________
Why Marco Rubio Is Bringing the Clash of Civilizations Back: When Propaganda Is Dressed Up as a Civilizational Crusade
By Ricardo Martins | October 19, 2026
Marco Rubio's Athens speech presented American global dominance as the noble defence of Western civilization, but behind the historical scenery lies a cruder political order — restore Western supremacy and make Europe follow Washington.
Marco Rubio chose his setting carefully. Standing in Athens, with the Acropolis and the Parthenon behind him, the US Secretary of State delivered a speech designed to look like a historic appeal to save Western civilization. Ancient Greece supplied the grandeur, Christianity provided the moral justification, and the promise of Western decline created the sense of urgency.
The question is not whether Western societies possess important intellectual, scientific and cultural traditions. Of course, they do. The question is why these achievements should entitle Washington to lead the world indefinitely—and why other societies should accept a subordinate position.
The Imperial Ambition Behind the Civilizational Rhetoric
Rubio’s speech belongs to a familiar tradition of geopolitical thinking associated with Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, although he had academic sophistication in his arguments – Rubio, none. In the post-Cold War era, Huntington argued that cultural and civilizational identities would become major sources of international conflict. The Trump administration is reviving this framework, presenting Western Christendom as a political bloc threatened by China, Russia and the Muslim world.
Yet, Rubio's own language exposes the real objective. He warned that the West risked losing its position at the head of the world and called for renewed national power. The concern is not simply that Western traditions might disappear. It is that Western governments – Rubio has above all the United States in mind — might lose their ability to determine international outcomes.
There is a considerable difference between defending cultural heritage and defending geopolitical supremacy. The former is a legitimate objective for any society. The latter is a claim to power that other countries have every right to challenge.
China’s economic and technological rise, Russia's resistance to Western strategic pressure, and the growing international ambitions of countries such as India, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia reflect a world in which power is distributed less exclusively than before. These developments do not automatically constitute an assault on Western civilization. They challenge the assumption that Washington and its allies should remain the principal architects of the international order.
Rubio's civilizational narrative turns that challenge into an existential struggle, bringing in Christianity to justify a supposedly moral superiority of the West. Economic competition, disputes over resources, access to markets and technological rivalry become secondary to an alleged confrontation between fundamentally different civilizations. Such framing is politically convenient: it makes compromise look like weakness and strategic competition look like a moral crusade.
The pretended sophistication is largely theatrical. Under it lies a blunt proposition: the West should dominate because it is the West and Christian.
Ancient Greece Was Not Born Christian
The historical foundations of Rubio's argument are deeply problematic. In Athens, he traced European Christendom back to Ancient Greece, presenting Greek philosophy, science and religion as foundations that ultimately gave rise to Christian civilization.
But Ancient Greece was polytheistic, not Christian. Its intellectual traditions developed centuries before Christianity emerged. Greek philosophy subsequently influenced Christian theology through the tradition kept by the Muslims, but intellectual influence is not the same as civilizational identity. To collapse these distinct historical periods into a single Christian Western tradition is to replace history with mythology.
Rubio's treatment of science reveals another contradiction. He celebrated the achievements of Galileo, Copernicus and Newton as expressions of the Western intellectual inheritance while presenting Christianity as a central source of scientific progress. However, Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 and forced to deny his support for heliocentrism. The history of science includes profound contributions from religious thinkers, but it also includes conflicts between scientific inquiry and religious authority. A serious historical account must acknowledge both.
Please go to NEO to continue reading.
Why Marco Rubio Is Bringing the Clash of Civilizations Back: When Propaganda Is Dressed Up as a Civilizational Crusade
By Ricardo Martins | October 19, 2026
Marco Rubio's Athens speech presented American global dominance as the noble defence of Western civilization, but behind the historical scenery lies a cruder political order — restore Western supremacy and make Europe follow Washington.
Marco Rubio chose his setting carefully. Standing in Athens, with the Acropolis and the Parthenon behind him, the US Secretary of State delivered a speech designed to look like a historic appeal to save Western civilization. Ancient Greece supplied the grandeur, Christianity provided the moral justification, and the promise of Western decline created the sense of urgency.
But remove the theatrical scenery and the message becomes remarkably crude. Rubio declared that the West must maintain its place "at the head of the world" and celebrated the "unapologetic pursuit of national power" under Donald Trump. This was not principally a philosophical reflection on civilization, history or shared values. It was a political argument for restoring American-led Western dominance.
The idea of a unified West with an unbroken historical mission is not an eternal truth; it is a political construction that has served different purposes at different timesThe irony is that Rubio appears to believe that dressing an imperial ambition in the language of civilization makes it intellectually sophisticated. It does not. His speech revived an old geopolitical strategy: portray the interests of a dominant power as the universal interests of an entire civilization, then present resistance to that dominance as a threat to its culture, values and historical survival.
The question is not whether Western societies possess important intellectual, scientific and cultural traditions. Of course, they do. The question is why these achievements should entitle Washington to lead the world indefinitely—and why other societies should accept a subordinate position.
The Imperial Ambition Behind the Civilizational Rhetoric
Rubio’s speech belongs to a familiar tradition of geopolitical thinking associated with Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, although he had academic sophistication in his arguments – Rubio, none. In the post-Cold War era, Huntington argued that cultural and civilizational identities would become major sources of international conflict. The Trump administration is reviving this framework, presenting Western Christendom as a political bloc threatened by China, Russia and the Muslim world.
Yet, Rubio's own language exposes the real objective. He warned that the West risked losing its position at the head of the world and called for renewed national power. The concern is not simply that Western traditions might disappear. It is that Western governments – Rubio has above all the United States in mind — might lose their ability to determine international outcomes.
There is a considerable difference between defending cultural heritage and defending geopolitical supremacy. The former is a legitimate objective for any society. The latter is a claim to power that other countries have every right to challenge.
China’s economic and technological rise, Russia's resistance to Western strategic pressure, and the growing international ambitions of countries such as India, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia reflect a world in which power is distributed less exclusively than before. These developments do not automatically constitute an assault on Western civilization. They challenge the assumption that Washington and its allies should remain the principal architects of the international order.
Rubio's civilizational narrative turns that challenge into an existential struggle, bringing in Christianity to justify a supposedly moral superiority of the West. Economic competition, disputes over resources, access to markets and technological rivalry become secondary to an alleged confrontation between fundamentally different civilizations. Such framing is politically convenient: it makes compromise look like weakness and strategic competition look like a moral crusade.
The pretended sophistication is largely theatrical. Under it lies a blunt proposition: the West should dominate because it is the West and Christian.
Ancient Greece Was Not Born Christian
The historical foundations of Rubio's argument are deeply problematic. In Athens, he traced European Christendom back to Ancient Greece, presenting Greek philosophy, science and religion as foundations that ultimately gave rise to Christian civilization.
But Ancient Greece was polytheistic, not Christian. Its intellectual traditions developed centuries before Christianity emerged. Greek philosophy subsequently influenced Christian theology through the tradition kept by the Muslims, but intellectual influence is not the same as civilizational identity. To collapse these distinct historical periods into a single Christian Western tradition is to replace history with mythology.
Rubio's treatment of science reveals another contradiction. He celebrated the achievements of Galileo, Copernicus and Newton as expressions of the Western intellectual inheritance while presenting Christianity as a central source of scientific progress. However, Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 and forced to deny his support for heliocentrism. The history of science includes profound contributions from religious thinkers, but it also includes conflicts between scientific inquiry and religious authority. A serious historical account must acknowledge both.
Please go to NEO to continue reading.
________
If this isn't a potent representation of our current chaotic and dysfunctional circumstances outlined above nothing is:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.