Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 13 mai 2018

Manuel Ochsenreiter »Russland, USA, Europa. Souveränität und Hegemonie«

ManuelFoto.jpg

Manuel Ochsenreiter »Russland, USA, Europa. Souveränität und Hegemonie«

 
Manuel Ochsenreiter spricht über die geopolitischen Zusammenhängen in Bezug auf Syrien aber auch beispielsweise die Ukraine und die USA und wie diese in deutsche und europäische Politik hineinreichen. Besonders brisant war dies vor den in der Nacht zuvor durchgeführten, völkerrechtswidrigen aber folgenlos bleibenden Luftschlägen der USA und deren Verbündeten gegen Syrien und dessen Machthaber Assad.
 
Weiterführende Informationen:
staatspolitik.de
sezession.de
antaios.de
 

jeudi, 25 janvier 2018

Chișinău – Discours de Manuel Ochsenreiter

manuelochsenreiterdonetsk.jpg

Chișinău – Discours de Manuel Ochsenreiter

Ex: http://www.flux.md

Cher Monsieur le Président, chers invités, chers collègues,

C’est une habitude très régulière de voir les orateurs officiels allemands s’excuser dans les pays étrangers pour le passé de l’Allemagne. Heureusement je ne suis pas fonctionnaire !

Alors pardonnez-moi s’il vous plaît de ne pas suivre cette règle de fer des interventions allemandes à l’étranger. Je pense que notre problème aujourd’hui n’est pas notre passé. Nos problèmes sont les événements du temps présent, ceux d’aujourd’hui, pas d’hier. En d’autres termes, les fonctionnaires allemands s’excusent pour la Seconde Guerre mondiale alors qu’ils planifient et mènent une politique de nuisance contre notre continent européen, alors qu’ils imposent un système de colonialisme financier libéral à l’Europe de l’Est et du Sud-Est et se préparent à une nouvelle confrontation sérieuse avec le monde russe. C’est – je ne trouve pas d’autre terme – de l’hypocrisie.

Ce qui se passe aujourd’hui au nom de ma nation est honteux. J’appellerais cela de la « publicité mensongère ». Que comprenons-nous habituellement sous ce terme ? Si je vous offre un produit et que vous trouvez plus tard que dans la boîte, il y a quelque chose d’autre, probablement de qualité inférieure, c’est de la « publicité mensongère ». C’est aussi le cas lorsque vous voulez acheter du poulet sur le marché, mais qu’on vous donne de la viande de chien ou de chat à la place par exemple. Pour le traduire en politique, dans ses relations étrangères, Berlin dit « intérêt allemand » mais en réalité, il faut entendre « trans-atlantisme ». Et il ne faut pas oublier que quand nous disons Europe, nous voulons dire Union européenne. En économie, Berlin propose des « valeurs commerciales allemandes » alors qu’il faut plutôt entendre « Wall Street ». C’est de la « publicité mensongère » dans sa forme la plus pure.

ZUERST-Innere-Sicherheit-Verbrecherparadies-Deutschland.jpgMais il existe un exemple très connu de « publicité mensongère »  : la « Deutsche Bank ». Beaucoup de gens – peut-être même certains ici dans l’auditoire – pensent que c’est notre banque nationale. En raison de son nom. Cela semble presque aussi stable et fiable qu’une « horloge suisse ». Mais la « Deutsche Bank » est une banque privée ordinaire, fortement impliquée dans des projets de spéculation hyper-capitalistes de Wall Street, une institution financière mondialiste où le mot « allemand » n’est qu’une marque. Notre banque nationale est la « Bundesbank » – « banque fédérale ». Bien sûr, « Bundesbank » semble moins attrayant que « Deutsche Bank ». Mais c’est exactement l’essence de la « publicité mensongère ».

En Europe centrale, nous nous sommes tellement habitués à ces mensonges, à ces interprétations erronées de la réalité qu’il nous est très souvent difficile de faire la distinction entre la réalité virtuelle de l’étiquetage frauduleux et le monde réel.

La crise financière mondiale de 2008 aurait dû nous ouvrir les yeux. Pour la première fois dans l’histoire moderne, le gouvernement allemand renflouait une banque privée, la « Commerzbank » la deuxième plus grande banque d’Allemagne. En d’autres termes : l’argent réel du contribuable, généré par les travailleurs allemands, les employés, les petites et grandes entreprises a dû combler un énorme trou causé par l’hyper-spéculation virtuelle et les opérations financières risquées. La confiance que nous avions auparavant dans notre secteur bancaire soit-disant « solide » a été rompue en 2008 et dans les années qui ont suivies.

Malheureusement aujourd’hui, nous trouvons ce principe virtuel de « publicité mensongère » dans l’ensemble de l’espace économique européen, en particulier en ce qui concerne l’Europe de l’Est et du Sud-Est. Ces pays ont été soumis à de vastes campagnes de publicité pour rejoindre l’Union européenne et sa sphère économique. Interrogez les Tchèques, les Hongrois, les Bulgares ou les Roumains sur les promesses de Bruxelles et de Berlin. Ils en ont payé le prix fort. Leur industrie a été attaquée, leurs valeurs ont été violées et récemment ils sont devenus une autoroute géante pour des masses d’immigrants clandestins traversant la soi-disant « route des Balkans ».

Ou vérifiez aujourd’hui les principaux médias ukrainiens et lisez leurs attentes à se rapprocher un peu plus de la super-entité bruxelloise.

 

Ce n’est pas l’Europe des Européens, c’est l’Union européenne du secteur financier international. Ce n’est pas une coïncidence si les institutions financières mondiales encouragent par tous les moyens la désintégration de nos sociétés. En Allemagne, les grandes compagnies globalistes encouragent les migrations massives malgré le danger. Elles encouragent la fuite des cerveaux de l’Europe du Sud-Est vers le centre où, par exemple, un enseignant roumain gagne de l’argent en servant de la bière aux étudiants saouls et aux touristes à Berlin, Cologne ou Hambourg. C’est un système qui détruit toute identité collective en Europe. Les identités collectives sont également importantes en matière de sécurité sociale. À la fin, il ne restera qu’un continent sans nom et sans visage de quelques centaines de millions d’individus, ou peut-être mieux, de consommateurs. Mais même s’il n’y aura plus d’« Allemagne » il y aura toujours une « Deutsche Bank ».

Comment contrer un tel développement ? Comment le combattre ? Comment développer un système immunitaire européen ? La gauche politique authentique en Europe, comme de nombreux groupes socialistes, se bat pour imposer des règles strictes et des sanctions draconiennes aux entités financières globalistes. Ils se battent aussi contre les systèmes financiers virtuels, ces systèmes de capitalisme de casino. Cela va-t-il améliorer la situation ? Peut-être un peu. Mais malheureusement, dans de nombreux cas, la gauche sous-estime l’importance des identités collectives. Les forces eurosceptiques conservatrices luttent contre la désintégration de leurs identités nationales et culturelles. Mais elles sous-estiment très souvent l’importance de limiter le pouvoir du globalisme financier.

zuerst-1-2018.jpgMais l’un sans l’autre ne fonctionnera pas à la fin. Le système de l’économie virtuelle va de pair avec le système de désintégration des sociétés. Le marché libre vient avec la société ouverte et vice versa.

Comme je l’ai dit au début : il est dommage que Berlin soit la principale force du marché ouvert et de la société ouverte en Europe. Nous pourrions même dire : Angela Merkel est le bulldozer de la désintégration.

L’Allemagne pourrait jouer un rôle positif, si elle retrouve sa propre identité. C’est exactement là où le vrai travail des Allemands commence, enfin ceux qui s’opposent à la politique domination de Berlin. Être ici et discuter avec vous de notre nouvelle Europe, l’Europe européenne, est un bon début. Une Europe, où un fonctionnaire allemand sera capable et désireux de commencer un discours sans s’excuser.

Manuel Ochsenreiter
Centre allemand d’études eurasiennes

Traduit par Hervé relu par Cat pour le Saker Francophone

Source: http://lesakerfrancophone.fr

lundi, 04 juillet 2016

“Why the New Europe is a chance for our continent and the Middle East”

Manuel-Ochsenreiter.jpg

“Why the New Europe is a chance for our continent and the Middle East”

Manuel Ochsenreiter

Ex: http://germancenter.net

The director of the German Center for Eurasian Studies, Manuel Ochsenreiter, published an opinion piece about the Eurosceptic movements and their geopolitics in the Lebanese “Al Akhbar” newspaper.

English translation:

The day of the Brexit referendum is a historical day for Europe – and not just for Europe. It is the day of the end of the myth of the invulnerability of Brussel´s super state which is called “European Union”. This so-called “union” which was growing within the last decades and was swallowing one European state after the other received its first heavy punch from the people. The growing process is over. Now the union will shrink. Eurosceptics in Netherlands and Denmark announced already that they will push for an EU-referendum as well. The Brexit day might be considered as the “beginning of the end of the EU” in future history books.

But there are still myths out there. Countless so-called “political analysts” are busy with coffee cup reading style “analysis”. Most of these interpretations are horribly wrong or biased.

One of the main narratives is that the Brexit camp and the whole Eurosceptic community is driven by xenophobia, Islamophobia and hatred towards everyone non-European. This narrative blames the Eurosceptic movements to be fascist and extremist.

This narrative serves the EU elites. And it is spread by Brussels and its servants through whole Europe and unfortunately copy-pasted by many non-European media outlets – even in the Middle East.

This narrative is wrong. The anti-EU-camp consists of European patriots, conservatives, even liberals and socialists. And yes, the anti-EU camp includes as well an extremist lunatic fringe – as any other political camp does.

The main forces of the anti-EU camp are far away from lunatic extremism and xenophobia. They accept immigration, but they refuse uncontrolled mass migration. The “Islamophobia” is caused exactly by those extremists who are showing their horrible brutal performance in these days in the Middle East. Frankly speaking, a serious talk between a Middle East resistance supporter and an intelligent Eurosceptic wouldn´t end in a conflict for sure.

The narrative of the “wild, ugly and fascist” Eurosceptic movements makes people believe that Brussel´s state is automatically the better choice. The EU might be full of mistakes, but still better than the “dangerous radicals” such as Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, Frauke Petry or Heinz Christian Strache.

Forces pushing for this narrative forget completely that the Eurosceptic camp didn´t send until today one single gun and one single Euro to the extremists fighting in Syria against the Syrian army and killing civilians. The Eurosceptic camp didn´t send until today one single nuclear submarine to the Israeli army. The Eurosceptic camp is not responsible for the sanction politics against Syria. The Eurosceptic camp is not in support of Saudi-Arabia. The Eurosceptic camp didn´t bombard Libya. The EU elites and their servants in the EU states are responsible for all the mentioned examples.

In other words: for countries such as Syria the EU is already one of the most dangerous enemies. Merkel, Hollande, Cameron are the politicians who are in support of violence and terrorism. But especially since the migration crisis German chancellor Angela Merkel is portrayed as the new “Mother Theresa” of Europe – also in Middle Eastern media.

On the other hand German Eurosceptic politicians such as MEP Marcus Pretzell (AfD party) demand the immediate lifting of the Syrian sanctions and any stop of support of terrorism in Syria. But he demands as well the protection of the European borders which is why he is demonized as a cold hearted devil by European mainstream media and some Middle Eastern news outlets.

The Eurosceptic camp is colorful and a pool of many different, sometimes even contrasting opinions. But in some important points the Eurosceptics show unity: Europe should be a continent which doesn´t support terrorists, Europe should be a continent which handles the migration crisis not just by building walls and fences, but by ending the meddling in other countries and causing those migration waves, Europe should stop with its sanctions politics towards other countries. Most of Eurosceptic movements even criticize NATO politics and want to leave the Western military alliance. All these opinions contradict the recent EU politics.
The Eurosceptic movements know that the EU is an entity which can´t be “just reformed a bit”. The EU is anti-European. It made our continent a US-American proxy, a political and ideological occupied entity. None of the groups and parties of the pro-EU lobby are willing to change that. They feel comfortable as Washington´s tail.

For the Middle East that means you can talk, negotiate and even cuddle with the EU elites. But they will always show their supremacist attitude towards you by supporting your worst enemies such as Wahabi and Salafi groups.

The “New Europe”, the Europe after the EU, might become the “real Europe”, the “European Europe” which replaces the “American Europe”. The representatives of this new Europe, today´s Eurosceptics, might be demonized in Western and parts of the Middle Eastern mainstream media. They might seem sometimes loud or flamboyant. They might not share the innocent but deeply dishonest “humanitarian smile” of Angela Merkel. But they will not destroy other nations.

Manuel Ochsenreiter
Director of the German Center for Eurasian Studies

jeudi, 19 novembre 2015

Dugin sobre Siria: “Estamos en la mayor crisis de la historia geopolítica moderna”

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

Entrevista de Manuel Ochsenreiter al importante intelectual ruso Aleksandr Dugin sobre la crisis siria y la posición en la que se encuentran actualmente Estados Unidos y Rusia, resaltando que vivimos en un momento histórico en que se juegan bastante cosas con dos posibles escenarios futuros: La caída de Estados Unidos como superpotencia o una guerra a las puertas de Rusia.

Manuel Ochsenreiter: Prof. Dugin, en estos momentos el mundo se enfrenta en Siria a la mayor crisis internacional desde la caída del Bloque Oriental en 1989/90. Washington y Moscú se encuentran en una confrontación a través de terceros en el campo de batalla sirio. ¿Es esta una nueva situación?

Alexander Dugin: Tenemos que ver la lucha por el poder geopolítico como el viejo conflicto del poder terrestre, representado por Rusia, y el poder del mar, representado por los Estados Unidos y sus socios de la OTAN. Esto no es un fenómeno nuevo, sino que es la continuación de la vieja lucha geopolítica y geoestratégica. La década de los 90 fue la época de la gran derrota del poder terrestre representado por la URSS. Michail Gorbachov se negó a la continuación de esta lucha. Esto era una especie de traición y resignación frente al mundo unipolar. Pero con el presidente Vladimir Putin, a principios de la primera década del 2000 llegó una reactivación de la identidad geopolítica de Rusia como una potencia terrestre. Este fue el comienzo de un nuevo tipo de competencia entre el poder del mar y el poder terrestre.

MO: ¿Cómo empezó esta reactivación?

AD: Todo comenzó con la segunda guerra de Chechenia (1999-2009). Rusia en ese momento estaba bajo presión por los ataques terroristas chechenos y el posible separatismo del Cáucaso Norte. Putin tuvo que darse cuenta que todo Occidente, los EE.UU. y la Unión Europea estaban del lado de los separatistas chechenos y terroristas islámicos que combatían contra el ejército ruso. Este es el mismo argumento que presenciamos hoy en Siria o ayer en Libia. Occidente dio apoyo a la guerrilla chechena, y este fue el momento de la revelación del nuevo conflicto entre el poder terrestre y el poder marítimo. Con Putin, el poder terrestre se reafirmó. El segundo momento de la revelación fue en agosto de 2008, cuando el régimen prooccidental de Georgia atacó Zchinwali en Osetia del Sur. La guerra entre Rusia y Georgia fue el segundo momento de la revelación.

MO: ¿La crisis siria es actualmente el tercer momento de la revelación?

AD: Exactamente. Tal vez sea incluso el último, porque ahora todo está en juego. Si Washington no interviene y acepta la posición de Rusia y China, este sería el final de los Estados Unidos como candidato a superpotencia y poder único. Esta es la razón por la cual creo que Obama va a llegar lejos en Siria. Pero si Rusia se hace a un lado y acepta la intervención de Estados Unidos, y si Moscú finalmente traiciona Bashar al-Assad, esto significaría de inmediato un golpe muy duro a la identidad política rusa. Esto significaría la gran derrota del poder terrestre. Después de esto, le seguiría un ataque a Irán, e incluso en el Cáucaso Norte. Entre los poderes separatistas en el Cáucaso Norte hay muchas personas que son apoyadas por las potencias Anglo-Americana, Israel y Arabia Saudita. Si Siria cae, comenzarán inmediatamente la guerra en Rusia, nuestro país. Significado: Putin no puede hacerse a un lado, no puede renunciar a Assad, porque esto significaría el suicidio geopolítico de Rusia. Tal vez estamos en este momento en la mayor crisis de la historia geopolítica moderna.

MO: Así que ahora ambas potencias mundiales dominantes, EE.UU. y Rusia, están en una lucha por su existencia futura…

AD: En efecto. Por el momento no hay ninguna otra solución posible. No podemos encontrar ningún tipo de compromiso. En esta situación no hay una solución que satisfaga a ambos lados. Lo sabemos por otros conflictos como el armenio-azerí o el conflicto palestino-israelí. Es imposible encontrar una solución para ambas partes. Somos actualmente testigos de lo mismo en Siria, pero en una escala más grande. La guerra es la única manera de hacer una revisión de la realidad.

MO: ¿Por qué?

alexandr-dugin-in-germany.jpg

AD: Tenemos que imaginar este conflicto como un tipo de juego de cartas como el póker. Los jugadores tienen la posibilidad de ocultar sus capacidades, para hacer todo tipo de trucos psicológicos, pero cuando comienza la guerra todas las tarjetas están sobre la mesa. Ahora estamos presenciando el momento final del juego de cartas, antes de que las cartas se tiren sobre la mesa. Este es un momento muy serio, porque la posición como potencia mundial está en juego. Si Estados Unidos tiene éxito, podría otorgarse por algún tiempo una posición dominante absoluta. Esto sería la continuación de la unipolaridad y el liberalismo mundial estadounidense. Este sería un momento muy importante porque hasta ahora los EE.UU. no han sido capaces de implementar su dominio de forma estable, pero en el momento en que ganen la guerra, lo harán. Pero si Occidente pierde la tercera batalla (la primera fue la guerra de Chechenia, la segunda la guerra de Georgia), este sería el final de los EE.UU. y de su dominio. Veamos lo siguiente: ni EE.UU. ni Rusia pueden renunciar a esa situación. Sencillamente, es imposible para ambos no reaccionar.

MO: ¿Por qué vacila Estados Unidos y el presidente Barack Obama con su agresión contra Siria? ¿Él apela a la decisión del Congreso? ¿Por qué pedir permiso cuando no lo necesita para su ataque?

AD: No debemos cometer el error y empezar a hacer análisis psicológicos sobre Obama. La guerra principal se lleva a cabo en estos momentos entre bastidores. Y esta guerra se está librando en torno a Vladimir Putin. Él está bajo una gran presión de los funcionarios liberales, pro-estadounidenses y pro-israelíes que rodean al presidente ruso. Ellos tratan de convencerlo de hacerse a un lado. La situación en Rusia es completamente diferente a la situación en Estados Unidos. Un individuo, Vladimir Putin, y la gran mayoría de la población rusa que lo apoya, están en un lado, y la gente alrededor de Putin son la quinta columna de Occidente. Esto significa que Putin es el único. Él tiene la población a su lado, pero no a la élite política. Así que tenemos que ver la decisión de la administración de Obama de pedir permiso al Congreso como una especie de espera. Ellos tratan de forzar la presión sobre Putin. Ellos usan todas sus redes en la élite política rusa para influir en la decisión de Putin. Esta es la guerra invisible que está pasando en estos momentos.

MO:¿Es este un fenómeno nuevo?

AD: (Risas) ¡No, en absoluto! Es la forma moderna de las tribus arcaicas que tratan de influir en el jefe del enemigo con ruidos fuertes, gritos y tambores de guerra. Ellos se golpean en el pecho para imponer el miedo en el enemigo. Creo que los esfuerzos de los Estados Unidos para influir a Putin son una forma moderna de guerra psicológica previa a la batalla real. La Administración estadounidense tratará de ganar esta guerra sin el oponente ruso en el campo de batalla. Para ello tienen que convencer a Putin de hacerse a un lado. Ellos tienen muchos instrumentos para hacerlo.

MO: Pero una vez más: ¿Qué pasa con la posición de Barack Obama?

AD: Creo que todos esos aspectos personales en el lado estadounidense son menos importantes que en el lado ruso. En Rusia, una persona decide hoy sobre la guerra y la paz. En Estados Unidos, Obama es más un tipo de administrador burocrático. Obama es mucho más predecible. Él no actúa en su nombre, sino que se limita a seguir la línea central de la política exterior estadounidense. Tenemos que darnos cuenta de que Obama no decide nada en absoluto. Él es la figura de un sistema político que toma las verdaderas decisiones importantes. La élite política toma las decisiones, Obama sigue el guión escrito para él. Para decirlo claramente, Obama no es nada, Putin es todo.

MO: Usted dijo que Vladimir Putin tiene la mayoría de la población rusa de su lado. Pero ahora es época de paz. ¿Le apoyarán también en una guerra en Siria?

AD: Esta es una pregunta muy buena. En primer lugar, Putin perdería gran parte de su apoyo si no reacciona en una intervención occidental en Siria. Su posición se debilitaría por hacerse a un lado. Las personas que apoyan a Putin lo hacen porque quieren apoyar a un líder fuerte. Si no reacciona y se hace a un lado debido a la presión de Estados Unidos, sería considerado por la mayoría de la población como una derrota personal de Putin. Así que ya lo ves, esto es más la guerra de Putin que la guerra de Obama. Pero si interviene en Siria se enfrentará a dos problemas: La sociedad rusa quiere ser una gran potencia mundial, pero no está lista para pagar los costos. Cuando el volumen de estos costos queden claros, esto podría causar una especie de shock para la población. El segundo problema es lo que ya he dicho, que la mayoría de la élite política es pro-occidental. Ellos se opondrían a la guerra de inmediato y comenzarían con su propaganda para criticar las decisiones de Putin. Esto podría provocar una crisis interior. Creo que Putin es consciente de estos dos problemas.

MO: Cuando usted dice que los rusos pueden ser sorprendidos por los costos de una guerra, ¿no existe el peligro de que pudieran no apoyar Putin por esa razón?

AD: No lo creo. Nuestra gente es muy heroica. Vaya hacia atrás en la historia. Nuestro pueblo no estaba preparado para entrar en una guerra, pero cuando se vieron obligados a hacerlo, ganaron la guerra a pesar de los costos y sacrificios. Mira las guerras napoleónicas o la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Nosotros los rusos perdimos muchas batallas, pero al final ganamos esas guerras. Así que nunca estamos preparados, pero siempre ganamos.

Traducido del inglés por Manuel Ortiz y Página Transversal.

Fuente: El Ministerio

lundi, 29 juin 2015

Rise of the idiot

palmyre.gif

Rise of the idiot

The "Islamic State" is nothing else than the militant wing of Western liberalism.

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru
 
Many European mainstream politicians and journalists cry today crocodile tears about Syria´s ancient Palmyra under terrorist control. They express their concerns that the armed militants of the "Islamic State" will destroy Palmyra, which harbors the ruins of a great city that was once one of the world's key cultural hubs. It wouldn´t be the first time that the "Islamic State" destroys cultural heritage.
 
But those emotions are deeply hypocritical: Because many of those who are now "concerned", are in reality the ideological "spin doctors" of the "Islamic State" and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. With their support for the so-called "Syrian Revolution" they fueled these groups.
 
The "Islamic State" is today simply executing its job: Destroying civilization, desintregating a whole nation, killing everyone who represents "order" in the most brutal way they can. They atomize Syria, the geopolitical obstacle in the eyes of Washington and Brussels.
 
This pattern is not new at all:
- In Kosovo extremist Albanians don´t "just" attack Serbs, they attack and destroy Serbian-Orthodox churches and burial grounds. They don´t just want to get rid of the Serbian population, they want to get rid of the Serbian historical presence. Kosovo-Albanians desecrate Serbian graves by putting animal cadavers on them.
- In Southern Caucasus Armenian churches and monasteries were aimed by the Azerbaijan forces during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. The Armenian cathedral of Shushi was desecrated and turned into a weapons stockpile by the Aziri forces.
 
It is not a coincidence that this barbarian and anti-cultural warfare was supported by "volunteers" (such as Chechnyan and Afghan Djihadis) in both, former Yugoslavia and Southern Caucasus.
 
Destroying cultural, historical, religious and national heritage is an effective way to create a "fait accompli" on geopolitical battle grounds. The purpose of those "measures of war" is to cut the enemy population off their historical, cultural and religous collective bonds and identities.
 
And this is exactly the ideological concept of the post-modernist and liberal West. They do the same in Europe - of course with other means, with "soft power". Here our political and cultural elites deny the existence and importance of collective identities, they fantasise in our universities about intellectual holographs as "hybrid identities"and so on. They fight against religion, they "deconstruct" the family, they created even countles genera to deny the existance of "male" and "female". They turn churches into department stores or appartment buildings. They worship the "individual", which is "free" to act in a "open society" - what means in reality: "open market".
 
The Russian philosopher and political scientist Prof. Alexandr Dugin once described this process as a way to spread a modern "idiotism". In ancient Greek the term "idiotes" described "a private citizen, one who has no professional knowledge, layman”. "Idiotes" was used in ancient Athens to refer to one who declined to take part in public life - someone without any collective bonds.
 
The "Islamic State" is today the "bulldozer" of that kind of warfare to destroy any collective bonds in Middle East. It is nothing else than the militant wing of Western liberalism.
 

dimanche, 12 janvier 2014

Germany's military strategy

Bundeswehr_Soldaten_Freiwil.jpg

Germany's military strategy

 
 
The NATO defense strategy during the Cold War must have been a real nightmare for some West-German officers. Even the former West-German chancellor Helmut Schmidt said in 2007 in an interview that he was shocked when he was informed about the NATO plans in 1969. Schmidt said that there was a belt of nuclear mines crossing West-Germany which would detonate in case of a Soviet invasion. West-Germany was seen as the future nuclear battlefield. The country formally known as “Germany” would have been turned into a giant ground zero in the center of Europe. The Germans in West and East Germany were in the nuclear death row of the Cold War. 
 
The West-German army, the Bundeswehr, was part of those plans. The NATO strategy was: In case of a Soviet aggression, the Eastern Block armies will carry out their most powerful ground attack of the so called “Iron Curtain” in central Europe on Germany. It would be almost impossible to stop the Eastern armies before the Rhine River. West-Germany was supposed to be the “death trap” for the enemy?s armies, and for the German civilians. The Bundeswehr didn't play a big strategic role in that horrible scenario, the West-German soldiers might have been killed or defeated by the overwhelming Eastern forces and by the Western nuclear response within days. 
 
Germany in 1945: After the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht, the former Reich became split in Zones of Occupation  by the allied powers. In the West US-American, British and French forces established their zones, in the center the Soviet occupation zone was established, East Germany was occupied by Poland and the Soviet Union. The Reich was destroyed; huge cities as Berlin, Hamburg, Konigsberg or Dresden became just ruins. Millions of German refugees became strayed; the former most powerful nation on continental Europe was disarmed and weakened down, thus creating a vacuum of power. The allied conference of Potsdam in the summer of 1945 made clear that there is now a new confrontation: The Western block under Anglo-American leadership against the Eastern communist block under Soviet leadership. In 1949 two German states were created: In the Western Zones of Occupation the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland), in Middle Germany the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik). At the time when these states were founded they didn?t have any military force. 
 
Germany remained completely demilitarized and any plans for a German military were clearly forbidden by Allied regulations. Only some naval mine-sweeping units continued to exist, but they remained unarmed and under Allied control and did not serve officially as a defense force. Even the Federal Border Protection Force (Bundesgrenzschutz), a mobile and lightly armed police force of 10,000 men, was formed only in 1951 - two years after the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany. A first proposal to integrate West German troops with soldiers of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy in a so called “European Defense Community”, in reality a Western European Army , was proposed but never realized. It was especially France who opposed any plans to rearm West Germany for a long time. “German militarism” was blamed to have caused both World Wars. Germany should never become a continental super power again. And the best “medicine” against militarism seemed to be not to permit any military forces.
 
With growing tensions between the communist Soviet Union and the liberal capitalist West, especially after the Korean War (1950-1953), this policy was to be revised. While the German Democratic Republic was already secretly rearming, the plans of a new West German force started in 1950 when former high-ranking German officers of the Wehrmacht were tasked by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to discuss the options for rearmament. The so-called “Amt Blank”, the predecessor of the later Federal Ministry of Defense (Bundesverteidigungsministerium), was formed in 1950 in Bonn. 
 
The West German “Bundeswehr” was officially established on the 200th birthday of the Prussian general Gerhard von Scharnhorst on November 12th, 1955. But the rearmament (“Wiederbewaffnung”) of West Germany was not easy at all. Huge protests raged against those plans. Not only traditional pacifists opposed to those plans, but also German neutralist politicians and intellectuals who campaigned for one united Germany were strongly against the rearmament. They saw in those plans the manifestation of the German partition. 
 
And there was another dilemma: Since the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht, the allied powers put a lot of energy in the so called “denazificiation” of the Germans. The Wehrmacht was identified as one of the worst instruments of German militarism. The generals and officers of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS were seen as bloodthirsty warmongers and war criminals. But all of a sudden the West asked especially for the Wehrmacht personnel. The reason for that political U-turn is easy: The Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS were the only military forces with a certain experience in fighting the Soviet army during World War II. From the beginning, the new Bundeswehr suffered under an “identity conflict”. While the politics went on with stigmatizing the officers of the German World War II forces, the same officers had to build the new army. 
 
During the Cold War the Bundeswehr was the front line of NATO's conventional defense in Central Europe. The West German army had strength of 495,000 soldiers. The Cold War Historian John Lewis Gaddis assesses the Bundeswehr in his book “The Cold War - a New History” as “perhaps world?s best army”. But the Bundeswehr did not take part in any combat operations during the Cold War times. The West German armed forces were during the whole Cold War an integrated part of the NATO military strategy. 
 
After the reunification of Germany in 1990, the Bundeswehr was reduced to 370,000 military personnel in accordance with the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany between the two German governments and the Allies (2+4 Treaty). The former East German Nationale Volksarmee (NVA) was disbanded. About 50,000 Volksarmee personnel were integrated into the Bundeswehr on October 2nd, 1990. With the reduction, a large amount of the military hardware of the Bundeswehr, as well as of the Volksarmee was disposed. Most of the armored vehicles and fighter jet aircraft (Bundesluftwaffe - due to Reunification - was the only Air Force in the world that flew both Phantoms and MIGs) were dismantled under the international disarmament procedures. 
 
The re-united Germany didn?t quit the NATO membership. The NATO “reformed” itself after the official end of the Cold War. The North Atlantic alliance began an expansion with newly autonomous Eastern European states. For the Bundeswehr, the mission changed: It was transformed more and more into a force for international missions. Hopes that Germany will become a sovereign nation with an independent security and defense plan – of course within a European defense concept – were bitterly disappointed. The “homeland defense” doesn?t play a role anymore since the end of the Cold War – in the official “defense guidelines” (Verteidigungspolitische Richtlinien, VPR) from 1992 the term “homeland defense” was not even mentioned anymore. On the first glance the military idea of the Federal Republic of Germany seemed to have turned 180 degrees: Until 1990 there was the permanent danger of having a nuclear war on German soil, after 1990 the German ministry of defense was talking about the world wide mission of the German military.
 
The recent VPR from May 18th, 2011 were named “Safeguarding National Interests – Assuming International Responsibility – Shaping Security Together”. These VPR include confessions such as: “As an active member of the international community, Germany pursues its interests and is actively striving for a better and safer world.” 
 
And: “A direct territorial threat to Germany involving conventional military means remains an unlikely event. Over the past few years the strategic security environment has continued to change. Globalization has led to power shifts between states and groups of states as well as to the rise of new regional powers. Today, risks and threats are emerging above all from failing and failed states, acts of international terrorism, terrorist regimes and dictatorships, turmoil when these break up, criminal networks, climatic and natural disasters, from migration developments, from the scarcity of or shortages in the supply of natural resources and raw materials, from epidemics and pandemics, as well as from possible threats to critical infrastructure such as information technology.”
 
The German military mission is now completely detached from the German state. The official German understanding of the NATO membership turned from a defense alliance against a real existing threat into an abstract and conception alliance of transatlantic values and even to one of “Germany?s raisons d’etat”: 
 
“The North Atlantic Alliance remains the centerpiece of our defense efforts. Alliance solidarity and making a reliable and credible contribution to the Alliance are part of Germany’s raison d’etat. (…) The commitment of the United States to the security of Europe, as it is most prominently and effectively reflected in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, remains a vital interest of Germany and its European allies. It is therefore our duty and our mission to preserve the unique quality of transatlantic relations, to strengthen our ties and our exchanges and to continue to develop the partnership with the United States by performing our tasks responsibly.”
 
The German Bundeswehr is today an international operation force, ready for action, “for a better world”. Of course the terms “security interest” and “national interests” are used until today, but also here the meaning changed: 
 
“German security interests include:
-preventing, mitigating and managing crises and conflicts that endanger the security of Germany and its allies;
-advocating and implementing positions on foreign and security policy in an assertive and credible way;
-strengthening transatlantic and European security and partnership;
-advocating the universality of human rights and principles of democracy, promoting global respect for international law and reducing the gap between the rich and the poor regions of the world;
-facilitating free and unrestricted world trade as well as free access to the high seas and to natural resources.”
 
The aspect of “advocating the universality of human rights and principles of democracy” especially became more and more dominant in German debates about security interests. This vision is assisted by the German Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid: “It is in Germany’s own best interest to help make universal respect for human rights a reality. For enduring peaceful relations require stability, and there can be no long-term stability unless basic human rights are respected.”
 
Of course there is no explanation as to why the global enforcement of “human rights” should be German national security interest. But it became a type of magic mantra for German foreign politics, and the German Bundeswehr might become be more and more an armed force for those “human rights” missions. The end of the Cold War era changed the character of the Bundeswehr from a classical territorial army with a defensive character into an intervention force. Currently  there are Bundeswehr forces in Afghanistan and  Uzbekistan (ISAF), Kosovo (KFOR), in the Mediterranean Sea, at the Horn of Africa/Indian Ocean (Operation Atalanta), in Turkey (Operation Active Fence), Lebanon (UNIFIL), South Sudan (UNMISS), Sudan (UNAMID) and Mali. 
 

dimanche, 01 septembre 2013

Robert Stark Interviews Manuel Ochsenreiter About Syrian Civil War

Robert Stark Interviews Manuel Ochsenreiter About Syrian Civil War

mercredi, 05 juin 2013

M. Ochsenreiter: Turkish Revolution

chefredakteur.jpg

Turkish revolution

An interview with Manuel Ochsenreiter

 

Natella Speranskaya:  The national revolution has started in Turkey. What are the forces behind it? Who is fighting who?

 

Manuel Ochsenreiter:  The demonstrations and riots in the Turkish cities show the deep gap within the Turkish society. But is it really a „national revolution“? Right now it seems that all the groups opposing Erdogan and also his AKP party are a quite colourful mix of ideologies and ideas. There are demonstrating Turkish nationalists as well as communists; we see flags of the labour unions and many other groups. But we shouldn´t forget that Erdogan and his party never had the support of those people who are uprising now.

 

One problem: We get all the information about the situation in Turkey right now via the western mainstream media stations. The western commentators and politicians are celebrating the so called „Turkish civil society“. In Germany for example almost all the established political parties gave statements that they support the demonstrators. In the mainstream media you will not find many nationalists or communists in interviews, but many westernized „activists“.

 

Natella Speranskaya:  How is the Turkish revolution related to the geopolitical opposition of Eurasianism (Russia, Iran, Syria) and atlantism (NATO, USA, EU)?

 

Manuel Ochsenreiter:  What we witness right now in Istanbul doesn´t seem to have a lot to do with geopolitical contents. There are of course groups and parties involved who are strongly against an atlantist agenda.

 

But we shouldn´t forget one important thing: The interest of the corporate media began a couple of days ago when the demonstrators in Istanbul clashed with the Turkish police. But in Turkey there are big demonstrations against Erdogan’s aggressive politics against Syria. Those protests have indeed a dominating geopolitical message. The protesters say: „We are on the wrong side of the conflict, we shouldn´t support the western-Islamistic joint venture to overthrow the Syrian government. We should support Syria against the aggressors.” They even criticised in a harsh way the NATO-membership of Turkey. But western mainstream media was not broadcasting those demonstrations, maybe because the message of the demonstrators doesn´t fit into the political guidelines.

 

Ironically, the west promoted the „Turkish model“- the AKP-government – as a role model for the so-called „Arab Spring“ countries. The elements are: moderate Islamism, friendship with Israel, strong ties with the western-transatlantic world. Western politicians always said: “Look to Turkey, there it functions so well!” Today we can say: Obviously it doesn´t.

 

Natella Speranskaya:  Your prognosis of the development of events in Turkey and how it will effect the situation in Syria?

 

Manuel Ochsenreiter:  This is hard to say. We know right now that there might be also an inner conflict within the AKP going on. The Turkish president Abdullah Gül critizised Prime Minister Erdogan in public. What does that mean for Erdogan’s authority and his political future? The guidelines for Turkish politics towards Syria are not written in Ankara, but by the NATO-“partners“. Erdogan turned Turkey within the last two years into a military base for terrorists, mercenaries, djihadists, and simple criminals, who went to Syria to fight against the regime. Turkey gives them support even when they are in Syria. Turkey supports organized theft of industrial compounds from Syria and the transport via the Turkish border. Erdogan tried a couple of times to provoke a conventional war against Syria. When we talk about all those acts of aggression against Syria we shouldn´t forget one important detail: Erdogan is not just supporting the violence against Syrian civilians but also against his own citizens. The bomb explosions in the Turkish city Reyhanli killed 51 people, and 140 more were injured. Erdogan blamed the Syrian secret service, but we know today from leaked documents of the Turkish intelligence that the Al-Qaida affiliated group „Nusra Front“  was responsible for that horrible attack, exactly those same extremists Erdogan provides support to and a safe haven.

 

So what might happen if Erdogan resigns? Will the Turkish politics all of a sudden change? Will it be an AKP inside change? Would a change in the Turkish government automatically mean that the state changes its geopolitical program? Would the west accept this? I deeply doubt.  

dimanche, 03 février 2013

An interview with Manuel Ochsenreiter

The Fourth Political Theory

An interview with Manuel Ochsenreiter

 

Natella Speranskaya: How did you discover the Fourth Political Theory? And how would you evaluate its chances of becoming a major ideology of the 21st century?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: Since a certain time I try to follow the developments in Russia, especially Prof. Alexandr Dugin. So it is not a coincidence to get in touch with the Fourth Political Theory. You are asking about the chances. Let me say it like this: The west is actually trapped in its own liberalism. It seems right now that there is no way out because the liberal mainstream political opinion doesn´t accept any alternative ideas. It is like digesting yourself with the same acid over and over again. In my opinion, the Fourth Political Theory could be a medical cure for that sick intellectual situation. It can be a way out of the liberal hamster wheel. And more and more people are looking for such an exit.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Leo Strauss when commenting on the fundamental work of Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political notes that despite all radical critique of liberalism incorporated in it Schmitt does not follow it through since his critique remains within the scope of liberalism”. “His anti-Liberal tendencies, – claims Strauss, - remain constrained by “systematics of liberal thought” that has not been overcome so far, which – as Schmitt himself admits – “despite all failures cannot be substituted by any other system in today’s Europe. What would you identify as a solution to the problem of overcoming the liberal discourse? Could you consider the Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin to be such a solution? The theory that is beyond the three major ideologies of the 20th century – Liberalism, Communism and Fascism, and that is against the Liberal doctrine.
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: First of all, the liberal doctrine is a totalitarian doctrine. Convinced liberals hate to hear that. They even would deny that it is a “doctrine”. But the reality is: The world wide liberalism and the postmodernism of “values” seem to be more totalitarian than communism, fascism or any –isms before. Liberalism doesn´t accept alternative ideas coexisting beside it. It shows its ugly totalitarian face every day all over the world and its sharpest sword is hypocrisy. The liberal “tolerance”, one of the most mentioned and beloved liberal values just enjoy other liberals. There is no tolerance towards non-liberals. The west showed a couple of times in the past towards some countries who didn’t adjust to this liberal world order, what that can mean at the end: If other societies, people, and countries are not convinced by NGOs, “civil society” and other forms of “western help”, they will be convinced by drones and Cruise missiles. The liberal west tells the beloved stories about “human rights” violations to convince the western societies about the necessity of such military operations. Liberals liberate with money or bombs. The choice is upto the “backwarded” aim. But at the end, everybody knows the “open society” (Karl Popper) means in reality “open market”, “free speech” means “liberal speech” and “freedom of choice” means “McDonalds or Burger King”. There is even a liberal “new speech” for these things: Military ground offensives are now “humanitarian zones”, air raids are “installing a no-flight zone” and ugly primitive Russian girls urge the west to shout “Free Pussy riot!”.
 
 
dugin_-_the_fourth_political_theory_little.jpgEvery established intellectual, politician or media company moves inside this totalitarian liberal system. For example you will not find any established political party in the German parliament that doesn´t claim to be “also liberal”. Our universities “research” about “identities”, “gender”, and “culture” to change this or that. The new liberal types of human being don´t have a heritage, homeland or cultural identity. Even the gender can be changed. We could consider that as a type of slapstick comedy if it wouldn´t be so serious, because it means a type of destruction of basics and values, which might be hard to repair.
 
 
So Prof. Dugin’s theory shows an emergency exit out of this totalitarian system. It is like opening a window to let some fresh air into the western paralyzed intellectual environment. But the liberalism is not a weak ideology which would wait for its defeat.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Do you agree that today there are “two Europes”: the one – the liberal one (incorporating the idea of “open society”, human rights, registration of same-sex marriages, etc.) and the other Europe (“a different Europe”) – politically engaged, thinker, intellectual, spiritual, the one that considers the status quo and domination of liberal discourse as a real disaster and the betrayal of the European tradition. How would you evaluate chances of victory of a “different Europe” over the ”first” one?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: This reminds me to the “old Europe” and the “new Europe” Donald Rumsfeld was talking about in 2003. The “old Europe” was the one that refused to support the US in the Iraq war, especially Germany and France, and the “new Europe” joined the „coalition of the willing“. But of course you mean something else with your question. There is certainly a “different Europe”. We wouldn´t be talking if it didn´t exist. In all the European countries you see certain types of intellectual resistance against the liberal totalitarian system. I would even call this type of Europe the “real” one. Because the official “Europe” is just a weird construction that denies traditions and differences, everything what makes the rich nature of Europe and the Europeans.
 
 
The “real Europe” is everywhere, where intellectuals, journalists, and politicians turn their back to Brussels and the liberal system. You find it in a huge amount of magazines, newspapers, internet forums, and political organizations all over the continent. They do it without any powerful support from other countries, just with their idealism. There are no NGOs or other institutions that fund that important work. But this shows exactly that type of these new political grassroots.  
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: “There is nothing more tragic than a failure to understand the historical moment we are currently going through; - notes Alain de Benoist – this is the moment of postmodern globalization”. The French philosopher emphasizes the significance of the issue of a new Nomos of the Earth or a way of establishing international relations. What do you think the fourth Nomos will be like? Would you agree that the new Nomos is going to be Eurasian and multipolar (transition from universum to pluriversum)?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: Western liberal propaganda always claims: “Even if we wanted, we couldn´t do something else because it would result in violence and war!” They spread panic and fear among the people. You have to imagine, our German politicians tell us that even if we Europeans would abolish the Euro currency, we might end up in a war. The postmodern globalization is presented as the only single way for the future. I spoke about liberal hypocrisy before. The truth is that the way of globalization is a painful and bloody one as we can see in many countries with western “liberation” attempts. It is a hamster wheel of wars and more wars. The longer it goes the more blood is spilt. This logic is as simple as cruel.
 
 
Why is it like this? After the downfall of the Soviet Union and the communist eastern block, western political scientists (Charles Krauthammer, Francis Fukuyama and many others) welcomed more or less the “unipolar moment”; one world with one pole which was the west. This idea was like a western “idyll”. With “Western democracy” and “western freedom” spreading all over the world also to the last little corner, mankind will face a long-term, a “final” period of peace and prosperity. Although we see every day in the news the evidence of failure of this ideology, the west still works on it. As I already said, since the end of the Cold war and the geopolitical attempts of the west to install this unipolar idea, we witness the chaotic and violent results of this sort of geopolitics.
 
 
A multipolar international order is not just the answer. It is a logical result. The question is how will this multipolar order be organized? A well-organized multipolar world would not just bring stability, but would also be a great intellectual chance of cultural exchange on a really high level. It recognizes the value of “difference” while the west today propagandizes worldwide equality and unity. The local and regional cultures would have the chance of free development, tradition, and cultural identity (both is denied by the western ideology) that could prosper. The actual western hegemony with the means of NGOs and media tries to push down these things, but not forever. And of course Eurasia will play an important role.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Do you agree that the era of the white European human race has ended, and the future will be predetermined by Asian cultures and societies?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: Today’s Europe is losing its human substance. It shows once more that the liberal ideology is a suicidal idea. On the one hand it fights against families and promotes for example abortion; on the other hand it campaigns extremely for mass immigration. The consequence is extinction of the Europeans. How long it takes is pure mathematics. How much the face of Europe already has changed you can witness in any European capital between Lisbon and Athens. We cannot say that the quality of the human resources really become better by immigration even if we would consider that as a neutral or even “positive” development as the liberals do. In contradiction, we face a lot of problems with immigrant communities. The liberal ideology refuses to see the reasons where they are: in ethnic backgrounds. They just speak about an alleged “discrimination” of the migrant communities and about the alleged social injustice the migrants are facing. Politics denying ethnic differences deny the reality.
 
 
Of course this development weakens Europe. We are busier more and more with “integration”, what means with ourselves. You have really to be an anti-realist to see a benefit in that suicidal development. But this exactly is told by the liberal dogma. This means automatically that other entities and cultures who don´t suffer under such development will have an advantage against a weak Europe.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Do you consider Russia to be a part of Europe or do you accept the view that Russia and Europe represent two different civilizations?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: I don´t see a contradiction. I personally consider Russia as a European country, of course with diverse ethnic groups. And of course it has its own culture, traditions, and identity. But every European country has its own culture and traditions. The only difference is, we Europeans are told nonstop by the Brussels propaganda that we are all somehow “the same”. The Russians have the benefit not being bombarded by that ridiculous nonsense. For me as a German, Russia should be our close friend and ally. We share a lot of interests, we share a common history of course with ups and downs – at least Moscow is closer to us than Washington. A close relationship to Russia would be in the national interest of Berlin and Moscow.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Contemporary ideologies are based on the principle of secularity. Would you predict the return of religion, the return of sacrality? If so, in what form? Do you consider it to be Islam, Christianity, Paganism or any other forms of religion?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: When people start worshipping their bank accounts, the horoscopes in the yellow press magazines or their luxury cars what does that tell us about the alleged absence of religion? When it is forbidden to deny liberalism as it used to be forbidden to deny the existence of god in the Middle Ages? The “secularity” in today’s Europe just refers to the power of the organized religion, but obviously not to the needs of the people. When the religion disappears they find something else. In Berlin housewives are running into Buddhist temples because they adore the eternal smile of the Dalai Lama or the haircut of Richard Gere. Of course they don´t understand anything about the spirituality of Buddhism. Trendy Businessmen do some yoga exercises. Others start doing esoteric things. But this is also an element of liberalism: superficiality. While this is happening, the organized churches are more and more weakened themselves by the liberal virus. Sometimes it is really hard to see the difference between a protestant bishop and a liberal teacher. It is somehow ironic that God comes back to Europe in these days as a Muslim migrant. All of a sudden people go on the streets to protest against blasphemy. And this takes place at the same time when “Christian” clerics in Germany seriously support the blasphemy group “Pussy riot”.
 
 
So we see on the one side the spiritual needs of the people, but on the other side also today’s Christian churches’ refusal to serve those needs. Of course there are also some exceptions. But the general situation especially in Germany and other central and western European countries is like that.
 
 
I personally don´t believe that a new type of paganism might be a dominant religious power in Europe. Why? Because it would be a pure artificial concept for the people. The strength of the churches in the past was their ties to the traditional daily life of the people. Especially Catholicism perfected to adopt and integrate old pagan traditions in its system. If Europe recovers, I am sure that maybe a new type of European Christianity would also recover. It would be a logic thing. When liberalism starts to disappear, it´s totalitarian system will also disappear. Even the Bishops of liberalism like George Soros would lose their power. But if Europe falls, the last of the “three Romes” will be Moscow – and the only resistance against the liberalist doctrine in Europe will be done by the Muslim communities while the organized Christians celebrate their own downfall.