The “celebration of diversity” , often praised by us Europeans, (“United in diversity!”), if it has to be taken seriously, cannot simply conceiving culture as a sort of folklore, just to give a touch of color, but must implicitly accept and allow a pluralism of political forms; because cultures are often based on fundamental principles not only different, but often opposed.
This kind of pluralism necessarily involves competitiveness and territorial control. This competitiveness must be legitimized within specific boundaries, in particular with regard to the constant danger of maximalist and the degeneration into all-out war.
The spectacle of all this has become the model of socially dominant life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choice already made in production and its corollary consumption. In fact, there is no choice, the freedom of man, in fact, it is only a promise in a background distant entirely disregarded. We are distracted by a false problem that Ukrainian, while we do not see that the West and its humanist values are lost. West is spreading a culture of spectacle that is the heir of all the weakness of the Western philosophical project.
Today, we are facing with two opposing models: Russia pursues the Unity into the diversity looking for what kind of unites despite the inevitable differences; The United States encourage and enhance the “differences”, with the aim of flat all on a postiche false unity which is based not on the recognition of the fundamental unity of their roots and traditions ( “Russian and European model”), but on a “social contract” utilitarian type that allows, at the expense of the roots and traditions, to give free rein to “individual freedoms”.
In this context, Europe is not able to propose an independent foreign policy strategy, a modern cultural perspective that, by taking into account thousands of years of history, can elevate itself as valid model for democratic civilization. It prefers to abdicate by delegating the Americans. Obama did not therefore fail to proclaim the universal validity of those which called, speaking on behalf of the entire Western world, “our ideals”. “The ideals that unite us-he said- have the same importance for young people in Boston and Brussels, Jakarta and Nairobi, in Krakow and Kiev “. And speaking of Kiev declared that “it is precisely this at stake in Ukraine today “: the imposition of the Atlantic geopolitical interests of the Western ideological vision.
It is true that the root of the cold war – understood not as “a segment of history but [as] a permanent bending of contemporary geopolitics” – is geopolitical before that ideological. As states in a frank and realistic way the recent editorial of a magazine westernist, “for America, this is the only way to guarantee itself against the emergence of a rival power in Eurasia. It does not matter whether communist, or Buddhist or of vegan diet “.
On the other hand, the argument that Russia is a separate civilization, one “-State world”, represents a premise on which we could base our forecasts on the development of relations between Russia and the West. In this case, the perception of the West (and of modernity, in all its forms), in all senses of the word, from that historical to the ideological meanings, is an evil. It is a negative concept, a Hegelian antithesis, something that must be rejected, defeated, superseded, exhausted and in a long-term perspective, annihilated. This view was shared by the Russian tsars of the Muscovite period (which in Europe saw “an empire of heretics”, “of Papists and Lutherans”), by the Slavophiles (particularly those more recent), by Russian populists, by eurasiatists and by the Communists (in accordance with their specific class ideology). Starting from this perspective, relations between Russia and the West should be built according to a different criterion. This position can be defined as radically anti-Western. The Russian civilization must engage in a final and decisive combat. A premise like that, leads to the total negation of that development to which the West and those who, willingly or not, found themselves in his area of influence, are heading.
However, the fact remains that, if Russia has its own geopolitical vision, it does not have its own ideology by contrast to the Western one. Yet, as Aleksandr Dugin claims, “Russia, understood as civilization, cannot but must have its values, other than those of other civilizations.” Today the need to refer to the guiding principles of its own civilization is not only of Russia, but of all areas in which consists the Eurasian continent, and then of all those forces that share the prospect of a sovereign Eurasia. Gábor Vona has clearly expressed this requirement: “There may not be enough, says the Hungarian politician –simply a geographical and geopolitical alternative, but we feel the need for a spiritual eurasiatism”. If we can’t fix it, then our vision remains only a different political, economic, administrative or military conception which can represent a structural diversity, but not a rupture at qualitative level in face of globalization in the West. There will be a political opposite pole, but not a qualitative superiority. This can create the basis for a new cold war or a new world war , in which it will face two anti-traditional forces, as happened in the case of the USSR and the USA, but it certainly won’t be able to counter the historical process of dissemination of anti-tradition.
For we Europeans just this would be essential. From our point of view, it is inconceivable a confrontation in which a globalisation contrasts another globalisation “!
And Europe? The Liberal democratic Europe, rather than escape the U.S. hegemony and then start the construction of its own political and military power in the “great space” that competes in the Eurasian continent, establishing an agreement with the other major continental powers, seems committed to strengthen its position in the corner of the western area and to perpetuate your enslavement against the North American plan whose real intent is to prevent de-dollarization of the world, to preserve their economic power in a unipolar world, and the transfer of wealth from Europe to America. All we are witnessing today the creation in Europe of unique plan: the flattening of European values and the annihilation of the middle class.
In this way the European Union cooperates actively in the realization of this project of conquest developed by White House strategists, according to which Europe must act as a “democratic bridgehead” of the United States in Eurasia. In fact, Zbigniew Brzezinski writes: Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia. America’s role in democratic Europe is enormous.
In order to pursue cultural policy perspective, and geopolitics of a strategic partnership between the European and Asian continents against the supremacy American, perspective that presupposed a certain idea of Europe militarily independent by the United States, the European Union and the European chancelleries have chosen the easy way out to cooperate with Washington in an effort to restructure the North Africa and the Middle East in accordance with the United States projects and they aligned with the American State Department in supporting coup in Ukraine, in order to prevent this country must remain in the Eurasian Customs Union and to transform it into a NATO outpost in the Atlantic aggression against what is not conformable and understandable: Russia.
West is spreading a culture of spectacle that is the heir of all the weakness of the Western philosophical project.
By itself, the philosophy, as power of separate thought, and the thought of separate power, has never been able to overcome theology. The spectacle is the material reconstruction religious illusion. The technique has not dissolved spectacular religious clouds where men had placed their own powers detached from them has only connected to a land base. So is the life of this world that becomes opaque and unbreathable. The spectacle is the technical realization of the exile of human powers in an afterlife; splitting accomplished within man.
