I argued that from the birth of capitalism onwards, five main trends have emerged. The predominant one is the liberal trend. Then there are two reactionary trends that are supposed to be opposed (right-wing and left-wing), which, despite being fueled by extremist slogans, have always served to facilitate liberal ruptures against social democratic safety nets or revolutionary alternatives (fascist). I emphasized how extremists were manipulated in the past against industry only to the advantage of finance and are now manipulated against Europe in favor of the winners of Yalta.
The same logic applies to the immense international deception, in force precisely since Yalta. After the end of World War II, for a good quarter of a century, the upheaval of the global framework resulting from decolonization and the creation of blocs generated some trends that diverged from the dominant system. These could be part of the social democratic logic (Gaullism, Rhineland capitalism) or the revolutionary social-national inspiration (Peronism, Nasserism, Ba’athism). To this latter category were added some forms of revolutionary socialism or communism in non-industrialized countries (thus pre-Leninist Marxist romantic forms), especially in Latin America, which, at least for a while, cooperated with anti-imperialism and Perón’s Tercera Posición.
However, both the two blocs (USA and USSR) and all the components belonging to liberalism and communism worked together to neutralize and eliminate the revolutionary-inspired components, favoring subversive elements and terrorist logics, and to sabotage, even with bombings or assassinations, the more moderate ones (Mattei, De Gaulle, Adenauer, Moro were targets of successful or failed plots).
Russians and Americans have been hand in hand and tongue in cheek continuously, at least since the Tsar sold Alaska to Washington in 1867. Yet, from 1946 onwards, the film of a possible world war between the two superpowers played out. It was truly a film, believed by the masses and even entire sectors of one bloc or the other. But no special research is needed to discover impressive facts: from the prominent role played by the White House, specific American circles, Wall Street, and the Red Cross in the Bolshevik Revolution and its subsequent financial safeguard, to the creation of the American services (then OSS) recruiting almost exclusively from the ranks of the local communist party.
It is not difficult to discover how nuclear plans were provided to Moscow by the White House itself and how the two “enemies” moved together against Europe in the Middle East. The implosion of communism in Russia was followed not by an attempt to dismantle it, as often repeated, but by a scientific action to allow Primakov and Putin to reassemble it, which began under Clinton on the instigation of Kissinger.
Of course, roles were modulated, and they continue to be so, as seen in Ukraine, the Mediterranean, and the Sahel, as the binary propaganda scheme allows the Russians to position themselves for what they are, namely Europe’s ennemies, but does not allow the Americans to show themselves for what they are, namely its subversives. However, both are indeed that, and their actions consistently aim to weaken and sabotage Europe in any form and, with it, social-national aspirations everywhere.
Of course, today things are somewhat different from yesterday, and not due to a Russian change (if there has been one, it’s for the worse), but due to the compression of every social-national regime and party in Latin America and the Arab world. This is accompanied by the de-fascistization of extreme right-wing movements in the West. However, the geopolitical focus has shifted to the Indo-Pacific with the simultaneous rise of powers like China and India, which are still partially not fully integrated into the logic of 1946. Additionally, the technological revolution and European assertiveness, primarily economic and diplomatic before political, have become significant since 2017.
Faced with this new global ferment, which certainly doesn’t have the same post-war interest but still exists, the gangster imperialism predicted by the German Chancellor since January 1942 has reactivated the patterns and techniques it used to defeat social-national aspirations. This is the strategy of tension: consciousness is mobilized and stirred to fit into one of the two opposing containers. By simulating a conflict between them and causing tragic clashes between some peoples and various extremists, tension sidelines political solutions and neutralizes them. For this reason, asserting support for the Russians (today as yesterday) is equivalent to being part of Gladio or enlisting in the Marines.
Subjectively, it may be different, but the objective fact remains, and no matter the emotional or dialectical somersaults one may perform, those who accept that scheme serve Uncle Sam.
It’s a well-tested and highly effective technique. Israel has been implementing it at least since the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967. Through its European embassies, services, and governments, it has consistently funded and protected Palestinian extremist formations, first Marxist and then Islamist. As Netanyahu publicly explained last year, this was done to prevent a political solution from producing a Palestinian state. In the last quarter-century, Israel’s primary instrument has become Hamas. Similarly, and as announced by the Americans thirty years ago, Islamists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Salafists) have become pressure and subversion elements against Arab nation-states and relations across the Mediterranean.
When I say “Russia is NATO” or “Hamas is Israel,” it’s only partly a rhetorical exaggeration because, objectively, that’s exactly what happens. By accepting to escalate tension, Russia has sidelined all European centers critical of NATO and outlining strategic alternatives. Hamas, as Netanyahu boasted, recognized in Israel as its former(?) protector, has prevented the birth of a Palestinian state. Whether they might also eliminate it, as red armed formations were liquidated once they became useless and cumbersome, is another matter. However, it should be noted that these liquidations are usually partial, sacrificing fighters and weak internal factions or those connected to adventurous foreign elements. The core elements are always kept intact, transferring to new provocative groups, those that have served better, now consciously and openly complicit, even if they weren’t initially.
In the past, the radical left was used for similar reasons. Armed struggle in Italy led to institutional changes, the assassination of our foreign policy, and the privatization of the Bank of Italy. The Red Brigades, which significantly contributed, were certainly manipulated, but not necessarily in the way one imagines. There was a web of economic, political, military support, and external impulses from Czechoslovakia, East Germany, the Soviet Union, France, Israel, Italian services, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact. Some made agreements with Israelis rejected by Franceschini and Curcio, while others aligned with Al Fatah. They favored NATO with the killing of Moro but abducted American General Dozier. Nothing linear, as is probably the case with Hamas as well.
The insidious greatness of power lies in letting terrorist movements do as they please and plan, as they still ultimately serve their interests. They move thinking they are free, but their psychological paths and conditioned reflexes are well known, compelling them to repeat movements like laboratory mice, and thus, they are manipulated. The “objective” function, almost always unconscious, irrespective of individual subjective values, reflects the desired outcomes of those overseeing them, whom they theoretically aim to overthrow but ultimately end up consolidating.
It bewilders me that many people, despite life and political experiences, still fall into the most blatant traps. For at least seventy-four years, since the first Russian atomic bomb in 1949 and the founding of NATO, the same patterns and techniques have repeated themselves unchanged. The “tension,” both internal and external, always works in the same identical way: two parties are agitated and set against each other, preventing a political solution. Binary logic obstructs triangulation and synthesis, meaning a solution, but at a high cost of blood, the status quo is maintained.
Considering what is happening in France today, I fear that the strategy of tension might lead to the birth of an ethno-social-religious civil war among extreme minorities destined to pay a high price, unaware that the true objective is to weaken not only French society but also political power to impact the European role. This implies that it’s not enough, as I’ve urged for years, to avoid falling mentally into the system’s trap, like cheering for Russia or Hamas. There is a substantial concrete threat that can only be escaped with clarity, awareness, and steady nerves. The alternative to disaster is not just desertion, and the banlieusarde offensive cannot be ignored.
In both that situation and in general, one must start thinking with radical centrality and reject extremist sirens that turn those who listen into self-harming puppets.