Europe: On the Eve of the Civil War?

Europe: On the Eve of the Civil War?

This analysis was prepared by Katehon think-tank in Spring 2015. After the intensification of migrant flows to Europe and terrorist attacks in Ankara, Sinai and Paris it is obvious that part of described plan already released.

Two Poles

There are two powers, or poles, that are engaged in an absolute, mortal and existential struggle, in the present, past and future. The one pole is Eurasia, 'continent', or 'land power', and is represented by Heartland in Mackinder's vision; historically it was represented by Sparta and Rome and it is teleocratic (a top-down hierarchy exists instead of a 'network'). On the other hand, there is 'seapower', or 'sea civilization', that was historically represented by Carthage or Athens. The Continental Power is heroic, conservative, and spiritual. Sea Power is democratic, materialistic and market-oriented. There is also this dualism in Zombart's vision of the hero and the merchant. There is a civilization of heroes, maybe a bad civilization, but one of heroes. There is a civilization of merchants, maybe a good civilization, but of merchants. 

That doesn't say who is right and who is wrong, or who is good and who is evil, but there is a direct conflict between these two types of civilizations. Naturally Russians and Germans and Austrians and at some level other continental Europeans are on the side of Heartland/land power. That's according to the analysis of Carl Schmitt, Carl Haushofer and other geopoliticians. The Anglo-Saxon world and the US are the other pole. There is a kind of everlasting conflict between the two civilizations, represented on one hand by land power (Russia, which represents its mission under Putin's rule) and the US, as a creation of the Anglo-Saxon world –sea power. That was the opinion of the US/UK geopoliticians as well as Germans and Russians; this is a shared vision. There is another aspect to this conflict.  

Sea Power represents modernity and time, whereas Land Power represents eternity and tradition and is naturally conservative. Modernization, liberalization, democratization, and globalization are on the side of sea power. 

There are those from each part of the world that have the set of values common to the other side, but these are odd 'transgender' types and should be written off as irrelevant. There are ‘natural’ alliances and ‘unnatural’ crossover types, just like it is natural for a man to be a man and for a woman to be a woman. If these things are optional features, we lose the sense of what is male and what is female. Land Power and Sea Power will always exist and define the respective natures of the residents of these countries. One cannot expect complete change. One side might declare victory over the other, but neither will change. There is a natural dichotomy that exists, as with heaven and earth, fire and water, etc. These are natural manifestations.

At the same time, there is a vision, central to the continental view, which reflects the position of the Christian church. The church presents an additional factor attached to heartland – it is an eternal, conservative, traditional force. Christianity considers history from the standpoint of its practitioners. It is connected with the concept of Katehon, and identifies the enemy with the person of the Antichrist.

From a Land Power point of view in a religious context, the Heartland is equal to Katehon – a person mentioned by St. Paul, who is regarded as the Emperor and prevents the Antichrist from arriving in the world. So geopolitically, the Heartland allows good to overcome evil. 

Anglo-Saxon worldviews

Anglo-Saxon fundamentalist American Protestants also consider themselves to be the Katehon, and see Russia as Gog/Magog (In Ezekiel's prophecy, Gog is the leader of a great army that attacks the land of Israel). This view is held by dispensationalists, followers of the Scofield Reference Bible, and the majority of right-wing Americans. A second part of the political establishment focuses on Realism but also values Geopolitics. They focus on America's rational interests abroad – its need for resources, etc. Additionally, there is a third group of Americans that see America as the defender of "universal values" – human rights, democracy, world peace and liberalism. They also rely on a dualistic world view. They see the 'enemy' as those that need to be democratized and liberalized. 

From all three of these 'Sea Power' viewpoints, Russia is the enemy. The first group sees Russia as Gog/Magog, the second group sees Russia as a rival player for power in a world which challenges America's ability to dominate capital and scarce resources, and the third group demonizes Russia for not adopting liberal values, such as democracy, liberalism, feminism, gay rights, etc. Each group may use the other groups or their views to buttress its own vision of the rival power (Russia). 
America matters because it is the center of the current global hegemony and can't be dismissed. Americans may be dreamers, but the American dream has come true. We must understand and appreciate the ramifications of this fact: the American set of ideas is the most powerful – the dominant idea or set of ideas.

Allies in Europe

Our idea is to create an alternative point of view, an alternative identity, which we are calling Katehon, Continentalism or Eurasia. We can spin it as being left, right, secular or religious. We can associate it with Germany or Russia. It is an affirmation of eternal values. In different ways, it represents other Europeans as well, but Russians and Germans can be said to be great people. The Anglo-Saxons have always maintained a goal of driving a wedge between Germany and Russia, as these constitute the dominant old powers on the European continent. Mackinder said so himself. Napoleon (dubbed an ‘antichrist’ by many and the culmination of the French Revolution and its characteristically anti-Christian, enlightenment values) also wanted to destroy the second pole. The struggle between the poles has always existed.

We must identify the main spaces where this struggle exists. The most problematic space is Europe, because it has dual identities. Europe is a battleground: On one side it is Katehon and on the other is the antichrist. Russia and the Anglo-Saxon world have a singular identity – every Russian is a Eurasianist – this is our 'gender' destiny – Germans are like this too. Every Russian and every normal German (the proportions are different) is a Eurasianist, but much of Europe lies between these poles and the continent has a double identity. We should have continental Europe represented by a different set of groups, tendencies, cultural trends, historical organizations, and psychological attitudes… it should be more natural. Europe should be represented by this worldview – it's not that we simply want it. Europe’s identity is the same as this continental identity. It's precisely a continental identity that has been central to European history since the Greco-Roman era: it was based on eternal views, tradition, religion and so on. 

It's natural for Europe to have their current set of views – to be dominated by Sea Power and embrace the enlightenment is something new. The other pole is acting on Europe – that much is clear. There is the American influence, market economics, modernization, historicism or the idea to put every being in becoming, modernization, democratization, hegemony, and destruction of traditional Christian European values. This trend dominates modern Europe. 

However, there is this other identity – so Europe is divided. The destiny and the fate of Europe is a critical feature of the pull between Sea Power and Land Power. Today we can't talk about the submission of Europe to Russian influence, although it's possible to imagine. It's like talking about the submission of Europe to German dominion. We shouldn't think in terms of Russian or German influence – we should think in terms of Land Power and Sea Power. NATO and Brussels are other aspects of the pro-American, ultra-liberal establishment of Europe. So the space of the battle is defined – Land Power and Sea Power and the space between them. These days one of the poles – the US – is more powerful than the other. 

These days the United States controls Europe, but there is growing resistance to this domination. On the other hand, Russia defends itself, and is taking its first steps towards finding its allies in Europe. Russia has no understanding of its global mission at the level of the political establishment, but Russia achieves its goals despite this lack of an acknowledgement among the establishment. Russia is this Katehon without knowing it. Instead of our individual or practical choices dictating Russia's role, or its government, Russia instinctively conducts itself as if it was Katehon. We must represent a kind of mind for this Katehon – make the monkey into a man.
From that point of view, we must analyze how to deal with this double-entity in Europe, where to search for the bearers of this continental Europe and its identity, in what sections of Europe, and in what sense – a political movement or a socio-cultural one. Russia is an actor in this but not conscious. There are narrow, marginal groups in modern Europe that are conscious but don’t have any power. 

We have many things in common with these minority groups, and we can exert complementary influences. Europe and Russia are in many respects complementary. Russia is a child in this matter, whereas these real and profound Europeans are fragmented people despite their intellectual and spiritual culture. It’s not the case that Russia knows everything and must teach the Europeans. This is a very important alliance. We have to gain many things from traditional Christian continental Europe. Russia must learn from them rather than the other way around. It is an exchange of potentialities rather than an economic bond. The exchange can’t be completely equal, because we’re dealing with qualities rather than quantities. 

We’re discovering how to create something together. We need to identify our potential allies and propose the conditions of the alliance and how to do things together. Our problem isn’t that we’re trying to impose our will – it’s that we don’t have a will, or lack the will.

America is another situation – they have a will and have a mind. That is a very powerful subject. We are half-subject, half-object. We don’t need to submit immediately to the American will. We must establish allies and friends in Europe rather than mere puppets, because we can’t dictate. That’s why Russia’s role in Europe is at times so ineffective – because we don’t understand what we want from them. That lack of understanding about what we want and what we’re going to do is a natural limit which we must overcome, and then realize some strategy. It would provide guidance to our government, and also to these European “alternative” groups. We are not dealing with two equal subjects (Sea Power vs. Land Power), because the American ‘Sea Power’ subject has will and it has understanding.

We need to put another group of players at the table, on the chess board. It can’t just be the Russian government. It could also be the continental elites. Or the counter elite in another situation. Or revolutionary groups in a third. Or individuals. Or political parties/states. It must be heterogeneous. It can’t be homogeneous – it can’t be a unifying ideology like communism was. It must be more syncretic. 

Creeping Liberalism

That’s the main point. The second point is an analysis of the situation in Europe. I see the situation in the following way. There is a liberal elite that rules Europe. Liberals have absolute power. They’re right economically and left politically – so free market with gay marriages. What Americans call libertarians or classical liberals. Liberal in both ways – left and right. Before, that wasn’t the case. There was social democracy – whether Christian, socialist or independent. However, that’s all finished. Now all we see are these liberals – those that favor a liberal market economy and civil liberties. 

They have four points that distinguish their outlook. First of all, immigration. They are incredibly pro-immigration. They would not stop or limit it – they support and promote immigration on principle, based on the human rights theory that every person is only an individual and not part of anything else. This is an ideation of their liberal ideology - they believe that to be human and to be individual is the same. Liberals have absolute power – a kind of dictatorship in Europe. We can expect immigration to grow. The liberals will never give up or share their power with social democrats, nationalists, or socialists. They will keep control and growth of immigration is granted. 

Their second point is gender politics. Promoting gay rights, incest rights, and perhaps even pedophile rights. Their support isn’t something that has happened by chance – it’s another application of the principle of ultra-individualism, the idea that a human being has the right to do absolutely everything that doesn’t hurt anyone else. It is a kind of individual right to choose any form of collective identity, because collective identity doesn’t exist. Even at the level of men and women, you are not a man or a woman unless you choose to be. People are seen as having the right to choose their gender identity rather than behaving according to the laws of nature. The ruling liberal class will understand this definition of gender, of family, and of sexual identity. So, gay marriage and any other kind of sex-optional identity will be promoted in the future. 

Third – liberalism is based on the principle of unlimited growth – of the world economy or anything else. There are also no limits on the speed of this growth. Any problem, crisis or catastrophe in the economy is seen by the liberals under this system as a pretext for new growth. Downturns are not seen as problematic indicators of systematic failure, but only as potential opportunities. When dealing with crises, such as the 2008 global economic crisis or the dotcom bubble, the strategy of the global capital market system economists was always the same – there is a problem with liberalism, so let’s add more liberalism. They finance the banks which have lost everything, and fuel things such as zero-credit lending politics in Europe. Their plan is to make money to make growth. However, liberals are reaching their limits. Their rule is unlimited, but the possibilities of their rule and consequences of their rule are limited.

While liberals speak about unlimited possibilities for growth, the facts are far more sobering – there is no new possibility of growth. The middle class and its level of wealth are no longer growing – it’s remaining constant or falling. This is indicative of the gap that is growing between what the liberals say is true and what is true in actuality. This gap between reality and words will continue to grow, because nobody is attempting to reconcile reality and words. Their idea of everlasting growth in the ‘new economy’ continues to remain real to them, even when reality is different. 

The growth of immigration would provoke a reaction in any corner of society. However, the liberals will denounce that reaction, and say that it is a neo-Nazi belief. They’ll insist that some ‘denazification’ process is needed because neo-Nazis are all around us. Maybe this could yield some results, but with growing immigration, the majority of Europeans want an alternative. The same is true of gay marriage – they haven’t yet accomplished the ultimate ends of this agenda because it’s an infinite process to destroy any collective identity. So after gay marriage there might come four-person marriages, marriages to animals, incestuous marriages – there is every opportunity for them to continue without any semblance of attenuation despite the seeming ridiculousness of the venture. 

They will insist on growth – the US will back this growth from a neo-liberal standpoint, just like it will continue to support immigration and gay marriage, and the antichrist will proceed. He will proceed from immigration, gay marriage and every other perversion, and this gap between imagined growth and the real decline of the economic situation of Central Europe. 

So what do we have? We plan to promote the grand growth of the opposition in Central Europe. We consider this fate inevitable – it is absolutely granted, alongside the granted power of liberals. Will liberals team up with social democrats and put the blame on nationalists, or form some other similar alliance? Never. Liberals never compromise.

America: One Size Fits All

Why is this? It has much to do with the character of Americans, who sincerely believe that their model is universal and can be applied everywhere, including in Europe. They think it’s more suitable for Europe than anything Europe could develop itself. This reflects a genuine lack of understanding – the British understood the situation but not the Americans. The British were very subtle, whereas the Americans are direct and open people. The British knew they were working for their own accounts and that they were cheating in order to maintain their empire, whereas the Americans strongly believe they are right and they are sincere. That’s why everything is going to blow up – precisely because they’re direct, sincere, and evangelical about their beliefs. They religiously believe in liberalism and democracy – liberalism is granted in Europe as long as America continues to exert an influence there. 

At the same time, the growth of the opposition is granted. We see now that an alternative was impossible 10 or 20 years ago in Europe when everything worked; alternatives were almost non-existent, but now they are serious and tangible. Now is the time to enter this alternative, help it to be born and assist it at the first stage, rather than when it is too late.

The cleverest brains in the US/UK understand the situation as well as we do. They know that an alternative is inevitable, given the course of liberalism. They are currently trying to figure out how to control this alternative, and keep us out or away. The majority of the American political elite don’t realize the risks and dangers, but there are some very serious groups that understand these and are acting, or trying to put some sort of paradigm or algorithm in the alternative groups, in order to control it and prevent it from aligning itself with a continental scenario. However, we have several things going for us. Our strong points are that we are the alternative and that we have Russia. Our weak point is that we lack strategic thought. We need to balance this because America is an actual hegemony and Russia is a potential hegemony. America is acting in reality using billions from Soros, etc. to undermine the alternative and continental system. We must encounter that with our spirit. Russia is an unconscious Katehon, and we are the conscious part of this unconscious giant.

Plan B

There is a second agenda the US has concerning Europe. There is official, open American agenda – US wants to continue the liberal strategy of the integration of Europe within the existing framework. America will continue to proceed with this as long as everything is going well. However, the second agenda is much more radical – an emergency or alternative agenda. This agenda would entail the American instigation of a civil war in Europe. The real state of things (rather than at the propaganda level) would be that mass immigration provokes more and more of a reaction, anti-systemic parties and groups start to gain power and influence, gender politics start to be rejected, and the middle class continues to decline. 

This wouldn’t fit with what we hear, so it makes sense that there would be another agenda of the US concerning Europe. There is a growing interest in the US and above all Israel in funding and influencing the far right movement in Europe, the identitarian movement being the most obvious example. They would try to use that like a Wahhabi group to provoke civil war in Europe. I think that the battle for the minds of the European nationalists has already begun. Here we’re not talking simply about stupid patsy racist youths, but very old, very serious American-Israeli experts. Not stupid, not young, and not European – with their agenda. 

They have plans to manipulate this sector as well as pro-family and Christian groups, as well as social groups that will react to the fall of the middle class – they have a second agenda to deal with this. A contingency –plan - We’ll call it ‘Plan B’ – America’s hidden agenda for Europe. A civil war is part of this. They have plans to control, localize, manipulate, fix, start and stop activity…and reap the benefits. It would be controlled chaos – something like in Iraq, Syria, Libya or Yemen. They also have some goal to direct all of this chaos towards. I think we should start to hunt for the pieces of these plans because they inevitably exist. There are so many signs – in the Front National, with what’s going on in Greece, what’s going on with Jobbik – we always see some American hand in every far right movement. On the liberal side, the American connection is self-evident, but with the opposition, the US influence is unseen. 

We need to identify this second plan, determine how to react, and decide what our own plan is. We don’t have an open plan, because we have no plan at all (Russia), for dealing with Plan B. We’ve got to find holes in Plan B and discover its weak points. It may be impossible to deal with the main plan (liberalism) because it’s already there. We must counter the potential for Plan B being rolled out. The main force that could affect this would be the business sector in Germany, France and Italy. These people aren’t far right, nor are they affected by our ideology or tradition or discourse – they’re absolutely pragmatic. On the other hand, they could represent the main force that could affect Merkel or Renzi. There is a growing Italian alternative – left/right – mixture, and there is the Italian business sector, which is very angry about sanctions. They realize that sanctions go against their concrete interests. 

Since sanctions represent the official, stated policies of the governments, we can’t use Russian businesses (which are commonly owned by the state) to pursue our objectives. We could use Chambers of Commerce and the like, persuading them on a purely economic basis that sanctions should be discarded. We shouldn’t use politics, ideology, values or Christianity here. We should imagine the actor – the state and private sector don’t address this, so perhaps some sort of an institution would work.