Be sure to read Part 1 and Part 2.
The Logic of Ideological Liberalism
In this third part of “Peace with Russia,” we need to understand why the liberal West has become suicidal. Indeed, if we win against Russia, it will end in a war of mass destruction; and if we lose, we will be drawn into that same destruction, by our refusal to accept defeat. We are well on the way to that. Our current defeat on the Donbass front is leading us to want to attack Russia ever more deeply, to occupy its territory from now on, to seek to reach Moscow and the major cities with our missiles, to “terrorize” the Russian populations. We want to force the Russians to react, so that we can then overreact with an all-out war that would spell our own end.
Let us take a look at Russia’s current restraint. Russia is not really at war with us. It is confining itself to a war in Ukraine, especially in the Donbass; it is not attacking the American sponsors or its European proxies. But this patience has its limits. We, the Europeans, are blithely seeking to go beyond these limits, so that we can drag the Russians into an all-out war which, we believe, would be in our favor—it would force the United States to get involved and support the European powers, however shaky they may be, and if the Russians do not react to all our provocations, they would emerge weakened, in front of their own, being unable to protect them. Indeed, not reacting to the occupation of its territory, or to the attack on its people, normally leads to a loss of authority for any power, including that of President Putin, with a consequent instability at the heart of Russian power.
For us Westerners, it is astonishing to see Russia, having the most powerful arsenal of weapons of mass destruction at its disposal, and yet to allow part of its territory be taken over, or even to accept attacks against its own people. Imagine, in fact, the Mexicans, as proxies for the Russians, with the support of the Russian military and a South American coalition, taking over part of American territory and sending missiles to New York and Washington. Moscow would be annihilated or, at the very least, Mexico City as a warning shot.
To understand this Russian patience, we need to know that the Russians, like us, do not have a liberal culture. They suffered too much from communism, which ideologically stemmed from liberalism, sharing the same materialism through liberal individualism, leading to collectivism in traditional patriarchal societies. In a way, they are immune to liberalism, even if they remain under the influence of its consumerist materialism. Russians are still high rollers, but President Putin’s Russia has rediscovered its historical cultural foundations: Orthodox Christianity, with Moscow as a kind of new Byzantium. Thus, the State supports the Church and the Church supports the State, just as in the days when our kings ruled France. And the Russians, in their Christian wisdom, know that a response to Western provocations would lead the war to extremes, to all-out war. They want to avoid such a war at all costs, because of the Christian foundations of their society. Zelensky has no qualms about sacrificing all Ukrainians to a war that serves his shaky and illegitimate power, his mandate not having been renewed for lack of elections; President Putin, on the other hand, re-elected with genuine popular support, is concerned about the Russians and the Russian people, whom he does not want to lead into a dead end. To respond to Western nihilism is, in effect, to become a nihilist yourself, and to lead Russia into that nihilism.
In this struggle, President Putin, unlike our Western heads of state, knows that there is no winner, only losers on a field of ruins. Any victor, even if it partially escapes weapons of mass destruction, will emerge totally weakened; it will then fall prey to the other existing powers; it will therefore end up defeated and destroyed. China, for example, supports Russia, but in an ambiguous way: China gets involved, but not too much, in order to “win” every time—against Russia, which takes the blows that would otherwise have been aimed at China; against the United States, which will be weakened by Russia’s blows and by the coalition of the “rest of the world” that China is hoping to drive; and against Europe, which will submit to China’s political power because it is already subject to its economic power.
The Russians also know, in their wisdom, that total war means losing control of events. Such reaction to events makes you dependent on your adversary, because you must continually react to what he decides to do. You no longer follow your own path; you go where, reasonably, you do not want to go. Thus, Russia knows that it will suffer greatly if it follows the West in its suicidal logic, reacting to its provocations and ending up in a total war, which, for Russia, is reasonably suicidal.
The liberal West, on the other hand, driven by its ideology, seeks to blithely cross Russian red lines. This strategy, however, runs counter to the caution expressed by many Western analysts, full of common sense, in a confrontation with the world’s leading nuclear power. Thoughtful Americans, such as Tom Graham of the CFR, note that, thanks to the war in Ukraine, the continental axis has been broken and will no longer benefit China; Europe is once again under American economic control, and remains under American political control. Germany is weakened and will no longer rely on China and Russia economically. It has gotten the message. Given the good results obtained, thanks to the war in Ukraine, it would be urgent to take advantage of this situation and bring Russia back into the Western camp, in the interests of the United States. Faced with China, the USA needs to bring Russia back into the Western camp, if it wants to win. It would therefore be wise to “grant” Russia the Donbass, so as not to alienate it forever, and to keep it partly in our camp, because, faced with China, this is also in Russia’s interest. Indeed, China is only too eager for a suicidal Western strategy to ensure its leadership over both the West and Russia.
But the patriots and realistic analysts in the Western camp are overwhelmed by the irrational hatred of Russians, along with the hatred of certain Eastern European countries, embodied above all by Poland, but also by all those journalists in the Western camp, who play on this healthy hatred of Communism, pursuing the image of the Soviet bogeyman. This passion of hate is never good strategic advice, because it makes passion prevail against objective reason.
Realistic patriots are also ridiculed by small rogue states that want to play at total war with the former Russian Empire, obviously under the shadow of the American umbrella, without assuming the consequences for themselves, should it turn out that the Americans consider their destruction in a total war as not worth the trouble for these countries that do not really exist and represent nothing in the global stakes.
Patriots are now being “bluffed” by the French President’s hubris, even if they are used to French rodomontades. France believes itself capable of replacing the United States in the defense of Europe, thanks to its nuclear bomb “shared” for European protection, without having been asked for any of this, and contrary to its own doctrine of nuclear use only in the safeguarding of territory. While it is reassuring for the United States to know that its French ally is ready to be destroyed in this way, making France Russia’s primary target with such a nuclear doctrine, and thus enabling the United States to adopt a moderate posture; Americans nevertheless are worried about having such an ally who could, despite everything, drag them into an all-out nuclear war, without actually realizing it, because of Macron’s hubris. By making Europe the battleground of a nuclear conflict, Macron could set in motion a global process that no one would control.
This coalition of hatred, arrogant weakness and hubris—all three of which always blend happily in human beings—leads to the madness of our European heads of state, who are like children playing at war, but with weapons of mass destruction; and the European states not possessing them, asking their American ally to have them, in order to flip a coin to become the first to destroy Europe. European countries, on the front line, are frantically ignoring Russian red lines, which are just so much bluster to Putin.
The time is therefore approaching, and is not far off, when Russia will have to unleash its power, yet restrained. Of course, Russia is still desperately hoping that the West will destroy itself, caught up in its own contradictions, with democracy increasingly revealing itself as a tyranny leading to civil war; or it will destroy itself with the bankruptcy of an ever-weaker European economy, unleashing the unions and populism in mad policies; or they hope for a revolt of the European peoples, being led to the slaughterhouse, in the prospect of a total war that is not theirs—the war between Ukraine and Russia being, in the final analysis, a war of domination, instrumentalized by outside interests. The Russians are therefore trying, again and again, to gain time, hoping for such combined scenarios, or at least for one of them to come true.
But the time is approaching when, having done everything to avoid the worst, realizing that the people of Europe love their servitude, even if it leads them to their death, realizing also that they are totally bamboozled by the Western media’s fabrication of opinion, that the people not only will not rise up but, on the contrary, that they love the lies that guide their superficiality, by making them believe in “a brighter tomorrow,” even going so far as to vote for those who lie the most; and noting, finally, that the American elections make no difference to the war situation in Ukraine, because the Deep State is ready to kill any President who pursues a policy other than that necessary for its survival, and war is necessary for the survival of the Deep State, bringing the world’s populations under its control—then Russia will unleash its power, because otherwise it would have to choose its own destruction, which it will not do.
Once the limits have been exceeded, there are no more limits, for they have long since been exceeded. The moment of Russia’s brutal response is approaching; it will sound the tocsin of general Western mobilization before the death knell of our destruction.
Why has the West committed suicide? Why is there no clear-headed analysis of reality? Quite simply because of the liberal ideology that structures us with foundations that make us lose all sense of reality and truth.
Liberalism turns us into totally free individuals who establish society through a social contract. We thus create society democratically, by free men for free men, in a constitutively free society. Totally free individuals are their own sovereigns; they are gods who make the reality of their humanity and that of society. This means they do not have to worry about geopolitics, the balance of power, about containing their national strength for the good of other nations, which are other realities that do not depend on their liberal world—which, by definition, is impossible, since man makes the reality of things—thus, everything depends on Western man.
It is impossible for the human being to be a naturally social being, as in ancient and Christian society, deemed the ages of darkness, for society must be a construction of totally free individuals, for otherwise man’s absolute freedom would be limited by his social nature. Social man is subject to social constraints—his family, his society, his homeland—with established social moral values that do not depend on him, but on the proper functioning of society. In other words, absolute individual freedom cannot exist, but is liimited by our social reality and its code of good conduct, which by definition is impossible for liberalism. Social man receives his human and social nature; liberal man creates his human and social nature.
Only the fable of the social contract allows us to build society through our freedom; only this fable allows us to invent totally free individuals, who have somehow fallen from the sky, because such individuals do not exist and have never existed. What does exist are men of a given nature, born of a father and a mother, in a given family, which is the nucleus of human society. Man does not create himself, and society has never been made up of isolated individuals from nowhere, Robinson Crusoes who have decided to form a society; insread, society is made up of families who form the city, then of homelands, which become nations, as a result of the realities experienced in common, constituting the national “life together.”
Liberalism is also intrinsically opposed to the idea of nation, which presupposes the plurality of different nations, born of different collective talents, made up of peoples who are not interchangeable, despite the same constants of social humanity, but in the diversity of individuals who make up different peoples. On the contrary, individualism, universal through its individual rights, requires, by its constitutive logic, a global society to assert the universalism of “natural” individual values.
The liberal fable therefore wants to impose its ideological vision on the rest of the world, on the basis of the universalism of individual rights. Any power that is not liberal is therefore illegitimate, because it oppresses universal individual rights: an illiberal power is by definition tyrannical. The liberal light must liberate the peoples of the world from the oppression of tyrants, from the darkness that predates the liberal Enlightenment. Liberalism is inherently hegemonic.
This hegemony is also imposed by internal logic. The liberal state is, in fact, the internal guarantor of “liberal values,” because any social contract always requires a higher authority to guarantee the contract. But, as there is no such thing as a world authority in international relations, because there is no such thing as a world state, and international society is not hierarchical, obeying a single authority, expressing a single people and a single power, the liberal West must be hegemonic and become this world power for universal peace.
Let us be clear: by systemic logic, the liberal state must annihilate other powers that compete with it. The other is a threat in its assertion of its “universal” “values” derived from its social contract, the so-called “democratic” values.
These “values” are those that enable the social contract.
This is individualism, because it is isolated individuals, free of all constraints, who found and create society through the contract.
This individualism explains the subjectivism of our society, as individuals express the truth of things through their opinions and feelings. They make reality.
Subjectivist liberal individualism demands relativism, because there is no truth except that of the free individual, who makes the truth of man and society. Social tolerance stems from relativism—there is no objective, transcendent truth other than the subjective truths created by the individual through his or her will, and the social truths stemming from the social contract, which fluctuate according to multiple votes, founding “our values” for social and world peace.
This relativism calls for secularism and religious freedom—but if God exists and is Sovereign, man can no longer be sovereign. Only an individualistic, subjectivist, relativistic god, in the image of man, is thus acceptable.
Secularism is thus transformed into militant atheism, with the rejection of any external transcendence, such as that of a God who created heaven and earth, but also by the rejection of any objective reality that does not depend on our humanity—reality is subjective.
But the theory of the social contract is a pure fable we are asked to believe in, the social contract creating society having never existed, being a presupposition, a fiction enabling man’s absolute freedom.
Western nihilism is therefore to be found in the very roots of liberalism, which is individualistic, subjectivist, relativist and secularist, denying the reality of the true human being through manufactured “values” that it nevertheless wants to impose on the rest of the world through war.
But what will happen to the liberal West is what Ezekiel says of the people who ignore God: “Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am God, and I sit in the chair of God in the heart of the sea: whereas thou art a man, and not God: and hast set thy heart as if it were the heart of God…. Therefore behold, I will bring upon thee strangers the strongest of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy beauty…. Wilt thou yet say before them that slay thee: I am God; whereas thou art a man, and not God, in the hand of them that slay thee?” (Ezekiel 28: 2,7,9).
Admittedly, by denying God, i.e., the Sovereign, man becomes the sovereign, and the people (built by the social contract) is the sovereign of society; but as this sovereign is not yet able, by his vote, to make rain or shine, nor to change the disastrous reality of our economy, nor even to have elected representatives who respect his expressed will—why then this fable?
The fable allows the richest people, those with money, to take control of political society and become the true gods of the liberal West. Indeed, if society is the product of a democratic contract, this contract is the result of the will of individuals. Individuals must therefore organize themselves into lobbies to assert their interests and opinions, which will express their will and, in their various expressions, enable the emergence of the democratic “truth,” through a majority making the charter of the social contract, the political program and the policy of the majority.
But those who have more means to lobby, i.e., more money, more financial means, will have more influence; they can, therefore, more easily make the people with a “voice.” To this end, they use the free press that they buy; a press that “free” politicians obey because, if they want to be elected, they have to obey opinion. They also use free scientific publications, whose publishers they also buy, to do the “real” science with “real” polls which only confirm their manufactured opinions. They support politicians who are beholden to them and who will be “true democrats” because they will be “bound by their money,” the others being disqualified by polls showing that they do not have the support of the people. Finally, they are able, via their press groups, to disqualify politicians who embarrass them, if there are any left, with a free justice system that deals with the “scandals” revealed by their own media. They do, on the other hand, exploit the real scandals, which they themselves cause with their own corruption, without of course their press talking about these, to better hold their elected representatives in check and control all authority. This is how liberal democracy works—logically and structurally.
The liberal people are a “people” purely fabricated by the social contract, and ultimately by the richest lobby, whose interests become the expression of the people “truly and democratically.” The interests of the people merge with the greed of those who have manufactured the people for their own interests. The real People are outside this machinery and tend, moreover, to abstain more and more from the democratic process of producing political elites, “elected” by this system for this system.
As we can see, this liberal democracy can function perfectly well without any real leader; so it does not matter how sane the head of state is. Western democratic politics is nothing more than a vast shadow theater, with no real actors. The majority ideas of the real People are in the minority among the people fabricated by the social contract, and this “democratically.” The democratic system, thus established, does not work for the People, but for those who, thanks to this liberal system, have democratically taken control of the People.
Thus, there is the vote of the People, but the Parliament does the opposite of the real vote—the Lisbon Treaty against the rejection of Maastricht—and if the Parliament, by its vote, does not go against the vote of the People, what remains is the Executive whose President is chosen by the plutocratic media system, which is under its control, a President chosen because of his weaknesses. And if that were not enough, the head of state is eliminated, as has happened repeatedly in the USA, with a recent attempt by the Deep State, which controls the entire system.
Soon, the system will no longer need the People’s vote. Artificial intelligence will know better than the People the true good for the People—AI will vote for us, according to our predictive indications, expressing our will. In the meantime, voting machines already enable this control. The People, whose coherence as a People is being destroyed by destroying all solidarity and all shared historical, cultural, economic and political common ground, the People who have become a crowd of individuals who accept everything, will then finally be liberated when they have become a true people of slaves, finally serving the liberal enlightenment.
In “the Dark Ages,” before the light of liberalism, we had a universal society, guided by family values: conviviality, love of others for who they were, respect, the sacrifice of mothers and fathers for their families. This real common good of the family extended to society as a whole, sharing these family values in sacrifice for what collectively transcended us in the fatherland and the nation. The Christian God was present, making the cross was a social value at the crossroads of our lives. In this way, the sacrifice of a God showed mankind his true humanity in the love from which we are born, against our sin of pride and therefore selfishness. Now, thanks to liberalism, it is the sin of selfishness and pride that guides society through self-interest. Man, driven by self-interest, turns others into utilities for the benefit of the strongest. Society is thus constituted by interest, for interest, in other words, so that the money-god reigns in his nothingness of Reality creating his reality.
Individuals, with their “universal individual rights,” are no longer people created in the image of God, still less brothers, but slaves in the service of a society organized by and for greed, with the liberal messianic project of rebuilding society and the world. Liberal enlightenment is the negation of Christ saying: I am the Truth and the Life, the Light.
The new liberal messiah is the opposite of the Messiah Jesus Christ; the liberal messiah is exclusive, domineering, racist and supremacist. He is not a Messiah of love; he does not call all the Kingdoms or Nations of this world, in their multiple vocations, to brotherhood. The Messiah of liberal enlightenment is the guarantor of the plutocratic established order in an exclusive messianism of an elected liberal Nation that carries the liberal light to the other Nations of the world, damned if they do not convert to liberalism. This god is not the Christian God; on the contrary, he has established himself against not only the God of Catholicism but against all the religions of mankind; and he has a name in all the religions of mankind: he is called Satan.
We thus discover the real reasons for the Western war against Russia:
Liberalism, through subjectivism, relativism and secularism, makes people lose their sense of reality in internal and external politics—this leads to nihilism.
Liberalism is hegemonic because it holds the truth, which forces it to wage war for its enlightenment—this leads to nihilism.
Liberalism is greedy because it organizes society with money in mind; the result is internal and external chaos, because it removes the love, friendship and free giving that make up national and international society—this leads to nihilism.
Liberalism is the nihilism that destroys others and itself.
Russia must be destroyed because of what it is, for what it is—a nation that is not nihilistic because it is not liberal and it is Christian, despite all its weaknesses.
To sum up, the fable of the social contract allows the Hold-up of the real People by the constructed People, and enables the hegemony of money and greed as a social mechanism. “You will no longer own anything,” which means that the greedy oligarchs will own everything and turn you into their slaves.
Liberalism leads, in its ultimate logic and nihilism, from the individual and society, to chaos; but this chaos becomes another instance of its domination for further control and domination—the enslavement of the whole of society. To consolidate its power, liberalism unleashes all kinds of health and financial crises against its own and other people, to assert its internal and external domination. This process will only come to an end in the war between its nothingness and Being. Western liberalism is fundamentally satanic, the Satan of the end times.
Be sure to read Part 1 and Part 2 of this essay.
Featured: Allegory of Peace and Justice, by Corrado Giaquinto; painted in 1754.
