lunedì 15 Aprile 2024

Just words between us

How the recurring use of incorrect terms leads us to believe in unreal scenarios

Più letti

Global clowns

Note dalla Provenza


It has always been said that in the Kali Yuga, words no longer have meaning.

I would add that the ability to connect (from the Latin “connectere”), which literally means to join elements together, has also been lost. Elements that must first be identified and then read with criterion (from the Greek “krino”), indicating the ability to distinguish in judgment.


Today, the masses are regimented in a scenario reminiscent of “1984”, with even an Eurasia among the protagonists of the tragic fiction: they allow themselves to be docilely governed while some vent their neuroses and hysteria against an Evil that, for parricides, is defined as the West, and for moderates, as the Threat from the East. Both, of course, are Nazis…

My positions on this matter are known, and there is no need to reiterate them.

They stem from ideal premises, existential continuity, and precise reasoning.

Different and contrasting positions can exist and be respected, but they must make sense, based on real data, taking into account dynamics, facts, mechanics, and even the laws that govern acts. In short, they must have realistic expectations, or else they are delirious.

Whatever expectations one may have, one must reckon with the real but also with the deceptions that arise from obscure concepts and distorted words.

Reality speaks to us of a world in transformation due to demographic and technological reasons, new energy sources, the shifting geopolitical center from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific, and thus infinite struggles for power shares.

Regardless of the goal one wants to pursue, this is what must be considered, not Tolkienian imaginaries for Orwellian plots.


One of the most used arguments is that of the clash between the “unipolar” world and the “multipolar” world.

The concept of “unipolar” is widespread but devoid of any meaning. It was used to explain the absolute dominance of the Americans once the Russian system collapsed. But in reality, which is dynamic, unipolarity is physically impossible. It was simply and purely an obvious hegemony that, among other things, worried all American analysts who immediately realized that the collapse of Moscow and the cessation of its role as a “sparring partner” made it more difficult for them to maintain global control. This led to the Brzezinski doctrine to maintain hegemony in a multi-player world and Huntington’s doctrine of the “clash of civilizations.”

The term “unipolarism” was inappropriate and distorted. In that hegemony without the Enemy (actually the best ally) to balance with, the Americans lost absolute control over Europeans and Chinese. In fact, from 1991, immediately after the Soviet collapse, they worked to allow Russia to rise again and, in the meantime, promoted the jihadist threat.


In reality, not even “bipolarism”, which was the safest system of global imperialism, could be total, as evidenced by the emergence of non-aligned nations and the Third Way ot Third Position. There was also an entire idealistic movement that aimed to place Europe at the center and in a leadership role.

With the end of bipolarism, already during the Clinton era, Americans realized that capitalist and technological evolution had created a world dominated by “interdependence”. That is, a world where everyone depends on everyone else.

In fact, Americans depend on Asians as much as Asians depend on Americans. The chains are now global. It’s true that, due to the Covid pandemic, discussions have begun about reducing interdependence, bringing production back home as much as possible, and creating networks with solid partners. This has led to real conflicts, not always armed, characterized by constant jostling but without proper opposing coalitions.


So, there has been talk of “multipolarism.” Nothing could be more misleading and incorrect. For a world to be multipolar, it must be “based on the existence of multiple power blocs or groups.” Those belonging to one bloc cannot be part of another and should ideally be hostile to it.

Multipolarism is discussed every day, but it’s merely propaganda or dialectical sleight of hand.

It’s not me saying this; it comes from the leading Kremlin ideologists today. The anti-Western Sergei Karaganov, the plenipotentiary and strategist of Putin’s government, replacing the pro-European Igor Ivanov, confided to “Rosiyskaya Gazeta” last December: “The majority of the world has no intention of fighting the West.”

Timofei Bordachev, director of programs at the Valdai Club (the Russian equivalent of the American CFR), was even clearer: “Today, among the major and medium powers, there is no one aiming to destroy the world order established after the Second World War. The prevalent attitude is revisionism, not aimed at revolutionizing it but modifying it to derive a greater role.”

That’s the point, not the scenarios reminiscent of Doctor Strangelove that abound because they create fear or instill hope, thus playing the same role in mass psychology as vaccine campaigns.


We highlighted how Russian armaments depend almost entirely on the USA, the West, and especially Silicon Valley:

This can be interpreted in many ways, but one thing is certain: it attests to the interdependence we mentioned. Moreover, it confirms another thing, namely that Indian Prime Minister Modi is right. He opposes the fable of multipolarism with the doctrine of “multi-alignment”.

This means the common alignment of powers in one scenario but not in others. It’s everyone against everyone, but not against the “system.” Indians, certainly, have a highly competitive relationship with China, but this doesn’t prevent them from being allies in some “reformist” battles in global trade. They have a strong political and military relationship with the United States and also with Russia.
Lately, they found themselves supporting the Iranians in their recent crisis, including missile launches against Pakistan, but they side with in the dispute with Tehran.

Turks fight against Russians in Syria, arm Ukraine, but assist Russia in managing the conflict. They make a show against Israel but cooperate in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Iran and Saudi Arabia wage war against each other but cooperate on global claims.

It’s continuous multi-alignment. In the WTO, China, the EU, and emerging powers (BRICS +) are allies against the Americans.


Correct, although only in part, it is better to speak of “multilateralism”. If no one intends to destroy the system but everyone wants to reform it, obviously in different forms, autonomous agreements disconnected from a rigid order should prevail.
This multilateralism explains the crisis of the WTO, illustrates the only interesting expectations of the BRICS +, and manifests itself in the complex agreements recently concluded by the Italian government with India, Japan, and especially in Africa (Mattei Plan).

This phenomenon articulates relationships different from those that have long linked the major partners, who, while objectively obliged to remain connected, are beginning to distance themselves.

This has happened and continues to happen between the USA and Europe, with periodic peaks of crises that regularly deepen divergences. These peaks can be dated back to 1979, 1991, 2008, and 2016, and it is an ongoing process. Given the specific weight in the global economy and soft power of the two, it should be read as one of the main keys to real global disputes, to be distinguished from staged performances.

Multilateralism is a real potential, but it has nothing to do with the nonsense of “multipolarism” that doesn’t exist and won’t because it cannot physically materialize, and because no one wants it.

The fact that all prophets of this abstraction have recreated an imaginary bipolar world (the Global South against the West) proves that it is a senseless formula. Despite abstractions and conceptual distortions, they still desperately need something to give them a sense of stability, of a system. And the number two serves that purpose: it’s the number of immobility.

Expecting some kind of divine intervention, or from the depths, they are inevitably passive and inert, and consequently,. This makes them incompatible with vitality, thus perfectly integrated into the dominant psychology.

They inevitably find themselves prisoners of binary thinking, usually embittered, as is always the case when the mind is no longer free, and the spirit remains restrained.


We may differ on analyses and reasoning, but it is crucial to base both on reality and stop being deceived by the inaccurate use of terms. An inaccurate usage that leads to wrong concepts and building hypotheses that don’t even hold up in the clouds.

Confronting reality, it is up to us to establish priorities and pivot points for reasoning and movement.

For me, they are the civilization and power of my people in the European idea that we have conceived and irrigated with our blood. It is at the center of the global dispute and simultaneously its revolution in our daily lives.

If others have different expectations, it’s not my problem; we don’t have to walk around embracing each other.

The important thing is that, in their expectations, they are based on something real.


E vigilant so piezz e core

Fino a qualche tempo fa a Napoli non sarebbe mai successo

Potrebbe interessarti anche