Speech by Maurizio Murelli at the European Conference on Multipolarity

History knows slow and other sudden upheavals. Slow was the advent of the Middle Ages and equally slow was the one that led from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, in which, according to Julius Evola, the seeds were sown of what would later be modernity, the age of subversion with respect to the world of Tradition.

The historical upheavals that arose with the advent of modernity, on the other hand, were almost always unforeseen upheavals, the triggering of which was often paradoxical. In 1914, four gunshots fired in Sarajevo triggered the process that would lead to the liquefaction of the Central Empires through a four-year European civil war. At the tail end of this process was the October Revolution, which made people think that soon the whole of Europe would be Bolshevik. Instead, it happened that Europe, from the 1920s onwards, was essentially fascist. In 1940, who would have imagined that five years later we would have Yalta and consequently the world divided into two blocs? And in the 1960s/70s, who would have bet on the implosion of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany?

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact bloc, it was hard to imagine in the 1990s that NATO would push its borders close to those of the newly-born Russian Federation and that the Atlanticists would cross every red line drawn by the Kremlin, yet all this happened to the point of triggering the so-called Ukrainian crisis, the absolutely impassable red line.

Since the 1990s, the Unipolar New World Order project has experienced unstoppable growth. Almost the entire globe has fallen prey to it. This process has been called Mondialism, which not a few confuse with globalism. Actually, if globalism refers to the commercial sphere, then such a system has always existed. Imperial Rome traded with the entire then known and explored world, from West to East. What differentiates ancient globalism from modern globalism is the globalisation of high finance, the Trojan horse of globalism as a political project, a fundamental feature of liberal totalitarianism.

The return to geopolitical greatness of Russia and China, and the emergence of new territorial powers such as India and Argentina have undermined unipolarism, i.e. the geopolitical, financial and commercial global domination of Atlanticism and therefore US hegemony. The multipolar theory took shape. Will the materialisation of this new multipolar world order be a slow process or a fast process? This is one of the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves. And through which processes will it materialise? In recent times we have seen that in Africa and parts of the Middle East the process is speeding up, while in Western Europe, against the interests of its peoples and thanks to the poor quality of the political elites fed and supported by the US oligarchy, we are witnessing a senseless and self-defeating entrenchment. An entrenchment that will fatally crumble because of Atlanticist greed and its industrial-military apparatus with the gamble in Ukraine.

As for the mystifying language of unipolarism, we can see the typical manipulation of its culture. After a period of denial of the multipolarism source, the unipolar subject indicates MULTILATERAL practice as democratic and liberal. This is a lexical trick. Multipolarism and multilateralism are not the same thing, in fact, the latter is the de facto negation of the former. Multilateralism puts unipolarism at the centre, which along its sides contacts and subordinates every other geopolitical entity while maintaining decision-making hegemony. Those beyond those sides suffer the hegemony of liberal totalitarianism at every level. This lexical and conceptual contrivance must be rejected at the sender's door, and instead the essence of multipolarism must be strongly affirmed, an order within which each large state subject generates its own energy, preserves its own differential identity and culture, and confronts the other poles with equal dignity and authority. And it is no coincidence that I say 'large state subject' and not 'national' because, as Aleksandr Dugin repeatedly emphasised and well argued in his text 'Theory of the Multipolar World': 'In a multipolar system, the number of constituted poles should be significantly smaller than the number of currently recognised sovereign states (...). Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these states are today unable to provide for their own prosperity or security on their own in the event of a conflict with a hegemonic power (such as the United States, in the case of the modern world). They are politically and economically dependent on an external authority. Consequently, they cannot be centres of a truly independent and sovereign will in matters of international order'. From this point of view, MULTILATERALISM serves this purpose: to keep the Westphalian system intact and dependent on small states by subjecting them to unipolarism veiled in a fictitious suggestion of interdependence and sovereignty of nations.