En Français - In English

Conference to "Youth Camp for Green, Peace and Alternative movements" 
(Germany, July 2001)




In 1991 has begun  a new era for the international relationships. The world situation has completely changed. The URSS, the main challenger of Washington, that was also, we must say it, for a long time its better accomplice, disappeared, defeated by the economic competition and the arms race that it was let imposed himself by Washington.
Very quickly, the American strength became everywhere the unique world superpower and intended to impose its "New World  Order" (NOM) with its procession of wars and inequalities.
Theoreticians of the American imperialism said it was pure chance. The United States would have been in their central and almighty position by the effect of happy conjunctions. But the global politics of USA would absolutely not be responsible for this situation of hegemony, resulting of a divine surprise.


This thesis is completely false and contradicted by all serious historical surveys.
The American imperialism is planned, thought, theorized since more than one century. And the incontestable victory of 1991 is the outcome of a politics conceived since the end of the XIXeme century.

The first big theoreticians of this imperialistic vision who aims to the world domination is the admiral Alfred T. Mahan, of which the main book "The influences of sea power upon history" was published in Boston in 1890.

Alfred T. Mahan (1840-1914) constructed an intended geopolitics to justify the world expansionism of the United States when the world was still dominated  by Great Britain, an expansionism that must rest on the maritime strength ("sea power"). Mahan is convinced that the United States, industrial strength controlling Americas,, while imitating the maritime strategy that was the one of England from the XVIth century, can get the domination of the world thanks to the mastering of seas. They do not only need for it bases, harbours, but especially vessels and warships, that are permanently capable to intervene everywhere in the world, and therefore constantly operational.

Thus, in 1897, Mahan recommends the following strategical politics: it is necessary to strike an alliance with Great Britain in order to control the seas, it is necessary to maintain Germany on the European continent and to oppose to its maritime and colonial development, it is necessary to associate the American and the European in the fight against the Asian ambitions and in particular to look after closely the development of Japan.

All big themes of the "big chessboard" of Zbigniew Brzezinski are already present: global strategy, intervention in Europe, isolation of the continental power (at this time Germany).

Mahan gives an ideological body to the American vision of a predestined mission of the USA in the world: the "manifest destiny".

His work is continued by Nicholas J. Spykman (1893-1943), that develops the notion of "containment", consisting in organizing a system of buffer states in order  to break the Russian power After the victory on Germany it is necessary to control these buffer States that constitute the rimland, the pivot (a notion of geopolitics), if one wants to control the heart of the world.

This necessity will drive to the setting up of an embankment politics (containment)  by the constitution of the dominated Atlantic alliance by the United States, facing the Pact of Warsaw, dominated by the soviet Russia.

Please note that all that is thought in 1941 and 42 - Spykman died in 1943 at the very moment when USSR faced the Nazi armies.

The discipline of Spykman is Georges F. Kennan, the main American theoretician of the cold war, author of "The sources of soviet conduct".

The most brutal theoretician of the American imperialism is James Burnham.

Lesser-known outside of specialists of political sciences (he is the American neo-machiavellians father), he is un old trotskyst that went to neoconservatism. He notably founded the "National Review".

In 1945, he publishes a fundamental book but unobserved  in Europe whose English title is "The Struggle for the World". The title of the French edition (1947) is again more explicit: it is "Pour la domination mondiale". Burnham gives the conditions that will assure  the global domination of the United States.



The American victory of 1991, that is overestimated extensively in the conservative circles that are surrounding President Bush, will give place to a new theorizing of Yankee imperialism. Bush's near counsellors immediately give it a new definition: it is the "New World Order" in the name of which USA had received the mission "to pacify" the world and to impose pseudo-values of  "free trade".

The main theoreticians of the American imperialism at the dawn of the XXIth century is Francis Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinskis.

Their theories, mediatised by their books and their articles in the big American magazines of international politics, are taking place in a lot of researches and activities directly linked to the Pentagon and the State Department.

In appearance, they seem to contradict each other  but these contradictions are only obvious. They are indeed more linked that it seems because they represent different levels of the same thought, notably when they speak about the future.

Fukuyama is the theoretician of the "end of the history"  where he prophesies that the "last man" will be the one of the American ideological vision. One often presents theses of Fukuyama like a too optimistic vision connected to the victory of 1991 and therefore out of date. It is to be unaware of this author's ulterior works. On the contrary Fukuyama represents the long-term vision of Yankee imperialism. The one of its ultimate goals.

Huntington theorizes the ideological justifications of the confrontation of Washington with the rest of the world. It is a middle-term vision - for the next three or four decades - that is much aimed at the supposed allies of Washington than to the American public. His theories on "the shock of civilizations" aim to conceal the cynical practices of the American international politics and to provide a justification to a new politics of "containment", that especially targets Russia and China but also Europe on the way of unification, and to make this one durable.

Disciple of Henry Kissinger, often qualified of "American Richelieu" thanks to his cynical and realistic politics, Brzezinski gives conditions of American power, in order to assure a lasting global domination. It is the theorizing geopolitics of American imperialism.

In these theories one finds a curious mixture of cynicism, brutality and forgery moralism. It is the translation into the XXIth century of the "manifest destiny". The USA have a mission. What is good for them is good for the world. And  "free trade" will assure world peace. Brzezinski makes sometimes caricatures, the most geopolitical and brutal theories  are mixed with idealistic reflections on the peace and peoples' happiness.



Francis Fukuyama publishes in 1992 "The end of history and the last man", where he develops the famous thesis that he had given out in 1989 in the magazine "The National Interest".
What does mean Fukuyama by " end of history "? Behind philosophers like Hegel and Kojève, he considers that history is the result of antagonisms between the different ideologies and social organization shapes, that fight each other for recognition. However, with the fall of the Wall, the downfall of Communism and the victory of the liberal democracy, history, taken in this sense, abolishes himself. Proof is made that the destiny of the humanity, is the modern liberal democracy, political ideology of the American imperialism, that, even if it could be perfected, offers according to Fukuyama the better as possible world.

In 1997, with "The confidence and the power", Francis Fukuyama specifies his thought and underlines that the majority of the nations move politically toward the democracy and economically toward the market economy. In this new book, he develops an ideological justification of the superiority of the American social model and undertakes to demonstrate that an relationship exists between "social virtues and economic prosperity", the first generating the second. State-providence must have beaten in retreat. He asserts that there are countries more capable than others of developing themself. He opposes the family societies, as France, Italy or China, with a weak degree of confidence, that implies a strong intervention of the state, and societies of confidence, automatically more prosperous, as Japan, Germany and the United States.

But Fukuyama is especially the ideologist of the long-term American society project, that he asserts to be the ultimate future of the humanity. It is simply the ultimate achievement of the "manifest destiny". And it is especially a nightmare vision of a society where the Politician and the man as actor of history disappeared, where the destiny of men and peoples is replaced by an unified world, grey and dirty, where the accomplished consumerism will be the ultimate horizon. And will triumph then the last Man, more anxious to assure his well-being that to affirm his value by the brilliant works or by wars.

In a resounding interview to the daily newspaper "Le Monde" (Paris) of June 17, 1999, Fukuyama specifies his vision of the "last man", that is incontestably "the end of history": "The open character of nature contemporary sciences permits us to calculate that, from here to the next two generations, the biotechnology will give us tools that will permit us to accomplish what specialists of social engineering didn't succeed in making. At this stage, we will definitely end the human history because we will abolish the human beings as it is. A new history will begin , beyond of the human".

Here is brutally exposed the project of ultimate society of the American oligarchy.

In the same interview, he specifies the continuity of his thesis otherwise on "the end of history" with his orwellian project of society: "When I published "The end of history", in 1992,he said "I have been harassed by critics, but I didn't speak of the same history than my censors. I meant that with the downfall of the East block, numerous fundamental questions as regards to the ideology and institutions that had underlain history during decades have been adjusted more or less, in the developed countries. Today, the true problems are located at the ground of the social and religious structures, and of the culture".

The man will become then a "happy dog" notes Fukuyama: "A dog is happy to sleep in the sun all day long, as long as it is fed, because he is not unsatisfied of what it is. He doesn't worry to make other dogs better than it does, or that its career of dog is remaining stagnant. If the man reaches a society in which he will have succeeded in abolishing the injustice, his life will end up looking like the one of the dog".

Fukuyama remains mute on those that will be masters of these happy dogs, and who will keep them in leash...



Samuel P. Huntingtonest came to correct Fukuyama, to complete it. The end of history not being immediate and peoples being reluctant to the "New World Order" and its degrading horizon of " happy dogs", it was necessary to theorize the obstinate confrontations and to persuade allies more forced of Washington of the validity of the global domination of the American system.

Professor at the university of Harvard, Huntington directs the John Mr. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies and was expert at the American National Council of Security under Carter administration. He is the founder and one of the directors of the magazine "Foreign Policy", where have been exposed his theses initially on the shock of civilizations.

He publishes in 1996 "The clashes of civilizations and the remaking of world order"

It is necessary to note that he is not at all the inventor of his thesis. Indeed, the Moroccan professor (University Mohamed V of Rabat) Mahdi Elmandjra claims the antecedence of the prophecy exposed at the time of the Gulf war in his work "First civilizational war" (Casablanca, 1992). He borrows  theses of the historian French Braudel on the durability of civilizations upon States and Nations.

According to Huntington: "The history of men, it is the history of civilizations, since the old Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations until the Christian and Moslem civilizations, without mentioning the different shapes of Chinese and Hindu civilizations". One generally distinguishes, says us Huntington, the "civilization", a French concept of the XVIIIth century that opposes to the concept of "barbarism" civilizations , an anthropological concept that applies to "the largest cultural entity".

"Empires are born, he says , and die, whereas civilizations "survive the political, social, economic risks and even ideological" (Braudel), to finally succumb with the invasion of another".

Huntington tells us that during three thousand years, civilizations have been separated by time and space and were unaware of it. Then the western civilization dominated the world until the XXth century. But the influence of the west doesn't stop decreasing : "the economic strength moves toward the Far East, of which the political influence and the military strength are increasing. India is about to take off. The hostility of the Moslem world is increasing towards the west of which non western societies don't accept anymore as previously dictates and sermons". "little by little the west loses its self confidence and its will to dominate".

The Occident will remain the number one during the XXIème century, but ineluctably "the west will continue to decline" and "its preponderance will end up disappearing".

He concludes, "the confrontation is programmed" through "civilzational wars" between the Western civilization and the other civilizations of the World. Among the main adversaries of the American west, the orthodox civilizations, Islamic and Confucianist (China and Asia).



This point of view is contested radically, notably by the French Chauprades and Thuals, in their "Dictionary of geopolitics" (1998) for which "while globalizing the religious areas, one comes to be unaware of the inherent internal fractures in  this civilizational spaces". They add that "The unity of Islam is more a fiction than a reality" and accuse Huntington of being "simplist and Manichean". "The centrality of geopolitical mechanisms rests  first on continuities of States", they conclude.

This critic has one defect: not to search for the goal of the theses of Huntington and their role in the diffusion and the defense of the American imperialism. Because Huntington aims a direct operational goal: to theorize and to justify the confrontation between the United States and the rest of the world.

Some reactions don't let any doubt. Kissinger sees in "The shock of civilizations" "the most important book since the end of the cold war" and Brzezinski "one intellectual feat of strength, a founding work that is going to revolutionize our international vision". Huntington has in their eyes the merit to propose a vision of civilizations that is close to the geopolitical conceptions of the two American thinkers.

His vision of the west that unites United States and Western Europe lets the American stranglehold on our continent durable.

His thesis on the orthodox civilization, radically separated of the shared common Greco-Roman inheritance with the western Europe, prevent all Eurasian union from the Atlantic to Vladivostok and fights theses on the "Third Rome" and the mission of Russia, antithetic of the "manifest American destiny". It confines Russia to a role of regional power and even worse as thought in Washington, to dismemberment. It is not a chance that Brzezinski made appear in the magazine of Huntington in 1999 an article proposing the dismemberment of Russia in three states (western Russia, Caucasus and Siberia). An article that answers directly to the Eurasian theses adopted by the president Poutine and that made scandal in Russia, where one underlined that this project was already the one of Hitler and Rosenberg, the Nazi
theoretician of racism.

Finally, the opposition proclaimed between the West and islamo-Confucian prevents all euro-Arabic rapprochement and all Mediterranean union. Huntington forgets the use by Washington of some radical Islamism against Europe (Bosnia, Albania), Russia (Afghanistan, Tchétchénie, etc.) and the Arabian countries opposed to its politics, as Libya or Iraq.



After Fukuyama's ideology and history as an operational foundation of the action, Huntington, the third big theoretician of the American imperialism at the XXIth century is Zbigniew Brzezinski whose interests are geostrategy and geopolitics and that published "The Big Chessboard" in 1997, titled "Le grand échiquier Les Etats-Unis et le reste du monde" for its French edition.

Disciple of Henry Kissinger and adept of the "political realism", Brzezinski, of Polish origin, is expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington DC) and professor at the John Hopkins University at Baltimore. He counselled the president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.

The reflection of Brzezinski is centred on geopolitical conditions of the American strength and its control upon Eurasia, the "big chessboard" where Washington must eliminate all potential or real rival.

We saw that Huntington was not the creator of these "civilizational wars" borrowed to a Moroccan professor. In the same way, Brzezinski inspires itself extensively of the Theories of Jean Thiriart.

Of Belgian origin, Thiriart is underestimated in western Europe where silence has been put on his theses. It is not the same in Russia where he inspired both geopolitical and economical theories of the national-communists of Ziouganov and the inventors of Euro-Asiatic theses honoured by president Poutine. The geopolitical manual of instruction for the Russian officers dedicates him a long laudatory chapter. In the beginning of  the 80ies, Thiriart founds the "euro-soviet" school where he extols a continental unification of Vladivostok to Reykjavik on the theme of "the euro-soviet" empire" and on basis of geopolitical criteria.

Theoretician of the unitarian Europe, Thirart has been studied extensively to the United States, where academic institutions as the Hoover Institute or the Ambassador College (Pasadena) have archives funds about him.

Brzezinski has taken the American theses of Jean Thiriart but from an American point of view, defining to the profit of USA what Thiriart conceived for the Eurasian continental.

The media success of Huntington or Brzezinski compared to the heavy silence that surrounds in West theoreticians as Thiriart explains itself by the American media monopoly. To the ancient "ex Orients lux" followed visibly a "Ex America lux".



Geopolitics, a science been born in Germany at the end of the XIXeme century, owes to concepts of Mackinder and Spykman a lot.

The admiral British H.J. Mackinder (1861-1947), that was then geography professor in Oxford at the London School Economics of and Political Science, is the founder of the classical geopolitics, the one that opposes the earth and the sea. He is known notably as the author of the theory according to which it would exist in the beginning of the XXème century a "geographical pivot of the world", the heart of the world (heartland) protected by the natural obstacles (the interior crescent, inner crescent, composed of Siberia, of the desert of Gobi, of Tibet, of the Himalayas) and surrounded by oceans and the coastal earths (coastlands).

This heart of the world, it is Russia, Russia that is inaccessible to the sea power that is Great Britain. That is why the heart of the world must be surrounded by the terrestrial allies of Great Britain. Great Britain must control seas but also the coastal earths that surround Russia, that is to say Western Europe and the Middle East, Southern and East Asia. Great Britain herself, with the United States and Japan, constitutes the last circle that surrounds the heart of the world.

According to Mackinder what it is necessary to avoid is the union of Russia and Germany, a concept that Thiriart will modernize in "euro-soviet Empire", the constitution of what Mackinder calls the world island (world island), a powerful State having immense resources and vast terrestrial extents, what would permit to have big territorial capacities of defense and
to construct a fleet that would put in danger British Empire.

Since the end of the XIXth century, the American school of geopolitics, of which head lines are Mahan and Spykman, intents to substitute the United States to Britain as sea hegemonical power.

Critical student of Mahan, Nicholas J. Spykman is his successor and on the same time the partial successor and dissident of Mackinder. As the British Mackinder, N.J. Spykman thinks that the world has a pivot. But this pivot of the world is not the heartland of Mackinder, Russia. The pivot of the world is composed of the coastal earths (coastlands of Mackinder) that it calls the side of earths, the ring of earths (rimland), these earths constituting a buffer ring between the heart, that is either in Russia either in Germany, and the British maritime strength. These buffer States were, for example, Persia and Afghanistan used by England against Russia between the XIXth and the XXth century, as France was used against Germany between the second half of the XIXth century and the second world war.

After the victory on Germany - wrote Spykman before 1943 - it is necessary to control these buffer States that constitute the rimland, the pivot, if one wants to control the heart of the world. This necessity will drive to the setting up of an embankment politics (containment) of the soviet Russia, Western Europe and Turkey will become buffer states for the United States.

Founder of the "euro-soviet  School" in the beginning of the 80', Jean THIRIART develops the theme of the vital dimension of the necessary States to guarantee their independence and that requires nowadays a size of the continental states. Theoretician of the unitarian pan-European State, THIRIART studies the reasons of the failure of the union Soviet, that he sensed since 1980 and of which he stigmatises federalism. Facing the American superpower, he pleads for the fusion of Russia (on its Siberian borders in Orient) with the western Europe in the setting of an unitarian Empire from Reykjavik to Vladivostok and from Greenland to the Sahara.

Geopolitician of the European Empire, Jean THIRIART centres his reflections upon the integration of Russia and the western Europe in an unitarian Eurasian continental State.

1. THIRIART insists on the capital fact that all states coming from the implosion of the USSR, without no exception, must take part in Europe. The oriental, Caucasian and Siberian borders of USSR should be tomorrow those of Big-Europe.

2. THIRIART develops his thesis on the construction of Europe against the USA and its armed force the NATO. The unitarian Europe will make himself in the setting up of a national liberation war against the American occupying forces and its European "collaborators".

3. THIRIART insists on the necessity of the economic organization of Europe on a autarcical basis, taking theories of Friedrich LIST.

4. THIRIART denounces limited views of the European politicians, that behind the general de Gaulle, consider a truncated Europe until the Ural. The European empire should include Siberia and the ex-soviet extreme-orient.

5. THIRIART refuses absolutely conceptions of Europe based on the religion or the pseudo-racist theories. It is imperatives of Geopolitics and the Geoeconomy that determine measurements of Big-Europe and then populations that  will be united in an unitarian State. For him, for example, Turkey it is also Europe. On the matter he insists on the exogamy within European people.

6. THIRIART that conceives the European empire like a new Rome, the fourth Rome that makes echo to the Russian messianic concept of the "third Rome" (Moscow after Rome and Byzanze), exposes the necessity to make of the Mediterranean a European Lake, a new "Mare nostrum". In his geopolitical conception of unified Europe, the two strands of the Mediterranean, with their populations, make part of Europe, whose borders south is on the Sahara.



Brzezinski inspires itself directly from his theories to define conditions of the American power  at the XXIth century, to maintain it in its hegemonical role of guarantors of the "New World  Order" and makes the vassalage of the western Europe durable.

In order to maintain their leadership, they need  nothing else than the world domination announced by Burnham, USA must master the "big chessboard" that represents Eurasia above all, where will be determined the future of the world.

This mastering  rests on the vassalage of the western Europe, closely linked to USA in a western politico-economic power, the Atlantic community padlocked by the NATO. For Thiriart NATO  was not a shield but the harness a Europe.

It also rests on the isolation of Russia that it is necessary to weaken irreparably and to dismember.

The deadly danger for USA, extra-European strength from the origin, would  to be expelled of western Europe, its bridgehead in Europe. For this goal, all Europe and Russia Union, all Eurasian union, without mentioning the fusion as evoked  Thiriart, must be prevented by all means.

Zbigniew Brzezinski said : "Europe is the geostrategical bridgehead fundamental for America. For America, geostrategical stakes on the Eurasian continent are enormous. More precious than the relationships with the Japanese archipelago, the Atlantic alliance permits him to wield a political influence and to have a military weight directly on the continent. At this stage of the american-European relationships, the allied European nations depend on the United States for their security. If Europe would be enlarged, it would increase the direct influence of the United States automatically. On the contrary, if the transatlantic ties distended themselves, it would be the end of the pre-eminence of America in Eurasia".



We already evoked the role of Henry Kissinger as an "American" Richelieu. This is not at all a rhetorical gimmick. The Cardinal  Richelieu was French prime minister  when the thirty years war devastated the Mittel Europa. His goal was to assure to the France of the Bourbons the domination in Europe while neutralizing Germany and the empire of the Habsbourgs, both in Spain and in Germany. Implementing a cynical and opportunist politics, Richelieu has transformed a war of religion between Protestant and Catholic in a big fire and France was victorious at the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Under the pretext of preserving the "Germanic freedoms", France imposes the dismemberment of the Germanic Reich in several hundred of micro-states. France, unitarian state, assured its predominance in Europe until the beginning of the XIXth century. The German historian Frédéric Grimm evokes on this matter in his book "The will of Richelieu" the "Kleinstaaterei" concept.

The lesson has not been lost for the United States. Today, under the pretext of preserving the rights of peoples - the new "European" freedoms -, Washington imposes the "kleinstaaterei" in Europe, in the Balkan, the Caucasus and even in Russia.

Since 1943, the United States theorize and encourage dismemberment and the big state fragmentation. In 1945, Morgenthau, that counselled Roosevelt, extolled the partition of Germany and its de-industrialization. The partition is a result of it One often ignores that Stalin was opposed to the division of Germany and proposed until 1948 a unified and neutral Germany.

Here geopolitics comes closer to the current "realism" of the international relations, of which one of the most famous founders is Hans J. Morgenthau, with whom he shares number of assumptions.

Since 1989, the United States multiply their support to the bursting of States in the Balkan and in Eastern Europe. The bursting of the soviet union and the second Yugoslavia results some directly. A new stage sees today the dismemberment of the third Yugoslavia that has been born in 1991. And Brzezinski finally aims not only to dismemberment of the Federation of Russia but also of the historic Russia herself in three entities.

And there intervenes Huntington, whose role is to provide some historic justifications to this politics.  And to compare the geopolitics vision of Europe of Brzezinski to the theory of areas civilization of Huntington is to this illuminating topic. 

He agrees to make another comparison : with the theses of the Nazi geopolitics - whose main theoretician was Alfred Rosenberg, the author of the "Myth of the XXeme Century" -. The same programme is applied in the Balkan or against Russia. And the present privileged allies of Washington were those of the IIIeme Reich between 1935 and 1944.



One often speaks of "American Empire". You will have noticed that I am reluctant to use this term. Because the imperial idea doesn't have nothing to do with the mercantile imperialism and exploiter of Washington The term of neo-colonialism is more appropriated.

The geoplitics clearly distinguishes and opposessed sea power and earth power. The best example is punic wars that opposed the terrestrial Rome to Carthago, sea power. Today, the United States, sea strength, are a new Carthago: same consumerism, same merchant values, same limited horizon, same exploitation of colonies, same oligarchy and power of money.

The continental power is about to come again. It is against it that act the  theoreticians of American imperialism.

The shock of Rome against Carthage is also the one of two ideologies, of two Weltanschauungs. Yesterday as today.

Beside the United States exists a large school that thinks that Europe must be one of the means of the backing of the capitalism and the Mecca of this one that is located to the United States. It is the famous theories of the "second pillar", that considers notably in a European organization of defense a European pillar renovated by NATO. It exists another school, the one of Jean Thiriart or the Russian eurasiatists, for which the Eurasia will make himself inexorably against the United States, for which it is imperative that she makes herself against Washington. So Thiriart wants to destroy the United States politically, because he opposes to them a vision of the world that is located very far from the consumerism extolled by Washington. The European empire is for him above all a man's aesthetics, a solution and an alternative for all humanity.



Since more than one century, Washington is the enemy of peoples'cause  that don't want a manifest destiny imposed against their culture and their freedom. Facing the "happy dog" anti-civilization that points on the horizon faraway of Yankee imperialism, an answer of the peoples is absolutely needed.

Because the USA reign while dividing, We need unity and the solidarity of peoples.

This problem of the unity of the people facing imperialism is not new. In 1967, in The Havana, Castro launched  with Mao zedong and against the opinion of Moscow the "third continental". This famous "Third continental" of which one dreamed in Hanoi or in the Havana, failed. It didn't have and never had the strength to come overcome the American power, even though yesterday the victory of the Vietnamese people permitted to contest this

Today more than ever, it is necessary to strike a four continental alliance against imperialism. Only western Europe has today, as three decades ago,  strength means fifty times superior to the "third continental" (Asia, Africa, South America). The mistake made yesterday in Cuba, in Algiers, or in Hanoi, was not having wanted to introduce the revolution in a poor country, but not having seen that it was necessary to introduce the revolutionary action in the richest colony of the United States, Europe. The dogmatism that inspired yesterday the anti-American capitals in the name of an ideal solution drove them to the failure of action.

The American industrial power, reinforced by the Europe an industrial power, made of the first a world power. It is this alliance of most advanced world industries that forced to complete, economic and military capitulation, a feeble and asphyxiated USSR. The URSS is today extinct, the Communist myth is over, the USSR has been beaten on the ground of economy by the reinforced American neo-capitalism of its European colony.

The final victory against USA will be gained in Europe. The role of Europe in the struggle against the United States is a major role, the fundamental role. To unbalance the American giant, it is necessary to deprive him of his European action land.

In the name of geopolitics, geostrategy and the geoeconomy, Brzenzinski doesn't tell us anything else. The fate of Yankee superpower will be determined here in Europe. And the unity between Europe and Russia is the danger that appals him the more.

In the name of history and a western vision of the civilization and the culture, Huntington wants to impose us "civilization  wars". And if the shock of civilizations was the one that he doesn't wait - or doesn't want rather to wait - the one of the European humanism - that implies the respect of all cultures - with Yankee anti-civilization, the Mc World...



Huntington confounds language and culture, institutions imposed in Europe since 1918 by the power of weapons and dollar, and the choice of peoples, the social conformism and imposed consumerism and the civilization.

Since four century, the United States are an anti-Europe machine that aims to recover ideas of Europe and to return them like weapons against her.

As Huntington, as Brzenzinski, James Burnham in his book on "the world domination" recovered an idea that has been born in Europe.

In 1932, Ernst Junger published his blazing essay and often badly understood "the worker" - Der Arbeiter -, where he prophesied the final confrontation of gigantic imperial States for the world domination and the triumph of visions of the antithetic world. A vision specified by Junger in "The universal state" published in 1946.

Theses of Jean Thiriart on the "geo-ideological State", advanced stage of the continental state putting in work his vision of the world, and published since 1965, are linked to theses of Junger.

Fukuyama with his global horizon also standardized of "happy" dogs. Alas ! 

There is a choice. Either the American nightmare imposed to masses exhausted by the illusion of consumerist happiness. Or the European humanism, that has been born in Greece 2.500 years ago, and that offers to  peoples a destiny. The very real shock of Yankee anti-civilization - the Mc World - and cultures.

Theoreticians of the American imperialism in their arrogance warn us of the dangers we run. The future is not fortunately ever written in books but in the fight of peoples. One seems to be unaware of it in Washington or Wall-street. Let us never be forget it !

Président du PCN.

( Copyright Editions MACHIAVEL / PCN - Tous droits de reproduction, d'adaptation ou de traduction réservés, sauf autorisation écrite de l'éditeur )

Back to Home