Multipolarity and open society

We also know Epstein’s proximity to Ehud Barak, a proximity that was revealed by the Daily Mail photos where we can see Ehud Barak „entering Jeffrey Epstein’s residence in New York in 2016, his face partially hidden, and others of young women entering the residence on the same day„. Ehud Barak, who announced at the end of June 2019 „the end of the Netanyahu era”, found himself propelled as an amateur of underage girls in the headlines of the Daily Mail, the second largest British daily newspaper in terms of sales. This is in the middle of a period of tensions on Brexit. Brexit supported by the Trump administration against the Sorosian Euro-globalists. Ehud Barak is also regularly accused by the Israeli right of being supported by Soros and its Israeli relays. Netanyahu was thus the first to be delighted with the sordid revelations about Ehud Barak. Revelations that occurred shortly before the recent Israeli legislative elections and that were expected to be difficult for Likud.

We see here a Trump-Netanyahu axis confronting an international Clinton-Epstein-Barak-Soros left. And that is only the most salient point of this confrontation, because on the most divisive social issues such as abortion, LGBT communitarianism or national identity, these two orientations of the Western world regularly face each other and diverge.

At the end of my study on Soros networks I spoke of „unity and division within political Judaism”, this line of tension has only increased since then. The very influential neo-conservative Daniel Pipes goes so far as to speak of a „frontal opposition between the State of Israel and the European Jewish establishment”. Daniel Pipes thus accuses the Jewish left of the diaspora of refusing the alliance that Jews should make with Western conservatives and populists; an alliance that would make it possible to counter Israel’s and the West’s enemies, the left and Islam. This is the line of denunciation of „Islamo-left-wing” that Golnadel, Elizabeth Levy, Ivan Rioufol, Eric Zemmour etc. or the media such as the magazine l’Incorrect follow in France. It is a strategy that aims to push European nations towards a Judeo-Western American-Centric alliance in the face of Sorosian cosmopolitanism. This is a geopolitical trend that has always existed in the United States, where Robert Strausz-Hupé (of Jewish and Huguenot descent) founded the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) in the 1950s, an influential geopolitical training center that aimed to conceptually rearm America in the context of the Cold War.

Robert Strausz was in a way the father of neoconservatism, he theorized the idea of a decadent Europe that had to be saved from the clutches of Russian, Chinese and Arab Asia. To do this, Europe had to be managed as a province of an American empire comparable to the role the Roman Empire played for Greek cities against the Asian Persian empire. He also theorized the idea of an American universal empire, an armed scout for global democracy. An idea that will be taken up by the neo-conservatives of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990s.

Neo-Westernists like Trump (or his former advisor Bannon) are more realistic, less idealistic and therefore less interventionist than neoconservatives. They are less interested in the idea of a universal American empire than in preventing the break-up of the United States under the weight of its internal contradictions while maintaining an American influence strong enough to counter the rise of China in order to remain at the forefront of the international relations system in the 21st century.

But Trump does not hold the entire American power structure, so the harsh globalist or Zionist tendencies (which confront each other) push the United States towards their respective agendas and prevent Trump from fully fulfilling his electoral promises of a return to moderate isolationism.

As we can see, the international geopolitical system is divided between different major trends, each of which seeks to impose its own geopolitical, ideological and social orientations.

These trends could be broken down as follows:

1/ A neo-Westernist pan-conservatism promoted by the Trump administration and its allies in Europe, Great Britain and by the Israeli right. This pan-conservatism is intended to spare Russia from China but to prevent strategic EU/Russia convergence. In a way, Samuel Huntington’s thought is updated here. Superficial commentators laughed a lot at Trump’s intention to buy Greenland’s territory, but in addition to being a strategic bridgehead over the Arctic Ocean against Russia and Eurasia, it should be remembered that the world map proposed by Samuel P. Huntington in his book „The Clash of Civilizations” precisely included Greenland and the Scandinavian countries as part of the Western Christian civilization in his classification of world civilizations. This Pan-conservatism, which was scoring more and more points on the Western chessboard, has received several recent arrests since the last European elections with the Strache scandal in Austria, the end of the Lega / M5S coalition in Italy and the blocking of Brexit in Great Britain. This shows the still intact power of Sorosian Europeanism.

2/ A pure „Sorosian” globalist Europeanism, whose political center of gravity is currently embodied by the Macron-Merkel couple. Hence the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) (Treaty on Franco-German Cooperation and Integration) signed by Macron and Merkel this year. This treaty aims to accelerate the creation of an integrated globalist continental pole and a plan B for the EU in the face of the risks of crumbling or even a simple change in the EU’s orientation that can be encouraged by the rise of sovereignism in Europe. A rise for the moment slowed down by political maneuvering in Italy, Great Britain and Austria.

3/ Eurasian geo-economic integration, the main driving force of which is China and its desire to carry out the major continental project of the „new silk road”. It should be recalled that the project for the new silk road officially called „One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) aims to extend from the Pacific to the Baltic Sea and that, in addition to China, it targets „64 Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Central and Eastern European countries”. With a budget of 800 to 1 trillion dollars (five to six times the Marshall Plan budget), this project could enable China to achieve what has always been the great fear of Anglo-Saxon geopoliticians: the economic integration of the Eurasian continent as a whole by 2049, the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. An economic integration that would shift the center of world business from the West to Eurasia but a Eurasia driven by China and not by Europe and Russia.

For a fourth European geostrategic orientation

We must be realistic, in each of the three options I have just outlined; those whom I call „native-European” peoples have a destiny more of objects than political subjects. The current situation is very dangerous for our peoples at all levels: demographic, economic, security, cultural, civilizational, religious, etc.

In terms of values and a certain willingness to curb the culture of globalist death, pan-conservatism and its sovereignist allies appear to be the best of these three orientations, but in terms of foreign policy, with the permanent parasiting of hard religious Zionism, this orientation is problematic for our geostrategic interests in the Middle East and Eurasia.

As for the Europeanism of the Macron, Attali, Soros, Merkel, it does not aim at the constitution of a confederation of European nation-states in order to reach a higher level of geopolitical power but rather at the creation of a pan-European political space and „demos” that would eventually replace the historical European nations within the framework of a global governance. This so-called European sovereignism comes up against an aporia : how can any continental sovereignism be reconciled with the categorical Kantian imperative of an Europe as a region-world part of an integrated global governance ? This Europeanism is above all a cosmopolitanism masked by promises of European sovereignty that are never fulfilled.

Worse still, this Euro-globalism, which is intended to be universal, is not so for powers outside the West. Powers that are entitled to reject the Sorosian categorical imperative of global governance and consider it as a new avatar of Western colonialism. Above all, this Euro-globalism disarms Europe in the normal course of world affairs in order to preserve, maintain or even extend our interests in the permanent struggle between the geopolitical powers. This Euro-globalism is not universal and is only one geo-strategic orientation among others, but one that could ultimately prove fatal for Europe as a whole.

As Europeans, the vision, the geopolitical compass that should currently continue to guide us, seems to me to be this ever-new and updatable idea of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow (or Moscow-Berlin-Paris) axis and a strategic continental agreement between non-aligned sovereignists. It is the only geopolitical and civilizational option capable of first and foremost countering Euro-globalism and the deadly European Union of Soros/Macron/Merkel, but also of containing the neo-Westernist Anglosphere and China’s rise. Between the beast of the sea and the beast of the earth, between Leviathan and Behemoth, it would be nice not to have to choose our next master…

Only a renewed will to power and a Euro-Russian cooperation could prevent either our impending servitude or the universal spread of the world civil war. Only a desire for Euro-Russian cooperation could prevent the Romano-Germanic and Turanian peoples from being divided in the global geo-economic war between neo-Westernism, neo-Asiatism and post-national globalism. On this path, Moldova is a cornerstone of this ambitious but vital geopolitical architecture for the future of our peoples and our descendants.