From the perspective of hegemonic Unipolarity, imposed and supported by the Anglo-Saxon Empire, Greece represents a permanent liability (obligation, obstacle): Its permanent state of cultural “borderline” nature, which is a function of its historical and geographical uniqueness, requires the Unipolar hegemon to impose on Greece a permanent, ever-vigilant and periodically savage regime of political repression and economic blackmail.
This explains the many Western interventions throughout modern Greek history, from
- the Battle of Navarino in 1827 (which essentially established the independence of the modern-oriented Greek nation-state as it gained independence from the tradition-oriented Ottoman Empire),
- through the November Revolution of 1916 (which forced Greece to join the camp of the Allies who imposed modernity against the tradition-oriented Central Powers), and
- through the December Revolution of 1944 (which ensured that post-war Greece would be an Anglo-Saxon vassal state rather than an Eastern-aligned “independent nation”), and
- to the subversion of the Greek bailout referendum of 2015 (which put an end to the populist revolt against globalization).
From the perspective of the rapidly growing Multipolar Movement, Greece’s permanent state of cultural marginality within the slowly disintegrating “New World Order” presents a unique opportunity to open the trap in which the Unipolar hegemony holds Europe captive: Greece is undoubtedly a crack in the hitherto impenetrable armor that continues to cover Europe, which is governed by globalization. For strategic reasons (control of the Mediterranean, weakening of Pan-Orthodoxy), Greece was absorbed into the basic structures that at an early stage maintained the globalizing-nihilistic supremacy in Europe (NATO 1952, EU 1981, Eurozone 2002), despite the country’s obvious incompatibility with the rest of the West 2.
In essence, Greece became an “honorary member” of the West, despite the blatant inconsistency of Greek national interests with Western “values” and Western “purposes”. As the socio-economic pressure resulting from the all-out challenge of the Unipolar hegemon of the West against the emerging Multipolar East (open war in Ukraine and the Middle East plus aggressive interventionism in the Far East and Sub-Saharan Africa) begins to weigh on the West, it stands to reason that Greece may well be the first link to break the chains of globalization that continue to hold Europe. If the Multipolar Movement manages to win Greece over, a significant rupture will be achieved in the supposedly impenetrable, but now increasingly empty, globalized “Fortress Europe”.
A significant role in Greece’s transition from Unipolarity to Multipolarity can be played by the intensely repressed but remarkably resilient and far-right (patriotic-identitarian) movements of Greece. In contrast to other Western countries, where any anti-globalization populist sentiment is constantly diverted by the “political nationalist” orientation of the masses, in Greece both the far-left and far-right movements have managed to gain a degree of real political influence, even despite the intense psychological warfare campaign of the mainstream media and the open financial blackmail by the globalizing banking cartel. Before the far-right Golden Dawn party was definitively neutralized (respectively through establishment appropriation and legal prosecution), it represented a real challenge to Greece’s ruling plutocracy, threatening Greece’s faith in the globalizing “institutions-letters” (EU-ECB-IMF-NATO) throughout the decade of the financial crisis.
Although these de facto populist resistances were ultimately defeated, their suppression by the globalizing-nihilist regime came at a heavy price: a complete loss of public trust in the political class, in the mechanism of “global governance” and in the neoliberal economic model, a loss of trust that is particularly pronounced among the younger generation, the large self-employed class and the new bourgeois “precarious”.
For now, Greece’s continued adherence to globalist “institutions first” is extremely precarious: the fact that it continues is solely due to the collective state of fear and disorientation caused by the globalists’ neo-totalitarian “Covid Coup.” More importantly, however, is the state of public apathy caused by the simple lack of an alternative sociopolitical vision. But it also means that Greece’s ongoing cultural limbo continues to offer a real opportunity for multipolar strategists: an authentic alternative sociopolitical vision, articulated with sufficient conviction to appeal to the thoroughly disaffected dissidents of Greece’s elite and communicated with sufficient charisma to inspire Greece’s thoroughly alienated masses, can serve as the proverbial match in the powder keg.
The Multipolar World Movement seems to be able to offer Greece an authentic alternative socio-political vision in the form of the neo-Eurasian model of the “Fourth Political Theory”, developed by the leading representative of this model, the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. This model offers a synthetic, “Archaic-Futuristic” alternative to the failed historical-material ideologies of Socialism, Fascism and Liberalism, and states the necessity of recreating viable, “post-postmodern” (inspired by tradition) social structures and restoring authentic, “post-globalization” (reestablishing sovereignty) modes of governance.
Russia-centered neo-Eurasianism aims to offer the perfect cure for Greece’s current “identity crisis” as a “failed member” of the West, as well as a perfect destination for its age-old quest to restore its state sovereignty, which has been suspended since the Fall of Constantinople (1459 AD). It aims to offer Greece a restored cultural destiny, which has so far been thwarted by the psycho-historical Westernization imposed by the elites and the socio-political “Frankocracy” imposed by the Atlanticists.
This treatment and destination would entail a reinvention – and re-presentation – of the repressed but unforgettable neo-Byzantine vision of Greece, adapted to the current conditions of realist politics, under the auspices of the Multipolar World Movement and in accordance with the balance of power vision of Neo-Eurasianism. Obviously, the narrowly nationalist and irredentist interpretation of the neo-Byzantine vision of Greece, which became more tangible in the concept of the Great Idea in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is incompatible with the sovereign rights of Greece’s modern neighbors, and above all Turkey, which has its own, neo-imperial vision. The attempt of the Hellenic Kingdom after World War I to unilaterally impose the concept of the Great Idea as part of the broader Atlantic “peace agreement” (of the victors), resulted in the destruction and uprooting of the multi-thousand-year-old Greek presence in Asia Minor at the end of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922.
With the advent of “World Multipolarity”, the hitherto irresistible power structure of the “New World Order” of the Unipolar hegemon, which essentially kept European regional geopolitics frozen for more than three quarters of a century, is now beginning to melt. Still, just as the spring sun melts the winter snow and the seeds in the soil come back to life, so now the kinetic war raging across Ukraine and the Holy Land (Gaza-Israel) is awakening geopolitical science and political philosophy from decades of hibernation imposed by globalization. Forgotten visions and ideas that were considered “taboo” are returning to consciousness and life.
Since the spring of 2024, as brave soldiers and freedom fighters have continued to advance fighting among the scorched battlefields of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, turning the slow retreat of the New World Order into its complete defeat, so now the “swordsmen of the mind”, geopoliticians, philosophers and strategists, must step forward and face the enemy, engaging in another, but equally dangerous, multidimensional battlefield, namely the field of “worldview war”.*
But before doing so, the warriors of the pen must pay tribute to the wielders of the sword who since February 2022 have “shaped the battlefield” for them (Russian Invasion of Ukraine). Since then, many brave soldiers and freedom fighters have sacrificed their lives, health and happiness to give the thinkers and writers of the Neo-Eurasian and Multipolar World Movements this unique opportunity to design and shape a better future for all humanity – under the banner of Golden Byzantium.
NOTES
A. The “Geosophical principle” generally refers to a basic concept or fundamental idea that connects the physical Earth (geos) with human societies, knowledge, and well-being (sophia). This concept involves the integration of natural sciences with social sciences, for a deeper and more accurate understanding and to promote the balanced, sustainable, and peaceful development of human civilization.
The geosophical principle includes:
- Integration of disciplines: It bridges the gaps between the natural sciences (such as biology, physics, and geology) and the social sciences (such as economics and sociology).
- Sustainability and evolution: It emphasizes the idea of evolutionary design, which integrates natural and artificial systems to ensure sustainability for both the environment and human society.
- Human-nature connection: It firmly affirms that humans are part of nature, with their immediate environment, or “nest,” belonging to them.
- Balanced development: The principle promotes a harmonious and peaceful development of human society by guiding the rational use of resources and the creation of a better future.
- Application of fundamental laws: It seeks to apply fundamental physical and biological laws, such as thermodynamics and the “construction law” (proposed by Adrian Bejan in 1996), to understand and guide the complex interactions between nature and human systems.
*The author wishes here to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Persian-American philosopher Jason Reza Jorjani to the political-philosophical reassessment of the principle of “world-theoretical war” B.
B. “Worldview warfare” refers to conflicts centered on fundamentally different belief systems, where the goal is to attack, defend, or reshape an adversary’s core beliefs to gain strategic advantage. This concept manifests itself in two main ways: either as a geopolitical struggle that uses propaganda and information operations to manipulate narratives and destabilize adversaries, or as a theological construct that describes a cosmic spiritual battle between God and Satan, where evil deeds are not part of God’s plan but are the work of opposing forces.
1. Worldview Warfare in Geopolitics
Goal: To undermine an adversary’s will to fight by attacking their core beliefs, ideologies, and narratives.
Methods: The use of disinformation, propaganda, psychological operations, and narrative control.
Battlefield: Both the physical and ideological realms, with the primary goal of fighting for narrative control.
Examples: Russia’s disinformation campaigns aim to weaken Westerners by cultivating distrust and confusion.
2. Worldview Warfare in Theology
Basic Idea: The belief that the world is locked in a spiritual war between God and Satan, with human and angelic beings aligned on either side. Purpose: To explain the existence of evil and suffering by attributing it to human or demonic opposition to God, rather than to part of God’s plan or lack of His power.
Biblical Basis: This concept has its roots in the Bible, which depicts God’s battle with Satan and argues that the possibility of evil is necessary for the existence of genuine love between potential beings.
Basic Pattern: American theologian, Anabaptist pastor, and author Greg Boyd is the most prominent proponent of this theological view, which contrasts with what he calls a “plan-based worldview” in which everything is part of God’s plan.
1. “Sailing to Byzantium,” a poem by the great Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), reflects on the difficulty of keeping one’s soul alive in a fragile, failing human body. The speaker, an elderly man, leaves behind the land of youth for a visionary quest in Byzantium, the ancient city that was an important center of early Christianity. There, he hopes to learn how to transcend his mortality and become something more, like an immortal work of art.
The speaker introduces readers to a world that has no place for the elderly. It is a world in which young lovers embrace under trees full of songbirds (who seem oblivious to their mortality), the waters teem with schools of fish, and every living creature—whether man, fish, or bird—is born and then dies. Everything in this land is so absorbed in the moment that it cannot pay any attention to the things that might outlive the flesh.
An old man in this world is nothing more than a weak, miserable scarecrow, unless he can keep his soul alive, lively, and singing within his weakened, worn-out body. No one can teach the soul to do this: the person who wants to keep his soul alive must understand it through his own study. For this reason, the speaker has made a journey across the ocean to the ancient holy city of Byzantium.
The speaker addresses the long-dead sages and saints of Byzantium, who are now trapped in the glorious fire of God, which is like the beautiful golden tiles that adorn Byzantine churches. He asks them to come out of this fire, which swirls in spirals like bobbins of a wind, and to teach his soul to sing. He wants them to burn away his mortal, fleshly heart, which is bound to his weakened body and cannot understand or accept its own mortality, and to raise him to the eternal world of their art.
When he leaves his body behind, the speaker says, he will not again take on a mortal physical form. Instead, it will be a beautiful golden work of art, something that goldsmiths in ancient Greece might have made to hang in an emperor’s bedroom. Or it will be a golden bird placed on a golden tree, where, like the wise men, it can teach people its eternal and otherworldly wisdom – its transcendent understanding of the past, present, and future.
2. The Greek-Canadian-American historian Lefter Stavros Stavrianos (1913–2004), academic (Northwestern University, USA) and follower of the British historian Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), wrote in 1972, (“Greece in a Revolutionary Period. Forty Years of Struggle”), that “the first lesson that history teaches us is that Greece is an underdeveloped country and therefore part of the Third World”, and Toynbee, who had published in 1922, the much-acclaimed book on the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 (“The Western Question in Greece and Turkey. A Study in the Contact of Civilizations”), had also placed Greece in the Third World as a victim of the West, which he condemned. as a whole as a failed civilization.
