by Alexander Dughin
In 2020, at the forum in Davos, the forum’s founder Klaus Schwab and Charles, the Prince of Wales, proclaimed a new course for humanity, the Great Reset.
The plan, according to the Prince of Wales, consists of five points:
The term “sustainable” is a part of the most important concept of the Club of Rome – “sustainable development”. This theory is based on yet another theory – the “limits of growth”, according to which the overpopulation of the planet has reached a critical point (which implies the need to reduce the birth rate).
The fact that the word “sustainable” is used in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which, according to some analysts, should lead to population decline, has caused a significant reaction globally.
The main points of the Great Reset are:
-the control over public consciousness on a global scale, which is at the heart of “cancel culture” -the introduction of censorship on networks controlled by the globalists (point 1);
-Transition to an ecological economy and rejection of modern industrial structures (points 2 and 5);
-Humanity’s entry into the 4th economic order (to which the previous Davos meeting was devoted), i.e. the gradual replacement of the workforce by cyborgs and implementation of advanced Artificial Intelligence on a global scale (point 3).
The main idea of the “Great Reset” is the continuation of globalization and the strengthening of globalism after a series of failures: the conservative presidency of anti-globalist Trump, the growing influence of a multipolar world – especially of China and Russia, the rise of Islamic countries like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and their withdrawal from the influence of the West.
At the Davos forum, representatives of the global liberal elites declared the mobilization of their structures in anticipation of Biden’s presidency and the victory of the democrats in the USA, something they strongly desire.
Implementation
The marker of the globalist agenda is the Jeff Smith song “Build Back Better” (Joe Biden’s campaign slogan). Meaning that after a series of setbacks (such as a typhoon or Hurricane Katrina), people (meaning the globalists) build back better infrastructure than they had before.
The “Great Reset” begins with Biden’s victory.
World leaders, heads of major corporations – Big Tech, Big Data, Big Finance, etc. – came together and mobilized to defeat their opponents – Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Erdogan, Ayatollah Khamenei, and others. The beginning was to snatch victory from Trump using new technologies – through “capturing imaginations” (point 1), the introduction of Internet censorship, and the manipulation of the mail-in vote.
Biden’s arrival in the White House means that the globalists are moving on to the next steps.
This will affect all areas of life – the globalists are going back to the point where Trump and other poles of rising multipolarity had stopped them. And this is where mind control (through censorship and manipulation of social media, total surveillance and data collection of everyone) and the introduction of new technologies play a key role.
The Covid-19 epidemic is an excuse for this. Under the guise of sanitary hygiene, the Great Reset expects to dramatically alter the structures of control of the globalist elites over the world’s population.
The inauguration of Joe Biden and the decrees he has already signed (overturning virtually all of Trump’s decisions) means that the plan has begun to be put into action.
In his speech on the “new” course of U.S. foreign policy, Biden voiced the main directions of globalist policy. It may seem “new”, but only in part, and only in comparison with Trump’s policies. On the whole, Biden simply announced a return to the previous vector:
Thus, the new White House leadership not only does not show the slightest willingness to have an equal dialogue with anyone, but only tightens its own liberal discourse, which does not tolerate any objection. Globalism is entering a totalitarian phase. This makes the possibility of new wars – including an increased risk of World War III – more than likely.
The globalist Foundation for Defence of Democracies, which expresses the position of U.S. neoconservative circles, recently released a report recommending to Biden that some of Trump’s positions such as:
– are positive, and that Biden should continue to move along these axes in foreign policy.
The report’s authors, on the other hand, condemned Trump’s foreign policy actions such as:
Thus, the “Great Reset” in geopolitics will mean a combination of “democracy promotion” and “neoconservative aggressive strategy of full-scale domination,” which is the main vector of “neoconservative” policy. At the same time, Biden is advised to continue and increase the confrontation with Iran and China, but the main focus should be on the fight against Russia. And this requires strengthening NATO and expanding the U.S. presence in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Like Trump, Russia, China, Iran and some other Islamic countries are seen as the main obstacles.
This is how environmental projects and technological innovations (first of all, the introduction of Artificial Intelligence and robotics) are combined with the rise of an aggressive military policy.
To understand clearly what Biden’s victory and Washington’s “new” course for the “Great Reset” means on a historical scale, one must look at the entire history of liberal ideology, starting from its roots. Only then we are able to understand the seriousness of our situation. Biden’s victory is not a coincidental episode, and the announcement of a globalist counterattack is not merely the agony of a failed project. It is far more serious than that. Biden and the forces behind him embody the culmination of a historical process that began in the Middle Ages, reached its maturity in Modernity with the emergence of capitalist society, and which today is reaching its final stage – the theoretical one outlined from the beginning.
The roots of the liberal (=capitalist) system go back to the scholastic dispute about universals. This dispute split Catholic theologians into two camps: some recognized the existence of the common (species, genus, universalia), while others believed in only certain concrete – individual things, and interpreted their generalizing names as purely external conventional systems of classification, representing “empty sound”. Those who were convinced of the existence of the general, the species, drew on the classical tradition of Plato and Aristotle. They came to be called “realists,” that is, those who recognized the “reality of universalia”. The most prominent representative of the “realists” was Thomas Aquinas and, in general, it was the tradition of the Dominican monks.
The proponents of the idea that only individual things and beings are real came to be called “nominalists,” from the Latin “nomen. The demand – “entities should not be multiplied without necessity” – goes back precisely to one of the chief defenders of “nominalism,” the English philosopher William Occam. Even earlier, the same ideas had been defended by Roscelin of Compiègne. Although the “realists” won the first stage of the conflict and the teachings of the “nominalists” were anathematized, later the paths of Western European philosophy – especially of the New Age – were followed by Occam.
“Nominalism” laid the foundation for future liberalism, both ideologically and economically. Here humans were seen only as individuals and nothing else, and all forms of collective identity (religion, class, etc.) were to be abolished. Likewise, the thing was seen as absolute private property, as a concrete, separate thing which could easily be attributed as property to this or that individual owner.
Nominalism prevailed first of all in England, became widespread in Protestant countries and gradually became the main philosophical matrix of New Age – in religion (individual relations of man with God), in science (atomism and materialism), in politics (preconditions of bourgeois democracy), in economy (market and private property), in ethics (utilitarianism, individualism, relativism, pragmatism), etc.
Starting from nominalism, we can trace the entire path of historical liberalism, from Roscelin and Occam to Soros and Biden. For convenience, let us divide this history into three phases.
The first phase was the introduction of nominalism into the realm of religion. The collective identity of the Church, as understood by Catholicism (and even more so by Orthodoxy), was replaced by Protestants as individuals who could henceforth interpret Scripture based on their reasoning alone and rejecting any tradition. Thus many aspects of Christianity – the sacraments, miracles, angels, reward after death, the end of the world, etc. – have been reconsidered and discarded as not meeting the “rational criteria”.
The church as the “mystical body of Christ” was destroyed and replaced by hobby clubs created by free consent from below. This created a large number of disputing Protestant sects. In Europe and in England itself, where nominalism had borne its most thorough fruit, the process was somewhat subdued, and the most rabid Protestants rushed to the New World and established their own society there. Later, after the struggle with the metropolis, the United States emerged.
Parallel to the destruction of the Church as a “collective identity” (something “common”), the estates began to be abolished. The social hierarchy of priests, aristocracy, and peasants was replaced by undefined “townspeople”, according to the original meaning of the word “bourgeois”. The bourgeoisie supplanted all other strata of European society. But the bourgeois was exactly the best “individual,” a citizen without clan, tribe, or profession, but with private property. And this new class began to reconstruct all of European society.
At the same time, the supranational unity of the Papal See and the Western Roman Empire – as another expression of “collective identity” – was also abolished. In its place was established an order based on sovereign nation-states, a kind of “political individual”. After the end of the 30-year war, the Peace of Westphalia consolidated this order.
Thus, by the middle of the 17th century, a bourgeois order (that is, capitalism), had emerged in the main features in Western Europe.
The philosophy of the new order was in many ways anticipated by Thomas Hobbes and developed by John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Adam Smith applied these principles to the economic field, giving rise to liberalism as an economic ideology. In fact, capitalism, based on the systematic implementation of nominalism, became a coherent systemic worldview. The meaning of history and progress was henceforth to “liberate the individual from all forms of collective identity” to the logical limit.
By the twentieth century, through the period of colonial conquests, Western European capitalism had become a global reality. The nominalist approach prevailed in science and culture, in politics and economics, in the very everyday thinking of the people of the West and of all humanity.
In the twentieth century, capitalism faced a new challenge. This time, it was not the usual forms of collective identity – religious, class, professional, etc. – but artificial and also modern theories (like liberalism itself) that rejected individualism and opposed it with new forms of collective identity (combined conceptually).
Socialists, social democrats and communists countered liberals with class identities, calling on workers around the world to unite to overturn the power of the global bourgeoisie. This strategy proved effective, and in some major countries (though not in those industrialized and Western countries where Karl Marx, the founder of communism, had hoped), proletarian revolutions were won.
Parallel to the communists occurred, this time in Western Europe, the seizure of power by extreme nationalist forces. They acted in the name of the “nation” or a “race,” again contrasting liberal individualism with something “common,” some “collective being”.
The new opponents of liberalism no longer belonged to the inertia of the past, as in previous stages, but represented modernist projects developed in the West itself. But they were also built on a rejection of individualism and nominalism. This was clearly understood by the theorists of liberalism (above all, by Hayek and his disciple Popper), who united “communists” and “fascists” under the common name of “enemies of the open society”, and began a deadly war with them.
By tactically using Soviet Russia, capitalism initially succeeded in dealing with the fascist regimes, and this was the ideological result of World War II. The ensuing Cold War between East and West by the end of the 1980s ended in a liberal victory over the Communists.
Thus, the project of liberation of the individual from all forms of collective identity and “ideological progress” as understood by liberals went through another stage. In the 1990s, liberal theorists began to talk about the “end of history” (F. Fukuyama) and the “unipolar moment” (C. Krauthammer).
This was a vivid proof of the entry of capitalism in its most advanced phase – the stage of globalism. In fact, it was at this time in the U.S. ruling elites’ strategy of globalism triumphed – outlined in the First World War by Wilson’s 14 points, but at the end of the Cold War united the elite of both parties – Democrats and Republicans, represented mainly by “neoconservatives”.
After defeating its last ideological foe, the socialist camp, capitalism has come to a crucial point. Individualism, the market, the ideology of human rights, democracy and Western values had won on a global scale. It would seem that the agenda is fulfilled – no one opposes “individualism” and nominalism with anything serious or systemic anymore.
In this period, capitalism enters its third phase. On closer inspection, after defeating the external enemy, liberals have discovered two more forms of collective identity. First of all, gender. After all, gender is also something collective: either masculine or feminine. So the next step was the destruction of gender as something objective, essential, and irreplaceable.
Gender required abolition, as did all other forms of collective identity, which had been abolished even earlier.
Hence gender politics, the transformation of the category of gender into something “optional” and dependent on individual choice. Here again we are dealing with the same nominalism: why double entities? A person is a person as an individual, while gender can be chosen arbitrarily, just as religion, profession, nation and way of life were chosen before.
This became the main agenda of liberal ideology in the 1990s, after the defeat of the Soviet Union. Yes, external opponents stood in the way of gender policy – those countries that still had the remnants of traditional society, the values of the family, etc., as well as conservative circles in the West itself. Combating conservatives and “homophobes,” that is, defenders of the traditional view of the existence of the sexes, has become the new goal of the adherents of progressive liberalism. Many leftists have joined in, replacing gender politics and immigration protection with earlier anti-capitalist goals.
With the success of institutionalizing gender norms and the success of mass migration, which is atomizing populations in the West itself (which also fits perfectly within an ideology of human rights that operates with the individual without regard to cultural, religious, social or national aspects), it became obvious that liberals had one last step left to take – to abolish humans.
After all, the human is also a collective identity, which means that it must be overcome, abolished, destroyed. This is what the principle of nominalism demands: a “person” is just a name, an empty shake of the air, an arbitrary and therefore always disputable classification. There is only the individual – human or not, male or female, religious or atheist, it depends on his choice.
Thus, the last step left for liberals, who have traveled centuries toward their goal, is to replace humans-albeit partially-by cyborgs, Artificial Intelligence networks, and products of genetic engineering. The human optional logically follows gender optional.
This agenda is already quite foreshadowed by posthumanism, postmodernism and speculative realism in philosophy, and technologically is becoming more and more realistic by the day. Futurologists and proponents of accelerating the historical process (accelerationists) are confidently looking into the near future when Artificial Intelligence will become comparable in basic parameters with human beings. This moment is called the Singularity. Its arrival is predicted within 10 to 20 years.
This is the context in which Biden’s sell-out victory in the U.S. should be placed. This is what the “Great Reset” or the slogan “Build Back Better” means.
In the 2000s, the globalists faced a number of problems that were not so much ideological as “civilizational” in nature. Since the late 1990s, there have been virtually no more or less coherent ideologies in the world that can challenge liberalism, capitalism and globalism. To varying degrees, but these principles have been accepted by all or almost all. Nevertheless, the implementation of liberalism and gender politics, as well as the abolition of nation-states in favor of World Government, has stalled on several fronts.
This was increasingly resisted by Putin’s Russia, which had nuclear weapons and a historical tradition of opposition to the West, as well as a number of conservative traditions preserved in society.
China, although actively engaged in globalization and liberal reforms, was in no hurry to apply them to the political system, maintaining the dominance of the Communist Party and refusing political liberalization. Moreover, under Xi Jinping, national trends in Chinese politics began to grow. Beijing has cleverly used the “open world” to pursue its national and even civilizational interests. And this was not part of the globalists’ plans.
Islamic countries continued their struggle against Westernization and, despite blockades and pressure, maintained (like Shiite Iran) their irreconcilably anti-Western and anti-liberal regimes. The policies of major Sunni states such as Turkey and Pakistan have become increasingly independent of the West.
In Europe, a wave of populism began to rise as indigenous European discontent with mass immigration and gender politics exploded. Europe’s political elites remained completely subordinated to the globalist strategy, as seen at the Davos Forum in the reports of its theorists Schwab and Prince Charles, but societies themselves came into movements and sometimes rose in direct revolt against the authorities – as in the case of the “yellow vests” protests in France. In some places, such as Italy, Germany, or Greece, populist parties have even made their way into parliament.
Finally, in 2016, in the United States itself, Donald Trump managed to become president, subjecting the globalist ideology, practices and goals to harsh and direct criticism. And he was supported by about half of Americans.
All these anti-globalist tendencies in the eyes of the globalists themselves could not help but add up to an ominous picture: the history of the last centuries, with its seemingly unbroken progress of the nominalists and liberals, was called into question. This was not simply the disaster of this or that political regime. It was the threat of the end of liberalism as such.
Even the theorists of globalism themselves sensed that something was wrong. Fukuyama, for example, abandoned his “end of history” thesis and suggested that nation-states still remain under the rule of liberal elites in order to better prepare the masses for the final transformation into posthumanity, supported by rigid methods. Another globalist, Charles Krauthammer, declared that the “unipolar moment” was over and that the globalist elites had failed to take advantage of it.
This is exactly the panic and almost hysterical state in which the representatives of the globalist elite have spent the last four years. And that is why the question of Trump’s removal as President of the United States was a matter of life and death for them. If Trump had kept his office, the collapse of the globalist strategy would have been irreversible.
But Biden succeeded – by hook or by crook – in ousting Trump and demonizing his supporters. This is where the Great Reset comes into play. There is really nothing new in it – it is a continuation of the main vector of Western European civilization in the direction of progress, interpreted in the spirit of liberal ideology and nominalist philosophy. Not much remains: to free individuals from the last forms of collective identity – to complete the abolition of gender and move toward a posthumanist paradigm.
Advances in high technology, the integration of societies into social networks, tightly controlled, as it now appears, by liberal elites in an openly totalitarian manner, and the refinement of ways of tracking and influencing the masses make the achievement of the global liberal goal close at hand.
But in order to make that decisive throw, they must, in an accelerated mode (and no longer paying attention to how it looks), swiftly clear the way for the finalization of history. And that means that Trump’s sweep is the signal to attack all other obstacles.
So we have determined our place on the scale of history. And in doing so, we got a fuller picture of what the Great Reset is all about. It is nothing less than the beginning of the “last battle”. The globalists, in their struggle for nominalism, liberalism, individual liberation and civil society, appear to themselves as “warriors of light,” bringing progress, liberation from thousands of years of prejudice, new possibilities – and perhaps even physical immortality and the wonders of genetic engineering, to the masses.
All who oppose them are, in their eyes, “forces of darkness”. And by this logic, the “enemies of open society” must be dealt with in their own severity. “If the enemy does not surrender, he will be destroyed.” The enemy is anyone who questions liberalism, globalism, individualism, nominalism in all their manifestations. This is the new ethic of liberalism. It’s nothing personal. Everyone has the right to be a liberal, but no one has the right to be anything else.
In a more limited context than the framework of the general history of liberalism from Ockham to Biden, Trump’s victory in the battle for the White House in the winter of 2020-2021, so wrenchingly painful for the Democrats as such was, also has enormous ideological significance. This has to do primarily with the processes unfolding within American society itself.
The fact is that after the fall of the Soviet Union and the onset of the “unipolar moment” in the 1990s, global liberalism had no external opponents. At least, it seemed so at the time in the context of the optimistic expectation of the “end of history”. Although such predictions proved premature, Fukuyama did not simply wonder if the future had arrived – he was strictly following the very logic of the liberal interpretation of history, and so, with some adjustments, his analysis was generally correct.
In fact, the norms of liberal democracy – the market, elections, capitalism, the recognition of “human rights,” the norms of “civil society,” adopting technocratic transformations, and a desire to embrace the development and implementation of high technology – especially digital technology – were in some way established throughout humanity. If some persisted in their aversion to globalization, this could be seen as mere inertia, as an unwillingness to be “blessed” with liberal progress.
In other words, it was not ideological opposition, but only an unfortunate nuisance. Civilizational differences were to be gradually erased. The adoption of capitalism by China, Russia, and the Islamic world would sooner or later entail processes of political democratization, the weakening of national sovereignty, and would eventually lead to the institution of a planetary system – a World Government. This was not a matter of ideological struggle, but a matter of time.
It was in this context that the globalists took further steps to advance their basic program of abolishing all residual forms of collective identity. This primarily concerned gender politics as well as the intensification of migration flows designed to permanently erode the cultural identity of Western societies themselves, including European and American societies. Thus, globalization dealt its main blow to its own.
In this context, an “enemy within” began to emerge in the West itself. This is all those forces that resented the destruction of sexual identity, the destruction of the remnants of cultural tradition (through migration) and the weakening of the middle class. The posthumanist horizons of the impending Singularity and the replacement of humans with Artificial Intelligence were also increasingly worrisome. And on the philosophical level, not all intellectuals accepted the paradoxical conclusions of Postmodernity and speculative realism.
In addition, there was a clear contradiction between the Western masses, living in the context of the old norms of Modernity, and the globalist elites, seeking at all costs to accelerate social, cultural and technological progress as understood in the liberal optic. Thus, a new ideological dualism began to take shape, this time within the West rather than outside it.
The enemies of the “open society” now appeared within Western civilization itself. They were those who rejected the latest liberal ends and did not accept gender politics, mass migration, or the abolition of nation-states and sovereignty.
At the same time, however, this growing resistance, generically referred to as “populism” (or “right-wing populism”), drew on the very same liberal ideology – capitalism and liberal democracy – but interpreted these “values” and “benchmarks” in the old rather than the new sense.
Freedom was conceived here as the freedom to hold any views, not just those that conformed to the norms of political correctness. Democracy was interpreted as majority rule. The freedom to change gender was to be combined with the freedom to remain faithful to family values. The willingness to accept migrants who expressed a desire and proved their ability to integrate into Western societies was strictly differentiated from the blanket acceptance of all without distinction accompanied by continuous apologies to any newcomers for their colonial past.
Gradually, the globalists’ “internal enemy”attained serious proportions and great influence. The old democracy challenged the new one.
This culminated in Donald Trump`s victory in 2016. Trump built his campaign on this very division of American society. The globalist candidate, Hillary Clinton, recklessly called Trump supporters, i.e., the “domestic enemy,” “deplorables,” which is to say “pathetic,” “regrettable”. The “deplorables ” responded by electing Trump.
Thus, the split within liberal democracy became a crucial political and ideological fact. Those who interpreted democracy in the “old way” (as majority rule) not only rebelled against the new interpretation (minority rule directed against the majority inclined to take a populist stand, fraught with … well, yes, of course, “fascism” or “Stalinism”), but managed to win and bring their candidate into the White House.
Trump, for his part, declared his intention to “drain the Swamp”, that is, to do away with liberalism in its globalist strategy and to “make America great again”. Note the word “again”. Trump wanted to return to the era of nation-states, to take a series of steps against the current of history (as liberals understood it). In other words, the “good old yesterday” was opposed to the “globalist today” and the “post-humanist tomorrow”.
The next four years were a real nightmare for the globalists. The globalist-controlled media accused Trump of every possible sin – including “working for the Russians” because the “Russians” also persisted in their rejection of the “brave new world”, sabotaging supranational institutions – up to and including the World Government – and preventing gay pride parades.
All opponents of liberal globalization were logically grouped together, including not only Putin, Xi Jinping, some Islamic leaders, but also – imagine this! – the President of the United States of America, the number one man of the “free world”. This was a disaster for the globalists. Until Trump was dumped – by means of the color revolutions, engineered riots, fraudulent ballot and vote-counting methods previously used only against other countries and regimes – they could not feel at ease.
It was only after having retaken the reins of the White House that the globalists began to come to their senses. And they went back to… the old stuff. But in their case, “old” (rebuilt) meant returning to the “unipolar moment” – to pre-Trump times.
Trump rode a wave of populism in 2016 that no other European leader has managed to do. Trump thus became a symbol of opposition to liberal globalization. Yes, it was not an alternative ideology, but merely a desperate resistance to the latest conclusions drawn from the logic and even metaphysics of liberalism (and nominalism). Trump was not at all challenging capitalism or democracy, but only the forms they had taken in their latest stage and their gradual, consistent implementation. But even this was enough to mark a fundamental split in American society.
This is how the phenomenon of “Trumpism” took shape, in many ways exceeding the scale of Donald Trump’s own personality. Trump played on the anti-globalization protest wave. But it is clear that he was not and is not an ideological figure. And yet, it was around him that the opposition bloc began to form. The American conservative Ann Coulter, the author of the book In Trump we Trust, has since reformulated her credo as “in Trumpism we trust”.
Not so much Trump himself, but rather his line of opposition to the globalists, has become the core of Trumpism. In his role as President, Trump was not always at the height of his own articulated task. And he was not able to accomplish anything even close to “draining the Swamp” and defeating globalism. But in spite of this, he became a center of attraction for all those who were aware of or simply sensed the danger emanating from the globalist elites and the representatives of Big Finance and Big Tech inseparable from them.
Thus, the core of Trumpism began to take shape.
The American conservative intellectual Steve Bannon played an important role in this process, mobilizing broad segments of young people and disparate conservative movements in support of Trump. Bannon himself was inspired by serious anti-modernist authors such as Julius Evola, and his opposition to globalism and liberalism therefore had deeper roots.
An important role in Trumpism was played by consistent paleo-conservatives – isolationists and nationalists – in the likes of Buchanan, Ron Paul, as well as adherents of anti-liberal and anti-modernist (therefore, fundamentally anti-globalist) philosophy, such as Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk, who had been marginalized by the neocons (the globalists from the right) since the 1980s.
The driving force of the mass mobilization of “Trumpists” came to be the networked organization QAnon, which couched its criticism of liberalism, democrats and globalists in the form of conspiracy theories. They spread a torrent of accusations and denunciations of globalists as involved in sex scandals, pedophilia, corruption and satanism.
True intuitions about the sinister nature of liberal ideology – made evident in the latest stages of its triumphant spread over humanity – were formulated by QAnon supporters at the level of the average American and mass consciousness, which are hardly inclined towards in-depth philosophical and ideological analysis. In parallel, QAnon expanded its influence, but at the same time gave anti-liberal criticism grotesque traits.
It was the QAnon supporters, as the vanguard of mass conspiracy populism, who led the protests on January 6, when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol outraged by the stolen election. They did not achieve any goal, but only gave Biden and the Democrats an excuse to further demonize “Trumpism” and all opponents of globalism, equating any conservative with “extremism.” A wave of arrests followed, and the most consistent “New Democrats” suggested that all social rights – including the ability to buy plane tickets – should be taken away from Trump supporters.
Since social media is regularly monitored by supporters of the liberal elite, gathering information about almost all US citizens and their political preferences posed no problem. So Biden’s arrival in the White House means that liberalism has taken on frankly totalitarian features.
From now on, Trumpism, populism, the defense of family values, and any hint of conservatism or disagreement with the tenets of globalist liberalism in the US will be nearly equivalent to a crime – to hate speech and “fascism.”
Still, Trumpism did not disappear with Biden’s victory. In one way or another, it still has those who cast their votes for Donald Trump in the last election – and that is more than 70,000,000 voters.
So it is clear that “Trumpism” will by no means end with Trump. Half of the US population has actually found itself in a position of radical opposition, and the most consistent Trumpists represent the core of the anti-globalization underground within the citadel of globalism itself.
Something similar is happening in European countries, where populist movements and parties are increasingly aware that they are dissidents deprived of all rights and subject to ideological persecution under apparent globalist dictatorship.
No matter how much the globalists who have retaken power in the US want to present the previous four years as an “unfortunate misunderstanding” and declare their victory as the final “return to normality”, the objective picture is far from the soothing spells of the globalist upper class. Not only countries with a different civilizational identity are mobilizing against it and against its ideology, but this time also half of its own population, gradually coming to realize the seriousness of its situation and beginning to search for an ideological alternative.
These are the conditions under which Biden has come to head the United States. American soil itself is burning under the feet of the globalists. And this gives the situation of “the final battle” a special, additional dimension. This is not the West against the East, not the US and NATO against everyone else, but liberals against humanity – including that segment of humanity which finds itself on the territory of the West itself, but which is turning more and more away from its own globalist elites. This is what defines the starting conditions of this battle.
One more essential point needs to be made clear. We have seen that the entire history of liberalism is the successive liberation of the individual from all forms of collective identity. The final accord in the process of this logically perfect implementation of nominalism will be the transition to posthumanism and the probable replacement of humanity with another – this time posthuman – machine civilization. This is what consistent individualism, taken as something absolute, leads to.
But here liberal philosophy arrives at a fundamental paradox. The liberation of the individual from their human identity, for which gender politics prepares them by consciously and purposefully transforming the human being into a perverted monster, cannot guarantee that this new – progressive! – being will remain an individual.
Moreover, the development of networked computer technologies, genetic engineering, and object-oriented ontology itself, which represents the culmination of Postmodernism, clearly point to the fact that the “new being” will not be so much an “animal” as a “machine”. It is with this in mind that the horizons of “immortality” are likely to be offered in the form of the artificial preservation of personal memories (which are quite easy to simulate).
Thus, the individual of the future, as the fulfillment of the whole program of liberalism, will not be able to guarantee precisely that which has been the main goal of liberal progress – that is, their individuality. The liberal being of the future, even in theory, is not an individuum, something “indivisible,” but rather a “dividuum,” i.e. something divisible and made up of replaceable parts. Such is the machine – it is composed of a combination of parts.
In theoretical physics, there has long been a transition from the theory of “atoms” (i.e. “indivisible units of matter”) to the theory of particles, which are thought of not as “parts of something whole” but as “parts without a whole.” The individual as a whole also decomposes into component parts, which can be reassembled, but can also not be assembled, instead used as a bioconstructor. Hence the figures of mutants, chimeras and monsters that abound in modern fiction, populating the most imagined (and therefore, in a sense, anticipated and even planned) versions of the future.
The Postmodernists and speculative realists have already prepared the ground for this by proposing to replace the human body as something whole with the idea of a “parliament of organs” (B. Latour). In this way, the individual – even as a biological unit – would become something else, mutating precisely the moment it reaches its absolute embodiment.
Human progress in the liberal interpretation inevitably ends with the abolition of humanity.
This is what all those taking up the fight against globalism and liberalism suspect, albeit very vaguely. Although QAnon and their anti-liberal conspiracy theories only distort reality by lending suspect, grotesque traits which liberals can easily refute, reality, when described soberly and objectively, is far more frightening than its most alarming and monstrous premonitions.
“The Great Reset” is indeed a plan for the elimination of humanity. For this is precisely the conclusion that the line of liberally understood “progress” logically leads to: striving to free the individual from all forms of collective identity cannot fail to result in the freeing of the individual from himself.
We are nearing a thesis that represents the direct opposite of the “Great Reset”: the thesis of the “Great Awakening.”
This slogan was first put forth by American anti-globalists, such as the host of the alternative TV channel Infowars, Alex Jones, who was subjected to globalist censorship and de-platforming from social networks in the first phase of the Trump presidency, and QAnon activists. It is important that this is happening in the US, where bitterness has raged between the globalist elites and the populists who had their own President, albeit for only four years and stiffened by administrative obstacles and the limitations of their own ideological horizons.
Unencumbered by serious ideological and philosophical baggage, anti-globalists have been able to grasp the essence of the most important processes unfolding in the modern world. Globalism, liberalism and the Great Reset, as expressions of the determination of liberal elites to see their plans through to the end, by any means – including outright dictatorship, large-scale repression and campaigns of total disinformation – have encountered growing and increasingly conscious resistance.
Alex Jones ends his programs with the same rallying cry – “You are the Resistance!”. In this case, Alex Jones himself or the activists of QAnon do not have strictly defined worldviews. In this sense, they are representatives of the masses, the same “deplorables” who were so painfully humiliated by Hillary Clinton. What is now awakening is not a camp of ideological opponents of liberalism, the enemies of capitalism, or ideological opponents of democracy. They are not even conservatives. They are just people – people as such, the most ordinary and simple. But… people who want to be and remain human, to have and keep their freedom, gender, culture, and living, concrete ties to their Homeland, to the world around them, to the people.
The Great Awakening is not about elites and intellectuals, but about the people, about the masses, about people as such.
And the Awakening in question is not about ideological analysis. It is a spontaneous reaction of the masses, hardly competent in philosophy, who have suddenly realized, like cattle before the slaughterhouse, that their fate has already been decided by their rulers and that there is no more room for people in the future.
The Great Awakening is spontaneous, largely unconscious, intuitive and blind. It is by no means an outlet for awareness, for conclusion, for deep historical analysis. As we have seen in the Capitol footage, the Trumpist activists and QAnon participants look like characters from comic books or Marvel superheroes. Conspiracy is an infantile disease of anti-globalization. But, on the other hand, it is the beginning of a fundamental historical process. This is how the pole of opposition to the very course of history in its liberal sense is emerging.
This is why the thesis of the Great Awakening should not be hastily loaded with ideological details, whether fundamental conservatism (including religious conservatism), traditionalism, the Marxist critique of capital, or anarchist protesting for protesting’s sake. The Great Awakening is something more organic, more spontaneous and at the same time tectonic. This is how humanity is suddenly being illuminated by consciousness of the nearness of its imminent end.
And that is why the Great Awakening is so serious. And that is why it is coming from within the United States, that civilization where the twilight of liberalism is thickest. It is a cry from the center of hell itself, from that zone where the black future has already partly arrived.
The Great Awakening is the spontaneous response of the human masses to the Great Reset. Of course, one can be skeptical. The liberal elites, especially today, control all major civilizational processes. They control the world’s finances and can do anything with them, from unlimited issuing to any manipulation of financial instruments and structures. In their hands is the entire US military machine and the management of NATO allies. Biden promises to reinforce Washington’s influence in this structure, which has almost disintegrated in recent years.
Almost all of the giants of High Tech are subordinate to the liberals – computers, iPhones, servers, phones and social networks are strictly controlled by a few monopolists who are members of the globalist club. This means that Big Data, that is, the entire body of information about virtually the entire population of the earth, has an owner and master.
Technology, science centers, global education, culture, media, medicine and social services are completely in their hands.
The liberals in governments and power circles are the organic components of these planetary networks which all have the same headquarters.
The intelligence services of Western countries and their agents in other regimes work for the globalists, whether recruited or bribed, forced to cooperate or as volunteers.
One wonders: how in this situation can the supporters of the “Great Awakening” revolt against globalism? How – without having any resources – can they effectively confront the global elite? What weapons to use? What strategy to follow? And, furthermore, on which ideology to rely? – because liberals and globalists around the world are united and have a common idea, a common goal and a common line, while their opponents are disparate not only in different societies, but also within one and the same.
Of course, these contradictions in the ranks of the opposition are further exacerbated by the ruling elites, who are used to dividing in order to dominate. Muslims are pitted against Christians, leftists against rightists, Europeans against Russians or Chinese, etc.
But the Great Awakening is happening not because of, but in spite of all this. Humanity itself, man as eidos, man as common, man as a collective identity, and in all its forms at once, organic and artificial, historical and innovative, Eastern and Western, is rebelling against the liberals.
The Great Awakening is just the beginning. It has not even begun yet. But the fact that it has a name, and that this name has appeared in the very epicenter of ideological and historical transformations, in the United States, against the background of Trump’s dramatic defeat, the desperate takeover of the Capitol, and the rising wave of liberal repression, as the globalists no longer hide the totalitarian nature of both their theory and their practice, is of great (maybe crucial) importance.
The Great Awakening against the “Great Reset” is humanity’s revolt against the ruling liberal elites. Moreover, it is the rebellion of Man against his age-old enemy, the enemy of the human race itself.
If there are those who proclaim the “Great Awakening,” as naive as their formulas may seem, this already means that not all is lost, that a kernel of Resistance is maturing in the masses, that they are beginning to mobilize. From this moment on begins the history of a worldwide revolt, a revolt against the Great Awakening and its adepts.
The Great Awakening is a flash of consciousness at the threshold of the Singularity. It is the last opportunity to make an alternative decision about the content and direction of the future. The complete replacement of human beings with new entities, new divinities, cannot simply be imposed by force from above. The elites must seduce humanity, obtain from it – albeit vaguely – some consent. The Great Awakening calls for a decisive “No”!
This is not yet the end of the war, not even the war itself. Moreover, it has not yet begun. But it is the possibility of such a beginning. A New Beginning in the History of Man.
Of course, the Great Awakening is completely unprepared.
As we have seen, in the U.S. itself, the opponents of liberalism, both Trump and the Trumpists are ready to reject the last stage of liberal democracy, but they do not even think of a full-fledged critique of capitalism. They defend yesterday and today against a looming, ominous tomorrow. But they lack a fully-fledged ideological horizon. They are trying to save the previous stage of the very same liberal democracy, the very same capitalism, from its late and more advanced stages. And this in itself contains a contradiction.
The contemporary left also has limits in its critique of capitalism, both because it shares a materialist understanding of history (Marx agreed on the need for world capitalism, which he hoped would then be overcome by the world proletariat) and because the socialist and communist movements have recently been taken over by liberals and reoriented from waging class war against capitalism to protecting migrants, sexual minorities and fighting imaginary “fascists”.
The right, on the other hand, is confined to its nation-states and cultures, not seeing that the peoples of other civilizations are in the same desperate situation. The bourgeois nations that emerged at the dawn of the modern age represent a vestige of bourgeois civilization. This civilization today is destroying and abolishing what it itself created just yesterday, in the meanwhile using all the limitations of national identity to keep humanity in a fragmented and conflicted state from confronting the globalists.
Therefore, there is the Great Awakening, but it does not yet have an ideological basis. If it is truly historical, and not an ephemeral and purely peripheral phenomenon, then it simply needs a foundation – one that goes beyond the existing political ideologies that emerged in Modern times in the West itself. Turning to any of them would automatically mean that we find ourselves in the ideological captivity of the formation of capital.
So, in seeking a platform for the Great Awakening that has erupted in the United States, we must look beyond American society and the rather short American history and look to other civilizations, above all to the non-liberal ideologies of Europe itself, for inspiration. But even this is not enough, because along with the deconstruction of liberalism, we must find support in the different civilizations of humanity, far from exhausted by the West where the main threat comes from and where – in Davos, in Switzerland! – the “Great Reset” was proclaimed.
“The Great Reset” wants to make the world unipolar again in order to move towards a globalist non-polarity, where the elites will become fully international and their residence will be dispersed throughout the entire space of the planet. This is why globalism brings about the end of the US as a country, a state, a society. This is what the Trumpists and supporters of the Great Awakening sense, sometimes intuitively. Biden is a sentence passed on the United States. And from the US to everyone else.
Accordingly, for the salvation of people, peoples, and societies, the Great Awakening must begin with multipolarity. This is not just the salvation of the West itself, and not even the salvation of everyone else from the West, but the salvation of humanity, both Western and non-Western, from the totalitarian dictatorship of the liberal capitalist elites. And this cannot be done by the people of the West or the people of the East alone. Here it is necessary to act together. The Great Awakening necessitates an internationalization of the peoples’ struggle against the internationalization of the elites.
Multipolarity becomes the most important reference point and the key to the strategy of the Great Awakening. Only by appealing to all nations, cultures and civilizations of humanity are we able to gather enough forces to effectively oppose the “Great Reset” and the orientation toward the Singularity.
But in this case the whole picture of the inevitable final confrontation turns out to be far less desperate. If we take a look at all that could become the poles of the Great Awakening, the situation presents itself in a somewhat different light. The Internationale of Peoples, once we begin to think in these categories, turns out to be neither a utopia nor an abstraction. Moreover, we can easily already see enormous potential and how such can be harnessed in the struggle against the “Great Reset”.
Let us briefly list the reserves on which the Great Awakening can count on a global scale.
In the US, we have a foothold in Trumpism. Although Trump himself lost, this does not mean that he himself has washed his hands, resigned to a stolen victory, and that his supporters – 70,000,000 Americans – have settled down and taken liberal dictatorship as a given. They have not. From now on, there is a powerful anti-globalist underground in the US itself, large in number (half the population!), embittered, and driven to despise liberal totalitarianism. The dystopia of Orwell’s 1984 was not embodied in a communist or fascist regime, but is now in a liberal one. But the experience of both Soviet communism and even Nazi Germany show that resistance is always possible.
Today, the US is essentially in a state of civil war. The liberal-Bolsheviks have seized power, and their opponents have been thrown into opposition and are on the verge of going illegal. An opposition of 70,000,000 people is serious. Of course, they are scattered and may be in disarray by the punitive raids of the Democrats and the new totalitarian technology of Big Tech.
But it is too early to write off the American people. Clearly, they still have some margin of strength, and half of the US population is ready to defend their individual freedom at any cost. And today the question is exactly this: Biden or freedom. Of course, liberals will try to abolish the Second Amendment and disarm the population, which is becoming less and less loyal to the globalist elite. It is likely that the Democrats will try to kill the two-party system itself by introducing an essentially one-party regime, quite in the spirit of the current state of their ideology. This is liberal-Bolshevism.
But civil wars never have foregone conclusions. History is open, and victory for either side is always possible. Especially if humanity realizes how important the American opposition is to the universal victory over globalism. No matter how we feel about the US, about Trump and the Trumpists, we all simply must support the American pole of the Great Awakening. Saving America from the globalists, and thus helping to make it great again, is our common task.
The wave of anti-liberal populism is not subsiding in Europe either. Although the globalist Macron has managed to contain the violent protests of the “Yellow Vests” and the Italian and German liberals have isolated and blocked right-wing parties and their leaders from coming to power, these processes are unstoppable. Populism expresses the same Great Awakening, but only on European soil and with European specificity.
For this pole of resistance, a new ideological reflection is extremely important. European societies are much more ideologically active than Americans, and thus the traditions of right-wing and left-wing politics – and their inherent contradictions – are much more keenly felt.
It is precisely these contradictions that the liberal elites are taking advantage of in order to maintain their position in the European Union.
The fact is that hatred for liberals in Europe is growing simultaneously from two sides: the left sees them as representatives of big capital, exploiters who have lost all decency, and the right sees them as provocateurs of artificial mass migration, destroyers of the last vestiges of traditional values, destroyers of European culture and the gravediggers of the middle class. At the same time, for the most part, both right-wing and left-wing populists have put aside traditional ideologies that no longer meet historical needs, and express their views in new forms, sometimes contradictory and fragmentary.
The rejection of the ideologies of orthodox communism and nationalism is generally positive; it gives the populists a new, much broader base. But it is also their weakness.
However, the most fatal thing about European populism is not so much its de-ideologization as the persistence of the deep, mutual rejection between left and right that has persisted since previous historical eras.
The emergence of a European pole of the Great Awakening must involve the resolution of these two ideological tasks: the final overcoming of the boundary between the left and the right (that is, the obligatory rejection of contrived “anti-fascism” by some and of contrived “anti-communism” by others) and the elevation of populism as such – integral populism – into an independent ideological model. Its meaning and its message should be a radical critique of liberalism and its highest stage, globalism, at the same time combining the demand for social justice and the preservation of traditional cultural identity.
In this case, European populism will, first and foremost, acquire a critical mass that is fatally lacking as right-wing and left-wing populists waste time and effort on settling scores with each other, and, secondly, it will become a most important pole of the Great Awakening.
The opponents of the Great Reset have another significant argument: contemporary China. Yes, China has taken advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization to strengthen the economy of its society. But China has not accepted the very spirit of globalism, the liberalism, individualism and nominalism of globalist ideology. China has taken from the West only what has made it stronger, but rejected what would make it weaker. This is a dangerous game, but so far China has successfully coped with this.
In fact, China is a traditional society with thousands of years of history and a stable identity. And it clearly intends to remain such in the future. This is particularly clear in the policies of China’s current leader, Xi Jinping. He is ready to make tactical compromises with the West, but he is strict about ensuring that China’s sovereignty and independence only grow and strengthen.
That the globalists and Biden would act in solidarity with China is a myth. Yes, Trump relied on it and Bannon said so, but this is the result of a narrow geopolitical horizon and a profound misunderstanding of the essence of Chinese civilization. China will follow its line and strengthen multipolar structures. In fact, China is the most important pole of the Great Awakening, a point which will become clear if we take as a starting point the need for an internationalization of peoples. China is a people with a distinct collective identity. Chinese individualism does not exist at all, and if it does, it is a cultural anomaly. Chinese civilization is the triumph of clan, folk, order and structure over all individuality.
Of course, the Great Awakening must not become Chinese. It should not be uniform at all – for every nation, every culture, every civilization has its own spirit and its own eidos. Humanity is diverse. And its unity can be felt most keenly only when it is confronted with a serious threat that looms over them all. And this is precisely what the Great Reset is.
Another argument of the Great Awakening lies with the peoples of Islamic civilization. That liberal globalism and Western hegemony are radically rejected by Islamic culture and the very Islamic religion on which that culture is based is obvious. Of course, during the colonial period and under the power and economic influence of the West, some Islamic states found themselves in the orbit of capitalism, but in virtually all Islamic countries there is a sustained and profound rejection of liberalism and especially of modern globalist liberalism.
This manifests itself both in extreme forms – Islamic fundamentalism – and in moderate ones. In some cases, individual religious or political movements become carriers of the anti-liberal initiative, while in other cases the state itself takes on this mission. In any case, Islamic societies are ideologically prepared for systemic and active opposition to liberal globalization. The Great Reset’s projects do not contain anything, even theoretically, that might appeal to Muslims. That is why the entire Islamic world as a whole represents one huge pole of the Great Awakening.
Among the Islamic countries, Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey are the most in opposition to the globalist strategy.
Moreover, if Iran’s main motivation is the religious idea of the approaching end of the world and the last battle, where the main enemy – Dajjal – is clearly recognized as the West, liberalism and globalism, then Turkey is driven more by pragmatic considerations, by the desire to strengthen and preserve its national sovereignty and ensure Turkish influence in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Erdogan’s policy of gradually moving away from NATO combines the national tradition of Kemal Ataturk with a desire to play the role of the leader of Sunni Muslims, but both are achievable only in opposition to liberal globalization, which envisions the complete secularization of societies. the weakening (and, in the limit, the abolition) of nation-states, and in the interim granting political autonomy to minority ethnic groups, a move which would be devastating for Turkey due to the large and quite active Kurdish factor.
Sunni Pakistan, which represents another form of combining national and Islamic politics, is gradually drifting further and further away from the United States and the West.
Although the Gulf countries are more dependent on the West, a closer look at Arabian Islam, and even more so Egypt, which is another important and independent state in the Islamic world, reveals social systems that have nothing to do with the globalist agenda and are naturally predisposed to side with the Great Awakening.
This is hindered only by the contradictions between Muslims themselves, skillfully aggravated by the West and globalist control centers, not only between Shia and Sunni but also regional conflicts between individual Sunni states themselves.
The context of the Great Awakening could become an ideological platform for the unification of the Islamic world as a whole as well, since opposition to the “Great Reset” is an unconditional imperative for almost every Islamic country. This is what makes it possible to take the globalists’ strategy and opposition to it as the common denominator. Awareness of the scale of the Great Awakening would allow, within certain limits, to cancel out the acuteness of local contradictions so as to contribute to the formation of another pole of global resistance.
Finally, the most important pole of the Great Awakening is intended for Russia. Despite the fact that Russia has been partly involved in Western civilization, through the Enlightenment culture during the Tsarist period, under the Bolsheviks, and especially after 1991, at every stage – in antiquity as well as in the present – the deep identity of Russian society is deeply distrustful of the West, especially of liberalism and globalization. Nominalism is deeply alien to the Russian people in its very foundations.
Russian identity has always prioritized the common – the clan, folk, church, tradition, nation, and power, and even communism represented – albeit artificial, in class terms – a collective identity opposed to bourgeois individualism. Russians stubbornly rejected and continue to reject nominalism in all its forms. And this is a common platform for both the monarchist and Soviet periods.
After the failed attempt to integrate into the global community in the 1990s, thanks to the failure of liberal reforms, Russian society became even more convinced of the extent to which globalism and individualistic attitudes and principles are alien to Russians. This is what determines the general support for Putin’s conservative and sovereign course. Russians reject the “Great Reset” both from the right and from the left – and this, together with historical traditions, collective identity, and the perception of sovereignty and state freedom as the highest value, is not a momentary, but a long-term, fundamental feature of Russian civilization.
The rejection of liberalism and globalization has become particularly acute in recent years, as liberalism itself has revealed its deeply repulsive features to Russian consciousness. This justified a certain sympathy among Russians for Trump and a parallel deep disgust for his liberal opponents.
On Biden’s side, the attitude to Russia is quite symmetrical. He and the globalist elites in general view Russia as the main civilizational opponent, stubbornly refusing to accept the vector of liberal progressivism and fiercely defending its political sovereignty and its identity.
Of course, even today’s Russia does not have a complete and coherent ideology that could pose a serious challenge to the Great Reset. In addition, the liberal elites entrenched at the top of society are still strong and influential in Russia, and liberal ideas, theories and methods still dominate the economy, education, culture and science. All of this weakens Russia’s potential, disorients society, and sets the stage for growing internal contradictions. But, on the whole, Russia is the most important – if not the main! – pole of the Great Awakening.
This is exactly what all of Russian history has led up to, expressing an inner conviction that Russians are facing something great and decisive in the dramatic situation of the End Times, the end of history. But it is precisely this end, in its worst version, that the Great Reset project implies. The victory of globalism, nominalism and the coming of the Singularity would mean the failure of the Russian historical mission, not only in the future but also in the past. After all, the meaning of Russian history has been directed precisely towards the future, and the past was only preparation for it.
And in this future, which is now approaching, the role of Russia is not only to take an active part in the Great Awakening, but also to stand in the forefront of it, proclaiming the imperative of the Internationale of Peoples in the fight against liberalism, the plague of the 21st century.
What does it mean for Russia in such circumstances to “awaken”? It means fully restoring Russia’s historical, geopolitical, and civilizational scale, becoming a pole of the new multipolar world.
Russia has never been “just a country”, much less “just one among other European countries.” For all the unity of our roots with Europe, which go back to Greco-Roman culture, Russia at all stages of its history has followed its own particular path. This also had an impact on our firm and unwavering choice of Orthodoxy and Byzantinism in general, which largely determined our estrangement from Western Europe, which chose Catholicism and later Protestantism. In the modern age, this same factor of profound distrust of the West was reflected in the fact that we were not so affected by the very spirit of Modernism in nominalism, individualism, and liberalism. And even when we borrowed some doctrines and ideologies from the West, they were often critical, i.e. they contained in themselves the rejection of the main – liberal-capitalistic – way of development of Western European civilization, which was so close to us.
Russia’s identity was also greatly influenced by the Eastern – Turanian – vector. As the Eurasianist philosophers, including the great Russian historian Lev Gumilev, have shown, the Mongol statehood of Genghis Khan was an important lesson for Russia in centralized organization of the imperial type, which largely predetermined our rise as a Great Power since the 15th century, when the Golden Horde collapsed and Muscovite Russia took its place in the space of North-East Eurasia. This continuity with the geopolitics of the Horde naturally led to the powerful expansion of subsequent eras. At every turn, Russia has defended and asserted not only its interests, but also its values.
Thus, Russia has turned out to be the heir to two empires that collapsed at approximately the same time, in the 15th century: the Byzantine and the Mongol empires. Empire became our fate. Even in the 20th century, with all the radicalism of the Bolshevik reforms, Russia remained an empire against all odds, this time in the guise of the Soviet empire.
This means that our revival is inconceivable without returning to the imperial mission laid down in our historical destiny.
This mission is diametrically opposed to the globalist project of the “Great Reset”. And it would be natural to expect that in their decisive rush the globalists will do everything in their power to prevent an Imperial Renaissance in Russia. Accordingly, we need exactly that: an Imperial Renaissance. Not to impose our Russian and Orthodox truth on the other peoples, cultures and civilizations, but to revive, fortify and defend our identity and to help others in their own renaissance, to fortify and defend their own as much as we can. Russia is not the only target of the “Great Reset”, although in many ways our country is the main obstacle to the execution of their plans. But this is our mission – to be the “Katechon”, “”the one who withholds”, preventing the arrival of the last evil in the world.
However, in the eyes of the globalists, other traditional civilizations, cultures and societies are also to be subject to dismantling, reformatting and transformation into an undifferentiated global cosmopolitan mass, and in the near future to be replaced by new – posthuman – forms of life, organisms, mechanisms, or their hybrids. Therefore, the imperial awakening of Russia is called upon to be a signal for a universal uprising of peoples and cultures against the liberal globalist elites. Through rebirth as an Empire, as an Orthodox Empire, Russia will set an example for other Empires – the Chinese, Turkish, Persian, Arab, Indian, as well as the Latin American, African… and the European. Instead of the dominance of one single globalist “Empire” of the Great Reset, the Russian awakening should be the beginning of an era of many Empires, reflecting and embodying the richness of human cultures, traditions, religions, and value systems.
If we add together US Trumpism, European populism (both right and left), China, the Islamic world and Russia, and foresee that at some point the great Indian civilization, Latin America, and Africa, which is entering another round of decolonization, and all the peoples and cultures of humanity in general may also join this camp, we have not mere scattered and confused marginals trying to object to the powerful liberal elites leading humanity to the final slaughter, but a fully-fledged front including actors of various scales, from great powers with planetary economies and nuclear weapons to influential and numerous political, religious and social forces and movements.
The power of the globalists, after all, is based on insinuations and “black miracles”. They rule not on the basis of real power, but on illusions, simulacra, and artificial images, which they maniacally try to instill in the minds of mankind.
After all, the Great Reset was proclaimed by a handful of degenerate and panting old globalist men on the verge of dementia (like Biden himself, the shriveled villain Soros, or the fat burgher Schwab) and a marginal, perverted rabble selected to illustrate the lightning-quick career opportunities for all deplorables. Of course, they have the stock exchanges and the printing presses, the Wall Street crooks and the Silicon Valley inventor junkies working for them. Disciplined intelligence operatives and obedient army generals are subordinate to them. But this is negligible compared to all of humanity, to the people of labor and thought, to the depths of religious institutions and the fundamental richness of cultures.
The Great Awakening means that we have figured out the essence of that fatal, both murderous and suicidal strategy of “progress” as the globalist liberal elites understand it. And if we understand it, then we are capable of explaining it to others. The awakened can and must awaken everyone else. And if we succeed in this, not only will the “Great Reset” fail, but a just judgment will be passed upon those who have made it their goal to destroy humanity, first in spirit and now in body.
by Calistrat Atudorei An avalanche of information that has emerged in recent days leads to…
by John Ratcliffe, U.S. director of National Intelligence Dec. 3, 2020 As Director of National…
by Francisco Dominguez This 4th September marked 50 years since the electoral victory of Salvador…
This article is an excerpt from the coming English version of Atudorei’s book: Planurile Americii Pentru…
by Calistrat Atudorei The situation of Romania before 1989 and today Romania is a former…
What is Non-Alignment? Many writers have used the term non-alignment to be synonymous to terms…
This website uses cookies.
Leave a Comment