The Future Of The USA, Russia, And The New World Order

I randomly came across a fascinating document called The USA And The New World Order: A Debate Between Olavo de Carvalho And Aleksandr Dugin (PDF download). It has done more for me to clarify modern geopolitics than any other work I’ve read.

Before we review its contents, let’s first introduce the two debaters. Olavo de Carvalho is a conservative Brazilian philosopher and writer who created the Inter American Institute, which focuses on philosophical and social issues. Aleksandr Dugin is a Russian thinker and strategist who is an independent adviser to Vladimir Putin. His grand vision is to create a Eurasian sphere that eliminates the unipolarity of the United States.

I’m first struck by what a clear understanding Carvalho, who I hadn’t heard of before reading the debate, has of the globalist establishment. Here he is defining globalism and its aims:

…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.

He then makes the claim that globalists are in control of the United States and are enacting policies to bring it to heel:

The United States are not the command center of the globalist project, but on the contrary, its prime victim, marked for death. 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, the politico-military power and the economy of the United States.

Why is the USA marked for death? Because its patriotic and Christian people are the last obstacle to ushering in a truly global world order controlled by a state-less group of elites who rule over three 1984-style domains: Western empire (the merchant), Russian-Chinese empire (the warrior), and Islamic empire (the priest).

Dugin bristles at the suggestion that Russia is already a pawn of the world order that is being used as a device to bring down the USA. In fact, he says there is no world order at all besides American hegemony.

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.

Dugin states that the transition can proceed in one of three ways:

1. A stable “Imperial Core” that generates policies that cause chaos and mayhem in the world for the purpose of controlling other nations.

2. Cooperating with friendly powers while putting pressure on rogue countries.

3. Achieving true globalization by trading sovereignty for world government, ruled by the likes of George Soros and organizations such as the Council On Foreign Relations.

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.

Globalist-sponsored commentator Francis Fukuyama wrote in his book The End Of History And The Last Man that liberal democracy (the platform that globalists herald) is the best political system ever created, and it will bring about the end of historical movements and revolutions, but only if it is allowed to envelop the world by “exporting democracy,” a euphemism for subversion through propaganda, covert CIA operations, or overt military action. As Dugin points out, it’s the USA way or death.

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.

God must be killed and replaced with “rational” thinking, where the rationale of the day is guided into your brain through scientific, political, and academic experts who are controlled by the elites. Technology is but another means to speed this along, as everything becomes centered around the individual and its needs instead of the tribe and family. The end goal is transhumanism, creating something “better” than human nature on the neverending march towards perfection, stability, and order for the top 0.01%.

…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.

[…]

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.

What “liberal democracy” really means is a fractured society of atomized individuals who are either culturally and biologically sterile (white nations) or constantly chaotic (non-white nations). Your society will be inverted to make it easy to be controlled and dominated by a USA-led hegemon, which Dugin insists is the height of world power. If you do not allow liberal democracy to penetrate your nation “peacefully,” you will be targeted for chaos. If you are a Syrian, Iraqi, Russian, Indian, or African, and hear warm buzzwords from the American president that you deserve “liberal democracy,” get ready for subversion at best, war at worst.

Dugin is triggered at Carvalho’s assertion that Russia is part of the new world order instead of being its target:

The globalization of the world and the installation everywhere of the American control, including the direct intrusion in the nominally sovereign countries, the promotion of American way of life and the uniformization of the different human societies, accomplished by USA, is considered by the professor as “nothing”, being ignored and forgotten. The contamination of Russian society by decadent consumerist individualist patterns, the support for the anti-Russian regimes in the post-soviet space is nothing.

The USA is an absolute plague for the mankind. And the globalist elite is the quintessence of USA, it rules USA and through it in the rest of the world. The globalist elite of the USA is the absolute enemy of the Russia, China and Islamic countries, it corrupts our political elite, the society, the country. For us it is obvious. “The sovereignty, the political-military power and the economy of the United States” are no more than the instruments in the hand of this elite, its accomplices, voluntary or not.

From this point, the debate becomes about whether Russia is part of the globalist system or not. Carvalho insists that the “contamination” of Russia society was done by its own hand starting with the Bolshevik revolution, which implemented anti-traditional policies such as feminism, easy divorce, and godlessness before Stalin scaled them back. Dugin insists that a level of elites above that of nation states is a “conspiracy theory” (he uses that exact phrase), and the tit-for-tat games you see in the mainstream news is real, that there are no transnational elites who meet in Davos, Brussels, and so on.

This distinction is important because if Russia and the United States are dialectical forces under the same controlling power, the Russia vs USA tension is theater and being used to create the justification for a war that benefits a pre-determined victor. If on the other hand they are truly independent entities, USA is bumbling its war to World War 3 by provoking Russia (at least up until Trump’s victory), which is all too ready to take advantage of those blunders by re-asserting its power in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Dugin’s position that there are no transnational elites, with the insinuation that world leaders are at the top of the pyramid, was wholly unconvincing. Carvalho found an opening and laid down heavy fire.

The globalist elite is not only a vague social class of capitalists and bankers. It is an organized entity, with continuous existence for over a century, which meets periodically to ensure the unity of its plans and the continuity of their implementation, with the minuteness and scientific precision with which an engineer controls the transmutation of his blueprint into a building.

[…]

The Syndicate is an organization of big capitalists and international bankers committed to establishing a worldwide socialist dictatorship. There are so many documents and studies that meticulously depict its origin, history, membership, and modus operandi that no excuse can be accepted for ignorance in this matter, most of all from people who intend to opine about it. No, this is not an insinuation against Professor Dugin. He is perfectly informed about it, and if he commits errors in the conclusions he presents, it is not due to ignorance. It is because the essentially bellicose nature of his approach impels him to divide the panorama into two symmetrically opposed halves, falsifying the whole picture and sending to the limbo of non-existence all the facts that refute this Manichean simplification.

As I’ve written before, socialism is but a tool of the elites to centralize their power by increasing the size and reach of government while weakening social bonds through Marxist poison. Here it is explained more elegantly by Carvalho:

If the Medieval system lasted ten centuries, Absolutism did not last more than three. Even shorter will be the reign of liberal bourgeoisie. One century of economic and political freedom was enough to make some capitalists so formidably rich that they no longer wish to submit to the whims of the markets that made them rich. They want to control them, and there are three instruments for this: dominion of the State, in order to enact the statist policies necessary to make the oligopoly eternal; stimulus to socialist and communist movements that invariably favor the growth of state power; and the drafting of an army of intellectuals who prepare public opinion to bid farewell to bourgeois freedoms and happily step into a world of omnipresent and obsessive repression (extending itself to the last details of private life and everyday speech), presented as a paradise adorned both with the abundance of capitalism and the “social justice” of communism.

Carvalho then discusses historical philosophy and how only an entity that spans generations can be an agent that affect the change that we come to see as “history.” We like to think of nation states as drivers of history, but it’s really the groups that hold power within those states who are the true drivers. This is often described as the “conspiratorial view of history.”

 

Who can be an agent of a historical action? States? Nations? Empires? Of course not. These entities result from the combination of heterogeneous forces which struggle to dominate them from within. They do not have their own will, but they reflect, at each moment, the will of a dominant group, which may be replaced by another in the next moment. A state, nation or empire is an apparent agent, manipulated by other, more durable, more stable agents, capable of dominating it and using it for their objectives, which frequently transcend even the duration of the national, state and imperial formations which they utilized.

To be a historical agent, the group or entity must:

(a) Nurture permanent or long-term objectives.

(b) Be capable of continuing the pursuit of these objectives beyond the lifespan of its individual agents, beyond the duration of the present state of affairs, and beyond the duration of even the states, nations and empires involved.

(c) Be capable, therefore, of reproducing individual agents able to continue the action through the centuries and to adapt the original plans to the different situations that may emerge without losing view of the initial goals.

Only the following entities fulfill these conditions:

(1) The great universal religions.
(2) Initiatory and esoteric organizations.
(3) Royal and noble dynasties and similar entities.
(4) Ideologically revolutionary movements and parties.
(5) Spiritual agents: God, angels, and demons.

Everything, absolutely everything that happens in the historical scene either comes from one of these forces, or is the result of an uncontrolled combination of forces.

Ideas by themselves do not act on history unless they are used by groups that meet the above conditions that Carvalho lays out. Otherwise it’s just a frustrated exertion or power grab that fails and relinquishes power back to the true agents in charge.

For example, now that Donald Trump has won the Presidency, it will be up to him and those around him to create a lasting nationalist movement that outlives him. Otherwise, it may blowback spectacularly and crush nationalism for generations. One only need to look at Adolph Hitler to see how a failed nationalist uprising becomes manna from heaven to globalist interests because of how quickly a foolhardy war can accelerate a world order that was planned all along.

And yet in a single stroke, Dugin brushes away Carvalho’s assertions by stating that this is all merely a simple matter of good versus evil, as if we were in a Hollywood movie whose plot was inspired by Joseph Campbell, and that the world must join Russia in its honorable crusade against the West.

Therefore, I invite all the rest to join the camp and fight Globalism, Modernity/Hypermodernity, Imperialism Yankee, liberalism, free market religion and unipolar world. These phenomena are the ultimate point of the Western path to the abyss, the final station of the evil and the almost transparent image of the antichrist/ad-dadjal/erev rav. So the West is the center of kali-yuga, its motor, its heart.

While I don’t agree with Dugin on the denial of a global syndicate, and am deeply suspicious of his reasoning for doing so, he does understand the decline of the West.

Once the West had its own tradition. Partly it has lost it. Partly this tradition has given the poisonous germs. The West should search in its deep ancient roots. But these roots lead to the common indo-european Eurasian past, the glorious past of the Scyths, Celts, Sarmats, Germans, Slavs, Hindus, Persians, Greeks, Romans and their holistic societies, warrior style hierarchical culture and spiritual mystic values that had nothing in common with present day Western mercantile capitalist degenerated civilization.

To return to the Tradition we need to accomplish the revolt against modern world and against modern West—absolute revolt—spiritual (traditionalist) and social (socialist). The West is in agony. We need to save the world from this agony and may be to save the West from itself. The Modern (and Post-Modern) West must die. And if there were the real traditional values in its foundations (and they certainly were) we will save them only in the process of the global destruction of the Modernity/Hypermodernity.

Carvalho snaps back and methodically breaks down Dugin’s arguments (or lack thereof), especially his “conspiracy theory” reply about elite groups possessing long-term plans.

Without continuity over generations, there is no historical action, and only a few types of human groups have the means to fulfill this requirement. If among those means the control over the flow of information is included, this is only due to a trite observation, actually a commonplace in historical methodology, according to which the dissemination of facts produces new facts; therefore, the control over the flow of information is absolutely essential to any group or entity that plans long-term historical actions. The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, managed to remain totally secret and unknown for fifty years, even though its membership included practically all the owners of the major media outlets of the West. Once the period of obligatory discretion was over, David Rockefeller publicly thanked journalists for their five-decade old silence. Should we hide this fact only out of a yokelish fear of being called “conspiracy theorists”?

He makes the important claim that a Eurasian empire is merely a competitor to Western globalism, concealed by a seemingly traditional and moral facade.

Karl Marx himself defined [ideology as] just a “dress of ideas” concealing a scheme of political power. The scheme of political power in Russia has changed its dress, but continues to be the same—maintaining the same people in the same positions, performing the same functions, with the same totalitarian ambitions as ever.

[…]

But as Nietzsche used to say, one cannot completely destroy a thing except when one substitutes it. It is not enough to cut the West off from its roots and then accuse it of not having roots: it is necessary to insert a Eurasian graft into it and persuade the West that Eurasianism is its true roots.

If Russia wins, Putin would merely replace Western globalism with his own vision that is also globalist. Carvalho doesn’t trust Russia because of the untold dead and mass repression that occurred during the Soviet Empire, and implies that he rather live under Western hegemony.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we were allowed to pick our globalist master, the USA or Russia, which would be better for us and our interests? Based on how the West methodically attacks men and the traditional family while Russia does not, I presume that it would be Russia, but we are not Russian and cannot assume that Putin would treat his American vassal citizen the same as a Russian one. There is no way to be certain that our living conditions would improve under Russian hegemony, and lessons from history lean towards a more turbulent conclusion.

Losing his patience against a tenacious Carvalho, Dugin removes intellectual pretense and proclaims what his heart desires most.

…we have a kind of the global dictatorship. We should fight against it. If someone deprives us from our freedom we have to react. And we will. The American Empire should be destroyed. And at one point it will be.

Destroyed from within or destroyed by Russian nuclear bombs when they sense the time is right to establish the Eurasian empire? Dugin leaves that for our imagination, but gives hints as to what the future Eurasian empire would be like.

…the communism doctrine is Modern, atheist, materialist and cosmopolite. That should be thrown out. On the contrary, the social solidarity, social justice, the socialism and general holistic attitude to the society are good in themselves. So we need to separate the materialist and Modernist aspect and reject them. On the other hand in the theories of Third way (dear up to certain point to some traditionalists as Julius Evola) there were some unacceptable elements—first of all racism, xenophobia and chauvinism.

Don’t we already have social solidarity, social justice, and anti-racism in the West? Dugin calls us to join arms with Russia to replace a progressive West with a progressive Russian empire. We can only hope that Dugin is confusing his definitions on what social justice and racism are, since those features include the very atheist and cosmopolitan features that he rejects, but it’s easy to look at Russia, with a 6.5% Muslim population and a host of other ethic groups to understand that the Eurasian empire will at the minimum be a multicultural empire. Sorry, white nationalists, but Russia will never cater to your demands of a purely white state.

He explains that the future Eurasian empire will be ruled by the Fourth Political Theory, which seems awfully similar to what the United States uses today, but with a traditional veneer that is nowhere close to true traditionalism. Nationalism is, unsurprisingly, excluded from the program.

We call it Fourth Political Theory (first being the liberalism, that we essentially challenge, the second the classical form of communism, the third the national-socialism and the fascism). Its elaboration starts from the point of intersection between different anti-liberal political theories of the past (the communism and the Third way theories). So we arrive to the nationalbolshevism that represents the socialism without materialism, atheism, progressism and Modernism and the Third way theories without racism and nationalism.

The Fourth Political Theory wants to unite all the people of the world in a world struggle against an evil empire. One-hundred years ago the evil enemy was the bourgeoisie and their class oppression. Today the evil enemy is the United States and their world oppression. The enemy has been identified and it will be used as part of the “dress of ideas” to restore Russian power once again.

So we need to unite the right, the left and the religions in the common struggle against common enemy. The social justice, the national sovereignty and the Traditional values are three principles of such ideology. It is not easy to put all this together. But we should try if we want to overcome the foe.

Dugin wants us to trade one master for another. For that reason, I have to reject Dugin’s call for me to join him in replacing our current cabal of globalist oppressors with another cabal who will in all likelihood end up as globalist oppressors. Neither entity offers me anything to fight for.

While not an easy read, this debate (PDF) clarified a lot of conflicts in my mind about how to deal with our current situation. The most important thing I learned is that to replace a globalist hegemon, you will need to counter with a strategy that is also globalist is nature. Otherwise, patient historical agents will marshal their resources across several nation-states to effortlessly crush any non-globalist force.

It’s for this reason that nationalism will ultimately fail after its current resurgence after the present cycle plays itself out. How can individual nations and their leaders stand up in the long term (beyond a generation) against a host of individuals, corporations, NGOs, and other organizations that operate globally and across generations? To defeat globalists who operate around the world, you’ll have to be global yourself, which nationalism is not. For that reason, I have accepted that globalism is here to stay.

Read Next: Nationalism Is A Trap

Related Posts For You

97
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
avatar
  
smilegrinwinkmrgreenneutraltwistedshockunamusedcooleviloopsrazzrollcryeeklolmadsadexclamationquestionideahmmbegwhewchucklesillyenvyshutmouth
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
34 Comment threads
63 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
42 Comment authors
Eckberto WicklepieFábio Leitebowejaal sweringinroxtoto Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Marcos_Brazil
Guest
Marcos_Brazil
Offline

Beware of Carvalho, the occultist!
Carvalho gets his new world order from Christian authors like Dr Stan (this is OK) and mixes it with Rene Guenon’s madness.(this is bad)
He is a believer in Perennialism, an occult doctrine that preaches a return to a mystical tradition. They say all religions have the Light (of Lucifer) in their origin, but modernity had hidden this fact.
Rene Guenon, his idol, was a disciple of the Satanist Papus , a theosophist and a Mason, turned into Sufi mystic.
Carvalho himself was part of Schuon’s Tariqa, a place were they held ritual orgies called Primordial gatherings. Because they did that in front of children, Schuon was indicted for pedophilia in Indiana.
Flee from Carvalho. He uses politics as bait to entice students to his occult online courses. He is a mix of a guru and a con man.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

Well Dugin is also no stranger to Crowley…Your accusation about Guenon are ridiculous, he was not a satanist.

Marcos_Brazil
Guest
Marcos_Brazil
Offline

It took too long for a disciple of the guru to defend his master. You are getting slow, I was expecting a response in five minutes.
I didn’t say Guenon was a Satanist. I said he was a disciple of a Satanist, which is a fact. However, what difference does it make? An occultist ultimately serves Satan, willingly or not.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

stick to the discussion. Nobody cares about your fundamentalist views.

roxtoto
Guest
roxtoto
Offline

You didnt stick to your own argument. Yes we care about any commenter’s relevant views. You’ve just been outed as a sterile obfuscator. Marcos brought relevant, constructive points, you only brought denial and deception attempts. Shoo.

Fábio Leite
Guest
Fábio Leite
Offline

Anyone who just reads Olavo de Carvalho’s texts (many of them unfortunately still in portuguese) knows that what Marcos_Brazil is saying is pure nonsense. Non-brazilians must know that Carvalho is widely persecuted because his intellectual writings systematically and meticulously attack many powerful establishment leaders, from political parties and media corporations to plutocrats.

roxtoto
Guest
roxtoto
Offline

“pure nonsense” + “he is persecuted for his political views” = blanket denial + persecution theory.
If it is really nonsense, it should be easy to debunk. Marcos brought “facts” that can be debunked or confirmed. But you didnt try to debunk them, you merely denied and obfuscated.

Fábio Leite
Guest
Fábio Leite
Offline

I don’t have to debunk anything. The opus of Carvalho itself and his social media posts already do this for me. It’s you who must PROVE US the “facts” brought by Marcos, one by one. You can begin your writings when you finish sucking Pirrôla, Maestro Bagos or Veadasco’s balls under your own blanket.

Fábio Leite
Guest
Fábio Leite
Offline

For an insight of the breadth of Carvalho’s thinking to non-portuguese speakers, here are some of his articles translated to english. I ask you to please read them carefully and then sincerely ask yourselves if these words come from the head of a “occult guru” or a “con man”:

ON FEMINISM:
Palestras da Judith Butler

ON LOVE AND PUERILE SEXOLOGY:
http://theinteramerican.org/puerile-sexologists-1/

ON GUENON’S INFLUENCE OVER EUROPE:
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080508jb_en.html

ON SÃO PAULO’S FORUM AND LATIN AMERICA’S POLITICAL SITUATION:
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/other/091022interview_en.html

roxtoto
Guest
roxtoto
Offline

“Here’s a series of pictures and videos of Hitler interacting with dogs and children, I ask you to please look at them carefully and then sincerely ask yourselves if these actions come from the “head of an occult order” or a “eugenicist mass exterminator””.

Fábio Leite
Guest
Fábio Leite
Offline

You’re childishly and desperately trying to smear the “evil headmaster of an occult order” label on Carvalho, equalizing this supposed (by his enemies) and totally unproven “wrongdoing” on his part to the thoroughly proven and historical evils Hitler did. And yet, you absurdly put Carvalho and Hitler in the same low level of malevolence when you insinuate that both, besides being the incarnation of evil, can be nice sometimes. This is the “reductio ad Hitlerum” elevated to its nth potence of nonsense, lack of proportions and malice. How long have you been sucking the dicks of Pirrôla, Maestro Bagos, the Veadasco brothers, Luciano Aimeuânus and alikes?

al sweringin
Guest
al sweringin
Offline

I’ve posted this on ROK, as well

Americans are funny, you come up with some amazing shit, lead the world in so many ways, but incredibly ignorant of your own country’s ability to fuck you and anyone else.

One of your own guy’s, who some would have heard of (now dead) Aaron Russo, has been banging on for years about this, put out a movie giving some real credible insight into what’s really going on in your country and around the world.

It’s on YouTube,

America : Freedom to Fascism — youtu.be
Watch it, red pill for politics.

Eckberto Wicklepie
Guest
Eckberto Wicklepie
Offline

Beware of socialists talking about authors they don’t know, hurling fake knowledge about what they ignore. Olavo de Carvalho was never a Perennialist, nor a Guenonian Tradicionalist, he’s a traditional neothomist philosopher working on the fields of cultural criticism studies and aristotelian methaphysics.

Zelcorpion
Guest
Zelcorpion
Offline

Neither of those two are right. Dugin seems to be a propaganda agent and Carvalho is mostly unaware of the even bigger picture (or a different sort of agent).

Antony Sutton (Stanford historian), Carroll Quigley (CFR historian and mentor of Bill Clinton) or Alan Watt (independent researcher) have a far more logical picture of our world system. Any man who reads through the works of those 3 men can then more easily make up his mind of what to do about the globalists and how far their web goes.

Anyone who denies communist Russia’s globalists’ roots is either a fool or a traitor. They only lost control somewhat during Stalin’s time, but regained it shortly afterwards. If Putin is true opposition, why hasn’t he started printing interest free state-money with demurrage – no country needs to borrow money from the world’s trillionaires. So long as they don’t overdo it like a banana republic, it’s not really difficult. He won’t because then he would be dead.

Nah – the globalists’ ultimate goal is a one world government Brave New World promiscuous family-less kind of system. Now ask yourself what countries will not fit into it and whether the people & religions existing will fit into it. The USA will be used like Great Britain was used – globalist battering ram until the money ran out and a bigger nation took over. The Chinese with their neo-feudal corporate mercantilism and 1,3 billion people will take over from the 350 mio. Americans. The corporations already moved their factories over to China. The USA will collapse under a debt burden, but it will not disintegrate into the Zombie Apocalypse – it will simply become less important just like the UK did. We have to remember that at one time the British Empire just like the US had armies stationed worldwide and where are they now?

As for Russia and the Islamic world – yes those countries will have to go and I think a World War III will take care of that – afterwards certain religions like Islam and Christianity will be banned and only obedient consumers-producers will remain. Fait accompli – done deal.

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

Globalization is not going anywhere, America and Britain might play smaller roles in the global order. I think America might make a pause, but Trump right now is highly unpopular and has not even assumed office, he only managed to become President because he was running against another highly unpopular candidate who happened who have her criminal investigation reopened.

Since Trump won, he spoke the the Prime Minister of Japan, invited the CEO of an Indian corporation, and spoke with other world leaders, he took no steps to remove himself from his company which has operations around the world. If you think he is against globalization you must be kidding yourself. He will use his brief time as President to boost his global brand.
Russia is not going anywhere. Christianity is not going anywhere, it will decline in white countries and thrive in Latin America, and neither is Islam. Russia’s fight in Syria is only to make sure Assad stays in Power. The Trump doctrine will be opposite that of Bush-Obama, keep the dictatorships in the Middle East, no regime change. They might rip up the Iran deal, but Iran will have Russia in their corner. In the end America will be a smaller player in the world. This won’t be the America of the 20th Century, the colossus, it won’t be a 1950s wonderland.

Barack Obama gave Trump a great opening argument, his administration failed to help middle class Americans, continued Bush era wars which led to ISIS, racial division, increasing income inequality, and complete disgust with the status quo.
That being said Bernie Sanders and Jim Comey gave Donald Trump his closing arguments. Bernie Sanders focused on trade issues that gutted America of jobs to China and other emerging markets, and by Trump merely mentioning this matter in his campaign, he got the attention of people in the Rust Belt. Hillary ignored those voters.
Then Jim Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server late October, then it was pretty much over for Hillary.

Trump is going to have to make good on his promise to control immigration and bring back jobs, not McJobs to America. That 8 percent of voters that allowed him to walk across the finish line won’t allow him again.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

You say Christianity and Islam are not going anywhere. I’d ask a different question. To what degree does modern Christianity and modern Islam reflect the religion of 100 years ago? If we call something Christianity in 100 years, but it bears little resemblance to Christianity today, then we’re just playing semantics.

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

You are probably right, Christianity today is nothing like Christianity in 1916 and Islam today is nothing like Islam decades ago. Many Muslims used to live secular lives prior to World War 2, now many Muslim nations are theocratic societies, its Western societies that have become secular. Things could change in a century again.

roxtoto
Guest
roxtoto
Offline

>Trump right now is highly unpopular

In what waters are you swimming? Liberal college classes? Kosher media?

Marcos_Brazil
Guest
Marcos_Brazil
Offline

The elite has been talking about a multi-polar world for some time now
America’s muscle was used to put globalist structures in place and punish outliers. Now it’s not as necessary as before. It has always been a problem to manage, with all those Christians and patriots.
Russia was used to spread Marxist thought.
A multi-polar world is much more compliant. No Trumps to spoil the fun.
But a real world government, with an external visible structure and leader? Only if we see some big weird supernatural stuff happening.

Zelcorpion
Guest
Zelcorpion
Offline

One World Government is almost there. I expect localized versions being implement – and the city-states taking over from there. To the citizens it will appear more local than before while in reality a global entity is ruling everything. Before that a World War needs to happen frankly.

Marcos_Brazil
Guest
Marcos_Brazil
Offline

Exactly. It is the synthesis the elite was looking for. Cultural Marxism for the masses, libertarian economics for the billionaires. Capital will move freely from Shanghai to Brussels and private jet owners will be true global citizens, while the masses will live like zombies enjoying their political correct entertainment but with no wealth, freedom or power.

Zelcorpion
Guest
Zelcorpion
Offline

Sounds about right. Best option is to join the 100 mio. + class and be aware about it – if you are too dumb to see through the globalist plans then you deserve to die too. Survival of the fittest to them means having accumulated wealth, but also having seen through the cons.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Offline

Your comments actually back up Carvalho’s position even more. I don’t see the conflict because what you said and what he wrote about.

Zelcorpion
Guest
Zelcorpion
Offline

I may have to check out the document you linked to in that case.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

I agree but would encourage you to read Carroll Quigley. He has been on my list for a while.

Rick Valentine
Guest
Rick Valentine
Offline

I haven’t read much of Quigley, but I found the quote below very insightful. He shows how both sides take action to benefit corporations, but end up hurting our people.

“Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.

“Liberals, on the other hand, are still telling us, as they have for a long, long time, that in order to make individuals free, we must destroy communities. By communities I mean villages. Ghettos and cities. Ethnic groupings. Religious groupings. Anything which is segregated. We must destroy them. So that all individuals would be, if possible, identical. Including boys and girls.

“But the area of political action … in which you have government, individuals … three others: voluntary associations (which I’ll say no more about), corporations and communities. And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.”

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Pretty amazing considering the guy died in 1977.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Interestingly, when Quigley’s writings were exposed to the mainstream (several well known authors have written books about the New World Order attributing much to Quigley) he doesn’t respond by denying that the elites have an agenda; just denies that he is part of it:

“He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I’m a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don’t regard it as such. I’m not an “insider” of these rich persons although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940″

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

The only thing is conservatives give lip service to shrinking government, and then it just never happens when they actually control things. However I would say that everything has been an effort to strip the individual of all forms of power is accurate. You just have to look at how hard they pushed and lied to prevent a ROK meetup to see what they really fear.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

history keeps repeating itself, it goes by cycles. Now is there a hidden hand behind all of it ? if you study the history of bullion trading and money printing , there’s only one conclusion.

Zelcorpion
Guest
Zelcorpion
Offline

No – there is not a hidden hand behind all things in history. This group used only methods which are similar to what has been done in the past. And they did it in a very concentrated fashion cooperating with other wealthy people. You should read Carroll Quigley, Antony Sutton, site americendeception.com – there the Reece Congressional commission on foundations – also Alan Watt.

That way you will find out that working together for world conquest is a thing in our times. Ancient Rome and Persia and others went also through similar usury cycles of growth and destruction. But it is different this time just as our civilizational achievement is very different to ancient Rome or Persia.

baPHATAR
Guest
baPHATAR
Offline

I´ve posted before and I will post it again. It´s all here:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/family-values-1.323094

Just read this shit. You have Soros (first layer). Rothschilds (second layer). And the richest families in the world. Then all their employees. It´s a web. The elite is actually quiet small. And they all know each other. To enter into this circle you must be vetted by one of them.

At this moment it´s pretty obvious globalism is pushed by the US. Not Russia. The influence of the US-UK is global. US embassadors are the true leaders of countries. And no country leader will fart without US permission.

I laugh when people say Qatar is funding ISIS. Qatar must be wiped out of the planet. Well guess what Qatar is a fucking US colony. The only thing Qatar government decides is the road traffic. All the rest comes directly from the white house. If you go to Doha look at the Sheraton hotel. It´s a fucking owl Moloch.

https://www.google.ae/search?q=sheraton+qatar&biw=1366&bih=638&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXgufus7rQAhVCh1QKHZ72ClgQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Lx00nI3DQ2vUKM%3A

https://www.google.ae/search?q=bohemian+grove&biw=1366&bih=638&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwicvZKUtLrQAhVHRhQKHW2FAtcQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=XcbRzRnZpnUypM%3A

Saudi Arabia has 24hours missiles pointed to Qatar. Btw the word on the street is Saudi Arabia will implode creating caos. And a new set of small countries will be born.

The british empire never died. It was continued by the US. The US and the UK are one country. And one country only. The two world wars were designated to create the United Nations.

Only through luciferian ideology you can achieve domination.

My bet is elites want to implement the Chinese model to the world. It´s pretty obvious why.

In the past it was the romans, Pope, Napoleon, Portuguese and Spanish and now UK and US. There´s always been an institution responsible for maintaining a normalization of society.

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

I was wondering why Trump ignored the other big Asian giant, India, during his campaign. Its because India is a gold mine to his company. He is making serious business deals with his company in India, and looking to have a friendly relationship with India during his Presidency. So there goes the notion that he is not a globalist. He is pivoting away from traditional allies in Western Europe and Japan and more to Russia and India, which have been friendly towards one another for decades. Globalization is never going away.

Blinko23
Guest
Blinko23
Offline

Great article, great insights.

For anyone interested in all things Russia vs The West, globalism, etc I heartily recommend The Saker blog, written by a former military analyst. It sometimes features guest commentary by Dugin, his dissenters, and many others:

Homepage

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Wow, apparently Ukraine just appointed some 24 year old feminist slut as Minister of the Interior

Guess who that is?

Blinko23
Guest
Blinko23
Offline

Yup. What the MSM is not reporting is that Ukrainian society is slowly being remolded into the same type of liberal basket-case society that has ruined the West. Maybe worse.

Coachmybutt
Guest
Coachmybutt
Offline

Guys, here is a “life coach”, she will make you live longer and she will tell you all these life “secrets” you do not know about
http://www.annawilliamson.co.uk/

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

One of the biggest questions I have about the world is Russia’s role in globalism. Great article and as always I appreciate your ability to draw clear conclusions, untinted by ideology.

1) I have problems supporting nationalism, but they are mainly tied to the military buildup and eventual conflicts that nationalism seems to cause. The Great War was, in my view, the single strongest blow to western patriarchal society, and it occured due to the hypernationalization of all European powers, which eventually led them to war against each other.

Looking back on that period now, and seeing the hordes of invaders changing Europe today, the silly battles amongst the European powers themselves seem trivial. If only they could have remained peaceful allies instead of enemies. Could we not advocate a nationalism without militarization?

If Hitler had continued most of his policies but never invaded Poland, wouldn’t Germany be a huge success story today, and modeled by other nations?

2) I have trouble understanding Carvalho’s opinion on the USA. He claims globalists have marked the USA for death. I have trouble picturing the USA as an enemy of globalists.

Yes, Trump may be anti-globalist, though I am not convinced he is, but the world today is moving towards globalism at the end of a bayonet held by Uncle Sam. The US is spreading globalsim, through its companies, universities, culture, armies, and government.

Are you familiar with John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hitman? He explains in detail how this is done. Whether the American people support globalism or not is irrelevant. The people can be indoctrinated to support it, or scared through war, or re-educated. But the institutions and power structure support it.

Look at how our values have changed over just the past 50 years. From separate bathrooms based on the color of your skin to demanding safe spaces for trannies. Public opinion is easily molded.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

I wouldn’t say “easily” it is only easy once you’ve invested vast amounts of time money and research learning how to maximally break down the individual. Start when they are young, get them in college, feed them poisons in their food and water, punish them in courts, break down all their associations that give them strength…etc etc.

Libertas
Guest
Libertas
Offline

“To defeat globalists who operate around the world, you’ll have to be global yourself, which nationalism is not.”

I think you’re in danger of falling prey to word-thinking here.

Fact is, we don’t really know what the future holds.

But I’ve said before that some aspects of globalization might be worth keeping, myself. What that could mean and how the fight goes “global” is up to debate, but we saw part of it, arguably, this cycle.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

One thing I always found interesting about the stock market, is that every market has a lesson to teach, and after every recession the wrong lesson is learned. One such lesson, is quality is important..but the nifty fifty people paid ANYTHING for the highest quality that is an error. So perhaps the correct lesson in this that, Nationalism is essential..but not too much. Another example is in wrestling when you are testing your opponent, youll push or pull him. What you hope for is an overreaction..which is your opening.

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

well american culture is degenerate now, why wouldnt the elites want it off its pedestal.

“If you do not allow liberal democracy to penetrate your nation “peacefully,” you will be targeted for chaos. If you are a Syrian, Iraqi, Russian, Indian, or African, and hear warm buzzwords from the American president that you deserve “liberal democracy,” get ready for subversion at best, war at worst.”

they are already doing that with “equal rights” and “feminism”. Just look at that Malala girl that got shot by the taliban. Shes the poster child to westernize middle east and india. Hell indias feminism is arguably worse.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/men-please-stop-mansplaining-the-hijab-to-muslim-women-a6784596.html

hell look american feminism is bombing the heads of muslim women.
Tradionalists will need to stand together at this and defend each other, instead of going feminist mode when it comes to a foreign culture like white nationalists do.

UriKatsavR
Guest
UriKatsavR
Offline

Carvahlo is to Geopolitics what Paulo Coehlo is to literature -a fraud, a naive at best.
That debate was some years ago, and I don’t understand why Dugin, a very solid analyst, wasted too much time with that Brazilian guy. Carvahlo just denies the facts. If the axis Washington-Hollywood-Wall Street-The City is not the center of Globalism, of the Anglo-Zionist World Order, then how come the US Government is the main sponsor of terrorism around the globe, the operator of every coup against democratically elected governments, wages illegal and inmoral wars (Afganistan, Irak, Syria), and wages a hybrid war against Russia and China. Also when both countries have tried to negotiate geopolitical agreements to bring stability to the World scene.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

“For example, now that Donald Trump has won the Presidency, it will be up to him and those around him to create a lasting nationalist movement that outlives him. Otherwise, it may blowback spectacularly and crush nationalism for generations”

Even if Trump were to 1.) make good on his promises to make america great again and 2.) Is elected twice – this could still be a mere speed bump in global direction.

The mechanism of total control is banking – specifically global banking, pure and simple.

The computer has done a lot to enhace the lives of people, but it is also a double edged sword. The very day when banks began using computers, this was the dawn of globalism. From that point banks started to network with other banks across the world and everything snowballed from there. The floor guys on Wall St. got replaced by computers using an algorithym – and so forth.

And I highly doubt it’s a “jew” thing. I’ve heard the argument that jews should not allowed to work in banking. But banking is a corruptable thing – all humans it seems can be corrupted. As the saying goes: all power corrupts.

Although banking is a necesity because it does play a role in giving the average joe a chance to acquire equity and get ahead in life – banking ultimately can be a dystopia in and of itself.

The only way to break this is when our computer tech fails permanently. I’m thinking a doomsday meteor or some other catastrophe that puts us back to the stone age, forcing humanity – i.e. that hairless two legged ape to start over again; the ultimate reset button.

banphing
Guest
banphing
Offline

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

Excellent video – yet as always – this message falls on deaf ears.

Larry Olsen
Guest
Larry Olsen
Offline

It’s a Jew thing because the Rothschilds own all the central banks.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

But the question to ask is: if christians ran the banks, would they be morally better at it?

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

I was making a list of what traits a group of people should exhibit to be able to maximally promote themselves and denigrate others. Jews fit that model very well. For example how they push views that they don’t actually hold themselves-like multiculturalsim, feminism. Jews marry other jews 97% of the time. They talk about liberalism, but hoard money, like a conservative. They will promote a jew before another even more qualified person. Banking isn’t a necessity, you look at the long ago laws on loans, and they were meant to steal assets-most loans were callable on demand. As Warren Buffet says one of the most common causes of failure in a business is from borrowing. His attitude-if a business is only good if you have to borrow money, why don’t you make a little more effort to find a better business that doesnt require leverage to make good money.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

The more important question to ask is what would it be like if say the Lutherans were the banksters of the World? We they be more morally fit? I kinda doubt this.

And regarding jews promoting themselves and denigrating others – instead of focusing on them as a group, it might serve Christians better for Christians to become more tribal. Roosh pointed out that Christians are willing to throw each other under the bus – whereas jews will not throw each under the bus.

The need for tribalism among Christians is what is more important today.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

Yeah I’m not saying that they are the only group willing to do that, but any group that does that by its nature becomes the enemy of you and me. And I think there have been other groups who have done maybe even a better job of hiding their numbers and intentions. As a cop once said to me..we only catch the dumb ones. There have been jews who have thrown jews under the bus..George Soros for example. There is a theory that the Holocaust was done to encourage jews to move from cushy Europe to the desert of Israel by Zionists, its possible if bankers funded his rise. I’m not a Holocaust denier, but it looks like they may have ginned up some of the numbers and the story of what happened(gas chambers are highly suspect). There are alot of unspoken truths about what happened in Germany. Like HItler had a life size portrait of Henry Ford in his office, and gave him the highest civilian medal.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

” any group that does that by its nature becomes the enemy of you and me”

Agreed.

And indeed there is probably some discrepencies on the reports about the Holacaust.

I would not doubt that Hitler had a portrait of Ford in his office. Hitler was also named Man Of The Year in Time magazine way back before WWII.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

Social cohesion is an important aspect of group success..but of course it has its price. Jewish people for example have an incredible amount of genetic diseases for example as a consequence of no interbreeding(but also a very high IQ), and look up pedophilia in it. The child who claims rape will be beat down, because he or she is embarrassing the group, family. So much is Yin/Yang, all benefits have their costs(which are often ignored or unseen).

boweja
Guest
boweja
Offline

The thing is, Christianity is inherently a universalist religion (“brothers and sisters in Christ”). We can’t have a meaningful pan-Christian tribe, IMO.

I could be wrong, but that seems to be the core weakness. If you try to be tribalist, then your universalist entry conditions will enable universalists to infect you.

Rami Hiltunen
Guest
Rami Hiltunen
Offline

You are wrong about nationalism not being global. The local etnonationalist in Scandis and even in Turkey helped to promote Trump to stop shitworldization of Usa. The anti-racist ppl are “fighting* against their own neighbourhood rednecks whom they look down. Reality is that the alternative to rednecks are third word muslims and niggers. Nobody wants to live among them. Not even the women who get holidays in Malawi and are the core of refugees welcome voters.

fatherofthree
Guest
fatherofthree
Offline

Donald Trump won’t pursue Clinton email or foundation investigations as president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-wont-pursue-clinton-email-or-foundati/

Trump is a liar as I have always claimed. I knew he was the chosen puppet so I bet on him and made 60K. Thanks a thousand, big mouth puppet.

Roosh, you’re a good man and a good writer on certain subjects but you lost your credibility with me with your blind support for Trump.

South Texas
Guest
South Texas
Offline

Let us be patient here and see what transpires. Plenty of stuff to go after the Clintons in the future. You do not want that cunt to be a martyr or have the lying press accuse him of already using his power to go after her. Keep in mind the press is going to bitch at Trump every day for the next four plus years.

fatherofthree
Guest
fatherofthree
Offline

The more the time passes the more it will become evident that the King is if fact … naked.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

If he really wants to put her away, his best strategy is to act like he won’t so she doesn’t get pardoned. If he really wants to work to make America great,his best strategy is likely to delay or not prosecute her(because it would have the immediate effect of alienating her voters who he needs to win over now). Remember the press is still going hard after him for every single thing he is doing, regularly just making shit up, Hillary is going after the recount, George Soros, paying for political unrest and they are pushing to go after electors. And he isn’t even in office yet. The most important thing isn’t revenge or to settle scores, or even get the biggest fish, the goal is to undo the damage they have done, to reassert the constitution, then to go after them one by one, and leave a legacy. Would you settle for all of that if you had to give up Hillary? Yes she is a despicable $%$ who has people murdered and rapes children. But you know what, she is far from the only one. There is a swamp full of them.

boweja
Guest
boweja
Offline

Agreed, I don’t see Trump fundamentally challenging the existing power structures. He is not, for instance, ending the Fed. He is instead a release valve for the pressure populist rage. They don’t want a volcano, they want a controlled release of pressure, which Trump will give them.

Kolovrat
Guest
Kolovrat
Offline

This is the best representation of the political order in modern russia..lol. The third layer are the muslims under Kadyrov-the only man who has influence on Putin and future ruler of Rusyastan!comment image

Rick Valentine
Guest
Rick Valentine
Offline

Roosh, I’ve been reading your blog for a while and never commented before. Just wanted to say I really appreciate what you do, the blog has improved my life and really changed the way I see things. I also really respect your intellectual openness to new ideas, which is lacking in many of those on our side.

In regards to Carvalho, I can’t believe I never heard of him before, as he is clearly right on many key points. I don’t see how anyone as knowledgeable as Dugin can deny there is a multi-generational globalist syndicate unless he is really intellectually stubborn. Carvalho also does well at summarizing how the elites exert there control: a state monopoly of violence, increasing the size of government, and the influence of public opinion by intellectuals.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

“To defeat globalists who operate around the world, you’ll have to be global yourself”

Roosh can you elaborate a bit more on that remark specifically how it relates to the average man?

Bartek Kuliński
Guest
Bartek Kuliński
Offline

This sounds a bit like tautology. Just becouse you oppose globalits values being pushed in your own country – social liberalism, plutocracy, cultural marxism – doesn’t mean you try to impose your own on them or “evaporate” those globalists values from all around the world. Self – defence doesn’t imply empire – building.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

It seems to me for example many of them are nervous because the pitchforks are coming out, so they can run to say New Zealand to hide, and bide their time and poison the well to awake a maximal time to return. You will only get them in New Zealand if you have like-minded people there.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

” You will only get them in New Zealand if you have like-minded people there”

Good point, and tribalism of Christians will have to be global.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

Does it have to be Christian? I see the tribalism and Dynamism of neo-masculinity, as more invigorating. Christianity was imposed on the ultra masculine Vikings by their kings to make them governable. You can see how far and wide the Vikings spread culture..blue eyes came from Denmark around 8k years ago. Who would you bet on hunting down the hunters, Christians who only had initial success in the holy lands or old school vikings who kicked the shit out of christian England and owned a large piece of it as spoils? You might like to read the book the Long ships a historical fiction books about Viking culture, and see if it stirs your soul. https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/8119305/The_Long_Ships_-_Frans_G._Bengtsson .

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

“Does it have to be Christian? I see the tribalism and Dynamism of neo-masculinity, as more invigorating”

Good point – and I agree.

give them a Nobel for....nuthi
Guest
give them a Nobel for....nuthi
Offline

They do not give Nobel prizes and the country’s highest awards to people who actually have done something to deserve them…..they give a f****ng Nobel prize to goddamn Bob Dylan and some equally great artists and geniuses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38073567

If only the people who gave them, were not immature, uncultured, average and easily impressionable idiots.

Alexandre Costa
Guest
Alexandre Costa
Offline

Despite his great work and influence, Olavo de Carvalho is absolutely sabotaged by the stablishment here in Brazil. Roosh, good to know you are now in touch with Carvalho’s ideas.

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

Trump is making statements against the Alt-Right, he is moderating his tone. He hired an an Indian woman has is Secretary of State to the UN. Mitt Romney will most likely be his Secretary of State. So much for him being an anti Globalist and anti feminist. He is not the variety that flirts with black nationalists and Muslims like Obama but the idea that he is going to put America first and completely abandon the NWO is complete and utter horseshit.
Everyone knows that America will become a smaller world power relative to China, India, and Russia in the coming decades, it was going to happen, but that being said Trump has business interests all over the planet, he has been expanding quite a bit into India.
People saw Bush imperialism in then Bush imperialism came Obama. Now we got Trump like globalism.

Truth
Guest
Truth
Offline

As a long time Student of Olavo, and ROK/Roosh reader this is great news, Roosh has finally met Big Olavo.

He is a devout Catholic (but is a Big critic of Pope Francis) and a Hero of the Brazilian Conservative Movement. Since the 90s this guys has been talking about Cultural Marxism (He was a communist activist who noticed the corruption and left the movement in the 80s) and about the corruption of the left. He has many books about it, and is the best writer alive in Portuguese I have read. The Impeachment of Dilma and Downfall of the corrupt Worker Party (PT) is greatly because of movements lead by his students.

A poster commonly seen in the protests impeachment (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ifvXG1tYJnk/VpcVIdR9G-I/AAAAAAAABQc/BhQH6QHFVPk/s1600/olavotemrazao1.jpg) it says Olavo was Right.

He is loved and hated in Brazil, many accuse of being a cult leader, but this is nonsense. He is a freethinker and a great Philosopher, I encourage you to eat up any material you can find in English (most of his work is in Portuguese).

There is a movie about him coming up next year, financed in a Kickstarter campaign (I donated!)

Alexandre Costa
Guest
Alexandre Costa
Offline

I agree with you. It is really great Roosh has finally met Olavo. I also donated for his movie.

Bartek Kuliński
Guest
Bartek Kuliński
Offline

How there can even be globalizm without nationalism? It sounds like zoo without animals.

Larry Olsen
Guest
Larry Olsen
Offline

The intermediate step between nationalism and one world government is regionalism. The plan is to aggregate countries into ten regional blocs because regions are easier to govern. The North American Union is one region. Trade agreements are the building blocks for regions.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

I could see how it can be a false dichotomy. Good point.

dude
Guest
dude
Offline

Since you forgot to ” lay down the ban hammer ” on me here too, like a strong “neo-masculinist” who can tolerate dissenting views unlike those ” leftist faggots”, I just want to congratulate you. Congratulations on turning your mid-life crisis into a cash cow of a franchise. But I wonder how long till most people finally sniff the bullshit you’ve been spewing all these years and finally awaken to the ruse you’ve played on them. That’ll be them taking a “red-pill” that will eventually leave you bankrupt. smile

dude
Guest
dude
Offline

Since you forgot to ” lay down the ban hammer ” on me here too, like a strong “neo-masculinist” who can tolerate dissenting views unlike those ” leftist faggots”, I just want to congratulate you. Congratulations on turning your mid-life crisis into a cash cow of a franchise. But I wonder how long till most people finally sniff the bullshit you’ve been spewing all these years and finally awaken to the ruse you’ve played on them. That’ll be them taking a “red-pill” that will eventually leave you bankrupt. Roosh V: the next Tucker Max.:)

Ben Sanderson
Guest
Ben Sanderson
Offline

I propose an international confederation of nationalist movements.

General
Guest
General
Offline

You have made certain assumptions that are debatable. The fall of globalism doesn’t have to be caused by one – way singular factor. You only speak about simplistic nationalism – globalism polarity. But in fact globalism may as well collapse under its own weight without participation of any specific agenda or it may be caused by multiple more or less related factors like economic decline or social dynamics.

But lest assume you are right. What’s then? We all just go home? smile Bye bye ROK, neomasculinity and patriarchy?

sasha
Guest
sasha
Offline

education of the people is potentially universal, because truth is, and might, utopistically, provide a global counterbalance to any global machiavellianism. I know its hard but there exist people with morality.
Even the depraved likes of yourself have some seed of morality in what concerns the bearded alt monkeys you identify with, although you are a psychopath to those outside this group whose limits reflect that of your brain.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

Podesta says in one of his emails, that they’ve purposely made the education worse, and made the population compliant. So education and skepticism/resistance are antimachiavellian.

kuniqs
Guest
kuniqs
Offline

The problem of capitalism (and every political/tribal system in general) is that money is power. So the people who have money will spend money and invent new, better ways to earn money. People who don’t have money will not. Thus, people with money will ev. win the money arms race and dominate the moneyless. It’s also a zero-sum game, so if the rich don’t have means to earn more physical money, they will either take away the money of others (thus increasing the wealth gap, thus making themselves richer than others) or print money for themselves but not for others, or devalue the property of the enemy and inflate the value of their property.

The same with communism – people who can’t guilt others will be outguilted by those who perfected guilting. Etc. ad nauseum. Even in a post-scarcity society, when it’s not a zero-sum game, you still have the problem of evolution encouraging greed among future generations – it’s bound to explode someday.

Because justice is impossible even in theory, I don’t think there will ever be a non-dominating system where having/knowing certain things makes you better than others, and makes it easier for you to get even more of those things.

IMHO humanity will become free when the competent will kill off the incompetent (think humans genociding animals) and when every one of those who left have the knowledge and materials to just walk off from the rest and build his own little world. Think space, where resources and space are night infinite.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

There is always a Darwinian selection going on. but it is rarely linear, initial success can result in later failure. Technological advance is often the opening versus the elite. In other cultures technology was often specifically repudiated because it upset the status quo. The gun in Japan is a good example of this. Now the lowest peasant can kill the best armored Samurai..quit a revolution.

kuniqs
Guest
kuniqs
Offline

The part about Japan is completely wrong, as there are examples such as the defeat of Takeda (who majored in cavalry charges) by Oda (who used lots of peasant levies and guns).

What’s interesting to me is how innovators are not necessary the pioneers. The Roman empire for example was not known for their science (in fact they shunned it, just look at what they did to Archimedes), but they were great at absorbing the innovations of others. There are examples, like the Mongols, Japanese or British during their imperial period.

I was thinking about family lately, and I honestly have no idea how can it escape the Malthusian trap. If you have a society without war, and where people don’t die suddenly, then how do you avoid overpopulation which leads to zillions of problems in an space and resource constrained environment? Does it mean family will become obsolete in the future and humanity will become a one-sex race who reproduces by cloning or by vat-growing? Especially when humanity will reach a point where people grow up at the same rate as today (20-25 years), but live much longer (hundreds of years?). What will the young do when the elderly won’t die and leave space for them to prosper? And what’s the point of family if not having children to secure your future when you’ll get too old to take care of yourself?

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

Your example of the Romans Reminds me of Bill Gates. Maybe they realize that technology advance is dangerous, every new iteration capable of unseating the power structure, but at the same time advances are often impossible to eliminate, so best to kill, purchase or corrupt each inevitable advance. Microsoft had such poor programming skills there was no way for them to make a nimble operating system for the emerging small devices..which have now broken his monopoly.
In general a lengthening of life span, acts like a temporary population growth spurt, not a permanent rise in growth rate. At the end of the day the question is how many children does each couple have? If it is 2 then the population is stable(with no increase in life span). A ten percent rise in life span then would become a 10% population growth and fertility rate would have to be dropped temporarily by a similar amount to stay absolutely stable. At the rate “they” are attacking fertility, maybe they have discovered the secret to longevity.

kuniqs
Guest
kuniqs
Offline

I was thinking more about the Romans and co. and concluded that the reason why they were better at exploiting innovations was because war and conquest in general is a fertile ground for novelties. An army during war adapts 10x faster than during peace.

I guess Microsoft can’t compete on mobile is that it’s a big corporation, and those always adapt slowly, especially considering that almost everyone who knows programming can make a living from mobile – all they need is a half-decent PC and the Internet, which are a given in 1st world countries today.

About lifespan: the longer it is, the less fertile a race is to avoid the Malthusian trap. The less fertile a race is, the less able it is to regrow from losses (think natural disasters or war). The young also need a longer grow-up time, or else they will become surplus adults in a society that has no place for more. Those adults have nowhere to go, have no interest in helping the society who raised them and are a dangerous variable.

My statement above is the reason why I believe that the family unit will not survive in a future of longer lifespans if there is not a war that kills old people prematurely, kills young people prematurely, or if the ‘ripening’ age of children will become longer.

kuniqs
Guest
kuniqs
Offline

BTW. when the Japanese first bought guns from the visiting Portugese, the emperor immediately gave those guns to his smiths and told them to reverse-engineer them. Just a little curiosity.

Ann Rikanson
Guest
Ann Rikanson
Offline

Hey Roosh! There is a new mistake I spotted!

You write: “The most important thing I learned is that to replace a globalist
hegemon, you will need to counter with a strategy that is also globalist
is nature.”

Replacing ‘globalist is nature’ with ‘globalist in nature’ does the trick!;);)

rascallater
Guest
rascallater
Offline

“How can individual nations and their leaders stand up in the long term (beyond a generation) against a host of individuals, corporations, NGOs, and other organizations that operate globally and across generations? ”

Republicans just need to control two more state legislatures to be able to pass their own constitutional amendments entrenching nationalist power for the duration of the USA.

Ben Band
Guest
Ben Band
Offline

“The most important thing I learned is that to replace a globalist hegemon, you will need to counter with a strategy that is also globalist is nature. Otherwise, patient historical agents will marshal their resources across several nation-states to effortlessly crush any non-globalist force.”

Is the US large enough to not need to globalism? We have a large military, a lot of farm land, and abundant natural resources. It would be difficult for “several nation-states to effortlessly crush any non-globalist force.” If the non globalist force is the US.

boweja
Guest
boweja
Offline

Agreed. Only nukes could harm the US. Nobody could project enough force to overcome the US by conventional arms.

allynnova
Guest
allynnova
Offline

Find all the globalists, and kill them all. Beat their skulls in with baseball bats, burn them alive in their mansions, shoot them in the head with sniper rifles. Kill all the globalists, and their heirs as well, and let God sort it out.

Jim Jones Koolaid
Guest
Jim Jones Koolaid
Offline

If you look at the birth of our nation, so many aspects of it were to specifically prevent the evils of England. And today they are still trying to get our free speech and our guns. You can’t just kill them, you have to prevent their methods of infiltration.

Rossini
Guest
Rossini
Offline

Nice to know that you are now getting familiar with Prof. Olavo de Carvalho ideas…

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

America had 8 years of Barack Obama, Obama ran for office of the President as the first Black man to represent a major American political party. Many thought he would permanently change race relations in America for the better, would restore America’s deteriorating relations with the world, and its declining status. Eight years later its clear, he achieved none of those things as Obama revealed himself to be an agent of the global elitist cabal that runs the US and the Western world.
African Americans continue to live in poverty, white middle class America is in permanent decline, America’s relationship with the world outside continues to deteriorate. Anti-American feeling that reached an peak during George W Bush continued under Obama.
This created an atmosphere ripe for Donald Trump to rise to the Presidency. The mainstream media has smeared Trump as a racist, an anti-semite(hard to believe considering his own daughter is Jewish as well as his son in law and three grandchildren), and other distortions.
Its clear Trump has a different vision of how to utilize American power, he has been outspoken against nation building wars that both Bush and Obama have supported, which have created the heated geopolitcal climate today, and distracted America from its economic purpose.
If Hillary won, America would have endured another 4 to 8 years of Neoconservative wars rather than leadership focusing on America’s own domestic problems. The media still continues to demonize Trump even though he has softened many of his initial positions. It still remains to be seen whether Trump will challenge the globalists that control America or become subservient to them as President. My feelings is that since he became President elect he has backed off on every major promise he made, which indicates to me that for the most part he will cooperate with the globalists on most issues.

KermitTheeFrog777
Guest
KermitTheeFrog777
Offline

Groundbreaking piece by Roosh. Gold-level comments. I feel very vindicated in my readings of Evola and Campbell.

The answer?

I believe a (mostly) global power structure and religion is inevitable, considering impending tech processes.

Is a global system inherently evil? Or can it be ruled with justice and virtue, by a Knights Templar-like covert brotherhood, along with a global Congress?

What will be the implications of AI, genetic engineering, and cybernetics–and the particular ways we choose to implement them?

Who the hell knows.