➡ The text discusses the historical divergence of Western and Russian societies, tracing it back to the Middle Ages and the rise of nominalism. It suggests that Western society lost its roots in Christian and Greco-Roman traditions, leading to a decline. The text also discusses the concept of mercantilism and its potential to promote domestic industry and economy, particularly in large countries with sovereign currency. It concludes by suggesting that a return to these principles could help societies, like the United States, regain their greatness.

➡ The text discusses the importance of economic nationalism and mercantilism, using the United States and China as examples. It suggests that these countries have succeeded by focusing on their own industrial development and innovation. The text also discusses the concept of ‘reterritorialization’, which involves returning political and economic power to regional levels. It argues that this is a necessary step for countries to maintain their sovereignty and independence in the face of globalization.

➡ The speaker believes that the European Union needs to unify based on traditional values to regain its power and independence. They argue that the current liberal elites are eroding European identity by promoting liberal ideologies and encouraging immigration. The speaker also discusses the rise of China as a global power, suggesting that the U.S. needs to understand China’s structures and society better to maintain its own economic sovereignty. They propose that China and Russia could be potential allies for the U.S. against domestic and European liberals.

➡ Steve had a long, enjoyable conversation with Professor Dugan and thanked him for his time, expressing that it was an honor to talk with him.

The higher the tariff is very safe. It’s inversely proportional. The higher the tariff, the faster they come. And, yeah, we’re going to be doing that. That’s going to be like we have on cars. We have, as you know, 25% tariff on cars. We have a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum. And that’s what that category fits right now. Do you have a percentage in mind? You have a timeline? I have a timeline, yeah. Not too distant future. We’re doing it because we want to make our own drugs. We’re doing it because we want to make our own steel and aluminum.

We’ve never seen anything like this. That’s how one writer at the New York Times described the last several weeks. Axios had the recent headline, Trump’s Mega Maga Month Transforms America. And Politico wrote, quote, Since January 20th, Trump has reshaped everything from the workings of America’s federal government to its relations with allies and foes overseas, from its approach to war and peace to its stances on trade and foreign aid. And he shows no signs of slowing down. There is a growing consensus that we are in the midst of something historic. Both defenders and detractors alike are admitting the election of Donald Trump was not simply a political event.

It was a geopolitical revolution of epic proportions. But years ago, one geopolitical theorist recognized the potential global significance of Trump right at the time that most people on this side of the aisle were all more or less laughing at him. Alexander Dugan has long observed that a Trump presidency most certainly could spell the end of the liberal international order that reigned unchallenged for the last 30 years. And now, nearly a decade later, with the return of Trump, and indeed with the dismantling of the liberal globalist order, those observations have been completely vindicated. Professor Dugan is back with us today to discuss his brand new book, the Trump Revolution, A New Order of Great Power Politics, which explores the extraordinary significance of the return of Trump, the dismantling of the liberal globalist order, and the rise of a multipolar civilizationalist world.

Professor Dugan, welcome back. It is always an honor to have you here with us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Back in 2016, leading up to Trump’s first term, you already recognize that there was a significant geopolitical shift happening, one that I didn’t think any other analysts saw. You’ve long argued that the world has always been comprised of two global powers, land power and sea power, where land powers are more conservative and traditionalist, while sea powers are literally More fluid in their moral values. But you saw almost 10 years ago with the first coming of Trump, a dramatic shift happening in terms of how these powers are distributed.

Can you, can you explain that? So exactly that was for the first time during first term of President Trump when I have, I have seen the electoral map of United States of America. And when I analyzed the position of Trump rejecting liberal globalist agenda of the Democrats, but as well not too eager to accept neocons strategy, that was the right version of the same globalism. So that was something new in my eyes. And when I considered this electoral map, when the states in the center flyover zone, so called rusted belt of United States of America watered almost all of them for Trump and short sides coastal area voted against him in favor of Democrats and in favor of Hillary Clinton.

So I had a vision, a kind of vision, I would say a vision of new geopolitical map emerging under our eyes. So the classical geopolitics or something like as you have already explained, sea power against land power, that’s from the time of Mackinder or Spigman, not much have changed in that. So that was more or less the same. The liquid society of Sigmund Baumann against fixed conservative society of Russia, represented by Eurasia, Eurasia as the matrix of the tradition of the conservatism that was more or less the working, working hypothesis, working map during more than century, I think.

And everything including Cold War or these two geopolitical issues of Nazi Germany, everything was inscribed in this bipolar vision. Cold War wasn’t the first version of this bipolar. Cold War was just continuation of this land power against sea power vision. And for the first time I think that is the only, only correction of geopolitics, only really new element idea that struck me that now we have some, some shift from global and classical classical geopolitics. And I have called that approximatively distributed heartland, the doctrine of distributed heartland, because, and that is the real geopolitics of multipolar world, where not national states but civilizational emerge and the emergence of great space of gross realm dear to Carl Schmidt.

And there is no, no more, only one heartland, Russian heartland, Eurasian heartland. There are new emerging heartlands in the plural that we are dealing with now. And Trump’s America was one of them. So the heartland and sea power, they became something like inner poles of tension. So we have, for example in Russia, we had now not so much our liberals that represented sea power and conservative powers, Putin, who is representative of the land power in China as well. There Are the segment of globalists, but as well the conservative, much more nationalist, we could say civilizational power represented by citizen Pin the same with Modi, because Rahul Gandhi is a kind of sea power inside of India and Modi is land power of India.

Make India great again. And I have identified such emergence, emergence of the land power inside of United States of America. That was very important. I have identified it immediately after the victory of Trump in the first term and after this picture was a bit blurred, blurred by some compromises by influence of neocons, some absence of coherency in Trump’s first term. But when he came for the second time this time, that was not just guessing. That was confirmation of this important shift of global geopolitics. Now we are in the multipolar world and United States of America doesn’t represent anymore the stronghold, headquarter of globalism, of expansion of liberal democracy, wokeeism, LGBT and so on.

But just one of these poles, maybe the greatest one, but among the other. So that is the first among the equals. So that is totally different. It is not globalist vision of absence of the poles, only one global government, only one network of liberals promoting work agenda and so on. Now it is totally different. Different. There is, there are distributed heartlands and one of the greatest, greatest heartlands is United States of America with Trump. So you are now welcome to the club. Welcome of land powers. It’s an honor. It’s an honor. We have much to learn.

I appreciate that. And I think it also explains Trump’s I, I love this distributed heartland thesis because I think it explains a lot of Trump sort of, you know, goading Canada’s the 51st state and bringing in, bringing in Greenland. It is, it’s, it is very land oriented. You meant, you mentioned how there, there have been some fringe factions in Russia and China that are, are more sea power Atlanticist like, but they’re much more fringe. The land powers fully establish itself there. It reminded me of the book by John Anderson, professor of international politics at St. Andrews, and he wrote a very interesting book called Conservative Christian Politics in Russia and the United States, where he compared our Christian politics in our two countries.

And he made just a very interesting observation. I’m curious your opinion on it. He said that while the culture war in America is a civil war, the culture war woke values, LGBT and so forth. In Russia is more like a foreign invasion. So there’s a different enemy. In a sense, for us, it’s an enemy within. But for Russia, China, India tends to be more an enemy from Outside. Would you agree with that? Absolutely. That’s very correct remark. You know, we have now going to establish in Russia new discipline. We call it Westernology. Westernology. So that starts was the idea to regard Western civilization not as something universal, but just one of the civilizations.

And when we study that, we could accept some aspect, we could reject the other. But there is nothing, there is nothing obligatory, universal or in Western Western culture. That is, the Western culture is for the Westerners, that is good or bad, it’s up to you to decide. And the west was imposed on Russia. So we had not the same premises, we didn’t have the same conditions, cultural, spiritual, religious conditions, to arrive to something that is more or less like the Western modernity. All the modernity was a kind of import for us. The modernity is not and never was domestic.

So Westernology is necessary to us to measure what is authentically Russian, Christian, Orthodox, Byzantine tradition, hierarchy, conservatism and many other things. And what was imported from the west or imposed by the west during different periods, not only in the last decades, during 20th century communism was import of the Western ideas. So starting probably Peter the Great, we started to accept these elements of West. And the difference, I think that modernity is Western phenomenon. And Western society has arrived to this post Christian and anti Christian modernity by the inner inherent logic of. I trace that from the quarrel of universals, where nominalism started to take shape.

And after that, on the first stage, in the Middle Age, nominalism was rejected, but it was accepted in the beginning of the post Christian, post Middle Ages modernity. So the history of the west it is only the history of the part of the humanity. Nothing is here universal. And Russian history is original. And only Western intrusions corrupt a bit this logic of our historical development. So there are different branches of the same civilization. And I think that there was a real decline of the west, starting from the moment when the west has lost its roots in the Christian tradition, in the Greco Roman heritage.

And we, in spite of all we’ve tried to conserve the same, the same common to us, but common in the Middle Ages and in the first period of Christianity. So we have different. The main hieroglyph of the Westernology is Y, the letter Y. So Russia after the Great Schism went in one direction, following Byzantium. Byzantium and Western Europe went into the different direction. And they. And we started. We’ve started to separate more and more and more and more. And that was a kind of division, not only of the churches, but division of cultures, societies, civilizations. So if we need to make such comparison.

We are very similar in the roots and we are very different, maybe antagonistic. And the branches and the last stages and what Trump makes, he tries to reverse the logic of the Western history. That is fantastic. That is a kind of eschatological event we could hardly imagine. It is not just correction, it is reversal. It is not just to make small adjustment. No, it is something that is revolution. Conservative. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely fundamental. I. I remember you tweeted something out that absolutely blew my mind. That I was just thinking of where I think you said Babel is the attempt to universalize the imminent.

Where. Whereas. Whereas our. Our true unity, the. The bottom of the why our true unity is found in the transcendence. It’s found in the spiritual, cannot be found in the imminent. The moment you try to. And what you just said just blew my mind in the sense that if you try to universalize the imminent, you’re trying to take one side of the why and impose it on the other side. Correct. Exactly. Exactly. So that is why there is this why, why letter is explanation, why we are united and why we are diverse. So that explained what points of our identity could be reduced to the same roots.

Greek, Roman, Plato, Aristotle, Christianity. All that is our common heritage. But nominalism, that is precisely the crucial point. Nominalism. Nominalism is idea that there is the things without spirit, so there could be some fact without meaning. There is atomistic. The atom is the part of nothing. It is not the part of the some whole thing, but it is the part of nothing. Atom, Atom. And that is totally a wrong concept rejected by classical Mediterranean culture that is common to you and to us. And so. And. But. And somewhere in the. In the post schism moment, during this quarrel of universal.

Some persons in France, Ross, Celine, and above all in England or William Ockham, they defended this idea that there are the order of things and it is primary and all the rest are the names. So there is no spirit, no Eddas, no form in Aristotle and sense. And that welcome to the modernity. That was the beginning of the modernity of scientifical vision of the reality of the nature. And goodbye Christianity, goodbye Christ. Transcendence as you. So that was the beginning of the materialistic imminence. Babel, Babylon. That was Babylon. And that was decline. Real big decline. And Oslo.

Spengler thought the same. So many persons, Evola or Genot, traditionalists, including Heidegger, conservative revolutionaries of the 20s and 30s in Germany and Europe, they shared this vision. They were. They didn’t pay much attention to Russia, because Russia was under communist and nobody could, could, could look through this surface or. But the idea that the West, Western, post, post Middle Ages civilization is in decline was shared by all of them. Yes, yes, brilliant. And up until Trump, it seems like we were kind of consigned to solely watch and sort of root for sort of the shattering of this Babel, this globalist empire that tried to impose this one size fits all political and economic and cultural system on all peoples.

I just read a book on Modi’s India and how the rise of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism is just the natural reaction to this foreign attempt to impose a separation of church and state, as it were. I guess temple and state that England, that Britain had imposed on India. We’re seeing the same thing with China, even with the rise of Confucianism and rethinking their communism in light of this more archaeo future ancient obviously in Iran, in persia and the 1979 revolution. Erdogan’s Turkey is pushing back against all the Sahel region in Africa, pushing out the last vestiges of French colonialism, all for the last four years.

That’s what we’ve been. Well, several more years than that. That’s what we’ve been watching while, while the, I like to call them the dolts in dc, the goofballs in DC were just sitting there going, what’s happening to our empire? But now with, with Trump now, it’s a whole different calculus. It’s a whole different situation now. And that’s what you write about in your book, the Trump Revolution. A new order of great powers. Now we’re seeing the actual center of globalism begin to go through its own kind of revolution, very similar to what, what Russia went through in the 1990s and leading up to, to Putin as a return to, to the, to the, to the bottom part of the.

Why it seems to me. I wanted to read you something you tweeted out, which I loved. By imposing tariffs, Trump has put an end to globalization. From now on, mercantilism prevails on the world scale. This is a global decoupling, another step to save the world from globalist dictatorship. There’s so much there. But in reading your book, you devote an entire chapter on this concept of decoupling and how decoupling is an opposite force from the centralizing dynamics of globalization. Could you develop that for us a bit? So interesting. So, first of all, mercantilism, it was demonized, it was mocked at, but that still was one of the main strategy of American economy during the centuries.

So it is not so so, so new mercantilism. It is idea that in order to to help to develop industry on the national scale, Domestic industry and domestic economy, you should be very. You should the state should deal with the tariffs in order not to to crash the growing growing branches of the industry. So that was that was mercantilism. Just one of the economical study eclipsed by liberalism. But that that is still working in many many countries in including in US. So interesting that studying this American mercantilism after 1776, precisely after the American war for independence from empire in the 19th century.

Friedrich List has developed the great idea of autarky of the great spaces or autarky of the big spaces. So if you have big space enough, you could close your borders and to concentrate to promote domestic industry and economy. Because if you deal with the world without the borders, economical economical borders. So the only part of the world population will grow richer and richer. And all other not will follow. They will fall in the misery. So that was the calculation of the main idea of Friedrich Lee. But he has taken this idea from the experience of United States of America.

And after that he has applied that to create one of the most successful empires, German empires. He was the main advisor of Bismarck. So that was idea of autarky of the great spaces was implemented in the creation of German empire after the that that was imitated by Russia, by other German, by Rattenau, by Lenin, by Stalin, by Vita, in the Tsaristein. So that was idea that we need to deal to deal with tariffs in order to secure and ground the dynamic of domestic industrial, industrial and economical and general sense development. In order to make this experience successful, we need two essential things.

First of all, great space. And you are absolutely right. Canada and Greenland are totally absolutely necessary indispensable to this strategy. So United States is big country, but not big enough in order to to grant this real sovereignty, real regional sovereignty. And second point, sovereign emission of currency. And that you have. So you have a big space that could become bigger. You have sovereign emission. And if you say goodbye to globalist strategy, that is a liberal strategy that is quite opposite to this mercantilistic attitude. You have huge opportunity not only to save your country, but to become first to become great again.

Because you were great. You served as the example to the best economists, European economists, German and Russian economists, a source of inspiration. American tariffs, politics, American mercantilism, American economical nationalism Was the kind of model role model for many, many successful economies in the last century. So you return to your roots in some way. So that is my appreciation of how important and how logical is everything that Trump is making now. It is good example. And if we consider China, China did exactly the same. First it assured it secured development of industrial, industrial politics inside of China.

And globalists, they have helped to the Chinese to do that because they delocalized the industry thinking they just controlling the model of production. They could be. Could be safe. But Chinese are not stupid. They are very, very wise. And they started to develop their own engineering innovations. And now they are not only could compete with United States, they are in many sectors ahead of United States. And all that. You should blame for all that globalists, liberals. And in order not to just blame, but to do something serious. That would be absolutely logic to accept this mercantilist politics.

Economic nationalism, that was the part of American economical strategy during centuries and was one of the main elements of the success of great success of American economy. It’s brilliant. I came across a term called re territorialization. It’s a cumbersome word, but I thought described this decoupling very well. I thought of your distributed heartland thesis. Re territorialization. So the author said that globalism de. Territorializes. It centralizes all political power into the hands of a global elite like DC or Brussels. And, and. And that all the movements now that we’re seeing of nationalisms and separatisms and civilizationalisms, they’re all re territorializing.

They’re all bringing back political and economic power and determination at their regional level. It’s. It seems like too. It seems like we’ve. We’ve gone farther than 2016. In 2016 it seemed like the movements were very nationalistic. So here in the United States, The MAGA, the first MAGA Trump 1.0 Le Pen in France, Matteo Salvini back then in. In Italy and it was very nationalist oriented. But it seems now, and you were, you were talking about this back then, that the world was actually going to start. It was going to start reorganizing more. Not so much around the sort of 17th century Western failing nationalism.

It was going to recalibrate, it was going to reorganize around these civilizational spheres, these great power blocks, which you’re elucidating here as great economic blocks as well. Exactly, exactly. And that is decoupling. It is the return to the autarky. So return to independence from external actors, economical actors. So maybe you develop on the high speed, maybe not on so high speed, but you should grant first of all stability and independence. So independence Is really is something that really is of absolute importance. So sovereignty, so economical sovereignty, you need first of all to conserve to save economical sovereignty.

And all the rest will follow. So that is the decoupling needs to assure these independence. And what is interesting, the term is used by Chinese they started to prepare to decoupling already some years ago. So they have taken much profit than anybody else from globalization. But they are first because they are very wise and very smart to stop that to try to recalibrate their politics in order to prepare decoupling. So they are I think much more prepared to decoupling than West. Second point you have mentioned very important is that it is not about nationalism. We need not nationalism.

It is impossible because normal national states of Westphalian world order, they are incapable to grant their sovereignty. Now the sovereignty demands something more than just formally recognized sovereignty. We need real sovereignty. And very few, very few states or groups of states could really boast to have such such sovereignty. United States of America for sure, for sure. But it is not complete. I think without Canada and Greenland, you will have the part, maybe the major part of the sovereignty, but not real sovereignty. So I think it’s so logical to index Canada and Greenland. It is not about imperialism, it is about the great power.

It’s something different. So Russia is in the same situation without Ukraine, without Belarusia, without some control over Caucasus and Central Asia. We could not be complete sovereign state. So and the borders of the Russian empires or of Soviet Union, they had nothing arbitrary. That was the feeling of political space with some supernatural power. So that was the kind of the logic dictated by the space, by re territorialization, as you have put that. So I agree with that. And that is a second so civilization state and the other who want as well to be subjects and not the objects of the politics of the global politics.

They need to do something like that to reorganize their great spaces. And I think for India as well, is inevitable to have the influence over Bangladesh, over Sri Lanka, over Nepal, not in the imperialistic way, but as unification and reintegration of the common potential, common resources, common power. So, and Europe, for example, now European Union is something terrible, it’s something awful because it’s the last stronghold of the globalists, of liberals and Carthage Cartago the land it should be destroyed. But I think that order based on the national states in Europe will not work at all. So sooner or later, in order to make Europe great again, as Elon Musk has, has said in his tweet.

So if we seriously want to great Europe, maybe We don’t want it at all. So let us have another thing. But if we want, if we are sincere in our will and our desire to make Europe great again, we need to promote and support unification of Europe based on the France, Germany, but not Macron’s France, not Merz Germany. So if they are so hostile as today against us and against you as well, not in a growing measure, European Union, because they represent a kind of phantom pain of the globalist system, they hate Trump as much as Putin now, I think.

So we should not be too, we shouldn’t care too much about European Union. But nevertheless, on the level of the reality, if they want to be sovereign, they should stay united if they will. And so that, that could be a European great space. And they have demography, they, they have economy enough, enough to, to, to be civilizational state. But the ideology they promote now and they share now is absolutely incompatible with that. So we need to change radically the ruling class and the European ideology for quite opposite, for something much more close to Trumpism or Putinism.

So without Trump and Putin, no Europe, I think so they, they fall. Either they follow us or they are doomed. Yes. Yeah. I was just going to ask you what you thought the future of the EU was with this, with, with President Trump basically turning his back on them and von der Leyen conceding to pretty much everything he wants. They’re trying to stop elections. Somebody pointed out that, you know, Russia’s had more elections than Romania and Ukraine and France of late. Ironically, Georgesku Le Pen. They’re threatening afd. I love what you say. So here in the United States, it’s a quick sort of knee jerk.

Oh, just get rid of the eu. Just get rid of Brussels, get rid of the eu. You have a much more nuanced take on that. Well, yeah, let’s get rid of this globalist micro system that they tried to set up, this administrative state that then they wanted to export on the rest of the world. Yeah, we get rid of that, but we do need a point of unification, almost like a Holy Roman Empire kind of structure in Europe at the same time. But it’s going to have to be civilizational. I always thought globalism isn’t so much a civilization, it’s a system.

It’s a system of politics and a system of corporate capitalism and, you know, in a system of wokeness and the like. Whereas it seems like you’re arguing Europe has to reject that. Yes, and it seems like they’re going to have to reject that since the United States isn’t backing them anymore. And Trump supported Brexit. He seems to really want to dismantle the eu. But there still has to be, there still has to be that distributed heartland. There still has to be a center there. And that center must be civilizationalist, traditionalist and fully European. Am I following you correctly? Absolutely, absolutely.

So there are two levels pragmatical one short term. So maybe you and us, we are interested in the end of EU and dismantling of that Brexit, Brexit exit attacks it and so on. But that will transform Europe in the frontiers in kind of Ukraine, where some other great powers will compete. So they. And I don’t want the destiny of Ukraine to nobody. Because there is a kind of frontier and rebellion rebellious, rebellious frontier. So there is a mixture the bridge between different civilizations. And if it could save its identity, it need take in consideration the other global powers and to finally compromise.

If they side with one global power, the other revenges. So that is very, very awkward and very unstable and very unlucky position to be. Frontier, frontier, border, border zone between great powers. So in order to be subject, subject and not the object of the history, European Union somehow should imagine its heartland because there are so many. There were from de Gaulle, from Germans, French New Right, French New Right, Noel Druat of the, of Alain de Benoit. They have developed and elaborated very, very the excellent program of unification of Europe based on the traditional values. But now they are much in retard comparing with us.

So no, I. I think that maybe so in the long term. I would, I would, I. I would like to. To see Europe independent, united, great again and with traditional values, with Christianity. But they need to destroy all these woke LGBT liberalism elites, ruling elites, because they are just perverts. They are freaks and mentally ill persons. Men and women thought that is catastrophic. Elite. There is absolutely suicidal ideology because they bring more and more migrants in order to erode identity, normal identity, to cut the roots. So they destroy Europe so not ourselves. Trump and Putin are friends of Europe.

I would like to stress maybe one point. Speaking with some persons on network with Americans. I have remarked some of them very patriotic, very pro Trump. They still are afraid of the comparison between Putin and Trump. They think that this comparison could damage the image of Trump. So it is wrong way. So don’t have fear. So if you, if you see something important and good in Iran, in, in Houthi, in in Russia and North Korea, in China. Yeah, yeah. Yes you should. The real, the real really strong leaders, they accept that. They accept that. So they, they Try to, to, to assimilate all, everything that makes them stronger.

So I think that, so we should be afraid of comparisons of such comparisons. So to compare Putin and Trump, it is special story. I don’t want to go this way. But it a priori, it is not something that could damage the image of both of them. So we should be open to that. And for example, the similarity of the position towards Europe from one side, from United States of America and from Russia on other sides, that doesn’t discredit in anything both of us. So demonization of Putin was just instrumental for liberals and globalists and directed against Trump as we know.

So demonization of Trump is the other thing. So if we don’t believe, for example, if Americans now normal Americans don’t believe anymore the perverted image of Trump promoted by legacy media, but why believe the negative image of Putin promoted by the same. So we could not believe legacy media at half. Everything they they say about us is correct. Everything they they are saying about Trump is wrong. So no, everything they say is wrong. Everything. If they blame someone that is presumably good person. So if they are against, against Iran, Iran should be, Iran should be good.

So yes, I like, I mean whenever we get bad polls or something, I always have to remind our audience. You mean the same pollsters that told us that Kamala was going to be the next president and win by a landslide? Stop listening to these people. Turn them off, be done with them. You said something there that’s very interesting to me, particularly in relation to China, the way China was able to adopt capitalistic practices, economic practices in their own unique Confucian outworking. I wanted to ask, and then, and then it’s it. This also relates to about Americans and our particular perception of other countries.

And I’m thinking particularly of China. And you did. Do you, you have a chapter on here where you, where you talk about winners and losers in this more civilizationalist or not even the civilizationalist world, but more with Trump and the coming of Trump as we’re entering in this more civilizational multipolar world. You do rightly point out that Americans are still very suspicious about China and they’re very suspicious that China is trying to replace America as the new unipolar power in the world. You’ve long been a student of China. You’ve seen and I think in many ways you predicted their Confucian re civilizationalist rise.

So how do you see the relationship between China and the United States developing in a world of great power politics? So first of all, China Is without any doubts already great power. It is not the would be great power. It is established full scale in any senses. It is the great power. So realistically you should take that in consideration. And if China is a great power, so and America is going to reaffirm itself as great power and the great power, number one, I think that you need not to deal with the slogans or. Or the images, but just realistic calculation.

I think that China has used double, double politics, double edged politics. Because they used globalization and economical liberalism. And they at the same time reinforced during all this recent periods and above all after the coming to the power of Xi Jinping. They at the same time reinforce their domestic sovereign sovereignty. So they didn’t pay the price for globalization weakening their domestic economy. And American liberals they did precisely that. They have weakened, weakened. They made weaker their economy promoting on the global scale these liberal networks in economy as well. So they, they. They did wrong and Chinese did well.

So you can blame Chinese for that, but better blame yourself. So that is my. My idea. So they got everything they. They think is rational and they prove they are they quite right. So concerning their. Their politics, I think exactly as you have mentioned. So when we see macroeconomical or macro level of Chinese society and micro level, we couldn’t understand anything. It seems that this totalitarian system, if we take in consideration Confucianist ethics, I.e. governing power of the masses and some the model role model for elite, we acquire immediately different different picture of everything. So we are dealing with caricature.

We don’t understand the real nature of what China is. So if we seriously want, I want to talk to build global powers or world order, we need start to get out of these illusions. So we need to take China seriously China. But at the same time China has penetrated in American economy so deep. So I think the depth of this penetration is incompatible with economical sovereignty of United States already now. But if this continues, I think that will make United States totally dependent from China in very, very, so very short future. So I think that Trump now has some realist reasons to revise relations of previous administrations with China.

So China is great, respectful, successful, very fast growing economy and global power. But at the same time there should be for United States deserves to be not less and to reassure it secure its own growth. So that doesn’t mean hostility with China. But that doesn’t mean to follow everything liberals did, because they obviously did wrong to American economy. So I understand in certain elements the reasons of some of some or rising of some cinephobia. But I think that everything should be in good proportions, the measure. So the main value, it is measure. So it is Greek and Roman.

So if you get out of the context of measure, it, you become you, you, you become some, some perverted person. So liberals has no idea what measure, Right? Yeah. Moderation. Right, Moderation. Moderation, yeah. So there are some, some natural limits of behavior. For example, the limits in the ethics in the war, in the peace, in the relation and the tolerance and the love in the friendship. So if you violate these limits, there’s borders, ethical borders. You commit some very important ethical sin. So I think it is not about friendship or hostility with China. But first of all, United States should acquire the correct understanding or what China is.

What are the real structures, working structure of this Very, very interesting and very traditional in many sense of society. But that doesn’t mean that they should be totally accepted or imitated. So you should first of all understand China. And I think that now, when Trump is fighting, still fighting against domestic liberals, they’re burning Teslas, making, making rallies against him and against the liberal liberals in the European Union. I think that China should be considered, at least at short term, as the ally, because China doesn’t support liberals, it follows its own way. So China since then of Xi Jinping, Russia, of Putin, they are in my opinion, two most reliable allies of, of Trump in the present situation.

So until Trump wins irreversibly, liberals inside of us and will finish with eu, liberal elites of eu, until that moment, it is very dangerous to start or some conflict with China or with Russia. So until at least until that moment, and maybe later, other global powers are less the enemies of Trump than globalist. Silver is strong inside of Western hemisphere. Yes, yes again, gang. It’s all here in this wonderful book. Everyone make sure you get the book. The Trump Revolution, A New Order of Great Powers, the newest book by Professor Alexander Dugan. You can get your copy and a number of Professor Dugan’s insightful and wonderful studies just by clicking on the link below.

Professor Dugan, like I said, I could talk to you for hours. I know I would wear you down. You’d have to kick me out. But I could just sit and listen to you forever. Thank you so much for your time again, sir. It was an absolute honor. There you are welcome. Thank you very much. Best wishes, Steve. Best wishes to.
[tr:tra].

See more of Dr. Steve Turley on their Public Channel and the MPN Dr. Steve Turley channel.