There is one simple rule to follow when understanding the tragic history of economies: Never put blind faith in a system built on an establishment-created foundation. You would think this would not be a difficult concept to grasp being that we have so many examples of controlled economies and collapse to reference over the centuries, but in our era more than ever the allure of a virtual world with promises of endless wealth and ease is overwhelming.
Yes, I am referring primarily to cyptocurrency "tulip-mania" (sorry bitcoiners, the description is too fitting, it isn't going away), but not this issue alone. I am also referring to a far-reaching problem of which cryptocurrencies are a mere reflection. Namely, the fact that humanity is swiftly losing sight of what a true economy is and what it is supposed to accomplish. It is because of this reality that crypto is thriving.
First, let's be clear, fiat currencies are one of the first machinations of the virtual economy. Once paper currencies printed from thin air by central bankers were separated from tangible backing and accepted by the masses as "valuable" and worth trading labor for, the seed of financial cancer was planted. Today, there is one final step needed for the establishment to accomplish complete tyranny in global trade and that is to disconnect the masses fully from private transactions. In other words, we must be tricked into going digital, where privacy is an absurd memory.
Virtual economics is appealing for several reasons, most of them bad.
Americans and much of the west in particular are increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of real production. The latest generation coming into political and social influence, the millenials, is a perfect example. Surveys show American millenials more than any other generation lack basic workplace competency skills, including scoring low on arithmetic and reading comprehension. Often portrayed as "tech savvy" in popular culture and the media, millenials are quite inept when it comes to core skills that fuel strong business and trade, which is part of the reason why the U.S. is falling into the shadow of foreign workforces.
Millenials in the West also exhibit abysmal technical skills in international testing and lag far behind foreign peers. This has come as a surprise to many mainstream economists and social analysts, primarily because millenials are also considered the "most educated" generation ever. But, of course, we have not only been given a virtual economy in recent decades, but also a virtual educational system. A majority of millenials are lacking when it comes to key production skills and entrepreneurship methods because they have been trained to dismiss such skills as negligible. In other words, millenials have been conditioned to be academic idiots.
Why go through the struggle and hardship required to become an effective producer of tangible necessities when it is far easier to join a collectivist drive for socialism and a structure in which little to no work is required to obtain such necessities? Why not steal from a productive minority and spread it thinly enough to keep the unskilled majority fed? It is only within this kind of culture that virtual production, a virtual society and virtual "money" is seen as an ideal solution.
The notion is becoming more and more prevalent in our popular media, and I believe this is rather symbolic (or ironic) of our conundrum.
For example, consider the book Ready Player One, a pop-culture craze and archetypal zeitgeist for millenials soon to be released as an intended Hollywood blockbuster directed by Steven Spielberg. The novel depicts the world of 2045, a world in which fossil fuel depletion and "global warming" have triggered economic and social decline (Remember in the 1980s when they used to tell us that global warming was going to melt the polar icecaps and we would be under water by the year 2000?). A totalitarian governing body controlled by corporate behemoths rules over the dystopian sprawl.
In response to an ever painful existence in the real world, the masses have sought to escape to a virtual world called "the Oasis," created by a programming genius. The Oasis becomes a nexus for the global economy and a virtual society.
This sounds like a rousing background for a story of rebellion, and it is about that... sort of. Unfortunately, here is where the disturbing ties between our world and the fictional world of Ready Player One meet. The "rebellion" is for all intents and purposes also virtual, and for millenial audiences in particular, this is supposed to be inspiring.
Perhaps this is why cryptocurrencies are so appealing to the millenial crowd in particular. Think about it — the dismal economic doldrums of Ready Player One exist NOW; we don't have to wait until 2045. Millenials are already feeling disaffected, indebted and disenfranchised, and most of them are also skill-less. Self reliance to them is an idea so alien it rarely if ever crosses their minds. So, how do they fight back? Or, how are they tricked into thinking they can fight back against a virtual system that has left them in the gutter? Why, with a virtual community and a virtual currency, of course.
Millenials and others think that they are going to rebel and "take down the banking oligarchs" with nothing more than digital markers representing "coins" tracked on a digital ledger created by an anonymous genius programmer/programmers. Delusional? Yes. But like I said earlier, it is an appealing notion.
Here is the issue, though; true money requires intrinsic value. Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. They are conjured from nothing by programmers, they are "mined" in a virtual mine created from nothing, and they have no unique aspects that make them rare or tangibly useful. They are an easily replicated digital product. Anyone can create a cryptocurrency. And for those that argue that "math gives crypto intrinsic value," I'm sorry to break it to them, but the math is free.
In fact, for those that are not already aware, Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 hash function, created by none other than the National Security Agency (NSA) and published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
Yes, that's right, Bitcoin would not exist without the foundation built by the NSA. Not only this, but the entire concept for a system remarkably similar to bitcoin was published by the NSA way back in 1996 in a paper called "How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography Of Anonymous Electronic Cash."
The origins of bitcoin and thus the origins of crytpocurrencies and the blockchain ledger suggest anything other than a legitimate rebellion against the establishment framework and international financiers. I often cite this same problem when people come to me with arguments that the internet has set the stage for the collapse of the globalist information filter and the mainstream media. The truth is, the internet is also an establishment creation developed by DARPA, and as Edward Snowden exposed in his data dumps, the NSA has total information awareness and backdoor control over every aspect of web data.
Many people believe the free flow of information on the internet is a weapon in favor of the liberty movement, but it is also a weapon in favor of the establishment. With a macro overview of data flows, entities like Google can even predict future social trends and instabilities, not to mention peek into every personal detail of an individual's life and past.
To summarize, cryptocurrencies are built upon an establishment designed framework, and they are entirely dependent on an establishment created and controlled vehicle (the internet) in order to function and perpetuate trade. How exactly is this "decentralization", again?
TOTAL information awareness is the goal here; and blockchain technology helps the powers-that-be remove one of the last obstacles: private personal trade transactions. Years ago, a common argument presented in favor of bitcoin was that it was "completely anonymous." Today, this is being proven more and more a lie. Even now, in the wake of open admissions by major bitcoin proponents that the system is NOT anonymous, people still claim anonymity is possible through various measures, but this has not proven to sway the FBI or IRS which have for years now been using resources such as Chainanalysis to track bitcoin users when they feel like doing so, including those users that have taken stringent measures to hide themselves.
Bitcoin proponents will argue that "new developments" and even new cryptocurrencies are solving this problem. Yet, this was the mantra back when bitcoin was first hitting the alternative media. It wasn't a trustworthy assumption back then, so why would it be a trustworthy assumption now? The only proper assumption to make is that nothing digital is anonymous. Period.
With the ludicrous spike in bitcoin prices, champions of the virtual economy are unlikely to listen to any questions or criticisms. I have never argued one way or the other in terms of bitcoin's potential "market value," because it does not really matter. I have only ever argued that cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are in no way a solution to combating the international and central banks. In fact, cyrptocurrencies only seem to be expediting their plan for full spectrum digitization and the issuance of a global currency system.
Bitcoin could easily hit $100,000, but its "value" is truly irrelevant and consistently hyped as if it makes bitcoin self evident as a solution to globalism. The higher the bitcoin price goes, the more the bitcoin cult claims victory, yet the lack of intrinsic value never seems to cross their minds. They have Scrooge McDuck-like visions of swimming in a vault of virtual millions. They'll only accuse you of being an "old fogey" that "does not understanding what the blockchain is."
The fact is, they are the one's that do not really understand what the blockchain is — a framework for a completely cashless society in which trade anonymity is dead and economic freedom is destroyed.
Ask yourself this: Why is it that central banks around the world (including the BIS and IMF) are investing in Bitcoin and other crytpocurrencies while developing their own crypto systems based on a similar framework? Could it be that THIS infusion of capital and infrastructure from major banks is the most likely explanation for the incredible spike in the bitcoin market? Why is it that globalist banking conglomerates like Goldman Sachs lavish blockchain technology with praise in their white papers? And, why are central bankers like Ben Bernanke speaking in favor of crypto at major cryptocurrency conferences if crypto is such a threat to central bank control?
Answer — because it is not a threat. They benefit from a cashless system, and liberty champions are helping to give it to them.
Above all else, the virtual economy breeds weakness in society. It encourages a lack of tangible production. Instead of true producers, entrepreneurs and inventors, we have people scrambling to sell real world property in order to buy computing rigs capable of "mining" coins that do not really exist. That is to say, we may one day soon be faced with millions of citizens expending their labor and energy in order to obtain digital nothings programmed into existence and given artificial scarcity (for now).
It also encourages false rebellion. Real change requires actions in the real world. Removing banking elitists and their structures by force if necessary (and this will probably be necessary). Instead, freedom activists are being convinced that they will never have to lift a finger to beat the bankers. All they have to do is buy and mine crypto. The day will come in the near future when the folks that embrace this nonsense will wake up and realize they have wasted their energies chasing a unicorn and are ill prepared to weather the economic reset that continues to evolve.
To maintain a real economy in which people are self reliant and safe from fiscal shock, you need three things: tangible localized and decentralized production, independent and decentralized trade networks that are not structured around an establishment controlled system (like the internet is controlled), and the will to apply force to protect and preserve that production and those networks. If you cannot manufacture a useful thing, repair a useful thing or teach a useful skill, then you are essentially useless in a real economy. If you do not have localized trade, you have nothing. If you do not have the mindset and the community of independent people required to protect your local production, then you will not be able to keep the economy you have built.
This is the cold hard truth that crypto proponents do not want to discuss, and will dismiss outright as "archaic" or "not obtainable." The virtual economy is so much easier, so much more enticing, so much more comfortable. Why risk anything or everything in a real world effort to build a concrete trade network in your own neighborhood or town? Why risk everything by promoting true decentralization through localized commodity-backed money and barter systems? Why risk everything by defending those systems when the establishment seeks to crush them? Why do this, when you can pretend you are a virtual hero wielding virtual weapons in a no risk rebellion in a world of electronic ones and zeros?
In truth, the virtual economy is not legitimate decentralization, it is a weapon of mass distraction engineered to kill legitimate decentralization.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it's no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it's critical to act now! That's why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
La France fut partiellement épargnée par ce mouvement en raison du caudillisme introduit par De Gaulle en 1958 après la déroute de la Quatrième République, qui était justement intrinsèquement libérale. La personnalité du Général-Président put contenir les Libéraux et la majeure partie d’entre eux se replièrent dans l’ombre non sans phagocyter les partis politiques de sorte que ce ne fut qu’un court répit comme nous le verrons.
Une seconde vague libérale devait alors être déclenchée pour asséner aux sociétés occidentales agonisantes et à leur corps politique malade le dernier souffle. Après l’idéologie de Mai 68, plus ou moins dérivée de l’École de Francfort, une nouvelle arme sera forgée pour détruire l’Europe (et en partie, le reste du monde), une arme encore plus efficace. Cette arme sera l’infâme thatchérisme néolibéral. A la fin des années soixante-dix, le néo-libéralisme (qu’il soit thatchérien ou reaganien) était donc célébré partout comme la nouvelle libération idéologique qui permettait de nous débarrasser enfin de l’État. Ni les démocrates-chrétiens ni les sociaux-démocrates ne purent loyalement résister à la tentation même s’ils rappelaient parfois à leurs partisans que la Doctrine de l’Eglise (basée sur Thomas d’Aquin et Aristote) ou l’interventionnisme socialiste traditionnel était totalement hostile à un libéralisme débridé. Les économistes devinrent alors plus importants que les politiciens. Nous entrons dans ce qu’on appela alors la « fin de l’Histoire », le règne absolu du marché. Pire, le système des partis où les démocrates-chrétiens et les sociaux-démocrates s’étaient péniblement hissés, empêcha toute critique rationnelle ou la possibilité d’un quelconque changement, en bloquant le processus démocratique que les réformistes chrétiens ou socialistes prétendaient orgueilleusement incarner à eux tous seuls. L’Europe est effectivement maintenant dans une sombre impasse et paraît incapable d’échapper au libéralisme de Mai 68 aussi bien qu’au néo-libéralisme.Ces forces de transformation semblent incapables de rassembler suffisamment de votes pour pouvoir obtenir un changement de pouvoir effectif. Nous devons prendre aussi en compte le fait que les forces du système ont été au pouvoir depuis maintenant plus de soixante-dix ans et que par conséquent, elles occupent littéralement les institutions à tous les niveaux par la nomination de fonctionnaires officiels qui ne pourront pas être remplacés instantanément en cas d’irruption soudaine d’une nouvelle légitimité populaire. Les défis risquent en tout cas de lancer les nouveaux parvenus dans des domaines qu’ils seront bien incapables de maîtriser.
En 2016, vous publiez en anglais votre livre The European Enterprise: Geopolitical Essays. Vous y explorez brillamment les fondements historiques, culturels et spirituels des grands empires européens,à savoir le début du Reich, qui n’est pas du tout l’équivalent pour vous du mot français « nation » et vous estimez que le développement naturel de l’Europe a été entravé ou détourné par la « civilisation occidentale ». Vous accordez aussi une attention toute particulière dans ce livre au « thème russe », à l’espace russe et au concept d’Eurasie. Pourquoi cet espace est-il nécessaire à l’ère de la mondialisation et alors que les États-Unis tentent d’imposer leur hégémonie mondiale ou de « globaliser » leur propre modèle politique et économique ?
L’axe du Danube a été coupé au niveau des « Portes de Fer », par delà lesquelles la zone byzantine s’étendait vers l’Est. L’Empire byzantin était l’héritier direct de l’Empire romain: là, la légitimité n’y fut jamais contestée. La communauté du mont Athos est un centre spirituel qui a pleinement été reconnu tout récemment par le président russe Vladimir Poutine.L’Empire romain-germanique (plus tard austro-hongrois),l’Empire russe comme héritier de Byzance et la communauté religieuse du Mont Athos partagent les mêmes symboles, celui du drapeau d’or avec un aigle bicéphale noir, vestige d’un vieux culte traditionnel perse où les oiseaux assuraient le lien entre la Terre et le Ciel, entre les hommes et les Dieux. L’aigle est l’oiseau le plus majestueux qui vole dans les hauteurs les plus élevées du ciel, et il est devenu évidemment le symbole de la dimension sacrée de l’Empire. Ainsi vivre dans les cadres territoriaux d’un Empire signifie d’abord accomplir une tâche spirituelle: établir sur la Terre une harmonie semblable à celle qui gouverne l’ordre céleste. La colombe qui symbolise l’Esprit Saint dans la tradition chrétienne avait en fait la même tâche symbolique que l’aigle dans la tradition impériale: sécuriser le lien entre le royaume ouranien (l’Uranus grec et la Varuna védique) et la Terre (Gaïa).
Après Luther, les éléments puritains extrémistes de la Réforme du nord de la France, des Pays-Bas, de Münster et de Grande-Bretagne feront en sorte que cette « théologie de la précipitation » soit encore plus virulente, dans l’Angleterre anglicane mais aussi dans le « royaume protestant » des Treize Colonies d’Amérique du Nord, comme en témoignent les événements tragiques de l’époque: la décapitation du roi Charles Ier due à la révolution puritaine de Cromwell. Cette façon de voir l’histoire comme une malédiction profonde a été transmise aux Pères fondateurs des futurs États-Unis. Avec la tradition déiste en Angleterre et la tradition politique Whig en Grande-Bretagne et en Amérique du Nord, cette « théologie de la précipitation » se rationalisera perfidement en se donnant un vernis progressiste, celui des Lumières qui culminera dans le plan du président Wilson visant à purger le monde du mal. La « philosophie de la précipitation » (et non la « théologie ») des philosophes français conduira à une eschatologie politique laïque sous l’ombre tutélaire de la guillotine, sous laquelle tous ceux qui soi-disant freinaient le processus devaient périr préventivement et avoir la tête coupée. Après Wilson, plusieurs diplomates américains vont forger des principes qui empêchent que la souveraineté en propre des États puisses’exprimer par le biais de projets programmatiques avec ou sans guerres.
Ainsi, la Russie est importante dans cette trame générale d’une interprétation historique du « katechon » car elle est l’antidote à « la folie eschatologique ». La Russie est l’héritière de Byzance mais aussi l’héritière directe de la « Forme romaine ». Elle était considérée comme le bastion du conservatisme avant 1917, même si ce conservatisme fut fossilisé par Konstantin Pobiedonostsev comme a pu l'observer Dmitri Merejkovsky qui rejetta par la suite tous les aspects démoniaques de la révolution russe. La Russie n'a pas expérimenté le même traumatisme que l'Europe au 16ème siècle avec la Réforme et les guerres de religion, les destructions perpétrées par les iconoclastes; elle a ensuite été préservée des sottes philosophies déistes des Whigs anglais ou des folies des Lumières françaises du 18ème siècle. Cela ne veut pas dire, comme l'entend la vulgate occidentaliste, que la Russie est un pays arriéré: Catherine II était une impératrice animée par l'idéologie des Lumières, mais des Lumières dites "despotiques" et, par voie de conséquence, pragmatiques et constructives. Elle fit de la Russie une grande puissance. Alexandre I était animé par des idées religieuses traditionnelles et apaisantes, que nous devrions réétudier attentivement aujourd'hui, surtout après le désastre syrien. Alexandre II a modernisé le pays à grande vitesse à la fin du 19ème siècle et a pu éliminer tous les handicaps imposés à la Russie après le Traité de Paris de 1856 qui mit fin à la guerre de Crimée. En fin de compte, la Russie, à la notable exception des premières décennies du régime bolchevique, semble avoir été immunisée contre la toxicité dangereuse que constitue la "théologie de la précipitation".
La flotte française qui battit en 1783 l’Angleterre en Amérique du Nord permit la complète indépendance des États-Unis. La Russie put alors conquérir l’Alaska, établir un comptoir en Californie et envisager une alliance hispano-russe dans le Nouveau Monde. Les marins russes purent accoster dans les îles Hawaii et les offrir à leur Tsar. A leur niveau, les expéditions françaises dans le Pacifique furent fructueuses et personne n’oubliera jamais que Louis XVI quelques minutes avant de monter les marches qui le conduisirent à l’échafaud, demanda des nouvelles de La Pérouse, qui s’était perdu en explorant les eaux du Pacifique. Ce premier dessein eurasien avant la lettre fut torpillé par les Révolutionnaires français payés et excités par les Anglais et les services secrets de Pitt, comme le raconte bien l’historien Olivier Blanc dans 
Dans un futur proche, les États-Unis essaieront à tout prix de conserver leur domination sur l’Europe de l’Ouest (même si d’un autre côté, ils tentent aussi de la fragiliser encore plus par les vagues migratoires incontrôlées et les initiatives de Soros), ils feront aussi tout pour asseoir leur domination sur l’Amérique latine et plus particulièrement sur l’Afrique, où ils développent une nouvelle forme d’impérialisme original à travers l’AFRICOM, une structure de commandement conçue justement pour endiguer les Chinois et faire sortir les Français de leur Françafrique tout en enjoignant à ces derniers de participer au processus militaire de leur propre neutralisation ! Nonobstant, cette politique internationale est condamnée à l’échec parce que l’ubiquité du contrôle total qu’elle suppose demeure impossible à tenir sur la base de seulement 350 millions de contribuables.
Et c’est ainsi que nous fûmes attirés par les Scythes, surtout après avoir lu un livre de l’historien français Francis Conte où il nous rappelait que les origines de nombreux peuples slaves remontaient non seulement aux tribus slaves mais aussi aux cavaliers Sarmates, y compris ceux qui les avaient nourris auparavant, la cavalerie des légions romaines.
Dans son texte, « Le retour de la vraie Droite », l’auteur revient en premier lieu sur l’ascension culturelle de la Gauche et conqtate que « les idéaux de l’Occident ont subi une inversion totale, et des idées qui se situaient initialement à la périphérie de l’extrême gauche ont été élevées au rang de normes sociales qui prévalent aujourd’hui dans l’éducation, les médias, les institutions gouvernementales et les ONG privées (p. 2) ». Un tel résultat, nous explique l’auteur, n’aurait pas pu être possible sans « les sociologues et philosophes marxistes de l’Institut für Sozialforschung de Francfort [qui], au début du XXe siècle, visaient, au travers de la conception de la philosophie et leur analyse sociale sélective, à saper la confiance dans les valeurs et hiérarchies traditionnelles (p. 2) ». Sans doute que d’autres facteurs sont rentrés en ligne de compte concernant l’involution de l’Occident, et non pas uniquement des facteurs politiques, mais cela ne rentre peut-être pas dans la grille de lecture de l’auteur – ce qui n’enlève rien, par ailleurs, à la justesse de ses propos.
À l’heure où l’environnement économique et commercial international est de plus en plus complexe et hasardeux, le Comité central du PCC, avec le camarade Xi Jinping comme noyau dirigeant, a lancé en temps opportun le concept de développement innovant, coordonné, vert, ouvert et partagé. M. Xi a indiqué : « Nous devons prendre conscience que l’économie chinoise, en dépit du volume considérable qu’elle représente, n’est pas encore robuste et qu’en dépit de sa croissance très rapide, elle n’affiche pas une qualité optimale. Notre modèle de développement extensif qui misait principalement sur les facteurs de production, en particulier les ressources, pour stimuler la croissance économique et l’expansion du volume économique n’est pas durable. Il est temps d’accélérer notre transformation pour passer d’un développement essentiellement alimenté par les facteurs de production et l’investissement massif à un développement tiré par l’innovation. »
EM : 
The more radical underlying principles were adapted to the Zeitgeist of the Fifties and the Sixties by think tanks lead ultimately by the OSS (“Office of Strategic Studies”). This created the perverse corpus of May 68 that was launched into Germany and France. Both countries could resist in the Seventies although their societies were all the same contaminated by the bacillus that was eroding gradually their traditional psychological assets. A second wave had to be prepared to give all the Western societies the last blow to let their political bodies crumble down. Next to the May 68 ideology, more or less derived from the Frankfurt School, a new weapon was forged to destroy Europe (and partly the rest of the world) more efficiently. This weapon was the infamous Thatcherite neoliberalism. At the very end of the Seventies, neoliberalism (be it Thatcherism or Reaganomics) was celebrated as a new liberation ideology that was about to get rid of the political State-centered praxis. Neither the Christian democrats nor the social-democrats were able to resist staunchly and to remember their supporters that the Church doctrine (based on Thomas Aquino and Aristoteles) or the interventionist socialist tradition were genuinely hostile to such an unbridled liberalism. Economics became more important than politics. We entered at that very moment the so-called post-history where no marks were still to be found. Even worse, the corrupt “partitocratic” system, in which Christian democrats and social-democrats were painfully muddling through, prevented any rational reaction and any challenge from new parties, blocking the democratic process they so vehemently pretend to incarnate alone.
As the New Right writer Guillaume Faye had previously told it: France in the present-day situation is totally unable to reestablish law and order when riots spread in more than three or four big urban areas. The riots lasted the time needed to promote a new previously obscure petty politician, Nicolas Sarközy, who promised to wipe out the troublemakers in the suburbs and did of course absolutely nothing once in power. Charles Rivkin, US ambassador in France is the theorist of this “4th Generation Warfare” operations aiming at exciting migrant communities against law and order in France (see: 
Q.: 
Living within the territorial frames of an Empire means to fulfill a spiritual task: to establish on Earth a similar harmony as the one displayed by the celestial order. The dove symbolizing the Holy Spirit in Christian tradition has indeed the same symbolic task as the eagle in imperial tradition: assuring the link between the Uranic realm (Greek Uranus/Vedic Varuna) and the Earth (Gaia). As the subject of an Empire, I’m compelled to dedicate all my life trying to reach the perfection of the apparently perfect order of the celestial bodies. It’s an ascetic and military duty featured by the archangel Michael, also a figure derived from the man/bird beings of the Persian mythology that the Hebrews brought back from their Babylonian captivity. Emperor Charles V tried to incarnate this Chivalry’s ideal despite the petty human sins he consciously committed during his life. He remained truly human, a sinner, and dedicated all his efforts to keep the Empire alive, to make of it a dam against decay, which is the task of the “katechon” according to Carl Schmitt. No one better than the Frenchman Denis Crouzet has described this perpetual tension the Emperor lived in his marvelous book, Charles Quint, Empereur d’une fin des temps, Odile Jacob, Paris, 2016. I’m reading this very thick book over and over again which will help me to precise my imperial world view and to understand better what Schmitt meant when he considered Church and Empire as ‘katechonical” forces. This chapter is far from being closed.
Crouzet explains in his book that the German and European Reformation wanted to “precipitate” things, aspiring at the same time to experiment lively the “eschaton”, the end of the world. This precipitation theology is the very first outward sign of modernism. Luther in a quite moderate way and the other actors of Reformation in an extreme way wanted the end of a world (of a historical continuity) they considered as profoundly infected by evil. Charles V, explains Crouzet, has an imperial and “katechonical” attitude. As an Emperor and a servant of God on Earth, he has to slow down the “eschaton” process to preserve his subjects from the afflictions of decay.
I could add that a “precipitation theology or ideology” doesn’t express itself by all sorts of millennial pseudo-religious babbling claptrap like the one which is predicated for instance in Latin America but can also act as an economic fundamentalism like the neoliberal craze that affects America and Europe since the end of the Seventies. Puritanism can also quite often be reversed in its diametral contrary i. e. postmodernist debauch what explains that millennials, femens, pussy rioters, Salafists, neoliberal “banksters”, media moguls, color revolutionists, etc. follows on the international chessboard the same “4th Generation Warfare” agenda. Aim is to destroy all the dams civilization has set to serve the “Katechon” or the Aristotelian “Spoudaios”. We must define ourselves as the humble servants of the Katechon against the pretentious designs of the “precipitators”. This means serving the imperial powers and fighting the powers that are perverted by the “precipitators”. Or having a Eurasian option and not an Atlanticist one.
The second Eurasian project avant la lettre was the very short-lived “Holy Alliance” or “Pentarchy” created in the aftermath of the Treaty of Vienna in 1814. It allowed the independence of Greece but failed after the independence of Belgium when England and France helped to destroy the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The “Holy Alliance” definitively crumbled down when the Crimea War started as two Western powers of the “Pentarchy” clashed with Russia. The Anti-Western affect spread widely in Russia and the core ideas of it are clearly outlined in Dostoyevsky’s main political book, A Writer’s Diary, written after his Siberian exile and the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-78. The West permanently plots against Russia and Russia has to defend itself against these constant endeavors to erode its power and its domestic stability. 
Peter Frankopan’s book is more factual but also enables to criticize the Western arrogant attitude namely in Iran. The chapters in his book dedicated to old Persia and modern Iran would allow diplomats to settle bases for a renewed cooperation between European powers and Iran, provided, of course, that Europeans really would abandon the guidelines dictated by NATO and the United States. Eurasianism compels you to study history more thoroughly than the present-day Western way of leading policies in the world. Facts shouldn’t be ignored or disregarded simply because they don’t fit into the schemes of the superficial interpretation of the Enlightenment the Western powers are currently handling, provoking at the same time a concatenation of catastrophes. 
The German historian Reinhard Schmoeckel hypothezises that even the Merovingians, from whom Chlodowegh (Clovis for the French) descended, were partly Sarmatian and not purely Germanic. In Spain, historians admit that among the Visigoths and the Sueves that invaded the peninsula as Germanic tribes were accompanied by Alans, a horsemen people from the Caspian and Caucasus area. The traditions they brought to Spain are at the origin of the chivalry orders that helped a lot to perform the Reconquista. As you say, all that has been neglected but now things are changing. In my short essay on the geopoliticians in Berlin between both world wars, I remember a poor sympathetic professor who tried to coin a new historiography in Europe taking the Eastern elements into accounts but whose impressive collection of documents were completely destroyed during the battle for Berlin in 1945. His name was Otto Hoetzsch. He was a Slavic philologist, a translator (namely during the negotiations of the Rapallo Treaty, 1922) and a historian of Russia: he pleaded for a common European historiography stressing the convergences and not the differences leading to catastrophic conflicts like the German-Russian wars of the 20th century. I wrote that we all have to walk in his footsteps. I suppose you agree. 
