October 21st, 2018 12:00 AM
(ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer)
RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html
Olavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them.
I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice.
The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others.
I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era.
However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy.
My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors.
My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states.
It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.