End of History thesis
From an ideological point of view, the world is still living in the shadow of the controversy of the 1990s between Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. Whatever criticism may be levelled at the theses of both authors, their importance has not been diminished in any way, as the dilemma still remains and, moreover, is still the main content of world politics and ideology.
Let me remind you that in connection with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and then the USSR, the American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama formulated the thesis about “the end of history“. It was based on the consideration that in the twentieth century – and especially after the defeat of fascism – the logic of history was reduced to a confrontation between the two ideologies: Western liberalism vs Soviet communism. The future, and therefore the meaning of history, depended on the outcome of their confrontation.
And now, according to Fukuyama, the future has arrived. This moment was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the coming to power in Moscow of liberals who recognized the ideological supremacy of the West. Hence the “end of history” thesis. According to Fukuyama, history is the history of wars (hot and cold), conflicts and confrontations. In the second half of XX century all confrontations and wars were reduced to the opposition of the capitalist liberal West against the communist East. When the East collapsed, the contradictions disappeared. The wars stopped (as Fukuyama thought). And accordingly, history was over.
Postponement of end of history, not denial
In fact, it is this theory that underpins the entire ideology and practice of globalism and globalisation. Western liberals are still guided by it up to this day. It is the idea advocated by George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, Bernard Henri Levy, Hillary Clinton and… Joe Biden.
Liberals admit that not everything has gone smoothly since the 90s. Liberalism and the West have faced various problems and new challenges (with political Islam, the new rise of Russia and China, populism – including in America itself in the form of Trump and trumpism, etc.). The globalists are convinced that the end of history has been somewhat delayed, but it is inevitable and will come quite soon. Convinced globalist Joe Biden won (probably not very fair) the elections under the slogan of a new – last — effort to make the end of history a real. It means to assure ultimate the triumph of liberalism on global scale. — Bild Back Better is the same as “Back to globalisation again and this time more successfully”). The same line was proclaimed by Davos World Economic Forum’s founder Klaus Schwab as “Great Reset’s” planetary programme.
Fukuyama and his thesis were not discounted, but simply the implementation of this plan, ideologically flawless from the point of view of the liberal worldview as a whole, was postponed. For 30 years, liberalism continued to permeate society – in technology, social and cultural processes, the spread of gender politics (LGBTB+), education, science, art, social media, cancel culture etc. And this was not only true for Western countries, but even for semi-closed societies such as Islamic countries, China or Russia.
Re-emergence of civilizations
Already in the 1990s another American author, Samuel Huntington, countered Fukuyama with an alternative interpretation of contemporary moment of history. Fukuyama was a staunch liberal, an advocate of World Government and the de-nationalisation and de-sovereignisation of National States. Huntington, on the other hand, adhered to the tradition of realism in International Relations, that is, he recognized sovereignty as the highest principle. But unlike other realists who interpret the world politics in terms of nation states, Huntington believed that after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Eastern bloc and the USSR, there would be no end of history, but new actors that would emerge and compete with each other on a planetary scale. He called them “civilisations” and predicted in his famous article their clash with each other.
Huntington proceeded from the following: The capitalist and socialist camps were not created in a void of abstract ideological designs, but on a very definite cultural and civilisational basis of different peoples and territories. This basis was established long before the beginning of the Western Modernity and its simplistic reductionists ideologies (liberalism, communism ,nationalism). And when the dispute of modern ideologies comes to an end (as it did with the disappearance of one of last two of them, communism), the deep contours of ancient cultures, religions and civilisations will emerge from beneath the surface formatting.
Real and false foes of global liberalism
Huntington’s rightness became especially evident in the beginning of XXI century, when the West was confronted with radical Islam. By that time Huntington himself died before he could enjoy his theoretical victory, while Fukuyama admitted that he hastened to make a statementand final conclusions and even advanced the thesis of “Islamo-fascism”, defeating which would bring real “the end of history”, but not before. With that he was wrong once more.
An not only concerning political Islam. Islam proved to be so diverse in practice that it did not coalesce into a single force confronting the West. It was useful for Western strategists to manipulate the Islamic threat and Islamic fundamentalism factor to some extent in order to justify their interference in the political life of Islamic societies in the Middle East or Central Asia. But it could not represent serious ideological challenge.
Far more serious has been the pursuit of real sovereignty by Russia and China. But again, neither Moscow nor Beijing contrasted liberals and globalists with any particular ideology (especially since Chinese communism recognised economic liberalism after Deng Xiaoping’s reforms). These were two civilisations that had developed long before the Modernity. Huntington himself called them Orthodox (Eastern Christian) civilization in the case of Russia and Confucian civilization in the case of China, quite rightly recognizing in Russia and China a connection to deep spiritual cultures. These deep cultures made themselves known just when the ideological confrontation between liberalism and communism ended in a superficial, but not real (!) victory for the globalists. Communism disappeared, but the East, Eurasia did not.
The victory in virtual world
The proponents of the end of history didn’t accept their failure too easily. They were so caught up in their fanatical – ideological — models of globalisation and liberalism that they could not see any other future except the end of history. So they began to insist more and more on a virtual version of it. If something is not real, let’s make it look real and everyone will believe it. In essence, mind-control politics is being bet on, via global information resources, network technology, the promotion of new gadgets, and the development of human-machine cohesion. This is the Great Reset enunciated by the creator of the Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab, and embraced by the US Democrat Party and Joe Biden. The essence of this policy is this: if the globalists do not control reality, they completely dominate the virtual world. They own all the basic networking technologies, protocols, servers, etc. Therefore, relying on the global electronic hallucination and the total control over the consciousness, they began to create an image of the world in which history had already ended. It was just an image, nothing more. But the tail seriously decided to wag the dog.
Thus, Fukuyama retained his importance, but no longer as an analyst, but as a global PR-manager trying to impose notions stubbornly rejected by a large part of humanity.
This time liberalism turn into something really aggressive and quit totalitarian.
“Putin’s war on the liberal order”
Fukuyama’s assessment of the special military operation in Ukraine is therefore of some interest. At first glance, it might seem that in this case his analysis becomes completely irrelevant, as he simply repeats the common clichés of Western anti-Russian propaganda, which contain nothing new or convincing in themselves – mere Russophobic journalism. But on closer inspection, the picture changes somewhat if one disregards what is most striking – the rabid hatred of Russia, Putin and all those forces that oppose the end of history and identify the algorithm of his thinking – reflecting the main line of common globalist elite way of thinking.
In an article published in the Financial Times, Fukuyama makes the main point in the very title “Putin’s war on the liberal order”. And this thesis in itself is absolutely correct.
The special military operation in Ukraine is the decisive momentum of establishing Russia as a civilisation, as a sovereign pole of a multipolar world. This fits perfectly with Huntington’s theory, but is completely at odds with Fukuyama’s “end of history” (or the “open society” of Popper/Soros – that is why old Soros is so furious now).
Yes, this is exactly the “war on the liberal order”.
Key importance of Ukraine
The importance of Ukraine for the rebirth of Russia as a fully independent world power has been clearly established by generations of Anglo-Saxon geopoliticians from the founder of this science, Mackinder to Brzezinski. Earlier it was formulated as follows: without Ukraine Russia is not an Empire, but with Ukraine it is an Empire. If we put the term “civilisation” or ” pole of multipolar world ” instead of “Empire”, the meaning would be even more transparent.
The global West has staked on Ukraine as the Anti-Russia, and for this purpose instrumentally gave the green light to Ukrainian Nazism and extreme Russophobia. Any means were good to fight against the orthodox civilisation and the multipolar world. Putin, however, did not swallow it and entered the battle, not with Ukraine, but with globalism, with the world oligarchy, with the Great Reset, with liberalism, with the end of history.
Precisely here the most important thing came out. The special military operation is directed not only against Ukrainian russophobic Nazism (denazification – along with demilitarisation – is its main objective) but even more against liberalism and globalism. After all, it was Western liberals who made Ukrainian Nazism possible, supported it, armed it and set it upon Russia – as the new pole of a multipolar world. Even Mackinder called the lands of Russia “the geographical axis of history” (so was the title of his famous article). For history to end (the globalist thesis, the goal of the “Great Reset”), the axis of history must be broken, destroyed. Russia as a pole, as a sovereign actor, as a civilisation simply must not exist. The diabolical plan of the globalists was to undermine Russia in the most painful area, to pit the same eastern Slavs (that is essentially the same Russians) against each other and even split the Russian Orthodox Church that united them in the frame of the same civilization. For this purpose, Ukrainians needed to be placed inside the globalist matrix. The globalists strived to gain control over the consciousness of the society with the help of information propaganda, social networks and a giant operation to direct the psyche and consciousness. Many millions of Ukrainians have fallen victim to it in last decades and in more drastic way after Maiden in 2014 and the open rise of Ukrainian artificial Nazism. Ukrainians have been persuaded that they are part of the Western (global) world and that “Russians are not brothers, but bitter enemies”. And Ukrainian Nazism in such a strategy coexisted perfectly with liberalism, which in essence it instrumentally served.
The war for multipolarity
This is exactly what Putin has engaged in a determined struggle with. Not against Ukraine, but for Ukraine. Fukuyama is completely right in this case. What is happening today in Ukraine is “Putin’s war on the liberal order”. It is a war with Fukuyama himself, with Soros and Schwab, with the “end of history” and with globalism, with real and virtual hegemony, with the Great Reset.
Present days dramatic events in Ukraine represent the main dilemma of humanity. In them the fate of what will be the coming world order is decided. Will the world become truly multi-polar, that is to say democratic and polycentric, where the different civilisations will have the right to choose freely their own destinies (and we hope that this is exactly what will happen – in the case of our coming victory), or (God forbid) it will finally sink into the abyss of globalism. This time, however, liberalism will no longer be opposed to Nazism and racism, but will become inseparably linked with it (as it the case in Ukraine). Modern liberalism, ready to exploit and overlook Nazism when it serves to its interests, is the true evil – an absolute evil. It is with it with whom the present war is now being waged.
12 theses of Gauleiter Fukuyama based on false premise
Another recent text by Fukuyama, printed in American Purpose, a publication of the American neocons (precisely the brightest representatives of liberal Nazism), is worthy of interest. In it Fukuyama proposes 12 theses of how the conflict in Ukraine will unfold. We will present them in their entirety. It should be noted that this is complete misinformation and enemy propaganda, and it is in this capacity as fake news that we present this text.
1. Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion. Russian soldiers were evidently carrying dress uniforms for their victory parade in Kyiv rather than extra ammo and rations. Putin at this point has committed the bulk of his entire military to this operation—there are no vast reserves of forces he can call up to add to the battle. Russian troops are stuck outside various Ukrainian cities where they face huge supply problems and constant Ukrainian attacks.
The first sentence is the most important. ” Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine “. Everything else is built on the fact that this sentence represents “absolute truth” and can not be not questioned. If we were dealing with real analytics, it would start with a dilemma: if the Russians win, then…, if the Russians lose, then…. But there’s nothing of the sort here. “The Russians will lose because the Russians can’t help but lose, which means that the Russians have already lost. And no other options are to be considered, as they would be Russian propaganda.” What is this? That is manifest liberal Nazism. Pure ideological globalist propaganda, placing the reader instantly from the start in a virtual world where “history has already ended“.
Then everything becomes predictable in the context of the instrumenlalized hallucination. We are dealing with a specimen of psy-op.
2. The collapse of their position could be sudden and catastrophic, rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition. The army in the field will reach a point where it can neither be supplied nor withdrawn, and morale will vaporize. This is at least true in the north; the Russians are doing better in the south, but those positions would be hard to maintain if the north collapses.
No proof, pure wishful thinking. “The Russians must be losers because they are losers”. And this we hear from the mouth of exemplary loser Fukuyama, whose predictions have all been demonstrably disproved as epic fails…
The whole thing is built on the assumption that Moscow was preparing for an operation which was to take two or three days, followed by a victorious meeting with the flowers of the liberated population. As if the Russians were such idiots that they did not notice the thirty years of Russophobe propaganda, the West’s coaching of neo-Nazi formations and a European-scale army, heavily armed (by the same West) and trained (back in Soviet times, and the training was serious then), which was going on its behalf to start a war in Donbass and then in Crimea. If it was not completed in a fortnight, it was a “failure”. Another hallucination.
The West has sacrificed Ukrainians
And then Fukuyama goes on to say a rather important thing:
3. There is no diplomatic solution to the war possible prior to this happening. There is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine given the losses they have taken at this point.
This means that the West continues to believe its own virtual propaganda and is not going to compromise with Russia and resort to reality checks. If the West waits until Russia is defeated to start negotiations, they will never begin.
4. The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless. The only helpful thing was the General Assembly vote, which helps to identify the world’s bad or prevaricating actors.
In this thesis, Fukuyama is referring to the need to dissolve the UN and create in its place the League of Democracies, that is the structures of States fully subordinate to Washington, willing to live under the illusion of “the end of history”. This project was formulated by another liberal Nazi Russophobe McCain and has begun to be implemented by Joe Biden. Everything is going according to the “Great Reset” plan.
5. The Biden administration’s decisions not to declare a no-fly zone or help transfer Polish MiGs were both good ones; they’ve kept their heads during a very emotional time. It is much better to have the Ukrainians defeat the Russians on their own, depriving Moscow of the excuse that NATO attacked them, as well as avoiding all the obvious escalatory possibilities. The Polish MiGs in particular would not add much to Ukrainian capabilities. Much more important is a continuing supply of Javelins, Stingers, TB2s, medical supplies, comms equipment, and intel sharing. I assume that Ukrainian forces are already being vectored by NATO intelligence operating from outside Ukraine.
On the first point, however, we can agree with Fukuyama. Biden is not ready for a nuclear duel, which would immediately follow the announcement of a no-fly zone and other direct steps towards NATO intervention in the conflict. The phrase “the Ukrainians defeat the Russians on their own” sounds cynical and cruel, but the author does not understand what he is saying: the West first pitted the Ukrainians against the Russians and then allowed them to stand alone with us by refraining from effective assistance. The Ukrainians are winning virtually, in a world where history has ended. And they should, in Fukuyama’s mind, be happy about it. It’s just a matter of time before the Russians are defeated. The reality is quite different, but who cares…
6. The cost that Ukraine is paying is enormous, of course. But the greatest damage is being done by rockets and artillery, which neither MiGs nor a no-fly zone can do much about. The only thing that will stop the slaughter is defeat of the Russian army on the ground.
When Fukuyama says the word “enormous “, it is clear from his nonchalant facial expression that he does not know what he is talking about.
Putin will survive. New Beginning of popilism
Then Fukuyama starts to ponder on the Putin’s fate. In the same line of end of history dreams. He affirms non chalantly:
7. Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?
Another thesis built entirely on the first premise. The defeat of the Russians is inevitable, which means Putin is finished. And if the Russians win, Putin is just the very beginning. Now this is important, no longer for the delusional Fukuyama, but for us.
Putin as good as dead, the populists – the domestic enemies of Western globalists – will die too. Already dead.
8. The invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who prior to the attack uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin. That includes Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro, Éric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, and of course Donald Trump. The politics of the war has exposed their openly authoritarian leanings.
Small reality check: not all populists are so directly influenced by Russia. Matteo Salvini, under the influence of the liberal Nazis and Atlantists in his entourage, has changed his previously friendly attitude towards Russia. The pro-Russian sympathies of the others should not be exaggerated either.
But here again there is an interesting point. Even if one accepts Fukuyama’s position that the populists are Putin-oriented, they lose only if “the Russians are defeated”. And in the case of victory? After all, this is “Putin’s war on the liberal order,” and if he wins it, all the populists will win also along with Moscow… And then the end of the global oligarchy and the “Great Reset’s” elites is irrevocable.
The lesson for China and the end of unipolar world order
Finally Fukuyama address the fate of China, the second contender on the pole of multi-polar world order.
9. The war to this point has been a good lesson for China. Like Russia, China has built up seemingly high-tech military forces in the past decade, but they have no combat experience. The miserable performance of the Russian air force would likely be replicated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which similarly has no experience managing complex air operations. We may hope that the Chinese leadership will not delude itself as to its own capabilities the way the Russians did when contemplating a future move against Taiwan.
Then again, this is all true if “the Russians have already lost”. And if they have won? Then the meaning of this lesson for China will be just the opposite. That is, Taiwan will return to its home harbour faster than one might assume.
10.Hopefully Taiwan itself will wake up as to the need to prepare to fight as the Ukrainians have done, and restore conscription. Let’s not be prematurely defeatist.
It would be better to be realistic, and see things as they are, taking all factors into account. But maybe the fact that the West has ideologues like Fukuyama, hypnotised by their own delusions, is at the end of the day good for us? If they fall themselves victims of the same illusions they try to impose on others and trick themselves as perfectly they are really deplorable in their clinging to virtuality and self fulfilled prophecies of the fake news Empire.
11.Turkish drones will become bestsellers.
Now fragments of these bestsellers are being picked up by bums and looters in the rubbish dumps of Ukarine.
12.A Russian defeat will make possible a “new birth of freedom,” and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.
Here is an excellent conclusion. Fukuyama already knows about “the defeat of Russia”, just as he knew about “the end of history”. And then, globalism will be saved. And if not?
Then there will be no more globalism.
And then welcome back to the real world, the world of nations and civilisations, cultures and religions, the world of reality and freedom from a totalitarian liberal concentration camp.