The Fake Dualism between Progressives and Conservatives
In recent decades, the ruling elites of Europe and America have merged. A single transnational oligarchy now controls both the US and EU governments, aiming to maintain Western dominance. While the EU has expanded its power by weakening the authority of individual states, US-led Euro-Atlantic integration has grown stronger. The European Union’s founding fathers hoped to create a geopolitical power independent of the United States and the Soviet Union, but that did not happen.
The dream of an autonomous Europe is just rhetoric and a manipulation of public opinion. The low trade tariffs regime has both caused and resulted from political integration driven by the American-led West’s globalist and hegemonic ambitions. Call it “Western imperialism” if you wish.
Trump’s supporters represent a new leadership promoting a strategic alternative. They remain politically weak despite their victory in the U.S. elections. The current administration does not have full control over the Deep State. The previous American administration and the Euro-Atlantic establishment aim to sustain global dominance in areas such as economics, finance, and military power. Specifically, the military is gaining momentum, given the West’s economic, cultural, and ethical decline.
In this framework, the outdated terms “progressive” and “conservative” no longer reflect their original meanings. Instead, they now represent two factions within the same conservative project. They may argue over minor issues but agree on the core principles and do not suggest an alternative strategy. When a significant opposition (like that proposed by Trump, Le Pen, Weidel, Farage, and others) appears, they unite to defend the system.
The sharp decline in growth expectations, coupled with social and material chaos, has made a large portion of the population increasingly discontent and marginalized. Neither the emerging power, namely Trump, nor the old establishment offers a genuine alternative social project. Both manipulate popular support in a demagogic way. Neither the conservative bloc nor the Trump supporters propose alternative models of social justice and wealth redistribution, whether inspired by materialism or a different political ethic. They are both conservative and accept the current economic structure and oligarchic liberalism; however, they promote two distinct geopolitical perspectives.
Conservatism brings together American Democrats and European center-right/center-left coalitions. The clearest example of this is the “Ursula majority,” which should now be called the “Ursula establishment” to reflect its permanency and deep roots. Notice how similar majorities have appeared in all major European countries since the start of the century. This coalition seeks to oppose the emerging alternative power and geopolitical vision that motivates opposition in many European countries.
This analysis raises the question: which side should we choose? Both viewpoints have their logic, and a third option has yet to emerge. We need to develop it. Trump could serve as a helpful lever to accelerate destabilization of a system that is undergoing a lethal crisis. For now, alternatives to conservative policies are being suppressed through false fears, such as an imminent Russian invasion of Europe, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and other issues. But how long will this trick work? And if the geopolitics of the hegemonic West will soon or later be subverted, what will be the next step if there is no credible social reform plan?
Free citizens and scholars should focus on creating a new model of coexistence and politics.
