In 2020, at the forum in Davos, the forum’s founder Klaus Schwab and Charles, the Prince of Wales, proclaimed a new course for humanity, the Great Reset.

The plan, according to the Prince of Wales, consists of five points:

1. To capture the imagination and will of humanity – change will only happen if people really want it;

2. The economic recovery must put the world on the path to sustainable employment, livelihoods and growth. Longstanding incentive structures that have had perverse effects on our planetary environment and nature herself must be reinvented;

3. Systems and pathways must be redesigned to advance net zero transitions globally. Carbon pricing can provide a critical pathway to a sustainable market;

4. Science, technology and innovation need reinvigorating. Humanity is on the verge of catalytic breakthroughs that will alter our view of what it possible and profitable in the framework of a sustainable future;

5. Investment must be rebalanced. Accelerating green investments can offer job opportunities in green energy, the circular and bio-economy, eco-tourism and green public infrastructure.

Here's Alexander Dugin, a Russian thinker and the architect of the Fourth Political Theory, critiquing the idea…

ALSO READ: Part 1 & Part 2 – The manifesto of great awakening, against great reset

Part 3: The Enemy Within

In a more limited context than the framework of the general history of liberalism from Ockham to Biden, Trump's victory in the battle for the White House in the winter of 2016, so wrenchingly painful for the Democrats as such was, also has enormous ideological significance. This has to do primarily with the processes unfolding within American society itself.

The fact is that after the fall of the Soviet Union and the onset of the "unipolar moment" in the 1990s, global liberalism had no external opponents. At least, it seemed so at the time in the context of the optimistic expectation of the "end of history". Although such predictions proved premature, Fukuyama did not simply wonder if the future had arrived – he was strictly following the very logic of the liberal interpretation of history, and so, with some adjustments, his analysis was generally correct.

In fact, the norms of liberal democracy – the market, elections, capitalism, the recognition of "human rights," the norms of "civil society," adopting technocratic transformations, and a desire to embrace the development and implementation of high technology – especially digital technology – were in some way established throughout humanity. If some persisted in their aversion to globalization, this could be seen as mere inertia, as an unwillingness to be "blessed" with liberal progress.

In other words, it was not ideological opposition, but only an unfortunate nuisance. Civilizational differences were to be gradually erased. The adoption of capitalism by China, Russia, and the Islamic world would sooner or later entail processes of political democratization, the weakening of national sovereignty, and would eventually lead to the institution of a planetary system – a World Government. This was not a matter of ideological struggle, but a matter of time.

It was in this context that the globalists took further steps to advance their basic program of abolishing all residual forms of collective identity. This primarily concerned gender politics as well as the intensification of migration flows designed to permanently erode the cultural identity of Western societies themselves, including European and American societies. Thus, globalization dealt its main blow to its own.

In this context, an “enemy within" began to emerge in the West itself. This is all those forces that resented the destruction of sexual identity, the destruction of the remnants of cultural tradition (through migration) and the weakening of the middle class. The posthumanist horizons of the impending Singularity and the replacement of humans with Artificial Intelligence were also increasingly worrisome. And on the philosophical level, not all intellectuals accepted the paradoxical conclusions of Postmodernity and speculative realism.

In addition, there was a clear contradiction between the Western masses, living in the context of the old norms of Modernity, and the globalist elites, seeking at all costs to accelerate social, cultural and technological progress as understood in the liberal optic. Thus, a new ideological dualism began to take shape, this time within the West rather than outside it.

At the same time, however, this growing resistance, generically referred to as "populism" (or "right-wing populism"), drew on the very same liberal ideology – capitalism and liberal democracy – but interpreted these "values" and "benchmarks" in the old rather than the new sense.

Freedom was conceived here as the freedom to hold any views, not just those that conformed to the norms of political correctness. Democracy was interpreted as majority rule. The freedom to change gender was to be combined with the freedom to remain faithful to family values. The willingness to accept migrants who expressed a desire and proved their ability to integrate into Western societies was strictly differentiated from the blanket acceptance of all without distinction accompanied by continuous apologies to any newcomers for their colonial past.

Gradually, the globalists’ "internal enemy”attained serious proportions and great influence. The old democracy challenged the new one.

Trump and the revolt of the deplorables

This culminated in Donald Trump`s victory in 2016. Trump built his campaign on this very division of American society. The globalist candidate, Hillary Clinton, recklessly called Trump supporters, i.e., the “domestic enemy," "deplorables," which is to say "pathetic," "regrettable". The "deplorables " responded by electing Trump.

Thus, the split within liberal democracy became a crucial political and ideological fact. Those who interpreted democracy in the “old way" (as majority rule) not only rebelled against the new interpretation (minority rule directed against the majority inclined to take a populist stand, fraught with … well, yes, of course, "fascism" or "Stalinism"), but managed to win and bring their candidate into the White House.

Trump, for his part, declared his intention to "drain the Swamp", that is, to do away with liberalism in its globalist strategy and to "make America great again". Note the word "again". Trump wanted to return to the era of nation-states, to take a series of steps against the current of history (as liberals understood it). In other words, the "good old yesterday" was opposed to the "globalist today" and the "post-humanist tomorrow".

All opponents of liberal globalization were logically grouped together, including not only Putin, Xi Jinping, some Islamic leaders, but also – imagine this! – the President of the United States of America, the number one man of the "free world". This was a disaster for the globalists. Until Trump was dumped – by means of the color revolutions, engineered riots, fraudulent ballot and vote-counting methods previously used only against other countries and regimes – they could not feel at ease. 

It was only after having retaken the reins of the White House that the globalists began to come to their senses. And they went back to… the old stuff. But in their case, "old" (rebuilt) meant returning to the "unipolar moment" – to pre-Trump times.

Trumpism

Trump rode a wave of populism in 2016 that no other European leader has managed to do. Trump thus became a symbol of opposition to liberal globalization. Yes, it was not an alternative ideology, but merely a desperate resistance to the latest conclusions drawn from the logic and even metaphysics of liberalism (and nominalism). Trump was not at all challenging capitalism or democracy, but only the forms they had taken in their latest stage and their gradual, consistent implementation. But even this was enough to mark a fundamental split in American society.

This is how the phenomenon of "Trumpism" took shape, in many ways exceeding the scale of Donald Trump's own personality. Trump played on the anti-globalization protest wave. But it is clear that he was not and is not an ideological figure. And yet, it was around him that the opposition bloc began to form. The American conservative Ann Coulter, the author of the book In Trump we Trust, has since reformulated her credo as "in Trumpism we trust".

Not so much Trump himself, but rather his line of opposition to the globalists, has become the core of Trumpism. In his role as President, Trump was not always at the height of his own articulated task. And he was not able to accomplish anything even close to "draining the Swamp" and defeating globalism. But in spite of this, he became a center of attraction for all those who were aware of or simply sensed the danger emanating from the globalist elites and the representatives of Big Finance and Big Tech inseparable from them.

The American conservative intellectual Steve Bannon played an important role in this process, mobilizing broad segments of young people and disparate conservative movements in support of Trump. Bannon himself was inspired by serious anti-modernist authors such as Julius Evola, and his opposition to globalism and liberalism therefore had deeper roots.

An important role in Trumpism was played by consistent paleo-conservatives – isolationists and nationalists – in the likes of Buchanan, Ron Paul, as well as adherents of anti-liberal and anti-modernist (therefore, fundamentally anti-globalist) philosophy, such as Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk, who had been marginalized by the neocons (the globalists from the right) since the 1980s.

The driving force of the mass mobilization of "Trumpists" came to be the networked organization QAnon, which couched its criticism of liberalism, democrats and globalists in the form of conspiracy theories. They spread a torrent of accusations and denunciations of globalists as involved in sex scandals, pedophilia, corruption and satanism.

True intuitions about the sinister nature of liberal ideology – made evident in the latest stages of its triumphant spread over humanity – were formulated by QAnon supporters at the level of the average American and mass consciousness, which are hardly inclined towards in-depth philosophical and ideological analysis. In parallel, QAnon expanded its influence, but at the same time gave anti-liberal criticism grotesque traits.

It was the QAnon supporters, as the vanguard of mass conspiracy populism, who led the protests on January 6, when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol outraged by the stolen election. They did not achieve any goal, but only gave Biden and the Democrats an excuse to further demonize "Trumpism" and all opponents of globalism, equating any conservative with “extremism." A wave of arrests followed, and the most consistent "New Democrats" suggested that all social rights – including the ability to buy plane tickets – should be taken away from Trump supporters.

Since social media is regularly monitored by supporters of the liberal elite, gathering information about almost all US citizens and their political preferences posed no problem. So Biden's arrival in the White House means that liberalism has taken on frankly totalitarian features.

From now on, Trumpism, populism, the defense of family values, and any hint of conservatism or disagreement with the tenets of globalist liberalism in the US will be nearly equivalent to a crime – to hate speech and “fascism."

Still, Trumpism did not disappear with Biden's victory. In one way or another, it still has those who cast their votes for Donald Trump in the last election – and that is more than 70,000,000 voters.

So it is clear that "Trumpism" will by no means end with Trump. Half of the US population has actually found itself in a position of radical opposition, and the most consistent Trumpists represent the core of the anti-globalization underground within the citadel of globalism itself.

Something similar is happening in European countries, where populist movements and parties are increasingly aware that they are dissidents deprived of all rights and subject to ideological persecution under apparent globalist dictatorship.

No matter how much the globalists who have retaken power in the US want to present the previous four years as an "unfortunate misunderstanding" and declare their victory as the final "return to normality", the objective picture is far from the soothing spells of the globalist upper class. Not only countries with a different civilizational identity are mobilizing against it and against its ideology, but this time also half of its own population, gradually coming to realize the seriousness of its situation and beginning to search for an ideological alternative.

These are the conditions under which Biden has come to head the United States. American soil itself is burning under the feet of the globalists. And this gives the situation of "the final battle" a special, additional dimension. This is not the West against the East, not the US and NATO against everyone else, but liberals against humanity – including that segment of humanity which finds itself on the territory of the West itself, but which is turning more and more away from its own globalist elites. This is what defines the starting conditions of this battle.

Individuum and dividuum

One more essential point needs to be made clear. We have seen that the entire history of liberalism is the successive liberation of the individual from all forms of collective identity. The final accord in the process of this logically perfect implementation of nominalism will be the transition to posthumanism and the probable replacement of humanity with another – this time posthuman – machine civilization. This is what consistent individualism, taken as something absolute, leads to.

But here liberal philosophy arrives at a fundamental paradox. The liberation of the individual from their human identity, for which gender politics prepares them by consciously and purposefully transforming the human being into a perverted monster, cannot guarantee that this new – progressive! – being will remain an individual.

Moreover, the development of networked computer technologies, genetic engineering, and object-oriented ontology itself, which represents the culmination of Postmodernism, clearly point to the fact that the "new being" will not be so much an "animal" as a “machine". It is with this in mind that the horizons of "immortality" are likely to be offered in the form of the artificial preservation of personal memories (which are quite easy to simulate).

Thus, the individual of the future, as the fulfillment of the whole program of liberalism, will not be able to guarantee precisely that which has been the main goal of liberal progress – that is, their individuality. The liberal being of the future, even in theory, is not an individuum, something "indivisible," but rather a "dividuum," i.e. something divisible and made up of replaceable parts. Such is the machine – it is composed of a combination of parts.

In theoretical physics, there has long been a transition from the theory of "atoms" (i.e. "indivisible units of matter") to the theory of particles, which are thought of not as "parts of something whole" but as "parts without a whole.” The individual as a whole also decomposes into component parts, which can be reassembled, but can also not be assembled, instead used as a bioconstructor. Hence the figures of mutants, chimeras and monsters that abound in modern fiction, populating the most imagined (and therefore, in a sense, anticipated and even planned) versions of the future.

The Postmodernists and speculative realists have already prepared the ground for this by proposing to replace the human body as something whole with the idea of a "parliament of organs" (B. Latour). In this way, the individual – even as a biological unit – would become something else, mutating precisely the moment it reaches its absolute embodiment.

This is what all those taking up the fight against globalism and liberalism suspect, albeit very vaguely. Although QAnon and their anti-liberal conspiracy theories only distort reality by lending suspect, grotesque traits which liberals can easily refute, reality, when described soberly and objectively, is far more frightening than its most alarming and monstrous premonitions.

"The Great Reset" is indeed a plan for the elimination of humanity. For this is precisely the conclusion that the line of liberally understood "progress" logically leads to: striving to free the individual from all forms of collective identity cannot fail to result in the freeing of the individual from himself.

(Alexander Dugin, is a Russian thinker and the architect of the Fourth Political Theory. The article has been republished with the author’s permission.)