THE WEST AGAINST THE REST
Answering the interesting and very relevant text of Professor Olavo de Carvalho, I would like to stress some important points:
Individualism and holism
First of all, it seems clear to me that our discussion (if the term “debate” doesn’t fit exactly here -- as Professor de Carvalho has pointed out) is something more than the exchange of the opinions of the two isolated individuals. There is something very symbolic in the accentuation of a certain asymmetry in our mutual positions, noted by Professor de Carvalho at the beginning of his introductory text. Describing this asymmetry, he defines himself as a pure individuality that can speak only in his own name, expressing a highly personal point of view. He isn't speaking on the name of anything except himself: he wants to stress this point from the very beginning. At the same time he tries to construct the opposite image of my person, underlining the fact of my implication in the political, public and scientific circles and my involvement in concrete politics and in the process of decision making and ideological struggle. It seems to be a correct observation, but it has one less evident dimension. Speaking so, Professor Olavo de Carvalho drives our attention to the really existing differences between the Western and the Russian (Eurasian) civilizations. The metaphysical basis of the West is individualism. The French sociologist Louis Dumont in his works – «Essai sur l'individualism», «Homo Aequalis I» and «Homo Aequalis II» -- has described clearly enough the individualistic nature of the Western society and Western civilization from the Middle Ages until now. So, accentuating purely personal position in our debates, Professor Olavo de Carvalho is acting in accordance with most general and «collectivist» manner, reflecting the social particularity of Western culture and system of values. For the Western man a declaration of individualism is a natural thing (socially defined), and, being a «natural» thing, it is social and therefore more than individualistic. In other words, individualism is a common feature of the West. So there is little of «individual» in individualism, it is rather a stereotype.
The same stereotype is clearly seen in the projection of the opposite identity on the representatives of Russian (Eurasian) society. This identity should be collectivist a priori, manifesting holistic or totalitarian (in the case of pejorative attitude) features. And Professor de Carvalho finds easily the confirmation of such projection in the biographical details of his vis-a-vis. The context is thus well defined and the mutual photos add to it more visual expression. The “hunter” vs the “soldier”. The “lonely man” vs the “collective man”. The “West” against the “Rest”.
I accept it fully and agree to recognise the fact that our Russian (Eurasian) individuation consists in the desire to manifest something more general than our individual features. So, being a collective entity (the Russian name «sobornost'» fits here better) for me is rather an honour. The more holistic is my position, the better it is.
That is precisely the symbolic dimension mentioned earlier. In the debate of two personalities there are two massive structures of different civilizations, different systems of values that affront each other through us. The Western individualism confronts the Russian (Eurasian) holism.
Here we need to make one precision. As far as I understand, Brazilian society and Brazilian culture are not fully Western and individualistic. There are many collectivist and holistic features in them. So, Latin America and Brazil in particular have some social and cultural differences in comparison with the European or North American societies and cultures. And in the case of Professor de Carvalho, the fact of his living in the USA, plays an important role. Not his geographical residence, I mean, but his cultural identification. This is confirmed by the texts of Professor de Carvalho, that I’ve managed to read. They witness of his adherence to the North American tradition (in its “right” or “traditionalist” version) and of his distance from the main features of Brazilian cultural (critical) attitude towards USA. Being politically on the right wing (I presume) Professor de Carvalho castigates Latin (and Brazilian) “leftism” (le gauchisme). My sympathy in this case is rather on the Latin America’s side. Being critical in front of USA and the Western civilization as a whole, I find a lot of very charming (Eurasian) features in the South and Central American societies. So, I am in some way more pro-Brazilian than the “brazileiro puro” Professor de Carvalho, who rather defends the West as a whole and certain (conservative) sides of USA.
Having stressed this point, we can proceed to the other arguments of Professor de Carvalho.
Three global projects
First of all let us consider the three projects of global dominance, described by him. Not being convinced that they give the correct vision of main geopolitical trends in the contemporary world, I can recognise some realistic features in that picture. Professor de Carvalho describes it explicitly:
“The agents that personify these projects today are respectively:
1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of those two countries.2. The Western finance elite, as represented especially in the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.3. The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of several Islamic countries and some Muslim countries governments.”
Later on in his exposition Mr. Carvalho points out that each of the three global projects reflect three kinds of global weapons – the military force, the market economy and strong religious creed (fundamentalism). We can easily remark that this hypothetic structure, consisting of three main forces, represent three classical functions of a hierarchic traditional society: the religious clerics (brahmans), the warriors (kshatryas), the merchants (vayshyas). Accepting this vision we could evaluate the three forces in different ways. For the materialists and the pacifists, the capitalist market society of the West (USA and its allies) would be preferable. But that is not the case for those who defend other sets of values – spiritual and immaterial ones. The “order of Money” (according to Jaques Attali’s vision) can only be challenged by the “order of the Force” or by the “order of Spirit”. The actual globalization is essentially based on the economical order, it represent the future world as the global market where ”the history has ended” (F.Fukuyama). So, the struggle of “the Russian and Chinese militarism” and of the “Muslim Brotherhood” against the West, USA and the globalization is a good and just case that should be supported by all citizens in the world. that rejects the hypermaterialist empire of the frenetic consumption and of North American hegemony. The rule of the warriors and of the priests, for me personally, (and implicitly for the majority of Eurasian people) is much better than the order of merchants. More than that, I would suggest the alliance between the “Russian Chinese militarism” and “Muslim Brotherhood” in common struggle to overthrow the American World Order and to finish with the globalization and “American way of life”.
So, in the terms of Professor Olavo de Carvalho, every consequent traditionalist should be on the Eurasian and Islamic side against materialist and capitalist decline of the castes. Professor Olavo de Carvalho recognised the fact that Western financial elite is concentrated in some global organizations, such as the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, which serve as the headquarter of capitalism and North American imperialism. So we have real enemy in front of us that should be attacked.
If we consider the circumstance that globalization process is far more powerful now than two other forces and the might of USA is nearly unchallenged, we arrive at the conclusion that precisely the globalist project is much more dangerous and realistic than the two other projects are. So we are dealing not with three more or less equal trends, but with the only one that is absolutely leading and dominating and the two others that try to challenge the first one (successfully or not). In such a situation the question is posed in the following way: should we accept the global financial elite transnational rule as something inevitable and resign from the struggle for any alternative only because we don’t like Eurasian or Islamic projects? If we could imagine some other doctrine as an alternative, it would be a good thing, but it is not so easy.
So we have the main course of things (the creation of One World, the World Government and ruling global financial oligarchy) and we have the possible opposition, the most impressive and most articulate versions of which are the Russian-Chinese “national-militarism” and Islamic religious fundamentalism. The choice is clear and everyone is invited to make it by himself.
It seems that Latin America is more and more inclined to choose the alternative approaching the Eurasian and Arab camps. Professor Olavo de Carvalho doesn’t recognize the neo-socialism with strong ethnic feature explicitly present in Latin America as a major trend. This is the difference in our approaches, but that is not crucial. We could include this Latin neosocialist trend approximately in the camp of the Eurasian militarism and Islamic fundamentalism. So we arrive to the point of the clash of civilizations made famous by S.Huntington: The West against the Rest. That is (in the terms of Professor Olavo de Carvalho) the Western finance elite against Eurasians and Islamists as well as against all other instances who reject USA hegemony and absoluteness of free market, human rights, liberalism, individualism and parliamentarian democracy Standards.
So, operating with the world map proposed by Professor Olavo de Carvalho, I admit that I would rather take consciously position in the “Eurasian (Russian-Chinese) militarism” camp, accompanied by great sympathy to the world of anti-Western Islamic movement (not sharing its theological positions, being orthodox Christian). The critical and pejorative description by Professor Olavo de Carvalho of the Russian-Chinese and Islamic project makes me suggest that his own choice is quite different and opposite to mine. If we remain in the limits of the Global World Map, proposed by him, the only logical solution is the choice of the global West and the hegemony of the Western global financial elite.
If there are only three forces (it is Professor Olavo de Carvalho who affirms it, not me) the realistic choice should be made accepting one of them as a position. But this point is not clearly affirmed in Professor Olavo de Carvalho’s text. We see that he hates the Russian-Chinese “statism” and Islamic fundamentalism. It is explicit. So, from this point of view we are waiting for the next step – the defense of the West. But some remarks of Professor Olavo de Carvalho indicates that it is no so. He treats the Western globalization in skeptical and critical terms as well. So we rest perplexed and hope he would make this point clear in the future.
Theoretically we could suggest that he is against any kind of global project whatsoever and rejects them all, hating all scenarios of globalistic visions and praxis. If that is the case, he should attack first of all heaviest, most serious and most impressive one – the USA hegemony, the unipolar world and the rule of the financial elite. This is the first and most powerful trend – much more effective than two others. But Prof. Carvalho lives in the USA and in his introductory texts fiercely attacks the Eurasianism and Islamic fundamentalism before anything else. So his position rests a little bit enigmatic and intriguing. For his style of discussion this seems to be a rather clever stylistic step – so that the observers would follow the discourse with closer attention, being intrigued as me myself. KGB, the Communist Party and Al-Quaeda sins are sufficiently exposed by the professor. But what about CIA, Bilderberg, Pentagon, neocons, PNAC, “imperial grunts”, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Serbia?
The validity of the classical geopolitics
Second point: Prof. Carvalho affirms:
“Even though in current debates these three blocks are almost invariably designated by names of nations, States and governments, to depict their interactions as a dispute among nations or national interests is a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us at all to understand the present situation.”
I can not agree with the affirmation concerning “a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us at all to understand the present situation”. I am convinced that classical geopolitical analysis is still relevant and does help us “to understand the present situation”. The modern (and postmodern as well) USA global power and its allies in Europe or elsewhere during the last centuries up until nowadays manifested themselves as the direct incarnation of the Sea Power, exposed by Halford Mackinder, Nicholas J. Spykmen, K.Haushofer and all other geopolitical thinkers and analysts. The American global hegemony geographically, strategically and (most importantly) sociologically is a pure “tallassocracy”, the classic manifestation of the eternal Carthage, which became a worldwide phenomenon. The Atlantic localization of the Core of the global world (the Rich North), the capitalist essence of its rule, the material innovative technology as the basis of the conquest of the colonies, the strategic control of the sees and oceans with the NAVY forces – all these features of the globalization and present days unipolarity (sometimes in the soft version, presented as multilateralism) are the classical characteristics of the Sea Power. And the Sea Power is in the permanent quest against the Heartland, being on its direct way to the world domination.
That is why the old geopolitical analysis is highly relevant. It reflects perfectly the main goals of the implementation of the thallassocratic world system.
If we observe the major projects opposite to the globalization (described by Professor Olavo de Carvalho) we see the other half of the classical geopolitical Mackinder’s map. What are Russia and Chine geopolitically? They form together whole Eurasia, the Heartland’s zone, two greatest continental spaces. So, we deal with tellurocracy in its essence. Geopolitics allows the visualization of both political-geographical and sociological spheres. It makes a synthesis of the political powers, borders and “les dispositifs” on the one hand, and cultural, social and value system, on the other. So, tellurocracy, the Rome's paradigm, is the geopolitical continental kind of the strategy and civilization taken together. So the hostility between USA-unipolarity-globalization-financial oligarchy-modernization-capitalism and Russia-Chine-militarism- sovereignty of state-traditional society-(crypto-socialism) is perfectly geopolitical.
Where is the place of Islam in classical geopolitical vision? It corresponds to the Rimland, precisely to the large part of Rimland going from the Maghreb through Middle East to the Central Asia and further to Islamic societies of the Pacific. Geopolitical nature of Islam opens to it two options: Sea Power or Land Power, the thallassocracy or tellurocracy? The radical Islam rejecting the West, the USA, the globalization and consequently the thallassocracy, is logically inclined to the alliance with the Land Power. But this zone as a whole can optionally make the other decision, preferring the alliance with the West (as some Arab regimes).
The balance between the thallassocracy and tellurocracy today is in favour of the first. So the present situation can be correctly evaluated in the classical (“old”) geopolitical terms. The Sea Power, striving to control the Heartland (Eurasia) in order to rule the World (imposing everywhere its market/human rights/individualist patterns and values), is confronting with the Eurasian forces (Russia-China) and its temporary allies (Islamists, Latin America anti-colonialists, neo-socialists and «independentistas» and so on).
The «open society» heresy and the American crimes
Next point: Professor Olavo de Carvalho points out that Eurasian analysis of the American society is wrong, concerning the identification of the essence of it with the concept of «open society» of Karl Popper. As far as I know, in 1990-ies the Popper's concepts were very relevant in the analysis of the main values of the European, Western civilization. Further, I have myself read hundreds of Western sociologists and philosophers that gave different description of the basic Western values, but the fact of the profound individualism in all those authors remains their main feature (especially in the Modernity). That is the point of view of Max Weber or of the excellent French sociologist Louis Dumont, already mentioned. I could accept the fact that Popper as such is dear only to Mr. Soros and to the CFR people, but that is not little. The elite, that understands the essence of values, can not be too large. But I don't insist on Popper. The most important moments in the West are individualistic. The East, on the contrary, is holistic. The Eurasian society is a holistic one. If there are other holistic cultural or political movements, they should be logically allies of the Eurasianism. The Western traditionalists (R. Guenon, for example) were on the side of the East. J.Evola was the partisan of the Western tradition but in absolute opposition to the Modernity and to the USA.
There may be another America, but that does not change anything in general. Another America (not that of the CFR, neocons and “world Carthage”) is virtual. The real America we know well.
The other thesis of Professor Carvalho also sounds a bit strange to me:
“The globalist elite is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries potentially associated to the Eurasian Project, but, on the contrary, it is their collaborator and accomplice in the effort to destroy the sovereignty, the politico-military power and the economy of the United States.”
What can that mean? The globalization of the world and the installation everywhere of the American control, including the direct intrusion in the nominally sovereign countries, the promotion of American way of life and the uniformization of the different human societies, accomplished by USA, is considered by the professor as “nothing”, being ignored and forgotten. The contamination of Russian society by decadent consumerist individualist patterns, the support for the anti-Russian regimes in the post-soviet space is nothing. The USA is an absolute plague for the mankind. And the globalist elite is the quintessence of USA, it rules USA and through it in the rest of the world. The globalist elite of the USA is the absolute enemy of the Russia, China and Islamic countries, it corrupts our political elite, the society, the country. For us it is obvious. «The sovereignty, the political-military power and the economy of the United States” are no more than the instruments in the hand of this elite, its accomplices, voluntary or not.
There are many other important and interesting points in the text of Professor Olavo de Carvalho that I would like to discuss in details but I will have stop here and to return to the topic in the next round.
 Dumont L. Essais sur l'individualisme. Une perspective anthropologique sur l'idéologie moderne. Paris: Le Seuil, 1983
 Attali J. Lignes d'horizon. Paris:Fayard, 1990.
 Fukuyama Francis. The End Of History and the Last Man. NY:The free press, 1992.
 Huntington S. P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
 Mackinder H. J. The geographical pivot of history The. Geographical Journal.1904.№ 23, С.421–437; Idem. The Round World and the Winning of the Peace//Foreign Affairs. 1943. Vol. 21& № 4 (July); Idem. Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1996.
 Spykman N. The Geography of the Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1944.
 Haushofer K. Geopolitik der Pan-Ideen. Berlin: Zentral-Verlag, 1931.
 Popper Karl R. The Open Society And Its Enemies. Volumes I and II. NY., 1962
 Guenon R. Orient et Occident. Paris, 1976.