The Great Reset and the Clash of Civilizatiopns

Richard K. Moore – 1 February 2022

Share this article:
            
Visit my blog: cyberjournal.org

The Clash formula for world order

In 1996, Samuel P. Huntington published a landmark book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington was part of Washington's think-tank establishment. The ideas in the book cannot be Huntington’s alone, but surely grew out of high-level discussions among those involved in policy formation. In these discussions they were seeking to formulate a more stable geopolitical order. What they came up with is intriguing. Huntington describes in his book the nature of the envisioned order, something we can refer to as the Clash formula for world order.

The book was widely read in Washington. It was reported that everyone in the State Department was talking about The Clash. The ideas in the book found their way into the ongoing conversations among those concerned with policy formation or with strategic thinking. At the time, the formula got a lot of attention, but did it have any long-term influence?

Although no one today mentions the book or its formula, there is considerable evidence that the ideas took root in top-policy circles. In this posting I will review some of the geopolitical and cultural developments since the book was published, and show how they are moving us into the implementation of that formula.

Huntington begins by presenting us with a map of the world divided into seven ‘civilizations', based on ethnic and cultural characteristics of the various regions. These are his seven civilizations (there is also an African region, but evidently it isn’t considered to be a civilization):

Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin-American.

And here is how they appear on the map:

There is considerable validity, I believe, in Huntington’s identifying civilizational distinctions among our various ethnicities and cultures, and his map of the relevant regions seems right to me. If we take this as a map of the current world order, then we need to recognize that it is an unstable order. The boundaries of the regions are not stable, as we’ve seen with the eastern expansion of NATO. Military interventions across regional boundaries have destabilized whole nations, as in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

The Clash formula is aimed at stabilizing this diverse world order by transforming both the nature of the regions and the relationship among the regions. The formula requires that the boundaries between the regions be stabilized, and calls for each ‘civilization’ to have a high degree of autonomy in managing its internal affairs. It also calls for each civilization to have a regional hegemon, a strong-man nation with the capability of maintaining order in its region.

In effect, the formula is calling for the creation of military blocs, each managing its own affairs, and each respecting the borders that separate them. If these conditions could actually be established, then the geopolitical system would presumably be much more stable than the system we have today. There might be unrest and conflict within regions, but those could be expected to remain confined to the territory of the region.

So far this all seems to be very stable. Assuming we’d have smooth trade exchanges among regions, we might have a harmonious world. To the architects of Clash, however, such a world could be too harmonious. The interests of the globalist cabal must be central to any new global order, and those interests require tensions in the world, tensions that provides the opportunity to employ standard divide-and-rule tactics.

In their Remaking of World Order, the Clash architects call for the distinctions between the civilizations to be emphasized. In effect they are calling for civilizations to move toward fundamentalism. The more one civilization is radicalized, the more the others would be pushed toward their own radicalization. Just as we see now in the split between the red and blue states in America. Each side becomes more radicalized out of fear and rejection of what is seen as the other side’s increasing extremism.

In order to provide the tensions essential to cabal control, the Clash formula implicitly calls for a program of initiatives aimed at radicalizing the populations of the emerging civilizations. There have in fact been many such initiatives, and they have been remarkably successful. Even while the Clash architecture was being discussed in think-tank land, the CIA was already engaged in radicalizing the Muslim world by creating the Taliban Later they expanded their radicalization initiatives, giving us Al Qaeda and ISIS.

These jihadist groups provided a handy pool of mercenary terrorists for use in destabilization actions, such as in Kosovo, Libya, and Syria. These initiatives of the US, along with its invasions of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, have all served to radicalize Muslim populations and to convert secularized Arab states into radicalized Muslim states. In the Muslim world, the Clash formula’s call for radicalization has been realized.

Let’s now turn our attention to Russia and China. Each is a perfect example of a regional power seeking to have more control over its regions affairs. China, for example, claims to have a special status in the South China Sea, and strongly resents the US Navy’s ‘freedom of navigation’ incursions. Russia, for its part, feels threatened by NATO’s eastward expansion and seeks to have more control over its region’s security arrangements. In effect, Russia and China are both struggling to fulfill the Clash formula, to become regional hegemons with the freedom to manage affairs in their region.

Why is the US, in the case of Russia and China, working against the Clash formula, rather than encouraging it? Why does Washington systematically challenge and oppose the prerogatives of these regional powers? Here, I suggest, the US is playing a deep game. With its sanctions and its provocations the US has not weakened the two powers, but has rather strengthened their self-sufficiency and pushed them into alliance around their common interests.

By its provocative actions, the US is demonstrating to Russia and China that they need more regional autonomy. The US is goading them into standing up for their essential interests. Indeed, the remade global order must be wrested from Washington, not granted as a gift. No one would trust a global system if it were set up under the leadership of the US, with its long record of imperialist activities and political intrigue.

Just this past week the US initiated discussions with both Russia and China. With Russia the US wanted to discuss Ukraine, and with China the US wanted to encourage China to advise Russia not to invade Ukraine. In both cases the discussion took a quite different turn. Russia dismissed Ukraine as the main issue, and turned the discussion to the need for new European security arrangements. Rather than rejecting this expansion of the discussion, the US agreed to look at Russia’s proposals, and to respond to them in writing. Meanwhile, the Chinese representative rejected Washington’s suggestion and began lambasting the US representative with a tirade, saying the US should respect Russia’s security needs in the region.

It was as if the US representatives had been sent unprepared into the Lion’s Den. The question of regional security and autonomy is now on the international table for discussion, which is the last thing anyone expected from US-initiated discussions with Russia or China. It is 180 degrees away from US policy up until now. Earlier I said the US is playing a deep game. Actually it is the globalist cabal who is playing the deep game, and the US is just one of the pieces on the board. My guess is that Russia and China knew full well that this would be the right time for them to stand their ground.

If I were a journalist, I might hav titled these writings, “Breaking News: Long-ignored plan for remaking world order has suddenly come up for serious international discussion”. The obvious question here is, why now? And the answer to that is: the Great Reset.

The Great Reset

They essentially told us at their recent meeting of the World Economic Forum, that now is the time everything is going to change, that the globalist agenda is going to be launched. At the same time, we were getting a lesson on how quickly and decisively they could make things change, and I refer here of course to the lockdowns and the successful program of getting millions of people to inject experimental, gene-altering ‘vaccines’. The cabal exercised the same degree of control over the global population that Rev. Jim Jones exercised over the members of the People’s Temple, when he got them to drink toxic kool aid. The point of the lesson: fasten your seat belt, anything goes!

Once the train leaves the station, it rapidly picks up speed. All it took was two phone calls from US representatives, and already the cabal’s plan for global order is under discussion, strongly backed by two of the major powers. Given that the global financial system is a house of cards, it would be child’s play to engineer a collapse. The Fed’s recent decision to stop giving away free money could well be part of such engineering. After a total collapse, a new system can be cleanly installed. According to the WEF, we will own nothing, and we will be happy. Somehow that reminds me of the Soviet Union.

One of the most pernicious of the Great Reset plans calls for the destruction of the family, with children to be raised under control of the state. This agenda is being frontlined in the US, under cover of the trans movement. When parents can be punished for preventing their under-age child from undergoing hormone treatments, the handwriting is on the wall. What next? Perhaps we’ll need to pass a political-correctness test before we’re allowed to take our baby home from the hospital. The parent-punishment case I mentioned above would provide a perfect precedent to justify such a policy. Perhaps we’ll see a Ted Talk, explaining why the family itself is not politically correct, that it perpetuates a system in which children have no rights, and parents can get by with arbitrary tyranny and abuse: “Save the Children!” (and a new hash tag would be launched).

It is important to notice that all of these developments appear to be driven from the bottom up. Russia and China challenging established security arrangements, populations demanding this or that cultural or political change, etc. The powers that be, it seems, go along only reluctantly, ‘responding’ to popular will. All the time, however, the Clash’s cultural radicalization program has been proceeding. Tensions have been intensified and exploited, ensuring that ‘popular will’ will move in certain directions. This is how divide and rule works. The herds then gather in pastures prepared for them by the cabal. The art of mind control is very advanced these days.