【推文】James Lindsay - A (complicated) tale of five geopolitical perspectives shaping our world today
連結
原推文1 - x.com/conceptualjame...
原文及個人翻譯
推文
A (complicated) tale of five geopolitical perspectives shaping our world today. Let me explain EVERYTHING. (Almost everything...)
First, what are these five major geopolitical perspectives? Some of them you probably recognize, and some of them you don't.
(1) Mondialism
(2) (21st Century) Marxism
(3) Islam(ism)
(4) Westernism
(5) (Neo)-Eurasianism (Duginism/Traditionalism)There are some major complications within these five major positions. First, many or most of them contain more than one position within them, and they don't necessarily agree on much. Second, they interact with each other in a variety of ways. Third, they all have their own relationships with the meta-geopolitical position of "multipolarism" and thus the question of "polarism" (how many major powers should there be in the world?).
Additionally, you probably don't know what some of them even are, which contributes to the trouble.
My basic contention here is that understanding these five geopolitical perspectives and their interactions sheds a lot of light on what's going on in the world today. Clearly, this ain't easy, though!
Let's talk about them first.
一個（複雜的）關於五種地緣政治觀點的故事，這些觀點正在塑造我們今天的世界。 讓我解釋一切。（幾乎所有事情……）
首先，這五個主要的地理政治觀點是什麼？ 其中一些你可能已經認識，而另一些你可能不熟悉。
全球主義 (Mondialism)
（21世紀）馬克思主義
伊斯蘭教/伊斯蘭主義 (Islam(ism))
西方主義 (Westernism)
（新）歐亞主義（杜金主義/傳統主義）((Neo)-Eurasianism (Duginism/Traditionalism))
在這些五個主要立場中，存在一些主要的複雜性。 首先，其中許多或大多數都包含多種觀點，而且它們並不一定在很多方面達成一致。 其次，它們以各種方式相互作用。 第三，它們都與「多極主義」的元地緣政治地位有自己的關係，因此也涉及「極性」的問題（世界上應該有多少個主要強國？）。
此外，你可能不知道其中一些是什麼，這也加劇了問題。
我在此的基本觀點是，理解這五種地緣政治觀點及其相互作用可以闡明當今世界發生的很多事情。 顯然，這並不容易！
讓我們先來談談它們。
(1) Mondialism / 全球主義
Mondialism is a geopolitical philosophy that takes the French word monde, meaning "world," as its base. In simplest language, I would say it means "One-World-ism." It, at the least, has a left and a right wing that don't necessarily agree. There are also pretty decent claims that the American, Commonwealth, and European versions have their own tensions between slightly different schools of thought.
This is, to put it in the most basic way, the geopolitical perspective we tend to call "globalism" and is represented by things like the UN, UNESCO, World Economic Forum (WEF), Open Society Foundation (Soros), Atlantic Council, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Chatham House (RIIA), and the non-Marxist part of the Democratic Party (etc.). It is "Our Democracy."
Its left wing is Democrats, Labour, Liberal (Canada), Soros, and the likes. Its right wing is represented by Bush Doctrine "nation-building" neoconservatism. (Hence, "uniparty" with the "RINOs." RINOs, as we usually understand them, are right-wing mondialists.)
They generally believe that we can have one world with one prevailing political and economic system and something like "1990s 'liberalism'" has won the title for that and just needs to be spread around the world one way or another. The mondialist left is the "open society" (global EU) approach, and the mondialist right is the Bush doctrine "nation-building" approach. Fukuyama's End of History and the Last Man is a representative text of its thinking, as are most of the non-Marxist products of the Western intelligentsia over the last few decades.
If you're a fan of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four, you can think of this roughly as a vision for Oceania, ish, as the future of the West.
全球主義是一種地緣政治哲學，它以法語單詞「monde」（意為「世界」）為基礎。 簡單來說，我會說它的意思是「一體世界」。 至少，它有左右兩派，它們並不一定達成一致。 此外，也有相當合理的觀點認為，美國、英聯邦和歐洲的版本之間存在著不同學派之間的緊張關係。
最基本地說，這是一種我們通常稱之為「全球主義」的地緣政治觀點，並由聯合國、教科文組織、世界經濟論壇 (WEF)、開放社會基金會 (索羅斯)、大西洋委員會、美國外交關係協會 (CFR)、倫敦國際事務研究所 (RIIA) 以及民主黨的非馬克思主義部分（等等）等機構所代表。 它是「我們的民主」。
它的左翼包括民主黨、工黨、自由黨（加拿大）、索羅斯及其類似組織。 它的右翼由布希主義的「國家建設」新保守主義所代表。（因此，是與「共和黨叛徒」（RINOs）之間的「一黨制」。 我們通常理解的 RINOs 是右翼全球主義者。）
他們普遍認為，我們可以建立一個世界，擁有一個主要的政治和經濟體系，並且類似於「90 年代的『自由主義』」已經贏得了這個稱號，只需要以某種方式傳播到世界各地。 全球主義左派是「開放社會」（全球歐盟）的方法，而全球主義右派是布希主義的「國家建設」方法。 弗克雅馬的《歷史終結與最後一人》是其思想的代表性文本，以及過去幾十年西方知識分子的絕大多數非馬克思主義作品。
如果你是喬治·奧威爾的小說《1984》的粉絲，你可以大致將其視為對大洋洲（類近）未來願景的描述。
(2) Twenty-first Century Marxism / 21世紀 馬克思主義
This perspective is one of the more complicated but deserves maybe the least explanation. It's Marxism, either totally or partially updated to the "21st century" model run by the CCP over the People's Republic of China and by the Western Marxist Leftists of Western nations, who are mostly "Woke" Neo-Marxists and the DSA types.
The main commentary about 21st century Marxism is that it runs an updated production model (per China) that is effectively a Fascist corporate system running at the pleasure of a Communist Party that still retains Communist social transformation goals. The main mechanism it uses to "transform" people is increasingly social credit systems, which are both social control and social training (operant conditioning) tools, par excellence.
In the big picture, both the CCP and the Western "Woke" Neo-Marxists are examples of this perspective.
Geopolitically, they want a weakened United States and West, the spreading of Communism, Chinese global dominance and hegemony in the 21st and 22nd centuries (especially China wants this), and the usual eventual internationalist stuff. Job one is the destruction of the West.
這種觀點是比較複雜的，但可能需要最少的解釋。 它是一種完全或部分更新後的馬克思主義，採用中華人民共和國下 CCP（中國共產黨）和西方各國的西方馬克思主義左派所推行的「21 世紀」模式。 西方馬克思主義者大多是「覺醒」的新馬克思主義者和 DSA (民主社會主義者) 等。
關於 21 世紀馬克思主義的主要評論是，它運行一種更新後的生產模式（參見中國），這實際上是一種法西斯企業體系，由仍然保留共產主義社會轉型目標的共產黨控制。 它用於「轉變」人們的主要機制越來越是社交信用系統，這些系統既是社會控制工具，也是卓越的社會訓練（行為強化）工具。
從宏觀角度來看，中共以及西方的「覺醒」新馬克思主義者都是這種觀點的例子。
在地緣政治上，他們希望美國和西方變得更加薄弱，共產主義傳播開來，中國在 21 世紀和 22 世紀實現全球主導地位和霸權（尤其是中國想要這樣），以及一如既往的國際主義目標。 首要任務是摧毀西方。
(3) Islam(ism) / 伊斯蘭教/伊斯蘭主義
This perspective requires very little elaboration except to say that it's objective is a global Caliphate subject and submitted to Sharia. It comes in two primary flavors: Sunni (Arabian style) and Shia (Iran and proxies). They do not get along and will eventually kill one another brutally. They share the desire to destroy the West, however.
這種觀點需要很少的闡述，只需說明其目標是建立一個全球哈里發國，並使其臣服於伊斯蘭教法。 它主要有兩種形式：遜尼派（阿拉伯風格）和什葉派（伊朗及其代理）。 兩者不和，最終會殘酷地互相殺戮。 然而，它們都希望摧毀西方。
(4) Westernism / 西方主義
Usually, we would call this "Western Civilization," and some Christians might identify it by the obsolete term "Christendom," which isn't quite right. Ultimately, this is mostly the Westphalian system of nation states, national sovereignty, and a strong bias toward American classically liberal mostly-open societies ("free world") and US/Atlantic-led global hegemony.
It obviously has a left wing and a right wing, and it also has slightly different expressions for different reasons in different parts of Europe, the Commonwealth, North America, and the United States, especially on their acceptance of the "Americanism" part of the formula.
Geopolitically, it views the successful implementation of its own values as indicative of "first world" status and demands this for welcome into the high-trust mutual security network largely backed by U.S. economic and military might, and it doesn't tolerate rogue, terrorist, totalitarian, or especially Communist states, which it will flex its power to restrain or, at need, intervene upon (break).
通常，我們稱之為「西方文明」，一些基督徒可能會用過時的術語「基督教」來指代它，但這並不完全準確。 歸根結底，這主要是一種威斯特伐利亞式的國家體系，強調民族主權，並且對美國經典自由、大多開放的社會（「自由世界」）以及以美國/大西洋為中心的全球霸權抱有強烈的偏好。
它顯然有左翼和右翼，而且由於各種原因，在歐洲的不同地區、英聯邦、北美以及美國都有略有不同的表現，尤其是在它們對公式中的「美國主義」部分的接受程度方面。
在地緣政治上，它認為成功實施自身的價值觀是「第一世界」地位的標誌，並要求加入由美國經濟和軍事力量主要支持的高信任互助安全網絡。 它不容忍流氓、恐怖分子、極權主義或特別是共產主義國家，並且會運用自身的力量來約束這些國家，或者在必要時進行干預（制止）。
**(5) (Neo)-Eurasianism (Duginism) / （新）歐亞主義（杜金主義）
A fifth model is the neo-Eurasianism outlined by Aleksandr Dugin in his 1997 book The Foundations of Geopolitics, which asserts that large land mass nations like Russia and the whole of the Eurasian megacontinent have unique properties that justify their imperial rule and global control in an "empire of empires" model, all controlled ultimately by Moscow.
This approach suggests that land powers have by necessity more rooted value systems than do sea powers and therefore serve as the proper organizational ground state for humanity. They see sea powers ("Atlanticism," "Mondialism," and Westernism) as intrinsically less suitable to global power hegemony and as illegitimately squeezing or crushing land powers (namely, Russia) to prevent their rightful rule.
The claim is also that land powers are intrinsically more traditional, which gets swapped immediately to capital-T Traditional, in orientation. These aren't the same thing. The first is probably true. The second is something different, a kind of esoteric occultism hiding in the broader project.
The geopolitical position of neo-Eurasianism is that the West's illegitimate power needs to be broken so that Russia can arise as the central empire of an empire of empires across the "World Island" (Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) as the central controlling entity and unit of the world. Europe will come under Russian dominion by way of a European vassal (subsidiary) empire headquartered in Berlin, and East Asia will do similarly under the same headquartered in Beijing (originally Tokyo).
第五種模式是亞歷山大·杜金在 1997 年的著作《地緣政治基礎》中概述的新歐亞主義，該理論認為像俄羅斯這樣的擁有廣闊陸地的國家以及整個歐亞大陸都具有獨特的特徵，這些特徵證明了它們帝國統治和在全球範圍內的控制是合理的，形成一種「萬國帝國」的模式，最終由莫斯科控制。
這種方法表明，由於地緣政治的需要，陸地強國比海洋強國擁有更紮根的價值觀，因此它們是人類適當的組織基礎。 他們認為海洋強國（「大西洋主義」、「全球主義」和西方主義）在實現全球霸權方面固有的不適合，並且非法地壓迫或摧毀陸地強國（即俄羅斯），以防止它們行使應有的統治。
此外，聲稱陸地強國天生更傳統，這會立即轉變為大寫的「傳統」，在取向上有所不同。 這兩者不是一回事。 第一個可能屬實。 第二個是另一種東西，一種隱藏在新興項目的神秘主義。
新歐亞主義的地緣政治立場是，西方的非法權力需要被瓦解，以便俄羅斯能夠崛起為「世界島」（歐洲、亞洲、中東和非洲）上萬國帝國的中心帝國，作為控制整個世界的中央實體和單位。 歐洲將通過總部設在柏林的歐洲附屬帝國，置於俄羅斯的統治之下，而東亞將以同樣的方式，總部設在北京（最初是東京）。
Multipolarism / 多極主義
Multipolarism is the belief that the world should have three or more major power centers that are roughly co-equal in their global standing. Powerful states like Russia and China should not be reduced to mere "regional powers" under a Westernist global order, for example.
The current world order, at least until quite recently, has been unipolar: one pole of power, the United States and its Western Alliance network, mostly Atlantic plus Five Eyes and Israel. This has been the geopolitical status quo since the Soviet Union fell. Multipolarism holds that this is unjust and must end.
During the Cold War, we had two major world powers, the United States and Soviet Union, which gave us a bipolar world. Multipolarists contend that this was better than the current unipolar world but not ideal.
The current major contenders for world powers under a multipolar order would be Russia/Eurasia, China, Islamic Caliphate, and U.S./Western. India is an object of competition here and generally regarded as most likely to become a vassal outpost with warm water ports for Russia/Eurasia.
Aleksandr Dugin is one of the strongest proponents of multipolarism in the world, so much so that his neo-Eurasianism perspective could be considered to take multipolarism as the first step in his vision.
多極主義是一種信念，認為世界應該擁有三個或更多的主要權力中心，這些中心在全球地位上大致相等。 例如，像俄羅斯和中國這樣的強國不應被降低為西方主義全球秩序下的「地區強國」。
至少在相當長一段時間內，目前的國際秩序是單極的：一個權力中心，即美國及其西盟網絡，主要包括大西洋、五眼聯盟以及以色列。 自蘇聯解體以來，這就是地緣政治的現狀。 多極主義認為這是不正義的，必須結束。
在冷戰時期，我們有兩個主要的國際強國，即美國和蘇聯，這使我們處於雙極世界。 多極主義者認為，這比目前的單極世界更好，但並非理想狀態。
在多極秩序下，目前的主要競爭者包括俄羅斯/歐亞、中國、伊斯蘭哈里發國以及美國/西方。 印度是這裡的競爭對象，通常被認為最有可能成為擁有溫水港口的俄羅斯/歐亞的附屬前哨站。
亞歷山大·杜金是世界上最強大的多極主義倡導者之一，以至於他的新歐亞主義觀點可以被視為將多極主義作為他願景的第一步。
For some years now, the occupants of the Mondialist positions have accepted multipolarism as a fact, although it's more like a fact-goal-ambition, particularly its left wing. The World Economic Forum has been pushing the multipolar world concept for many years now, for example. This is likely as a stepping stone to their other ambitions.
China has also backed the multipolar world model but not because they believe in it as it is. They believe it is the first step in getting themselves to be the global superpower and hegemon from roughly 2050-2150 or longer. This long-term plan is usually called "the Asian century," and it has been shared by the Mondialists to a significant degree but for other reasons. China's long-term ambitions are unipolar in its own favor but it will play the multipolarist game to get there.
The Islam(ist) view likely sees multipolarism also as a means to an end and likely makes use of it. It's long-term ambition is a single global Caliphate, however, which is unipolar.
The Westernist model is generally not favorable to the multipolar world model, particularly its American portion, which likes U.S. hegemony. President Trump represents this line of thinking.
近年來，全球主義者已經接受了多極主義作為一種事實，儘管它更像是一種目標、願景和抱負，尤其是在其左翼中。 例如，世界經濟論壇多年來一直在推廣多極世界的概念。 這很可能是一個通往他們其他野心的跳板。
中國也支持多極世界模式，但並非因為他們相信這種模式本身。 他們認為這是實現自身成為全球超級大國和霸權的第一步，時間大致在 2050 年至 2150 年或更長時間。 這個長期計劃通常被稱為「亞洲世紀」，並且在很大程度上已被全球主義者所接受，但出於其他原因。 中國的長期野心是為了自身而實現單極化，但它將玩多極主義的遊戲以達到這個目標。
伊斯蘭（主義）觀點可能也將多極主義視為一種手段，並且很可能會利用它。 然而，它的長期目標是一個全球哈里發國，這是一種單極化的狀態。
西方主義模式通常不贊同多極世界模式，尤其是其美國部分，該部分喜歡美國的霸權。 特朗普總統代表了這種思維方式。
The Collisions of Positions / 各派勢力的衝突
The Mondialist (especially its left) and 21st Century Neo-Marxist positions have been so close in activity for decades now as to have been symbiotic, not just aligned. It is often very hard to tell where one stops and the other begins, although it's far clearer on the Marxist side of the discussion. This has caused tremendous and consequential confusion among the other positions.
It is open to the Islam(ist) position either opportunistically (Marxist side, mostly) or naively and foolishly (Mondialist side, mostly) but with reservations. The Mondialists are in for a surprise with that dangerous game. The Islam(ists) hate both but are very happy to use both and the confusion to their advantage.
The Mondialist part is diametrically opposed and hostile to neo-Eurasianism despite sharing parallel multipolarist beliefs and ambitions. The Marxist side has its own strange relationship with the neo-Eurasianists, particularly from the neo-Eurasianist side, which seems fairly happy with allying with them, at least upon what it calls "the principle of common enemy," which would be the Mondialists and the Westernists smashed together as one object.
Neo-Eurasianism, on the other hand, is in explicit alliance with Islam(ism) and much of 21st Century Neo-Marxism on what it calls "the principle of common enemy." Dugin is explicit about using both Marxist and (especially Shia) Islam to accomplish their goals and draws heavily off both. He sees Marxism as a land-based philosophy and Shia Islam as an authentic orthodox faith unified with his Traditionalism. Practically, it's common enemies against the West.
全球主義者（尤其是其左翼）和 21 世紀新馬克思主義者的活動在過去幾十年來如此接近，以至於它們已經形成了共生關係，而不僅僅是聯盟。 經常很難區分哪一方結束在哪一方開始，儘管在討論的馬克思主義方面，這更加清楚。 這給其他派系帶來了巨大的、具有深遠影響的混亂。
伊斯蘭（主義）勢力可能出於機會主義（主要是在馬克思主義者那裡），或者天真和愚蠢（主要是在全球主義者那裡），但帶有保留意見。 全球主義者將在與這種危險遊戲的互動中感到驚訝。 伊斯蘭（主義）者憎恨這兩個派別，但非常樂於利用這兩個派別以及由此產生的混亂來達到自己的目的。
全球主義部分與新歐亞主義截然相反且充滿敵意，儘管它們分享平行的多極主義信念和野心。 馬克思主義者方面與新歐亞主義者之間存在一種奇怪的關係，尤其是在新歐亞主義者那裡，他們似乎很高興與之結盟，至少是出於所謂的「共同敵人原則」，這個「共同敵人」就是全球主義者和西方主義者合二為一。
另一方面，新歐亞主義明確地與伊斯蘭（主義）以及 21 世紀的新馬克思主義合作，他們稱之為「共同敵人原則」。 杜金明確表示，他將利用馬克思主義（尤其是什葉派）伊斯蘭教來實現他們的目標，並且從這兩個方面汲取靈感。 他認為馬克思主義是一種以陸地為基礎的哲學，而什葉派伊斯蘭教是一種正統的信仰，與他的傳統主義統一在一起。 在實踐中，這是共同的敵人對抗西方。
The Westernist (especially its right) position has generally been opposed to Mondialism, Marxism, and their blurry symbiosis, which it usually calls "globalism" in a low-resolution, low-clarity way. It is also opposed to Islam(ism). To the degree it is aware of neo-Eurasianism, it is opposed to it.
There's a second blurring between Westernism and (right wing) Mondialism that is heavily taken advantage of by the neo-Eurasianists. This is a nontrivial part of what the Woke Right believes about the failure of Western Civilization, especially when they say that it has already failed or that "Marxism is the logical conclusion of classical liberalism."
The fact is, Western 21st Century Neo-Marxism is a direct parasite on Mondialism, especially its left. Chinese 21st Century Neo-Marxism is a direct parasite on Mondialism, especially its "neoliberal" right ("Free Trade!"). This causes a misidentification between Westernism because so many of its post-WWII (and especially post-Vietnam) leaders, institutions, and programs have been some brand of Mondialist or dominated by Mondialism. Westernism is failing to assert itself.
In fact, Westernism is under attack by the other four perspectives, which are often but not always allied with each other, as described above. By necessity, there is profound overlap between Westernism and Mondialism, which has allowed the parasite of Neo-Marxism to do the damage it has.
西方主義（尤其是其右翼）的立場通常反對全球主義、馬克思主義以及它們模糊不清的共生關係，它通常以低分辨率和低清晰度的形式稱之為「全球主義」。 它也反對伊斯蘭（主義）。 在它意識到新歐亞主義的程度上，它也反對它。
西方主義與（右翼）全球主義之間存在第二種模糊性，這被新歐亞主義者充分利用。 這是覺醒派右翼關於西方文明失敗的信念的一個重要組成部分，尤其是在他們說西方文明已經失敗或「馬克思主義是古典自由主義的邏輯結論」時。
事實上，西方的 21 世紀新馬克思主義是對全球主義的一種直接寄生，尤其是其左翼。 中國的 21 世紀新馬克思主義是對全球主義的一種直接寄生，尤其是其「新自由主義」右翼（「自由貿易！」）。 這導致了對西方主義的誤判，因為二戰後（尤其是越戰後）的許多領導人、機構和計劃都是某種形式的全球主義或受到全球主義的影響。 西方主義正在失敗，無法堅持自我。
事實上，西方主義正受到其他四個觀點的攻擊，這些觀點通常但不總是與上述方式結盟。 由於必然的原因，西方主義和全球主義之間存在深刻的重疊，這使得新馬克思主義這個寄生蟲能夠造成它所造成的損害。
What's Going On / 正在發生的事情
At least by the time the Tea Party launched in the late 2000-aughts, the Westernists in America and beyond had started to wake up to the fact that the Mondialists didn't represent their authentic project and had the steering wheel to their civilization in their hands. This began a giant geopolitical conflict that is not yet a war, for the most part, and may not necessarily become one. MAGA is a political declaration of territory and self-aware standing in this fight. (That is why MAGA is so at odds with the RINOs ("neocons") in all of this.)
The thing is, nothing is very clear to almost anyone, and all of these divisions and alliances and overlaps and parasitisms are dizzyingly confusing to pull apart, especially since no one is naming them clearly and lots of people are trying to confuse them further to their own advantage.
In short, the Westernists (MAGA) have realized they were losing their country to the Mondialists, who are symbiotic with the Marxists to a degree where they can barely be pulled apart in many ways, and that the pair of their enemies were unleashing Islamism into their midst, apparently mostly on purpose. So, they started to fight. The Tea Party, then MAGA, represent the evolution and development of that fight, but the clarity of what's happening has always been low, to its detriment.
至少在 2000 年代末茶黨運動啟動時，美國及其他地區的西方主義者已經開始意識到全球主義者並不代表他們真正的目標，並且掌握著他們文明的方向盤。 這引發了一場巨大的地緣政治衝突，目前還不是一場戰爭（在很大程度上），而且可能也不一定會變成一場戰爭。 MAGA 是一種政治聲明，宣告了其領土和在這個鬥爭中的自我意識地位。（這就是為什麼 MAGA 與所有這些事情中的「新保守派」（RINOs）存在如此大的分歧。）
事實是，對幾乎每個人來說，沒有什麼非常清楚，而且所有這些分裂、聯盟、重疊和寄生關係都令人眼花繚亂，難以區分，尤其是在沒有人明確地命名它們的情況下，並且許多人都試圖進一步混淆它們，以達到自己的目的。
簡而言之，西方主義者（MAGA）意識到他們正在失去他們的國家給全球主義者，而全球主義者與馬克思主義者之間存在一種共生關係，在很多方面都難以區分，而且這對敵人將伊斯蘭主義引入其中，似乎大多是出於故意。 因此，他們開始奮鬥。 茶黨運動和 MAGA 代表了這種鬥爭的演變和發展，但發生的事情的清晰度始終很低，這對其不利。
Into this confusion steps the neo-Eurasianist perspective (Duginism) with the intention of peeling off Westernist fighters and making them do the West-destroying work of the Eurasianist project. This mostly has taken the approach of Westernism is soft and neo-Eurasianism is hard, fighting against the blurry enemy of "globalism."
That is, the roused Westernists (MAGA) want to fight globalism and are given two paths: Trump and MAGA-style Americanism, which pushes the Western model and the American classical liberalist U.S. Constitution, and Russian neo-Eurasianism, which is hard, forceful, and capital-T Traditional. An open (free) society approach versus a closed (authoritarian) society approach. This has increased confusion and peeled many off into the clutches of anti-American, anti-Western neo-Eurasianism as a means of fighting "globalism," "Marxism," and, ironically, "the fall of Western Civilization," which the Eurasianists actually also want to bring about.
This is partly because of a lack of clarity and partly manufactured manipulation. Dugin explicitly says in The Foundations of Geopolitics that the whole Western project evolves into and culminates in Mondialism (there's no difference between Westernism and Mondialism) and that neo-Eurasianism is its authentic opponent.
That is, Dugin makes the claim that Westernism always results in Mondialism, a.k.a. "globalism," which Westernists also associate (rightly) with Neo-Marxist parasitism. He then positions Eurasianism not only as the stronger way to fight the problem but as the only authentic opponent to Westernist-Mondialism, even though he embraces a great deal of Marxism in his own program and views.
The neo-Eurasianist strategy to divide Western countries has largely taken advantage of the lack of clarity gripping the enemies of "globalism," getting them to give up on their own Westernist heritage for bad reasons and to see "Traditionalism," as a stand-in for neo-Eurasianism, as the only authentic way to oppose their "globalist" enemies, which are Mondialist. He's happy to exploit the confusion caused by the Mondialist-Marxist symbiosis in the Western Left to accomplish this, as well.
在這個混亂之中，新歐亞主義觀點（杜金主義）出現了，其意圖是吸引西方主義戰士並讓他們為新歐亞主義項目完成摧毀西方的任務。 這主要採取了「西方主義溫和而新歐亞主義強硬」的策略，共同對抗模糊不清的「全球主義」敵人。
也就是說，覺醒的西方主義者（MAGA）想要與全球主義作戰，並且被提供兩種選擇：特朗普式和 MAGA 式的美式主義，它推廣西方模式和美國古典自由主義憲法；以及俄羅斯的新歐亞主義，它強硬、果斷且具有大寫字母 T 的傳統性。 這是一種開放（自由）社會方法與一種封閉（威權）社會方法的對比。 這增加了混亂，並使許多人落入了反美國、反西方的、新歐亞主義的魔爪中，以此作為與「全球主義」、「馬克思主義」以及諷刺的是「西方文明的衰落」作戰的手段，而新歐亞主義者實際上也想要促成這一現象。
這部分是出於缺乏清晰度，部分是由於製造出的操縱。 杜金在《地緣政治基礎》中明確表示，整個西方項目演變並最終歸結為全球主義（西方主義與全球主義之間沒有區別），並且新歐亞主義是其真正的對手。
也就是說，杜金聲稱西方主義總是導致全球主義，也就是「全球主義」，而西方主義者也將其（正確地）與新馬克思主義的寄生聯繫起來。 然後，他將新歐亞主義定位不僅是戰勝這個問題更強硬的方式，而且是唯一真正的反對西方主義-全球主義的力量，儘管他在自己的計劃和觀點中擁抱了許多馬克思主義的思想。
新歐亞主義者分裂西方國家的策略，很大程度上利用了那些與「全球主義」作對的人們所面臨的缺乏清晰度，讓他們出於錯誤的原因放棄了自己的西方主義傳統，並將「傳統主義」（作為新歐亞主義的替代）視為唯一真正反對他們「全球主義」敵人的方式，而這些敵人實際上是全球主義者。 他也很樂意利用由全球主義-馬克思主義共生關係在西方左翼造成的混亂來實現這一目標。
Relevance to the Woke Right Phenomenon / 與「覺醒右派」現象的關聯
Not only is "what's going on" only comprehensible by including in your analysis this complicated "battle of five (geopolitical) armies) perspective; the Woke Right is mostly only comprehensible this way too.
The Woke Right is a weird reactionary phenomenon that is blending some reactionary Westernism with a fair amount of Russian/Duginist neo-Eurasianism. This is part of why they're so susceptible to and shot through with Russian and Iranian propaganda. It is a largely unexamined hybrid of these two perspectives that leans weak on the Westernism, which is has largely given up on as continuous to Mondialism and Marxism.
Their formula is roughly: Westernism -> Mondialism -> Neo-Marxism as though this is an inexorable process and not a series of mistakes and failures made in the process of dealing with the world and defending against subversion over the last century plus.
The Woke Right (post-liberal) analysis, when not just brainless Jew-hate, racism, etc., is that since WWII, we have lived under a global Mondialist consensus they call the "postwar liberal consensus" that has either given way to or ripened into Neo-Marxism. This is not wholly incorrect. The Western world was already heading in a Mondialist direction after WWI and then lurched hard in that direction after WWII and the Holocaust. They have some of the narrow point here, but I've never heard any of them say "mondialism" in my entire life or correctly diagnose any of this.
不僅僅是理解「正在發生的事情」，只有將這種複雜的「五個（地緣政治）軍隊的戰鬥」視角納入您的分析中，才能做到。 「覺醒右派」現象也主要只能這樣理解。
「覺醒右派」是一種奇怪的反動現象，它將一些反動西方主義與相當一部分俄羅斯/杜金主義的新歐亞主義相結合。 這也是他們如此容易受到俄羅斯和伊朗宣傳的影響的原因之一。 這種混合體在很大程度上沒有經過審查，並且對西方主義的依賴較弱，因為他們已經基本上放棄了它，認為它是全球主義和馬克思主義的延續。
他們的公式大致如下：西方主義 -> 全球主義 -> 新馬克思主義，彷彿這是一個不可避免的過程，而不是在過去一個多世紀中處理世界和抵禦顛覆過程中發生的一系列錯誤和失敗。
當「覺醒右派」（後自由主義）分析不只是盲目的反猶、種族主義等時，他們的觀點是自二戰以來，我們一直生活在他們稱之為「戰後自由主義共識」的全球主義共識之下，而這種共識要麼已經讓路，要麼已經發展成為新馬克思主義。 這並非完全錯誤。 在一戰之後，西方世界已經朝著全球主義的方向發展，然後在二戰和猶太人大屠殺之後，它急劇地朝著那個方向轉變。 他們在這個狹隘的觀點上有些道理，但我一生中從未聽說過任何一個人提到「全球主義」，也沒有人正確診斷出這些問題。
When friends have besought me to recognize that they are saying some interesting and even important things, this is probably the best example of credit being due. Mondialism, if it ever had a right role, certainly went bad and isn't the right model anymore, neither left-wing "Our Democracy," "global EU," "Open Society" (Soros, not Popper) nor right-wing "spreading democracy" and "nation building" (Bush doctrine neoconservatism, not Goldwater-Reagan doctrine, which were "Shining City on a Hill").
That is, the Woke Right, where it isn't manufactured and amplified by foreign propaganda of all the other sorts (and yes, all the other sorts are encouraging it), is a relatively reasonable reactionary kernel against Mondialism and its symbiosis with the Neo-Marxism that evolved to parasitize it. From that relatively reasonable kernel, based on a lack of clarity and inflamed by propaganda, it goes batshit crazy and is a destructive force near the top of destructive forces in our society.
They are right to detest Marxism and right in an incorrect way about its symbiotic relationship with left Mondialism; they are right to be frustrated with the weakness and corruption of right Mondialism plus its incorrect "neocon" worldview and nation-building idiocy; and they are wrong about almost everything else.
They're wrong to have gone Woke, which is a kind of crazy.
They're wrong in their diagnosis of the Mondialist and Marxist-symbiote problem and its possible solutions.
They're wrong to preferentially side with neo-Eurasianism and Duginism under a set of deceptions that include "Traditionalism."
They're wrong to believe they can act like Marxists to beat Marxists (Fascism).
They're wrong to downplay China's ambitions in this story and their role.
They're wrong to believe that Duginistic multipolarism is the right solution to Mondialist unipolarism and Mondialist multipolarism (as they have both visions).
They're wrong to be soft on Islam(ism) and fall for all the propaganda that directs their blame at Israel and Jews instead.
They fundamentally misunderstand Neo-Marxism because their view needs it to be the culmination of Westernism and its classical liberalism.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, but because they see one thing rather right with greater consequential clarity but not diagnostic clarity and moreso than many others.
當朋友懇求我承認他們在說一些有趣甚至重要的話時，這可能就是應該給予認可的最佳例子。 如果全球主義曾經有過正確的地位，那麼它肯定已經變質，不再是正確的模型，無論是左翼的「我們的民主」、「全球歐盟」，還是索羅斯（而非波普爾）的「開放社會」，以及右翼的「傳播民主」和「國家建設」（布希主義新保守主義，而不是戈德華特-里根主義，後者是「山上的明城」）。
也就是說，「覺醒右派」，在它沒有被各種外國宣傳所製造和放大（是的，所有這些宣傳都在鼓勵它）的情況下，是對全球主義及其與寄生於它的新馬克思主義共生的相對合理的反動核心。 從這個相對合理的核心出發，由於缺乏清晰度和受到宣傳的煽動，它變得瘋狂而失控，並且是我們社會中最具破壞性的力量之一。
他們正確地憎恨馬克思主義，並且以一種錯誤的方式認識到它與左翼全球主義之間的共生關係；他們正確地對右翼全球主義的弱點和腐敗以及其不正確的「新保守主義」世界觀和國家建設的愚蠢感到沮喪；而他們在幾乎所有其他方面都是錯的。
他們錯在變得「覺醒」，這是一種瘋狂的形式。 他們錯誤地診斷了全球主義和馬克思主義共生體的問題及其可能的解決方案。 他們錯誤地偏向新歐亞主義和杜金主義，並在了一系列欺騙之下，包括「傳統主義」。 他們錯信自己可以像馬克思主義者一樣行動來擊敗馬克思主義者（法西斯主義）。 他們錯誤地淡化了中國在這個故事中的野心及其作用。 他們錯誤地認為杜金主義的多極化是解決全球主義單極化的正確方案，以及解決全球主義多極化的方案（因為他們同時擁有這兩種願景）。 他們對伊斯蘭教（主義）過於寬容，並且上當受騙，相信所有將他們的指責引向以色列和猶太人的宣傳。 他們從根本上誤解了新馬克思主義，因為他們的觀點需要它成為西方主義及其古典自由主義的最高境界。 錯誤、錯誤、錯誤、錯誤、錯誤，但因為他們看到一件事是相當正確的，並且具有更大的重要性，但缺乏診斷的清晰度，而且比許多其他人都要清楚。
Bottom Line / 總結
It is not possible to understand what is happening in the world today without understanding at least these five geopolitical perspectives, their relationships, their clashes, and the confusions bred by not recognizing them. Simply not possible.
Understanding them clarifies things greatly, though it doesn't tell us a lot about what to do, given the size of the forces involved.
We, in the West, should defend Westernism, however. The fullest expression of this trend is President Trump and his MAGA movement.
The reason he was attacked so viciously all along, and still is, and still will be, and worse to come in all likelihood, is because he is the first champion of Westernism in generations, at least since Reagan and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union.
The Mondialists can't have him, thus we got TDS as one of the biggest psyops in human history, and all that's come with it. The Islam(ists) can't have him. The Neo-Marxists can't have him. And the Duginist neo-Eurasianists can't have him either. All of them attacked him and will keep going, along with any successor he has that continues the Westernist (MAGA) line in a clear and consequential way.
We, however, should not and must not fall for the propaganda or get twisted in our confusion. We should not get seduced by any anti-Westernist philosophy, like neo-Eurasianism, because of its shoddy promise to be hardest on our "globalist" enemy. We must recognize that it is also our declared enemy and that it marshals the other enemies to its cause as well under its principle of common enemy, which is us.
I hope this has been helpful and clarifying and an enormous amount to chew on. Godspeed and God bless. Make America Great Again!
沒有理解至少這五種地緣政治觀點、它們之間的關係、衝突以及未能認識到它們所產生的混亂，就無法理解當今世界發生的事情。 簡而言之，這是絕對不可能的。
理解這些觀點可以極大地澄清問題，儘管它並不能告訴我們在面對如此龐大的力量時該怎麼做。
然而，我們西方人應該捍衛西方主義。 這個趨勢最充分的體現是特朗普總統和他的「讓美國再次偉大」運動。
他之所以受到如此猛烈的攻擊，而且至今仍然如此，並且今後還會更加嚴重，是因為他是幾代以來第一位西方主義的捍衛者，至少自里根總統以及蘇聯隨後的崩潰之後。
全球主義者不能容忍他，因此我們才有了「川粉症」（TDS），這是人類歷史上最大的心理戰之一，以及所有與之相關的事情。 伊斯蘭教（主義）者也不能容忍他。 新馬克思主義者也不能容忍他。 杜金主義的新歐亞主義者也同樣不能容忍他。 他們都攻擊了他，並且會繼續這樣做，以及任何繼承他並以清晰和重要的方式延續西方主義（「讓美國再次偉大」）路線的繼任者。
然而，我們不應該也不應該屈服於宣傳或在我們的混亂中迷失方向。 我們不應該被任何反西方主義哲學所誘惑，例如新歐亞主義，因為它廉價地承諾要最嚴厲地對抗我們的「全球主義」敵人。 我們必須認識到，它也是我們明確的敵人，並且它將其他敵人也聯合起來，以實現其目標，而這個目標就是我們。
我希望這對您有所幫助和啟發，並提供了很多值得思考的東西。 祝一切順利，上帝保佑。 讓美國再次偉大！