the world today is the object of a dispute among the military, bankers and preachers.

Even though in current debates these three blocks are almost invariably designated by the names of nations, States and governments, to depict their interactions as a dispute among nations or national interests is a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us in any way to understand the present situation.

It is only in the Russian-Chinese case that the globalist project symmetrically corresponds to national interests, and that the principal agents are the respective States and governments. This is so for the simple reason that the Communist regime, ruling there for decades, has dissolved or eliminated all other possible agents. The globalist elite of Russia and China is the government of these two countries.

By contrast, the Western globalist elite does not represent any national interest and does not identify with any particular State or government, though it controls several of them. On the contrary, when its interests collide with those of the nations where it originated (and this necessarily happens), it does not hesitate to turn against its own homeland, to subjugate it and, if necessary, to destroy it.

Islamic globalists serve, in principle, the general interests of all Muslim States, united in the grand project of a Universal Caliphate. Divergences arising from clashes of national interests (as, for example, between Iran and Saudi Arabia) have not proved sufficient to cause irreparable damage to the unity of the long-term Islamic project. The Muslim Brotherhood, ring leader of the process, is a transnational organization, which governs some countries and in others is the political opposition party, but its influence is omnipresent in the Islamic world.

The heterogeneity and asymmetry of the three blocks is reflected in the image that they have of each other, as manifested in their propaganda speeches – a system of errors suggesting that the fate of the world is in the hands of delirious madmen:

1. The Russian-Chinese perspective (expanded today in the form of Eurasianism, which will be one of the topics of this debate) describes the Western block as (a) a global expansion of American national power; (b) the materialized expression of the “open society” liberal ideology, such as eminently proposed by Sir Karl Popper; (c) the living incarnation of the Enlightenment’s materialist, scientistic and rationalist mentality, and therefore the arch enemy of all traditional spirituality.

2. Western globalism declares that it has no enemies other than “terrorism” – which it in no way identifies with the Islamic block, deeming it a residue of barbaric beliefs on the way to extinction – and “fundamentalism,” a notion that indistinctly blends the ideological spokesmen of Islamic terrorism and the “Christian right,” as if it the latter were an ally of the former and not one of its main victims. This way, fear of Islamic terrorism is used as a pretext to justify the official boycott of the Christian religion in Europe and in the United States! Russia and China are never presented as possible aggressors, but as allies of the West. In the worst case, China is portrayed as a trade competitor. In short: the ideology of Western globalism speaks as if it already personified an established universal consensus, opposed only by slightly insane marginal and religious groups

3. The Islamic block describes its Western enemy in terms that only reveal its disposition to hate it per fas et per nefas, presenting it sometimes as the heir to the ancient Crusaders and sometimes as the personification of modern materialism and hedonism. The generous collaboration of Russian and China with terrorist groups is clearly the reason why these two countries are absent from the Islamic ideological discourse. This way, irreconcilable theoretical incompatibilities are circumvented. Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one.

Just as each of the three blocks cultivates a false image of its competitors, so does each also project a false image of itself. Leaving aside for now the Islamic and Western projective fantasies, let us address the Russian-Chinese ones.

The Russian-Chinese block presents itself as an ally of the United States in the “fight against terrorism,” while at the same time providing weapons and all sorts of support to practically all terrorist organizations of the world and to the anti-American regimes of Iran, Venezuela, etc., and propagates the legend that the attack on the World Trade Center was the work of the American government.[1]

Russia complains that she was “corrupted” by Boris Yeltsin’s liberal reforms, as inspired by America, as if before them she had lived in a temple of purity and not in the endless rot of the Communist regime. It is worth recalling that the Soviet government lived essentially from theft and extortion for over 60 years without ever having to account for this. At the same time, it corrupted its population through the institutionalized habit of kickbacks, exchange of political favors and influence peddling, without which the state machinery would simply grind to a halt.[2] When its assets were distributed after the official dissolution of the regime, the beneficiaries were the members of the nomenklatura themselves, who became billionaires overnight, without severing the ties that joined them to the old state apparatus, particularly to the KGB (“there is no such thing as former KGB,” confessed Vladimir Putin). Imagine what would have happened in Germany after WWII if the winners, instead of prosecuting and punishing the supporters of the old regime, had awarded them access to the assets of the Nazi State. That is exactly what happened in Russia. As soon as the USSR was officially dissolved, its agents of influence in Europe and in the United States launched a successful operation to block any investigation of Soviet crimes.[3] Nobody was ever punished for the murder of at least tens of millions of civilians and for the creation of the most efficient machinery of state terror known to mankind. In fact, the chaos and corruption that followed the dismantling of the Soviet State were not caused by the new system of free enterprise, but by the fact that the first to benefit from it were the masters of the old regime, a horde of thieves and murderers such as never before seen in a civilized country.

What’s more, while whining about being corrupted by American capitalism, Russia forgets that it was she who corrupted it. Since the 1930s Stalin’s government, aware that the strength of America resided in “its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life” (sic), unleashed a gigantic operation, in the words of its main perpetrator, Willi Münzenberg, designed to “make the West so corrupt it stinks.” The purchase of consciences, the involvement of high-level officers in espionage and shady businesses, the intense propaganda campaigns to debilitate the moral beliefs of the population and the generalized infiltration of the educational system wound up producing results, particularly after the 1960s, radically modifying American society to the point of rendering it unrecognizable.

It was also the Soviet action that gave planetary dimensions to drug trafficking since the 1950s. Its history is well documented in Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West, by Joseph D. Douglass. Though Russia wails that after the fall of Communism she was invaded by the drug culture, she is simply harvesting what she sowed.

Nothing of this vast corrupting action is a thing of the past. Nowadays there are more Russian agents in the United States than during the Cold War.[4]

China, well fed by American investments, shows evidence that the apparent liberalization of its economy was only a cover-up for consolidating the totalitarian regime, making it increasingly solid and seemingly indestructible.

As for the position of the United States in the world scene, let us first look at how Prof. Dugin describes it, and then see how it is in reality.

According to the Eurasian doctrine, the United States is the incarnation, par excellence, of liberal globalism.[5] The face of liberalism that Prof. Dugin sees in America is essentially that of the “open society” advocated by Sir Karl Popper.

This is how Prof. Dugin summarizes the liberal idea:

“To understand the philosophical consistency of the national-Bolshevik ideology... it is absolutely necessary to read the fundamental book of Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies.

“Popper developed a fundamental typology for our subject. According to him, the history of humanity and the history of ideas divide themselves in two (unequal) halves. On the one hand, there are the partisans of the ‘open society,’ which represents in his view the form of normal existence of rational individuals (so are for him all men), who base their conduct upon reasoning and the supposedly free personal will. The sum of such individuals must logically form the ‘open society,’ essentially ‘non-totalitarian, since it lacks any unifying idea or value system of a collectivist nature, be it supra-individual or non-individual. The ‘open society’ is open precisely because it ignores all ‘teleologies,’ all ‘absolutes,’ all established typological differences; therefore it ignores all limits that emanate from the non-individual and non-rational domain (supra-rational, a-rational, or irrational, the latter being the more frequent term in Popper).

“On the other hand, there is the ideological camp of the ‘enemies of open society, where Popper includes Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, the medieval Schoolmen, as well as the German philosophy of Schlegel, Fichte, and above all of Hegel and Marx. Karl Popper… points the essential unity of their approaches and discerns the structure of their common Weltanschauung, whose characteristic traits are the denial of the intrinsic value of the individual, whence stems the loathe for autonomous rationalism, and the tendency to submission of the individual and his reason to the ‘non-individual’ and ‘non-rational’ values, which always and fatally, according to Popper, leads to the apology of dictatorship and political totalitarianism. (…)

“National-Bolsheviks…accept absolutely and without reservations Popper’s dualist view and are totally in agreement with his classification. However, in contrast, they consider themselves to be the resolute enemies of the ‘open society’ and their philosophical foundations, that is, the primacy of the individual, the value of rational reasoning, the progressive social liberalism, egalitarian atomic numeric democracy, free criticism, the Cartesian-Kantian Weltanschauung…”[6]

As for globalism:

“Nowadays, it is evident that the World State conceived as a World Market is not a distant or chimerical perspective, because that liberal doctrine [Karl Popper’s] is little by little becoming the governing idea of our civilization. And this presupposes the final destruction of nations, as vestiges of a bygone era, as the last hurdle to the irresistible expansion of globalization…The globalist doctrine is the perfect and finished expression of the ‘open society’ model.”[7]

Therefore, liberal globalism is the project in progress that aims to establish throughout the world the Popperian model of the “open society,” necessarily destroying on its way national sovereignties and every metaphysical or moral principle that aspires to be superior to individual rationality. It is the end of nations and of all traditional spirituality, the former being replaced by a global scientific-technocratic administration, and the latter by a mix of scientism, materialism and relativistic subjectivism that inspires the globalist elites of the West.

Since the United States is the chief radiating center of this project, and Russia its main focus of resistance (out of motives that we shall examine later), the clash is inevitable:

“The main thesis of the neo-Eurasianism is that the struggle between Russia and the United States is inevitable, since the United States is the engine of globalization seeking to destroy Russia, the fortress of spirituality and tradition.”[8]

I made it a point to quote my opponent’s opinion in some detail because, though I do not consider it to be false with respect to the mentality of globalist elites, which are really inspired by Popperian ideals, I can prove with a narrow margin of error that:

1. The description cannot in any way be applied to the United States, a nation where Popperianism is a recent implant, which has no local roots and is totally hostile to American traditions.

2. The United States is not the command center of the globalist project, but on the contrary, its prime victim, marked for death.

3. The globalist elite is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries potentially associated with the Eurasian project, but, rather it is their collaborator and accomplice in the effort to destroy the sovereignty, politico-military power and economy of the United States.

4. Far from favoring free-enterprise capitalism, the globalist project has supported statist and controlling policies everywhere. And in this it does not differ from the interventionism advocated by the Eurasianists. Globalism is only “liberal” in the local sense that the term has in the United States, as a synonym for “leftist.” The globalist project is a direct heir and perpetuator of Fabian socialism, a traditional ally of the Communists. Popperian ideology itself is not liberal-capitalist, in the sense of classical liberalism, but above all else “a ‘test and evaluate’ approach to social engineering.”[9]

5. Eurasianism opposed the Popperian “open society” as an abstract ideological model. However, as Eurasianism is not only an abstract ideological model, but a geopolitical strategy, it is obvious that it fires at the Popperian ideology to reach, beyond it, a specific national power, that of the United States, which has nothing to do with the Popperian ideology and can only expect evil from it. Even worse: American nationalism is a powerful Christian resistance to the globalist ambitions which have been trying to take over the country in order to destroy it as an autonomous power and use it as a tool for their essentially anti-national plans. The destruction of American power will remove the last reasonable hurdle to the establishment of a world government. Then all that will remain is the sharing of the spoils among the three globalist schemes, the Western, the Russian-Chinese and the Islamic one.

6. Russia is not at all the “fortress of spirituality and tradition,” appointed by a celestial mandate to castigate the flesh of the United States for the sins of the immoral and materialist West. Today as in Stalin’s time, Russia is a den of corruption and wickedness such as never seen before, dedicated to the spreading of its mistakes around the world, as announced in the prophecy of Fatima. It should be noted that this prophecy never referred particularly to Communism, but to “the errors of Russia” in a generic way, and it announced that the dissemination of these errors, with all its ensuing retinue of disgrace and suffering, would cease only if the Pope and all Catholic bishops of the world were to perform the rite of consecration of Russia. Since this rite has never been performed, there is no reason not to see in the Eurasian project a second wave and an upgrade of the “errors of Russia,” the announcement of a catastrophe of incalculable proportions.

7. If Russia today, through the medium of Prof. Dugin, presents itself to the world as the bearer of a great redeeming spiritual message, we need only recall that she has done so twice before:

(a) In thenineteenth century, all the thinkers of the Slavophile stripe, such as Dostoevsky, Soloviev and Leontiev, saw the West as the source of all evils and announced that in the following century Russia would teach the world “true Christianity.” What happened was that all this spiritual arrogance was impotent to stop the advance of communist materialism in Russia herself.

(b) Russian communism promised to bring to the world an era of peace, prosperity and freedom beyond the most beautiful dreams of previous generations. All it managed to do was to create a totalitarian inferno which neither Attila nor Genghis-Kahn could have glimpsed in a nightmare.

It would be wonderful if each country learned how to exorcise its own evils before pretending to be the savior of humanity. Alexander Dugin’s Russia seems to have taken the opposite lesson from her crimes and failures.

Translation from the Portuguese revised by Donald Hank.

[1] See my article “Suggestion to the Right-Thinking: Check Into an Asylum,” Diário do Comércio, January 30 2002, at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/060130dc.htm.

[2] See Konstantin Simis, URSS: The Corrupt Society: The Secret World of Soviet Capitalism, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1982, and Alena V. Ledeneva, Russia`s Economy of Favours, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

[3] See Vladimir Boukovski, Jugement à Moscou.

[4] See: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/04/painting-town-red-russian-spies-report-says/.

[5] The two elements that this definition fuses into a unity do not have the same origin, and were not friendly to each other at birth. The first liberal movements of thenineteenth century, coming on the top of the wave of independence movements against the colonial powers, were highly nationalistic, and the first projects for global government that appeared in the beginning of the twentieth century were inspired by notoriously interventionist and statist ideas.

[6] Alexandre Douguine, “La métaphysique du national-bolchevisme,” Le Prophète de l’Eurasisme, Paris, Avatar Éditions, 2006, pp. 131-133.

[7] Id., p. 138.

[8] Vadim Volovoj, “Will the prediction of A. Dugin come true?,” in Geopolitika, 10.11.2008, at http://www.geopolitika.lt/?artc=2825.

[9] Ed Evans, “Do you really know this person?” at http://itmakessenseblog.com/tag/karl-popper/.

DUGINOLAVO22

GLOBAL TRANSITION AND ITS ENEMIES
By Alexandr Dugin

The World Order questioned

New World Order as a concept was popular in a concrete historical momentum – precisely that when the Cold War ended (late 80’s, Gorbatchev era) and the global cooperation between the USA and Soviet Union was considered near and very probable. The basis of NWO was presumably realization of the convergence theory predicting the synthesis of Soviet socialist and Western capitalist political forms and near cooperation of the Soviet Union and USA in the case of regional issues – for example first Gulf War in the beginning of 1991. Hence, as the Soviet Union split soon after, this project of NWO was naturally set aside and forgotten.

After 1991 the other World Order was considered as something being created under our eyes – Unipolar World with open global hegemony of USA. It is described well in Fukuyama’s political utopia “End of history”. This World Order ignored any other poles of power except the USA and its allies (first of all Europe and Japan) and was thought as universalization of free market economy, political democracy and human rights ideology as global pattern accepted by all countries in the world.

The skeptics thought that it was rather illusion and the differences between the countries and people would reappear in other forms (for example, in the famous clash of civilizations of S. Huntington or ethnic or religious conflicts). Some experts regarded unipolarity not as the properly speaking World Order but as the unipolar momentum (J.Mearsheimer). In any case, what is questioned in all these projects is National Statehood. The Westphalian system did not correspond any more to the present global balance of powers. New actors of transnational or subnational scale affirm their growing importance and that was clear that the World was in need of new paradigm of International Relations.

So our actual contemporary world cannot be regarded as properly realized NWO. There is no definitive World Order of any kind at present. There is a Transition from the World Order we knew in XX century to the some other paradigm whose full features rest to define. Will the future be really global? Or the regionalist tendencies will win? Will there be a unique Order? Or there will be different local or regional Orders? Or may be we are going to deal with World Chaos? It is not clear yet, the Transition is not accomplished. We are living in the middle of it.

If the global elite (first of all the United States political elite) has the clear vision of the desired future (that is rather doubtful), even so the circumstances can prevent the realization of it in practice. If the global elite lack the consensual project – the issue is much more complicated.

So only the fact of Transition to some new paradigm is certain. The paradigm as such is on the contrary quite uncertain.

World Order from USA point of view

USA position in this shift is absolutely assured but the future of USA is under question. The USA undergoes now the test of global imperial rule and they have to deal with many challenges – some of them quite new and original. They could proceed in three different ways:

1) Creating an American Empire strictu sensu with a consolidated technically and socially developed central area (Imperial Core) while the outer spaces would keep divided and fragmentized in the state of permanent unrest (near the chaos); it seems the neo-cons are in favor of such a pattern.

2) Creating multilateral unipolarity where the USA would cooperate with other friendly powers (Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, Israel – possibly other countries) in solving the regional problems and making pressure on the «rogue countries» (Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Northern Korea) or on the hesitating counties striving to assure their own regional independence (China, Russia and so on); it seems that democrats and Obama are inclined to do so;

3) Promoting accelerated globalization with the creation of World Government and swift desovereignization of the National States in favor of creation of United States of the World ruled by the global elite on the legal terms (that is the CFR project represented by the strategy of George Soros and his foundations; the colored revolutions are viewed here as the most effective weapon destabilizing and finally destroying States).

It seems that USA tries to go by these three ways simultaneously promoting all three strategies at the same time. This three directions strategy of USA creates the global context in International Relations, USA being the key actor on the global scale. Beyond the evident differences of these three images of future they have some essential points in common. In any case USA is interested in affirming its strategic, economical and political domination; in strengthening of the control or other global actors and in weakening them; in gradual or accelerated desovereignization of now more or less independent States; in the promotion of “universal” values reflecting the values of Western world (the liberal democracy, parlamentarism, free market, humans rights and so on).

So we are in the contemporary world in strong and permanent geopolitical field where in the Core is situated USA and where the rays of its influences (strategic, economical, political, technological, informational and so on) permeate all the rest of the World depending of the grade of the will to accept it in the case of different countries, ethnic or religious ambiances. It is a kind of “global imperial network” operating on a planetary scale.

This USA-centric global geopolitical field can be described on different levels:

Historically: The USA considers itself to be the logical conclusion and the peak of the Western civilization. In the ancient terms it was presented as the Manifest Destiny of USA. Now they speak in the terms of human rights, promotion of the democracy and of technology, free market institutions and so on. But in the essence, we deal with a new edition of the Western universalism that passed by Roman Empire, Medieval Christianity, the Modernity (with the Enlightenment and colonization) and up to present day postmodernism and ultra-individualism. The history is considered to be univocal (monotone) process of technological and social progress, the way of growing liberation of individuals from all kind of collective identities. The tradition and conservatism are regarded as the obstacles for the freedom and should be rejected. The USA is in vanguard of this historical progress and has the right and obligation (mission!) to move the history further and further. The historical existence of USA coincides with the course of the human history. So “American” means “universal”. The other cultures have only an American future or no future at all.

Politically: there are very important trends in World politics that define the Transition. We watch the passage from the liberalism becoming global and only possible political option (as the peak of the political thought of Modernity won the victory over alternative political doctrines – fascism and socialism) to the post-modern and post-individual concept of politics (generally described as post-humanism). The USA plays again here the key role. The politics promoted by USA globally is liberal democracy. So USA supports the globalization of the liberalism preparing thus the next step to the political post-modernity (described in the famous book of A.Negri and M.Hardt “Empire”). There is some distance between liberal ultra-individualism and properly postmodern post-humanism (promoting the cyborgs, genetic modification, cloning and the chimeras), ut in the periphery of the World we have the common tendency – the accelerated destruction of any holistic social entities, the fragmentation and atomization of society included in the technology (internet, mobile phones and so on) where the principle actor is strictly individual and excerpt from the natural and social context. There is important testimony of dual use of promotion of democracy explicitly described in the article of American military and political expert Stephen R. Mann[1] who affirms that democracy can work as self-generating virus strengthening the existent and historically rife democratic societies but destroying and immersing in chaos the traditional societies not properly prepared for it. So democracy is thought to be an effective weapon to create the chaos and to govern the dissipating world cultures from the Core emulating and installing everywhere the democratic codes. We see how it works in the last events in the Arabic countries. After the accomplishing the full fragmentation of the societies to the individual atoms there will begin the second phase: the division of the individuals themselves on the parts and new (genetic, for example) combinations of the elements in the way of post-human creativity. That can be described as the post-politics as the last horizon of the political futurism.

Ideologically: There is the tendency in the case of the USA to link more the ideology and politics in the zone of the periphery. Before, USA acted on the basis of the pure realism: if the regimes were pro-USA they were tolerated with no regards of their ideological principles. The Saudi Arabia represents the net example of that. So some features of the double morality were ideologically accepted. It seems that recently the USA have began to try to deepen the democracy, supporting popular revolts in Egypt and Tunis whose chiefs were trustfully friends of USA being at the same time corrupted dictators. The double standards in the ideology is vanishing and the deepening of democracy progresses. The culminant point will be reached in the case of the probable unrest in the Saudi Arabia. In this moment this trend of promoting the democracy on the ideological basis – including in the politically difficult circumstances – will be tested.

Economically: the USA economy is challenged by the Chinese growth, the energy issue, the critical disproportion between the financial sector and the zone of real industry. The overgrowth of American financial institutes and the delocalization of the industry have created the discontinuity between the sphere of the money and the sphere of the classical capitalist balance of the industry and demands. It was the main cause of the financial crisis of 2008. The Chinese economical politics tries to reaffirm its independence in front of the USA global strategy and once can become the main factor of the competition. The Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan and some other relatively independent (from USA) countries control over the huge amount of the natural resources puts the limits to the American economical influence. The economy of European Community and the Japanese economic potential represent the two poles of competition inside the strategic partners and military allies of USA. So the USA tries to solve all these problems using not only purely economic instruments but also politics and sometimes military power. We could interpret in this manner the intrusion in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possible intervention in Libya, Iran and Syria. Indirectly promoting opposition in Russia, Iran and Chine and trying to cause some problems with Turkey and radical Islamism in general for Europe USA wants to reach the same goal. But these are only technical solutions. The main challenge is how organize the post-modern and financially-centered economy with granted growth overcoming the more and more critical gap between the real sector and the financial instruments whose logic become more and more autonomous.

So we have observed the main and asymmetric actor USA situated in the center of the present Transition state of world affairs. This actor represents the true hyperpower (H.Vidrine) and the strongest geopolitical field (that includes all the levels revised before) is structured around this American Core, representing its multilevel networks. The question can be raised here: is this actor fully conscious of what it does and whether it understand well what he will obtain in the end; which kind of Order it is going to get? It seems that the opinions on this most important point are divided: the neocons proclaim the New American Century being optimistic as to the future American Empire. But in their case it is obvious that they have clear (that doesn’t mean necessary realistic) vision of the future (American, more precisely North-American future). In this case the World Order will be American Imperial Order based on the unipolar geopolitics. At least theoretically is has some positive point: it is clear and honest.

The multilateralists are more cautious and insist on the necessity to invite the other regional powers to share with the USA the burden of the planetary rule. It is obvious that only similar (regarding the USA) societies can be partners, so the success of promoting democracy becomes here the essential care. The multilateralists act not only in the name of USA but also in the name of the West, considered as something universal. The image of the future World Order is foggier. The fate of the global democracy is misty and not so clearly defined as the image of American Empire.

Yet hazier is the extreme version of promoters of accelerated globalization. It could effectively overthrow the existing national states but in some cases it will only open the way to much more archaic, local, religious or ethnic forces. So the earth-scale open society is such fantastic a perspective that it is much easier to imagine the total chaos and the war of everybody against everybody.

So the image of the future World Order differs with regard to the group of American ideologists and decision makers. More consequent strategy is at the same time more ethnocentric, openly imperialistic and hegemonic. It is unipolar World Order. The other two versions are much more dim and uncertain. Up to certain point they can give way to world disorder. They are called summarily “non-polar” (R. Haass).

So the Transition in question, in any case, is Americano-centric by its nature and the global geopolitical field is structured so that main global processes would be moderated, orientated, directed and sometimes controlled by the unique actor performing its work lonely or with the help of the essentially pro-American Western (or at least pro-Western) allies.

The World Order from the non-USA point of view

The Americano-centric world perspective described above being the most important and central as global tendency is not the only one possible. There can be and there are the alternative visions of World architecture that can be taken into consideration. There are secondary and tertiary actors that are inevitable losers in the case of the success of USA-strategy: the countries, states, peoples, cultures that would loose all and gain nothing when the USA strategy realizes. They are multiple and heterogeneous. We could group them in the different categories.

1) The first category is composed by the more or less successful national States that are not happy to let their independence to the supranational exterior authority – not in the form of open American hegemony, nor in the Western-centered kind of World Government, nor in the chaotic dissolution. There are many of such a countries – beginning from China, Russia, Iran, India, including many Southern American and Islamic States. They don’t like the Transition at all, suspecting (with good reasons) the inevitable loss of the sovereignty. So they are inclined to resist the main trends of the planetary Americano-centric geopolitical field or adapt to it in such a manner that it would be possible to avoid the logical consequences of the success of American general strategy (it doesn’t make difference whether imperialistic or globalist). The will of the conservation of the sovereignty represents the natural contradiction and the point of resistance in front of the pro-American (or globalist) trends. These countries in general hardly possess the alternative vision of the future World Order. What they want - it is to preserve the status quo and national States in the present form adjusting and modernizing them if necessary. Between the members of this national Statehood clubs there are three kinds of actors: 1) those who try to adapt their societies to the Western standards and to keep friendly relations with the West and USA, but to avoid the direct desovereignization (India, Turkey, Brazil, up to the certain point Russia, Kazakhstan);

2) Those who are ready to cooperate with USA but under condition of the non-interference in their inner affairs (Arabia Saudi, Pakistan and so on);

3) Those who, cooperating with USA, strictly observe the particularity of their society making permanent filtration of what is compatible in Western culture with domestic culture or what is not, at the same time trying to use the dividends received by this cooperation to the strengthening of nation independence (China);

4) Those who try to oppose the USA directly rejecting the Western values, the unipolarity and the USA hegemony (Iran, Venezuela, North Korea).

All these groups lack the global alternative strategy that could be symmetrically comparable with the American (there is not even a consensual or clear) vision of the future. Everybody acts by themselves and in their own direct interests. The difference consists only in the radicalism of the rejection of Americanization. We could define their position as reactive. This strategy of reactive opposition varying from the rejection to adaptation is sometimes effective, sometimes it is not. In sum it doesn't give any kind of future vision. The future of the World Order is considered as eternal conservation of status quo – Modernity, national Statehood, Westphalian systems, current ONU configuration and so on.

The Second category of actors who reject the Transition consists of subnational groups, movements and organizations that oppose Americanism as the structures of the global geopolitical field by ideological, religious or cultural reasons. These groups are quite different and vary from one concrete state to another. They are mostly based on the religious faith incompatible with the secular doctrine of americanization, westernization and globalization. But they could be motivated by the ethnical or ideological (for example, socialist or communist) doctrines. Some other act on the regionalist grounds. The paradox is that in the globalization ambiance that aims to uniform all particularities and collective identities on the basis of purely individual identity, such subnational actors easily become transnational – the same religions and ideologies being present in different countries and national States. So in these circles we could find some alternative vision of the future World Order that can be opposed to the Transition and its structures.

We can roughly summarize the different ideas of some of the most important sub-national/trans-national groups:

1) The most famous one is the islamist world vision which represents the utopia of Islamic World State (Global Khalifat). This project is as opposed to the American architecture as to the status quo of the modern national States. Bin Laden is the symbol of such a trend of ideas and the two towers of New-York World Trade Center 9/11 are the prove of the importance and seriousness of such a network.

2) The other project can be defined as neo-socialist plan represented in the South American Left and personally by Hugo Chavez. This is roughly a new edition of Marxist critic of capitalism strengthened by nationalist emotion and in some cases (Bolivia, Zapatistas) ethnic sentiments. Some Arab regimes (as Libya of Kaddhafi until recently) can be considered in the same line. The next World Order here is presented as global socialist revolution preceded by the anti-USA liberation campaigns in every country. The Transition is identified by this group as the incarnation of classic imperialism criticized by Lenin.

3) The third example of such kind can be found in the Eurasian Project (aka “multipolar”, aka “great spaces”) proposing the alternative model of World Order based on the principle of civilizations and great spaces. It presupposes the creation of different transnational political strategic and economic entities united by community of civilization and main (in some cases religious in some – secular and cultural) values. They should consist of integrated States and represent the poles of the multipolar world. European Union could be example of such a form. There can be also Eurasian Union (project of Kazakhstan’s President N.Nazarbayev), Islamic Union, the South-American Union, Chinese Union, the Indian Union, Pan-Pacific Union and so on. The North-American great space can be regarded as one of the several other more or less equal poles, nothing more.

We could add some other theories but they are of smaller scale.

There is, in the present state of affair, a serious gap between the national States and ideological movements mentioned above operating on the different levels. So the national States lack the vision, and movements lack sufficient infrastructure to put their ideas in practice. If we imagine that, in some circumstances, that gap could be bridged, the alternative to the Transition and to the Americano- or Western-centric tendencies (taken in consideration the demographical, economical and strategic weight of the Non-Western world) will obtain the realistic shape and can be regarded seriously as consequent and theoretically founded plan of concrete future Order.

[1] Stephen R. Mann Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought/ Parameters 2U3, Autumn, 1992.