The Civilization-State | Alexander Dugin

The special military operation (SMO) is unanimously agreed by competent experts in International Relations to be the final and decisive chord in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world [...] The main actor of a multipolar world order is neither a nation-state (as in the realist theory of International Relations), nor a unified World Government (as in the liberalist theory of International Relations). It is the Civilization-State. Other names for it are 'Great Space', 'Empire', 'Ecumenism'.

 

 » Your aim must be to take All-under-Heaven intact.
Thus your troops are not worn out and your gains will be complete.
This is the art of offensive strategy.  «

Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

The term Civilization-State is most often applied to China. Both ancient and modern China. As early as ancient times, the Chinese developed the theory of 'Tianxia' (天下), the Celestial Empire, according to which China is the center of the world, being the meeting place of the unifying Heaven and the dividing Earth. And the Celestial Empire may be a single state, or it may be broken up into its components and then reassembled. In addition, Han China itself acts as a culture-forming element for neighboring nations that are not directly part of China - primarily Korea, Vietnam, the Indochina countries and even Japan, which is quite independent.

The nation-state is a product of the European New Age and, in some cases, a post-colonial construct. The Civilization-State has ancient roots and uncertain shifting boundaries. The Civilization-State sometimes pulsates, expanding and contracting, but always remaining a constant phenomenon. Contemporary China behaves strictly according to the principle of Tianxia in international politics. The One Belt, One Road Initiative is a prime example of how this looks like in practice. And China's Internet, which cuts off any networks and resources that might weaken the civilizational identity at the entrance to China, demonstrates how the defense mechanisms are built. The Civilization-State may interact with the outside world, but it never becomes dependent on it and always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy. Civilization-State is always more than just a state in both spatial and temporal (historical) terms. The Civilization-State may interact with the outside world, but it never becomes dependent on it and always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy.

Russia is increasingly gravitating toward the same status. After the beginning of the SMO this is no longer a mere wishful thinking, but an urgent necessity. As in the case of China, Russia has every reason to claim to be a civilization. This theory was most fully developed by the Russian Eurasians, who introduced the notion of a 'state-world' or — which is the same thing — a 'Russian world'. Actually, the concept of Russia-Eurasia is a direct indication of the civilizational status of Russia. Russia is more than a nation-state (which the Russian Federation is). Russia is a distinct world.

»  The Civilization-State always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy.  «

[…] A multipolar world consists of states-civilizations. This is a kind of world of worlds, a mega-cosmos that includes entire galaxies. And here it is important to determine how many such States-Civilizations can even theoretically exist? Undoubtedly, this type includes India, a typical Civilization-State, which even today has enough potential to become a full-fledged actor in international politics. Then there is the Islamic world, from Indonesia to Morocco. Here the fragmentation into states and different ethno-cultural enclaves does not yet allow us to speak of political unity. Islamic civilization exists, but the question of its assembly into a Civilization-State is rather problematic. Moreover, the history of Islam knows several types of Civilization-States — from the Caliphate (the First, Umayyad, Abbasid, etc.) to the three components of Genghis Khan's Empire converted to Islam (the Golden Horde, the Ilkhan and Chagatai ulus), the Persian Safavid Empire, the Great Mogul state, and finally, the Ottoman Empire. The borders once drawn are still relevant today in many respects. But the process of gathering them into a single structure requires considerable time and effort. The same situation is also true for Latin America and Africa, two macro-civilizations that remain rather divided. But a multipolar world will somehow push integration processes in all these zones.

 

[March 31, 2023]

Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine :
(1)   Free from ambiguity and understatement.
(2)   No more compromise.
(3)   Carthage must be destroyed.

Now the most important thing: what to do with the West? The Theory Of A Multipolar World in the nomenclature of theories of International Relations in the modern West is absent. Today the dominant paradigm is liberalism, which denies any sovereignty and autonomy at all, abolishes civilizations and religions, ethnicities and cultures, replacing them by a forced liberal ideology, the concept of 'human rights', individualism (in the limit leading to gender and transgender politics), materialism and technical progress elevated to the highest value (Artificial Intelligence). The goal of liberalism is to abolish nation-states and establish a World Government based on Western norms and rules. This is the line pursued by Biden and the modern Democrat Party in the U.S., as well as most European rulers. This is what globalism is all about. It categorically rejects the Civilization-State and any hint of multipolarity. That is why the West is ready for war with Russia and China. In a sense, this war is already going on in Ukraine and in the Pacific (the problem of Taiwan), but so far with the support of proxy-actors. 

Ejaz Akram, Zhang Weiwei & Alexander Dugin:
» The Westphalian system of the sovereignty of nation-states has long since become obsolete and ceased to function.
In its place will be erected a continental system of ' large spaces' (in the Schmittian sense), where individuals
are integrated in the social whole based on the insoluble bond of kinship and common tradition. « (HERE)

In the West there is another influential school - realism in International Relations. Here the nation-state is considered a necessary element of the world order, but only those who have achieved a high level of economic, military-strategic and technological development — almost always at the expense of others — have sovereignty. While liberals see the future in a World Government, realists see it in an alliance of major Western powers setting global rules in their own interests. Again, in theory and practice, a Civilization-State and a multipolar world are categorically rejected. This creates a fundamental conflict already at the level of theory. And the lack of mutual understanding here leads to the most radical consequences at the level of direct collision.

In the eyes of multipolarity supporters, the West is also a Civilization-State or even two — North American and European. But Western intellectuals do not agree with this: they have no theoretical frame for this — they know either liberalism or realism, and no multipolarity. However, there are exceptions among Western theorists, such as Samuel Huntington or Fabio Petito. They — unlike the vast majority — recognize multipolarity and the emergence of new actors in the form of civilizations. This is gratifying because through such ideas it is possible to build a bridge from supporters of multipolarity (Russia, China, etc.) to the West. Such a bridge would at least make negotiations possible. 

 

Want more war? Have it.
The Rest Against The West.
Russia's FM Lavrov [June 20, 2023] :
» Let NATO fight. Russia is prepared. «
 

As long as the West categorically rejects multipolarity and the very notion of the Civilization-State, the conversation will be conducted only at the level of a clash of rough power — from military operations to economic blockade, information and sanction wars, etc.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (2022) - The Civilization-State.

 

 

See also:

Alexander Dugin (April 07, 2023) - Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine. The Concept of Foreign Policy As The Apotheosis Of Multipolarism And The Catechism Of Sovereignty.
Zhang Weiwei, Alexander Dugin & Ejaz Akram (2022) - What is a Civilizational State? (video)

Martin Jacques (2022) - Civilisation-State versus Nation-State (video).

Matthew Kroenig (2022) - Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China. 
Alexander Dugin (2021) - The Theory of a Multipolar World.

Alexander Dugin (2009) - The Fourth Political Theory.

Alexander Dugin (2005) - Eurasian Mission: An Introduction to Neo-Eurasianism.
Alexander Dugin (1997) - Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia. 

Bruno Maçães (2020) - The Attack of the Civilization-State.

 Bernard-Henri Lévy (2019) - The Empire and the Five Kings. America's Abdication and the Fate of the World.

TPR (2016) - One Belt, One Road — Eurasian Century Unstoppable.

Zhang Weiwei (2011) - The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State.

Ejaz Akram (2009) - Ideals and Realities of Regional Integration in the Muslim World. 

John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 

Samuel P. Huntington (1992) - Clash of Civilizations.  

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The nomos of the earth in the international law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.

The Liberal Political Theology | Neema Parvini

Neema Parvini (2022) - From the realist perspective of [Carl] Schmitt, there is no structural difference between the liberal state, the communist state, and the fascist state — or indeed any other state. The only difference is the extent to which a regime may obscure the nature of its power or else genuinely buy into myths of neutrality. Viewed in this way, a state wedded to liberal democracy is as ‘totalitarian’ as any other since, by its very nature, it will be unable to tolerate any leaders who are not always already liberal democrats. 

 

"Liberalism is to freedom as anarchism is to anarchy." — Ernst Jünger, 1977

 

Should such leaders rise, the stalwarts of liberal democracy will perceive them as ‘populists’, ‘fascists’, ‘threats to democracy’, and so on. The extent of free speech, free inquiry, free thought, and so on is a liberal delusion. In fact, the range of ‘allowable opinion’ is always exceedingly narrow and the liberal democratic state is marked by its intolerance and spectacular inability to imagine any worldview that is not its own. The dominance of liberal political theology is total. Schmitt would not have disagreed with Oswald Spengler who wrote in The Decline of the West:

"England, too, discovered the ideal of a Free Press, and discovered along with it that the press serves him who owns it. It does not spread ‘free’ opinion — it generates it. […] Without the reader’s observing it, the paper, and himself with it, changes masters. Here also money triumphs and forces the free spirits into its service. No tamer has his animals more under his power. Unleash the people as reader-mass and it will storm through the streets and hurl itself upon the target indicated, terrifying and breaking windows; a hint to the press-staff and it will become quiet and go home. The Press today is an army with carefully organized arms and branches, with journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty."

As Edward Bernays would go on to say these ‘are the invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. […] In some department of our daily lives, in which we imagine ourselves as free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power.’ The point is that viewed from the outside, liberal democracy looks just as ‘totalitarian’ as any other regime even if it relies more on subtle persuasion, nudge techniques, and other psychological tricks than coercion to obtain its results.

Quoted from:
Neema Parvini (2022) - The Populist Delusion

The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from all societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

 

[...] In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in concert and have a mutual understanding simply because they are a hundred and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political community, the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the governed majority be, and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority.

"I can certainly call myself an anti-democrat, but I am not an anti-liberal;
indeed I am opposed to pure democracy precisely because I am a liberal.
I believe that the ruling class ought not to be monolithic and homogeneous
but ought to consist of elements which are diverse in regard to origin and
interests; when, instead, political power originates from a single source,
even if this be elections with universal suffrage, I regard it as dangerous
and liable to become oppressive. Democratic Jacobinism is an illiberal
doctrine precisely because it subordinates everything to a single force,
that of the so-called majority, on which it does not set any limits."

[...] What happens in other forms of government — namely, that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority — happens also and to perfection, whatever the appearances to the contrary, under the representative system. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters, and, if that phrase should seem too inflexible and too harsh to fit some cases, we might qualify it by saying that his friends have him elected. In elections, as in all other manifestations of social life, those who have the will and, especially, the moral, intellectual and material means to force their will upon others take the lead over the others and command them.

[...] From our point of view there can be no antagonism between state and society. The state is to be looked upon merely as that part of society which performs the political function. Considered in this light, all questions touching interference or noninterference by the state come to assume a new aspect. Instead of asking what the limits of state activity ought to be, we try to find out what the best type of political organization is, which type, in other words, enables all the elements that have a political significance in a given society to be best utilized and specialized, best subjected to reciprocal control and to the principle of individual responsibility for the things that are done in the respective domains.

"Who says organization, says oligarchy. [...] Historical evolution mocks all the
prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
Robert Michels, 1911

[...] Any political organization is both voluntary and coercive at one and the same time — voluntary because it arises from the very nature of man, as was long ago noted by Aristotle, and coercive because it is a necessary fact, the human being finding himself unable to live otherwise. It is natural, therefore, and at the same time indispensable, that where there are men there should automatically be a society, and that when there is a society there should also be a state — that is to say, a minority that rules and a majority that is ruled by the ruling minority.

Quoted from:
Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class (Elementi di scienza política).

See also:

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie).
Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society (Trattato di sociologia generale).

Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver | Stephen Mitford Goodson

There was an increase in trade and Rome became one of the most prosperous cities in the ancient world. [...] bronze coins represented national money and were paid into circulation by the state and each was only of value in as much as the symbols on which its numbers were recorded, were scarce or otherwise. This money was thus based on law rather than the metallic content. [...] This can be considered as an early example of the successful use of fiat money.

While fiat money is much criticised in some quarters, for example by the followers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is issued by government, not by private bankers, and is carefully protected against counterfeiters. Non-fiat money, in contrast, has the serious drawback that who ever sets the prices of gold and silver, i.e. private bankers, can control the nation’s economy.

[...] in September 45 BC, Caesar found the streets and cities crowded with homeless people, who had been forced off the land by usurers and land monopolists. 300,000 people had to be fed daily at the public granary. Usury was flourishing with disastrous consequences. [..] Caesar fully understood the evils of usury and how to counter them. He recognized the profound truth that money is a national agent, created by law for a national purpose, and that no classes of men should withhold it from circulation so as to cause panics, in order that speculators could advance the rates of interest, or could buy up property at ruinous prices after such panic.

Caesar introduced the following social reforms:

1. Restoration of property was done at the much lower valuations which held prior to the civil war (49-45 BC).
2. Several remissions of rents were granted.
3. Large numbers of poor citizens and discharged veterans were settled on allotments.
4. Free housing was provided to 80,000 impoverished families.
5. Soldiers’ pay was increased from 123 to 225 denarii.
6. The corn dole was regulated.
7. Provincial communities were enfranchised.
8. Confusion in the calendar was removed by fixing it at 365¼ days from 1 January 44 BC.

His monetary reforms were as follows:

1. State debt levels were immediately reduced by 25%.
2. Control of the mint was transferred from the patricians (usurers) to government.
3. Cheap metal coins were issued as the means of exchange.
4. It was ruled that interest could not be levied at more than 1% per month.
5. It was decreed that interest could not be charged on interest and that the total interest charged could never exceed the capital loaned (in duplum rule).
6. Slavery was abolished as a means of settling debt.
7. Aristocrats were forced to employ their capital and not hoard it. 

These measures enraged the aristocrats and plutocrats whose “livelihood” was now severely restricted. They therefore conspired to murder Caesar, the hero of the people. 

 

The 'Ides of March' Denarius (43/42 BC), a declaration of the Republic's 'liberation' from tyrannical Caesar.
Ironically, Brutus appears on the obverse professing he killed Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.
This is one of the most sought-after coins from the Roman world.

Quotes from:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind

 

See also:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2017) – How The Banking System Works

 Alfred Deahl (2020) - Money Talks: A Very Short History of Roman Currency

Stephen Mitford Goodson (1948 - 2018) was a South African banker, author and politician who was the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party. He stood as a candidate for the Ubuntu Party in the 2014 General Elections.

The Developed World Populism Index │ Ray Dalio

* The latest point includes cases like Trump, UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Front in France,
Podemos in Spain, and Five Star Movement in Italy. It doesn’t include major emerging country populists,
like Erdogan in Turkey or Duterte in the Philippines.

On March 22, 2017 Ray Dalio published "Populism: The Phenomenon", a paper that analyzes the role of populism in today’s world and in history. Ray Dalio runs the $150 billion dollar hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest. The paper introduces a "Developed World Populism Index", which Dalio says measures the strength of populism over time. It’s a weighted index of the vote share of anti-establishment parties or candidates in national elections for major developed countries since 1900. The index shows that populism is now at its highest level since the early 1930s. Contemporary populism includes supporters of Donald Trump, UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Front in France, Podemos in Spain and Five Star Movement in Italy. "Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries. It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime — like pandemics, depressions, or wars. The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist. Over the last year, it has again emerged as a major force."
 

A portrait of President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) hangs on the wall behind President Trump in the
Oval Office of the White House. Jackson was a rich, bragging populist, who said: "I was born for a
storm and a calm doesn’t suit me." Also: "Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must
sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms." Trump like Jackson is a rich, bragging
businessman, a narcissist and reality TV star, who never held any public office before. Calm doesn’t
suit him either, and millions at the U.S. home front are prepared for storm and blood
(see also HERE + HERE).

"We believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies)," writes Dalio and three Bridgewater colleagues. Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man, typically not well-educated, being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them, according to Dalio. In other words, populism is a rebellion of the common man against the elites and, to some extend, against the system. In summary, populism is:

• power to the common man.
• through the tactic of attacking the establishment, the elites, and the powerful.
• brought about by wealth and opportunity gaps, xenophobia, and people being fed up with government not working effectively, which leads to the emergence of the strong leader to serve the common man and make the system run more efficiently.
• protectionism.
• nationalism.
• militarism.
• greater conflict, and greater attempts to influence or control the media.

The Dawn of Transhumanism | Alexander Dugin

Ray Kurzweil, Google's transhumanism-guru, predicts that 20 to 25 years from now,
humans will be a hybrid of biological and non-biological intelligence that becomes
increasingly dominated by its non-biological component.

Alexander Dugin (Sep 13, 2016) - The trend of transhumanism is gaining popularity across the world, first and foremost in the West where it originated. Its symbol is a circle with the letter “H” for “human” and the plus sign: H +. The supporters of this trend enthusiastically accept all modern technology and take the idea of progress to its logical conclusion. In their opinion, the enhancement of technology is leading humanity to a state in which more perfect beings can be artificially created out of the human species. This is to be achieved by refining all parts of the human body by means of replacing them with artificial attachments that are indistinguishable from body parts and internal organs. This includes the technological simulation of consciousness or the registration of consciousness in different “receivers”, the cartography or mapping of the brain. The latest discoveries in the genome structure allow organisms to be corrected and their quality to be enhanced on a fundamental level. 

"We are the future like it or not."
Zoltan Istvan: The Transhumanist Wager.

H+ is a new level of humanity which will be free from disease, imperfections, and will ultimately achieve physical immortality [HERE+ HERE]. The body will be able to be changed or corrected and, at some point, even printed by 3-D printers. Virtual networks will become humans’ new habitat and will gradually come to completely replace our normal reality. Compared to H+, the utopias or dystopias of The Lawnmower Man or The Matrix will become something archaic and overcome. Transhumanism is not simply a pastime for eccentrics, designers, or technological progress’ fanatics. It is the result of the last few centuries over the course of which humanity has come to seriously believe in the myth of progress and evolution. H+ is the final, logical conclusion of the modern era, Modernity. The main idea of Modernity was liberating man from any and all constraints. First they started with religion, tradition, and caste society, and then they fell the State and nation in favor of civil society. Then they abolished the normative view of gender and the normal family, legalizing the most diverse forms of gender mutations and perversions. And all of this took place against the backdrop of the technological development of new forms of production, computers, and advances in programing and the synthesis of new materials. Ideology and technology gradually merged into something one and indivisible. Technological progress has become an ideological factor, and ideology has, in turn, become nothing other than technology. Hence the replacement of classical political forms with spin doctors.

With USD 900 mio. Larry Page established Calico Labs in 2013 with Arthur D. Levinson,
ex-chairman of Apple, as part of Alphabet/Google. Calico pursues a cure for aging and
associated diseases. In 2014 Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, and Arthur D. Levinson
established the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences to fund research in understanding
living systems and promoting life extension (HERE).

Now we have come to the final phase of humanity’s liberation from its limitations. In the West, there is already no longer any religion, political hierarchies, normal families, or State in the fullest sense of the word. All borders have been completely crossed, i.e., transgressed. Now all that remains is one final step: overcoming the boundaries of the human species itself. This is H+ - the last word of liberalism. Transhumanism is no bizarre side product of technological development - it is the logical end of the modern age. According to Modernity, we were supposed to reach the age of cyborgs, hybrids, mutants, and chimeras, and now we have arrived. Of course, the vast majority of humanity today are not ready to become cyborgs or mutants. But no one asked the majority of mankind. All history is made by elites. The masses are never ready for anything. But this means absolutely nothing. They are not ready - they are being prepared, and no one even notices. Transhumanism is inevitable if we accept the main trend of the modern era, faith in progress, development, and the betterment of humanity. This religion, or rather pseudo-religion of progress was introduced to Europe and the world by the Enlightenment. This heresy gradually replaced or pushed into the periphery all traditional forms of religion, first and foremost Christianity. It is impossible to stop halfway on this path of progress. Saying “a,” we have to say “b,” “c,” “d”, and all the other letters of the alphabet. H+ is the last letter. Henceforth only computer language begins.

The only ones who are on the opposite side of post-humanism are consistent and fundamental traditionalists. They reject not only the final mutation, but all of Modernity, the very idea of progress and development, the scientific image of the world, and democracy and liberalism. Instead, traditionalists affirmed and affirm God, Church, Empire, caste, power, and folk customs.  Not progress. The modern world is not progress, but the result of decline. It is the kingdom of the Antichrist. Fighting against H+ to reject the final transformation dictated by the very logic of the liberal ideology of Modernity while still accepting other aspects of Modernity is meaningless. Transhumanism is the inevitable tomorrow if we agree with what our today is. If we want to change our fate, we must go back in time and understand where we committed the fatal mistake. Holy teachings assert that the devil is capable of almost everything, but he cannot create man. He can only make a parody of man or manufacture his simulacrum. H+ is clearly a scheme of his (see also HERE + HERE).