So there was no Grand Soir finale. By joining their forces in the two regions that the Front National was about to win, the phony Left and Right ensured that FN got none. The "Fascist Menace" was defeated; Democracy was saved! Everybody can now tune out and get ready for Christmas foie gras, undisturbed by the recent terrorist attacks in Paris.
Pink: Socialist Party and its allies; blue: "Les Républicains," Nicolas Sarkozy's party, and its allies
The same scenario happened last March for the departmental elections (on the difference between the départements and the régions, read this). FN was leading the first round with 43 départements out of 96 in its favor, and finally got none, even in Marion Maréchal Le Pen's Vaucluse where she lost by a whisker. THE ONE-PARTY STATE
Last week, I warned about a possible "Houellebecquian Moment," in reference to Michel Houellebecq's last novel, Submission, in which all parties vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power to avoid Marine Le Pen's victory at the 2022 presidential election.
But why take a fictional scenario in the future when you just have to look at what's actually happening in Europe right now?
To prevent the "Swedish Democrats" party from threatening the government's stability, the mainstream Left and Right formed an alliance by which they ensured that Swedish Democrats will not be allowed to disrupt the majority, whatever the election result might be.
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has been in office for more than 10 years now. At first leading a Left-Right coalition, she's now freewheeling, with few complaining about the absence of alternative.
The situation we're in now is that of the One-Party State. Even when there is a party outside the mainstream, it is, despite itself, the unifying force of the regime, with the "menace" it represents forcing the other parties to gather and form a permanent, immutable ruling class. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR DONALD TRUMP
It's important to look at different countries at the same time, because there's a discernible pattern in all these situations.
In February, the Republican primaries will begin, with a growing gap between the popular support for Donald Trump and the rejection of his candidacy by the Republican establishment.
Trump's adversaries seem to think that they can tame The Donald and, one way or another, finally defeat him before July, if necessary by having only one last candidate running against the 69-year-old, golden-haired Bruce Wayne.
But what if he gets the nomination anyway? Well, it's hard to imagine that Jeb, Rubio, Rand et al. will kindly step aside, swallow their pride and all make common cause with Trump to avoid a third Democratic victory in a row. Actually, it's much easier to think that they will do all they can to sabotage Trump's campaign, even if it means supporting Hillary.
If he doesn't get the nomination and decides to go full independent, it is unlikely that he will manage to defeat two adversaries at the same time, despite his Roman centurion allure. katehon.com/article/got-metapolitics
Turkey is trying to provoke a military confrontation with Syria and probably Russia as well, to retain its position. It intends to occupy northern Syria and disrupt communications between Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean and the main bases of the Black Sea Fleet.
Provocations to come
On November 25th, Turkish military forces shelled Syrian territory. Turkey is trying to provoke Syrian a response in order to claim it is “an aggression”.
This will be a pretext to start Turkish military operations in Syria. Turkey is fully preparing for the invasion at present, concentrating forces near military border.
The defense of Syrian Turkmen, and eliminating the source of corrosive Kurdish separatism, is likely to be said the reason for the war. However, the real aims are otherwise.
It is very probable that the conflict, with direct or indirect Russian participation, will lead Turkey to close the Turkish Straits. According to the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits Turkey, has the right to close the straits in the case of war or, if Turkey considers itself be threatened by a real danger of war.
It the case of closing the straits, this will disrupt the maritime means of cooperation between Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean and the main bases of the Black Sea Fleet. It will damage the Russian operation in Syria, and will raise existing Russian-Turkish confrontation to the level of real war.katehon.com/topic/geopolitics/1350-turk...l
Russia's Five Fronts
In the near future, the Kremlin will be forced to focus on five areas of conflict, which are evident from the explicit and indirect threats to the Russian state.
Turkey as a new element of instability
Increased activity from Turkey, with the support of the US and the EU, could put Russia in a difficult position. Northern Syria may be subject to attacks not only from militants but also from Turkish government forces. Previously, Ankara announced its intention to support the Syrian Turkmen who live in that area. After the incident with the downed Russian jet, Turkey may behave more aggressively. As a member of NATO, it has received support from the EU. Enticed with the promise of membership in the future, in exchange for the containment of immigrants, Erdogan will have more latitude. The conflict with Russia is also beneficial to Erdogan, as it diverts attention away from internal problems and scandals.
The escalation of the conflict in Syria can be used by Ukraine to intensify military operations in the Donbass. The situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics has been quite tense as of late. We can not exclude the coordination of action on two fronts at the same time, through Washington. Since the Minsk Agreement cease-fire, any response from Lugansk and Donetsk Republics, and Russia's support, will be used by the west to favor Kiev.
Russia's previous actions to block internal agents of the West were quite successful. Opposition leader Alexei Navalny was adjudicated and a number of western accounts and revenue streams in Russia have been closed. The Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation recognized that the foreign "Open Society" and "Support" foundations are not desirable on Russian territory any longer. Nevertheless, events show that the West is using every opportunity to escalate social conflict in the country. So, the discontent truck drivers who disagree with the new tax, have already led into a coalition of disgruntled drivers with the political opposition that is artificially fueled by the western media.
The famous quote of Lord Ismay, that the purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” has recently been proven once again in the middle of the Turkish-Russian crisis; and not only Germans, but all Europeans.
On November 24th, NATO countries held an extraordinary meeting after the downing the Russian fighter jet by the Turkish Air Force. Turkish officials said that Russia had violated their country’s airspace on the border with Syria. Turkish officials applied to the NATO alliance to secure support.
The pretext was clear: the 4th Article of the North Atlantic Treaty. It proposes consultation over military matters when "the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened". The real aim, however, was different: to push another NATO state into a serious confrontation with Russia. The Turkish President-cum-Sultan Erdogan, rightly understood that the second largest military force in NATO could not challenge Russia alone. Additionally, his protectors in Washington were seriously worried by recent steps made by their European allies.
After the Paris attacks, French President François Hollande tried to bypass NATO by appealing instead to the EU to invoke its mutual-assistance clause. The common security policy of the EU has always been seen as the most difficult but yet indispensable part of building a sovereign Europe. Common threats and coordinated actions could bolster the creation of more efficient and independent institutions; independent from NATO, of course. Taken together with the talks about future French-Russian cooperation in Syria, and the anxiety of the Atlanticists becomes understandable.
On the 24th of November in Washington, a meeting between Hollande and Obama took place. The main goal of the discussion was to create effective strategies in the fight against terrorism and it’s center – ISIS.
The meeting of Hollande with Obama is geopolitically symbolic, it means that France intends to join the American pole in anti-terrorist work. The fact that Hollande begins to build an anti-terrorist coalition after visiting the Atlanticist powers (a meeting with Cameron took place on November 23rd, 2015) shows his geopolitical priorities. On November 23rd, 2015 – meeting with David Cameron, November 24th, 2015 – with the US;, and only at the end of the week will he meet with Vladimir Putin. Today there exists two poles fighting against terrorism: thalassocratic (represented by US, UK, NATO and all, who are supporting American liberalism) and tellurocratic (Russian Federation, BRICS) poles. In the thalassocratic Atlanticist pole they have their main enemy – ISIS and terrorism, but if we make a deeper analysis we will see that the situation is more complicated. The US declares war against terrorism but in fact it supports terrorism to modulate a controlled chaos in the middle east and further: like in in Europe where it exploits the liberal doctrine of tolerance and the concept of “free borders”. The Atlanticists are openly financing the Free Syrian Army, the US indeed was destabilizing the situation within in Syria from 2011 onward, and engendered the rise of ISIS. The Russian Federation - representing the tellurocratic Continental pole - on the other hand, has consistently supported Bashar Al-Asad in order to have Syria as one of possible allies in the creation of a multipolar world.
• The French case (Friday the 13th) is similar to the terrorist attack on the US on September 11th. After the terrorist attack, the US improved and enlarged its control over civilians. The same scenario is realized now in France by the French government: the measures of security are strongly reinforced and it means the toughening of control and the broadening of the term ‘’terrorist”. Anybody who opposes the so-called social-democratic French government can be qualified as a potential terrorist. It will mean the diminution of the liberty in France.
• The legitimacy of the present French president in the view of French people is becoming increasingly weak. The terrorist attacks of November 13th, 2015 revealed to the French people the inability of the French government to control the internal political situation. And furthermore meeting with Obama – whose hidden aim is the destabilization of Europe – is the last step in it. This can affect the results of the Socialist Party during upcoming regional elections scheduled for December 6th, 2015.
The possibility of a military conflict between Turkey and Russia is unlikely, although we must calculate the possible scenarios.
If a Russian jet had been accompanied by fighter aircraft, it is unlikely that Turkey would have decided to shoot down the Su-24 on the 24th of November. The transfer to Syria of S-400 air defense systems could have also taken place sooner. The consequences of military operations is always fraught with unforeseen effects, even with a weak opponent. The fog and friction of war, as Clausewitz explained, is relevant in the 21st century too, even with precision weapons and new methods of intelligence.
The interests of the global hegemon
First of all, war is profitable for the US. They are far from Europe and can use it for their own purposes - the military industrial complex (MIC) supports the US economy. Moreover, Washington finds that it is advantageous to restructure the greater Middle East to their needs. Stepping in at the last stage (as was the case in the WWII), the United States will qualify for the role of one of the winners, regardless of the outcome of the war. A number of political forces (neo-conservatives, the liberal interventionists, pro-Israel lobby) in the United States are actively trying to exploit this issue.
War, under the auspices of NATO, is a danger for Russia. However the possibility of this is also not clear. Several European countries will not support Turkey's request for assistance. In particular, Greece will come on the side of Russia. Previously, Turkey has repeatedly violated Greek airspace. In 2014 alone, Turkey was documented violating Greek sovereign airspace 2244 times. In addition, EU Member States have their own reasons to punish Turkey for the influx of migrants to Europe which passed through its territory. Therefore, even a discussion within NATO about supporting Turkey will create friction between members of the alliance.
Direct and indirect actions
Russia may use economic leverage. Cutting off supplies of gas and oil to Turkey will be come prior to military action. In addition, the Russian side will play Armenia, where a Russian military base is located. Russian support of Kurdish separatists in Turkey will lead to a civil war on the territory of Turkey itself.
For its part, Turkey will block the Bosphorus and provide military bases for US troops. Ankara also will actively support Ukraine against Russia.
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.katehon.com/topic/geopolitics/1310-euro...l