Interview with Alexander Dugin

 

Interview with Alexander Dugin http://www.wermodandwermod.com/

Introduction

In February 2012, Professor Alexander Dugin traveled to New Delhi, India to attend the 40th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, the theme of which was “After Western Hegemony: Social Science and its Publics.” Professor Dugin was kind enough to take some time away from the conference to answer a few questions by representatives of Arktos who attended the event. 

In this interview, we attempted to have Professor Dugin clarify some of his basic beliefs in order to dispel the confusion and misrepresentations that exist about him and his movement, the Eurasian Movement, and its offshoot, the Global Revolutionary Alliance, in the English-speaking world. The interview was conducted by Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos, and John B. Morgan, Editor-in-Chief.

This interview is being released in conjunction with Prof. Dugin’s appearance at Identitarian Ideas 2012, being held by the Swedish organization Motpol in Stockholm on July 28, 2012, and the simultaneous release of Prof. Dugin’s book The Fourth Political Theory by Arktos (http://www.arktos.com/alexander-dugin-the-fourth-political-theory.html). This is the first book by Prof. Dugin to appear in the English language.

There is a perception in the West that you are a Russian nationalist. Do you identify with that description?

The concept of the nation is a capitalist, Western one. On the other hand, Eurasianism appeals to cultural and ethnic differences, and not unification on the basis of the individual, as nationalism presumes. Ours differs from nationalism because we defend a pluralism of values. We are defending ideas, not our community; ideas, not our society. We are challenging postmodernity, but not on behalf of the Russian nation alone. Postmodernity is a yawning abyss. Russia is only one part of this global struggle. It is certainly an important part, but not the ultimate goal. For those of us in Russia, we can’t save it without saving the world at the same time. And likewise, we can’t save the world without saving Russia.

It is not only a struggle against Western universalism. It is a struggle against all universalisms, even Islamic ones. We cannot accept any desire to impose any universalism upon others – neither Western, Islamic, socialist, liberal, or Russian. We defend not Russian imperialism or revanchism, but rather a global vision and multipolarity based on the dialectic of civilization. Those we oppose say that the multiplicity of civilizations necessarily implies a clash. This is a false assertion. Globalization and American hegemony bring about a bloody intrusion and trigger violence between civilizations where there could be peace, dialogue, or conflict, depending on historical circumstances. But imposing a hidden hegemony implies conflict and, inevitably, worse in the future. So they say peace but they make war. We defend justice – not peace or war, but justice and dialogue and the natural right of any culture to maintain its identity and to pursue what it wants to be. Not only historically, as in multiculturalism, but also in the future. We must free ourselves from these pretend universalisms.

What do you think Russia’s role will be in organizing the anti-modern forces?

There are different levels involved in the creation of anti-globalist, or rather anti-Western, movements and currents around the world. The basic idea is to unite the people who are fighting against the status quo. So, what is the status quo? It is a series of connected phenomena bringing about an important shift from modernity to post-modernity. It is shaped by a shift from the unipolar world, represented primarily by the influence of the United States and Western Europe, to so-called non-polarity as exemplified by today’s implicit hegemony and those revolutions that have been orchestrated by it through proxy, as for example the various Orange revolutions. The basic intent behind this strategy is for the West to eventually control the planet, not only through direct intervention, but also via the universalization of its set of values, norms, and ethics.

The status quo of the West’s liberal hegemony has become global. It is a Westernization of all of humanity. This means that its norms, such as the free market, free trade, liberalism, parliamentarian democracy, human rights, and absolute individualism have become universal. This set of norms is interpreted differently in the various regions of the world, but the West regards its specific interpretation as being both self-evident and its universalization as inevitable. This is nothing less than a colonization of the spirit and of the mind. It is a new kind of colonialism, a new kind of power, and a new kind of control that is put into effect through a network. Everyone who is connected to the global network becomes subjected to its code. It is part of the postmodern West, and is rapidly becoming global. The price a nation or a people has to pay to become connected to the West’s globalization network is acceptance of these norms. It is the West’s new hegemony. It is a migration from the open hegemony of the West, as represented by the colonialism and outright imperialism of the past, to an implicit, more subtle version.

To fight this global threat to humanity, it is important to unite all the various forces that would, in earlier times, have been called anti-imperialist. In this age, we should better understand our enemy. The enemy of today is hidden. It acts by exploiting the norms and values of the Western path of development and ignoring the plurality represented by other cultures and civilizations. Today, we invite all who insist on the worth of the specific values of non-Western civilizations, and where there other forms of values exist, to challenge this attempt at a global universalization and hidden hegemony.

This is a cultural, philosophical, ontological, and eschatological struggle, because in the status quo we identify the essence of the Dark Age, or the great paradigm. But we should also move from a purely theoretical stance to a practical, geopolitical level. And at this geopolitical level, Russia preserves the potential, resources and inclination to confront this challenge, because Russian history has long been intuitively oriented against the same horizon. Russia is a great power where there is an acute awareness of what is going on in the world, historically speaking, and a deep consciousness of its own eschatological mission. Therefore it is only natural that Russia should play a central part in this anti-status quo coalition. Russia defended its identity against Catholicism, Protestantism and the modern West during Tsarist times, and then against liberal capitalism during Soviet times. Now there is a third wave of this struggle – the struggle against postmodernity, ultra-liberalism, and globalization. But this time, Russia is no longer able to rely on its own resources. It cannot fight solely under the banner of Orthodox Christianity. Nor is reintroducing or relying on Marxist doctrine a viable option, since Marxism is in itself a major root of the destructive ideas constituting postmodernity.

Russia is now one of many participants in this global struggle, and cannot fight this fight alone. We need to unite all the forces that are opposed to Western norms and its economic system. So we need to make alliances with all the Leftist social and political movements that challenge the status quo of liberal capitalism. We should likewise ally ourselves with all identitarian forces in any culture that refuse globalism for cultural reasons. From this perspective, Islamic movements, Hindu movements, or nationalist movements from all over the world should also be regarded as allies. Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and pagan identitarians in Europe, America, or Latin America, or other types of cultures, should all form a common front. The idea is to unite all of them, against the single enemy and the singular evil for a multiplicity of concepts of what is good.

What we are against will unite us, while what we are for divides us. Therefore, we should emphasize what we oppose. The common enemy unites us, while the positive values each of us are defending actually divides us.  Therefore, we must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ or, in other terms, Kali-Yuga.

Where does traditionalist spirituality fit into the Eurasian agenda?

There are secularized cultures, but at the core of all of them, the spirit of Tradition remains, religious or otherwise. By defending the multiplicity, plurality, and polycentrism of cultures, we are making an appeal to the principles of their essences, which we can only find in the spiritual traditions. But we try to link this attitude to the necessity for social justice and the freedom of differing societies in the hope for better political regimes. The idea is to join the spirit of Tradition with the desire for social justice. And we don’t want to oppose them, because that is the main strategy of hegemonic power: to divide Left and Right, to divide cultures, to divide ethnic groups, East and West, Muslims and Christians. We invite Right and Left to unite, and not to oppose traditionalism and spirituality, social justice, and social dynamism. So we are not on the Right or on the Left. We are against liberal postmodernity. Our idea is to join all the fronts and not let them divide us. When we stay divided, they can rule us safely. If we are united, their rule will immediately end. That is our global strategy. And when we try to join the spiritual tradition with social justice, there is an immediate panic among liberals. They fear this very much.

Which spiritual tradition should someone who wishes to participate in the Eurasianist struggle adopt, and is this a necessary component?

One should seek to become a concrete part of the society in which one lives, and follow the tradition that prevails there. For example, I am Russian Orthodox. This is my tradition. Under different conditions, however, some individuals might choose a different spiritual path. What is important is to have roots. There is no universal answer. If someone neglects this spiritual basis, but is willing to take part in our struggle, during the struggle he may well find some deeper spiritual meaning. Our idea is that our enemy is deeper than the merely human. Evil is deeper than humanity, greed, or exploitation. Those who fight on behalf of evil are those who have no spiritual faith. Those who oppose it may encounter it.  Or, perhaps not. It is an open question – it is not obligatory. It is advisable, but not necessary.

What do you think of the European New Right and Julius Evola? And in particular, their respective opposition to Christianity?

It is up to the Europeans to decide which kind of spirituality to revive. For us Russians, it is Orthodox Christianity. We regard our tradition as being authentic.  We see our tradition as being a continuation of the earlier, pre-Christian traditions of Russia, as is reflected in our veneration of the saints and icons, among other aspects. Therefore, there is no opposition between our earlier and later traditions. Evola opposes the Christian tradition of the West. What is interesting is his critique of the desacralization of Western Christianity. This fits well with the Orthodox critique of Western Christianity. It is easy to see that the secularization of Western Christianity gives us liberalism. The secularization of the Orthodox religion gives us Communism. It is individualism versus collectivism. For us, the problem is not with Christianity itself, as it is in the West. Evola made an attempt to restore Tradition. The New Right also tries to restore the Western tradition, which is very good. But being Russian Orthodox, I cannot decide which is the right path for Europe to take, since we have a different set of values. We don’t want to tell the Europeans what to do, nor do we want to be told what to do by the Europeans. As Eurasianists, we’ll accept any solution. Since Evola was European, he could discuss and propose the proper solution for Europe. Each of us can only state our personal opinion. But I have found that we have more in common with the New Right than with the Catholics. I share many of the same views as Alain de Benoist. I consider him to be the foremost intellectual in Europe today. That it is not the case with modern Catholics. They wish to convert Russia, and that is not compatible with our plans. The New Right does not want to impose European paganism upon others. I also consider Evola to be a master and a symbolic figure of the final revolt and the great revival, as well as Guénon. For me, these two individuals are the essence of the Western tradition in this dark age.

In our earlier conversation, you mentioned that Eurasianists should work with some jihadist groups. However, they tend to be universalist, and their stated goal is the imposition of Islamic rule over the entire world. What are the prospects for making such a coalition work?

Jihadis are universalists, just as secular Westerners who seek globalization are. But they are not the same, because the Western project seeks to dominate all the others and impose its hegemony everywhere. It attacks us directly every day through the global media, fashions, by setting examples for youth, and so on. We are submerged in this global cultural hegemony. Salafist universalism is a kind of marginal alternative. They should not be thought of in the same way as those who seek globalization. They also fight against our enemy. We don’t like any universalists, but there are universalists who attack us today and win, and there are also non-conformist universalists who are fighting against the hegemony of the Western, liberal universalists, and therefore they are tactical friends for the time being. Before their project of a global Islamic state can be realized, we will have many battles and conflicts. And global liberal domination is a fact. We therefore invite everybody to fight alongside us against this hegemony, this status quo. I prefer to discuss what is the reality at present, rather than what may exist in the future. All those who oppose liberal hegemony are our friends for the moment. This is not morality, it is strategy. Carl Schmitt said that politics begins by distinguishing between friends and enemies. There are no eternal friends and no eternal enemies. We are struggling against the existing universal hegemony. Everyone fights against it for their own particular set of values.

For the sake of coherence we should also prolong, widen, and create a broader alliance. I don’t like Salafists. It would be much better to align with traditionalist Sufis, for example. But I prefer working with the Salafists against the common enemy than to waste energy in fighting against them while ignoring the greater threat.

If you are in favor of global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy. If you are against it, you are a friend. The first is inclined to accept this hegemony; the other is in revolt.

In light of recent events in Libya, what are your personal views on Gaddafi?

President Medvedev committed a real crime against Gaddafi and helped to initiate a chain of interventions in the Arab world. It was a real crime committed by our President. His hands are bloodied. He is a collaborator with the West. The crime of murdering Gaddafi was partly his responsibility. We Eurasianists defended Gaddafi, not because we were fans or supporters of him or his Green Book, but because it was a matter of principles. Behind the insurgency in Libya was Western hegemony, and it imposed bloody chaos. When Gaddafi fell, Western hegemony grew stronger. It was our defeat. But not the final one. This war has many episodes. We lost the battle, but not the war. And perhaps something different will emerge in Libya, because the situation is quite unstable. For example, the Iraq War actually strengthened Iran’s influence in the region, contrary to the designs of the Western hegemonists.

Given the situation in Syria at present, the scenario is repeating itself. However, the situation, with Putin returning to power, is much better. At least he is consistent in his support for President al-Assad. Perhaps this will not be enough to stop Western intervention in Syria. I suggest that Russia assist our ally more effectively by supplying weapons, financing, and so forth. The fall of Libya was a defeat for Russia. The fall of Syria will be yet another failure.

What is your opinion of, and relationship to Vladimir Putin?

He was much better than Yeltsin. He saved Russia from a complete crash in the 1990s. Russia was on the verge of disaster. Before Putin, Western-style liberals were in a position to dictate politics in Russia. Putin restored the sovereignty of the Russian state. That is the reason why I became his supporter. However, after 2003, Putin stopped his patriotic, Eurasianist reforms, putting aside the development of a genuine national strategy, and began to accommodate the economic liberals who wanted Russia to become a part of the project of globalization. As a result, he began to lose legitimacy, and so I became more and more critical of him. In some circumstances I worked with people around him to support him in some of his policies, while I opposed him in others. When Medvedev was chosen as his heir, it was a catastrophe, since the people positioned around him were all liberals. I was against Medvedev. I opposed him, in part, from the Eurasianist point-of-view. Now Putin will return. All the liberals are against him, and all the pro-Western forces are against him. But he himself has not yet made his attitude toward this clear. However, he is obliged to win the support of the Russian people anew. It is impossible to continue otherwise. He is in a critical situation, although he doesn’t seem to understand this. He is hesitating to choose the patriotic side. He thinks he can find support among some of the liberals, which is completely false. Nowadays, I am not so critical of him as I was before, but I think he is in a critical situation. If he continues to hesitate, he will fail. I recently published a book, Putin Versus Putin, because his greatest enemy is himself. Because he is hesitating, he is losing more and more popular support. The Russian people feel deceived by him. He may be a kind of authoritarian leader without authoritarian charisma. I’ve cooperated with him in some cases, and opposed him on others. I am in contact with him. But there are so many forces around him. The liberals and the Russian patriots around him are not so brilliant, intellectually speaking. Therefore, he is obliged to rely only upon himself and his intuition. But intuition cannot be the only source of political decision-making and strategy. When he returns to power, he will be pushed to return to his earlier anti-Western policies, because our society is anti-Western in nature. Russia has a long tradition of rebellion against foreign invaders, and of helping others who resist injustice, and the Russian people view the world through this lens. They will not be satisfied with a ruler who does not govern in keeping with this tradition.

Unthinking Liberalism: A. Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory

Unthinking Liberalism:
Alexander Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory

by Alex KURTAGIC

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Alexander Dugin
The Fourth Political Theory, London: Arktos, 2012

Arktos recently published what we can only hope will be the first of many more English translations of Alexander Dugin’s work. Head of the sociology department in Moscow State University, and a leading Eurasianist with ties to the Russian military, this man is, today, influencing official Kremlin policy.

The Fourth Political Theory is a thoroughly refreshing monograph, combining clarity of analysis, philosophical rigor, and intellectual creativity. It is Dugin’s attempt to sort through the confusion of modern political theory and establish the foundations for a political philosophy that will decisively challenge the dominant liberal paradigm. It is not, however, a new complete political theory, but rather the beginning of a project. The name is provisional, the theory under construction. Dugin sees this not as the work of one man, but, because difficult, a collective heroic effort.

The book first sets out the historical topology of modern political theories. In Dugin’s account, liberalism, the oldest and most stable ideology, was in modernity the first political theory. Marxism, a critique of liberalism via capitalism, was the second. Fascism/National Socialism, a critique of both liberalism and Marxism, was the third. Dugin says that Fascism/National Socialism was defeated by Marxism (1945), that Marxism was defeated by liberalism (1989), leaving liberalism triumphant and therefore free to expand around the globe.

According to Dugin, the triumph of liberalism has been so definitive, in fact, that in the West it has ceased to be political, or ideological, and become a taken-for-granted practice. Westerners think in liberal terms by default, assuming that no sane, rational, educated person could think differently, accusing dissenters of being ideological, without realizing that their own assumptions have ideological origins.

The definitive triumph of liberalism has also meant that it is now so fully identified with modernity that it is difficult to separate the two, whereas control of modernity was once contested by political theory number one against political theories two and three. The advent of postmodernity, however, has marked the complete exhaustion of liberalism. It has nothing new to say, so it is reduced endlessly to recycle and reiterate itself.

Looking to identify what may be useful to salvage, Dugin proceeds to break down each of the three ideologies into its component parts. In the process of doing so, he detoxifies the two discredited critiques of liberalism, which is necessary to be able to cannibalize them. His analysis of liberalism follows Alain de Benoist. Because it is crucial, I will avail myself of de Benoist’s insights and infuse some of my own in Dugin’s explication of liberalism.

Dugin says that liberalism’s historical subject is the individual. The idea behind liberalism was to “liberate” the individual from everything that was external to him (faith, tradition, authority). Out of this springs the rest: when you get rid of the transcendent, you end up with a world that is entirely rational and material. Happiness then becomes a question of material increase. This leads to productivism and economism, which, when the individual is paramount, demands capitalism. When you get rid of the transcendent, you also eliminate hierarchy: all men become equal. If all men are equal, then what applies to one must apply to all, which means universalism. Similarly, if all men are equal, then all deserve an equal slice of the pie, so full democracy, with universal suffrage, becomes the ideal form of government. Liberalism has since developed flavors, and the idea of liberation acquires two competing meanings: “freedom from,” which in America is embodied by libertarians and the Tea Party; and “freedom to,” embodied by Democrats.

Marxism’s historical subject is class. Marxism is concerned chiefly with critiquing the inequities arising from capitalism. Otherwise, it shares with liberalism an ethos of liberation, a materialist worldview, and an egalitarian morality.

Fascism’s historical subject is the state, and National Socialism’s race. Both critique Marxism’s and liberalism’s materialist worldview and egalitarian morality. Hence, the simultaneous application of hierarchy and socialism.

With all the parts laid out on the table, Dugin then selects what he finds useful and discards the rest. Unsurprisingly, Dugin finds nothing useful in liberalism. The idea is to unthink it, after all.

Spread out across several chapters, Dugin provides a typology of the different factions in the modern political landscape—e.g., fundamental conservatism (traditionalism), Left-wing conservatism (Strasserism, National Bolshevism, Niekisch), conservative revolution (Spengler, Jünger, Schmitt, Niekisch), New Left, National Communism, etc. It is essential that readers understand these so that they may easily recognize them, because doing so will clarify much and help them avoid the errors arising from opaque, confused, contradictory, or misleading labels.

Liberal conservatism is a key category in this typology. It may sound contradictory on the surface, because in colloquial discourse mainstream politics is about the opposition of liberals vs. conservatives. Yet, and as I have repeatedly stated, when one examines their fundamentals, so-called “conservatives” (a misleading label), even palaeoconservatives (another misleading label), are all ideologically liberals, only they wish to conserve liberalism, or go a little slower, or take a few steps back. Hence, the alternative designation for this type: “status-quo conservative.”

Another key category is National Communism. This is, according to Dugin, a unique phenomenon, and enjoys a healthy life in Latin America, suggesting it will be around for some time to come. Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez are contemporary practitioners of National Communism.

Setting out the suggested foundations of a fourth political ideology takes up the rest of Dugin’s book. Besides elements salvaged from earlier critiques of liberalism, Dugin also looks at the debris that in the philosophical contest for modernity was left in the periphery. These are the ideas for which none of the ideologies of modernity have had any use. For Dugin this is essential to an outsider, counter-propositional political theory. He does not state this in as many words, but it should be obvious that if we are to unthink liberalism, then liberalism should find its nemesis unthinkable.

But the process of construction begins, of course, with ontology. Dugin refers to Heidegger’s Dasein. Working from this concept he would like the fourth political theory to conceptualize the world as a pluriverse, with different peoples who have different moralities and even different conceptions of time. In other words, in the fourth political theory the idea of a universal history would be absurd, because time is conceived differently in different cultures—nothing is ahistorical or universal; everything is bound and specific. This would imply a morality of difference, something I have proposed as counter-propositional to the liberal morality of equality. In the last consequence, for Dugin there needs to be also a peculiar ontology of the future. The parts of The Fourth Political Theory dealing with these topics are the most challenging, requiring some grounding in philosophy, but, unsurprisingly, they are also where the pioneering work is being done.

Also pioneering, and presumably more difficult still, is Dugin’s call to “attack the individual.” By this he means, obviously, destabilizing the taken-for-granted construct that comprises the minimum social unit in liberalism—the discrete social atom that acts on the basis of rational self-interest, a construct that should be distinguished from “a man” or “a woman” or “a human.” Dugin makes some suggestions, but these seem nebulous and not very persuasive at this stage. Also, this seems quite a logical necessity within the framework of this project, but Dugin’s seeds will find barren soil in the West, where the individual is almost sacrosanct and where individualism results from what is possibly an evolved bias in Northern European societies, where this trait may have been more adaptive than elsewhere. A cataclysmic event may be required to open up the way for a redefinition of what it is to be a person. Evidently the idea is that the fourth political theory conceptualizes a man not as an “individual” but as something else, presumably as part of a collectivity. This is probably a very Russian way of looking at things.

The foregoing may all seem highly abstract, and I suspect practically minded readers will not take to it. It is hard to see how the abstract theorizing will satisfy the pragmatic Anglo-Saxon, who is suspicious of philosophy generally. (Jonathan Bowden was an oddity in this regard.) Yet there are real-world implications to the theory, and in Dugin’s work the geopolitical dimension must never be kept out of sight.

For Dugin, triumphant liberalism is embodied by Americanism; the United States, through its origins as an Enlightenment project, and through its superpower status in the twentieth and twenty-first century, is the global driver of liberal practice. As such, with the defeat of Marxism, it has created, and sought to perpetuate, a unipolar world defined by American, or Atlanticist, liberal hegemony. Russia has a long anti-Western, anti-liberal tradition, and for Dugin this planetary liberal hegemony is the enemy. Dugin would like the world to be multipolar, with Atlanticism counterbalanced by Eurasianism, and maybe other “isms.” In geopolitics, the need for a fourth political theory arises from a need to keep liberalism permanently challenged, confined to its native hemisphere, and, in a word, out of Russia.

While this dimension exists, and while there may be a certain anti-Americanism in Dugin’s work, Americans should not dismiss this book out of hand, because it is not anti-America. As Michael O’Meara has pointed out in relation to Yockey’s anti-Americanism, Americanism and America, or Americans, are different things and stand often in opposition. Engaging with this kind of oppositional thinking is, then, necessary for Americans. And the reason is this: liberalism served America well for two hundred years, but ideologies have a life-cycle like everything else, and liberalism has by now become hypertrophic and hypertelic; it is, in other words, killing America and, in particular, the European-descended presence in America.

If European-descended Americans are to save themselves, and to continue having a presence in the North American continent, rather than being subsumed by liberal egalitarianism and the consequent economic bankruptcy, Hispanization, and Africanization, the American identity, so tied up with liberalism because of the philosophical bases of its founding documents, would need to be re-imagined. Though admittedly difficult, the modern American identity must be understood as one that is possible out of many. Sources for a re-imagined identity may be found in the archaic substratum permeating the parts of American heritage that preceded systematic liberalism (the early colonial period) as well as in the parts that were, at least for a time, beyond it (the frontier and the Wild West). In other words, the most mystical and also the least “civilized” parts of American history. Yet even this may be problematic, since they were products of late “Faustian” civilization. A descent into barbarism may be in the cards. Only time will tell.

For Westerners in general, Dugin’s project may well prove too radical, even at this late stage in the game—contemplating it would seem first to necessitate a decisive rupture. Unless/until that happens, conservative prescriptions calling for a return to a previous state of affairs (in the West), or a closer reading of the founding documents (in America), will remain a feature of Western dissidence. In other words, even the dissidents will remain conservative restorationists of the classical ideas of the center, or the ideas that led to the center. Truly revolutionary thinking—the re-imagining and reinvention of ourselves—will, however, ultimately come from the periphery rather than the center.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/unthinking-liberalism/

Aleksandr Dugin: Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and the Fourth Political Theory

Aleksandr Dugin: Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and the Fourth Political Theory

The Fourth Political Theory

 

Het boek wordt voorgesteld op 28 juli 2012 in Stockholm (voor Europa) en in Brazilië (voor het Amerikaanse continent).

 

 

Table of Contents:

A Note from the Editor
Foreword by Alain Soral
Introduction: To Be or Not to Be?

1. The Birth of the Concept
2. Dasein as an Actor
3. The Critique of Monotonic Processes
4. The Reversibility of Time
5. Global Transition and its Enemies
6. Conservatism and Postmodernity
7. ‘Civilisation’ as an Ideological Concept
8. The Transformation of the Left in the Twenty-first Century
9. Liberalism and Its Metamorphoses
10. The Ontology of the Future
11. The New Political Anthropology
12. Fourth Political Practice
13. Gender in the Fourth Political Theory
14. Against the Postmodern World
Appendix I: Political Post-Anthropology
Appendix II: The Metaphysics of Chaos

Civilization as political concept

Interview with the leader of the International “Eurasian Movement”, a philosopher, and a  professor at Moscow State University Alexander Dugin

Interviewed by the Global Revolutionary Alliance’s own Natella Speranskaja 

Ex: http://www.granews.info/

- The crisis of identity, with which we faced after the Cold War and the collapse of the communist world, is still relevant. What do you think is capable of lifting us out of this crisis  – a religious revival or creation of a new political ideology? Which of the options are you  inclined to yourself?

- After the collapse of communism came the phase of the “unipolar moment” (as Charles Krauthammer called it). In geopolitics, this meant the victory of unilateralism and Atlanticism, and because the pole was left alone, the West has become a global phenomenon. Accordingly,  the ideology of liberalism (or more accurately, neo-liberalism) is firmly in place crushing the two alternative political theories that existed in the twentieth century – communism and fascism . The Global liberal West has now defined culture, economics, information and technology, and politics. The West’s claims to the universalism of it’s values, the values of Western modernity and the Postmodern era, has reached its climax. 

Problems stemming from the West during the “unipolar moment” has led many to say that this “moment” is over, that he could not yet be a “destiny” of humanity.That is, a “unipolar moment” should be interpreted very broadly – not only geopolitical, but also ideologically, economically, axiologically, civilization wide. The crisis of identity, about which you ask, has scrapped all previous identities – civilizational, historical, national, political, ethnic, religious, cultural, in favor of a universal planetary Western-style identity  – with its concept of individualism, secularism, representative democracy, economic and political liberalism, cosmopolitanism and the ideology of human rights.Instead of a hierarchy of identities, which have traditionally played a large role in sets of collective identities, the “unipolar moment” affirmed a flat one-dimensional identity, with the absolutization of the individual singularity.  One individual = one identity, and any forms of the collective identity (for example, individual as the part of the religious community, nation, ethnic group, race, or even sex) underwent dismantling and overthrow. Hence the hatred of globalists for different kind of “majorities” and protection of minorities, up to the individual.

The Uni-polar Democracy of our moment - this is a democracy, which unambiguously protects the minority before the face of the majority and the individual before face of the group.  This is  the crisis of identity for those of non-Western or non-modern (or even not “postmodern”) societies,since this is where customary models are scrapped and liquidated. The postmodern West with  optimism, on the contrary, asserts individualism and hyper-liberalism in its space and zealously  exports it on the planetary scale.

However, it’s not painless, and has caused at all levels it’s own growing rejection.  The problems, which have  appeared in the West in the course of this “uni-polar moment”, forced many to speak, that this “moment’s” conclusion, has not succeeded in becoming “the fate” of humanity.  This, therefore,  was the cost of the  possibility of passage to some other paradigm…

So, we can think about an alternative  to the “unipolar moment” and, therefore, an alternative to liberalism, Americanism, Atlanticism, Western Postmodernism, globalization, individualism, etc. That is, we can, and I think should,  work out plans and strategies for a “post-uni polar world “, at all levels – the ideological and political, the economic, and religious, and the philosophical and geo-political, the cultural and civilizational, and technology, and value.

In fact, this is what I call multi-polarity. As in the case of uni-polarity it is not only about the political and strategic map of the world, but also the paradigmatic philosophical foundations of the future world order.  We can not exactly say that the “uni-polar moment” has finally been completed. No, it is still continuing, but it faces a growing number of problems. We must put an end to it – eradicate it. This is a global revolution, since the existing domination of the West, liberalism and globalism completely controls the  world oligarchy, financial and political elites.

So they just will not simply  give up their positions. We must prepare for a serious and intense battle.   Multi-polarity will be recaptured by the conquered peoples of the world in combat and it will be able to arise only on the smoking ruins of the global West.  While the West is still dictating his will to the rest, to talk about early multipolarity  – you must first destroy the Western domination on the ground.   Crisis – this is much, but far from all.

- If we accept the thesis of the paradigmatic transition from the current unipolar world order model to a new multi-polar model, where the actors are not nation-states, but  entire civilizations, can it be said that this move would entail a radical change in the very human identity?

- Yes, of course. With the end of the unipolar moment, we are entering a whole new world. And it is not simply a reverse or a step back, but it is a step forward to some unprecedented future, however, different from the digital project of “lonely crowds”, which is reserved for  humanity by globalism. Multi-polar identity will be the complex nonlinear collection of different identities – both individual and collective, that is varied for each civilization (or even inside each civilization).

This is something completely new that  will be created.

And the changes will be radical. We can not exclude that, along with known identities, civilizations, and offering of  new ways … It is possible that one of these new identities will become the identity of “Superman” – in the Nietzschean sense or otherwise (for example, traditionalist) …  In the “open society” of globalism the individual is, on the contrary, closedand strictly self-identical.

The multi-polar world’s anthropological map will be, however, extremely open, although the boundaries of civilizations  will be defined clearly. Man will again re-open the measurement of inner freedom – “freedom for”, in spite of the flat and purely external  liberal freedom – “freedom from” (as John Mill), Which is actually,  not freedom, but its simulacrum, imposed for a more efficient operation of the planetary masses by a small group of global oligarchs.

- Alexander Gelevich Dugin, you are the creator of the theory of a multi-polar world, which laid the foundation from which we can begin a new historical stage. Your book“The theory of a multi-polar world” has been and is being translated into other languages. The transition to a new model of world order means a radical change in the foreign policy of nation-states, and in today’s global economy, in fact, you have created all the prerequisites for the emergence of a new diplomatic language. Of course, this is a challenge of the global hegemony of the West. What do you think will be the reaction of your political opponents when they realize the seriousness of the threat posed?

- As always in the vanguard of  philosophical and ideological ideas, we first have the effect of bewilderment, the desire to silence or marginalize them. Then comes the phase of severe criticism and rejection. Then they begin to consider. Then they become commonplace and a truism. So it was with many of my ideas and concepts in the past 30 years. Traditionalism, geopolitics, Sociology of imagination , Ethnosociology, Conservative Revolution , National Bolshevism, Eurasianism, the Fourth Political Theory, National-structuralism, Russian Schmittianism, the concept of the three paradigms, the eschatological gnosis, New Metaphysics and Radical Theory of the Subject , Conspiracy theories, Russian haydeggerianstvo , a post-modern alternative , and so on – perceived first with hostility, then partially assimilated, and finally became part of mainstream discourse in academia and politics of Russia, and in part, and beyond.

Each of these directions has their fate, but the diagram of their mastering is approximately identical. So it will be also with the theory of a multipolar world   It will be hushed up, and then demonized and fiercely criticized, and then they will begin to look at it closely, and then accepted. But for all this it is necessary to pay for it and to defend it in the fight.  Arthur Rimbaud said that “the spiritual battle as fierce and hard, as the battle of armies.” For this we will have to struggle violently and desperately. As for everything else.

- In the “Theory of a multipolar world,” you write that in the dialogue between civilizations the responsibility is born by the elite of civilization. Do I understand correctly, it should be a “trained” elite, that is, the elite, which has a broad knowledge and capabilities, rather than the present “elite”? Tell me, what is the main difference between these elites?

- Civilizational elite – is a new concept. Thus far  it does not exist. It is a combination of two qualities – deep assimilation of the particular civilizational culture (in the philosophical, religious, value levels) and the presence of a high degree “of drive,” persistently pushing people to the heights of power, prestige and influence. Modern liberalism channels passion exclusively in the area of economics and business, creating a preference for a particular social elevator and it is a particular type of personality (which is an American sociologist Yuri Slezkine called “mercurial type”) .

The Mercurial elite of globalism, “aviakochevniki” mondialist nomadism, sung by Jacques Attali, should be overthrown in favor of radically different types of elites. Each civilization can dominate, and other “worlds”, not only thievish, mercurial shopkeepers and  cosmopolitans.  Islamic elite is clearly another – an example of this we see in today’s Iran, where the policy (Mars) and economics (Mercury) are subject to  spiritual authority, of the Ayatollah (Saturn).

But the “world” is only a metaphor. Different civilizations are based on different codes. The main thing is that the elite must be reflected in the codes themselves, whatever they may be. This is the most important condition. The will to power inherent in any elite, shall be interfaced with the will to knowledge, that is intellectualism and activism in such a multipolar elite should be wedded. Technological efficiency and value (often religious) content should be combined in such an elite. Only such an elite will be able to fully and responsibly participate in the dialogue of civilizations, embodying the principles of their traditions and engaging in interaction with other civilizations of the worlds.

- How can you comment on the hypothesis that the return to a bipolar model is still possible?

- I think not, practically or theoretically. In practice, because today there is no country that is comparable to the basic parameters of the U.S. and the West in general. The U.S. broke away from the rest of the world so that no one on its own can compete with them. Theoretically, only the West now has a claim to universality of its values, whereas previously Marxism was regarded as an alternative. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it became clear that universalism is only  liberal, capitalist. To resist Western imperialism there can only be a coalition of large spaces – not the second pole, but immediately multiple poles, each of them with its own strategic infrastructure and with a particular civilizational, cultural and ideological content.

- How real is the sudden transition to a non-polar model? What are the main disadvantages of this model?

- Passage to a non-polar model, about which leaders are increasingly talking of in the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass, George Soros,etc.), means the replacement of the facade of a uni-polar hegemony, the transition from the domination based on military and strategic power of the United States and NATO (hardware ) to dispersed domination of the West as a whole (software). These are two versions – hard-hegemony and soft-hegemony. But in both cases the West, its civilization, its culture, its philosophy, its technologies, its political and economic institutes and procedures come out as the standard universal model.  Over the long term, this will indicate  the transfer of power to a “world government”, which will be dominated by all  the same Western elites, the global oligarchy. It will then  discard it’s  mask and will act directly on behalf of the transnational forces. In some sense non-polarity is worse than uni-polarity, though, it would seem hard to believe.

Non-polarity itself, and even more sharply and rapidly, will not yet begin. For this, the world must go through the turmoil and trials until a desperate humanity itself cried for the world elite with a prayer for salvation. Prior to that, to weaken the power of the United States, world disasters occur, and war. Non-polar world under the control of a world government, consisting of direct representatives of the global oligarchy,  is expected by many religious circles as the coming “of the kingdom of the Antichrist.”

As for the “shortcomings” of such a model, I believe that it is just  “a great parody of” the sacred world empire, which  Rene Guenon warned of in his work The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. This will be a global simulacrum.  To recognize these “deficiencies” will  not be so easy, otherwise opposition “to the antichrist” would be too simple a matter, and the depth of his temptation would be insignificant.

The true alternative is a multi-polar world, everything else – evil in the truest sense of the word.

- The “counter-hegemony” by Robert Cox, who you mention in your book aims to expose the existing order in international relations and raise the rebellion against it. To do this, Cox called for the creation of counter-hegemonic bloc, which will include political actors who reject the existing hegemony. Have you developed the Fourth Political Theory as a kind of counter-hegemonic doctrine that could unite the rebels against the hegemony of the West?

- I am convinced that the Fourth Political Theory fits into the logic of building counter-hegemony, which Cox spoke of. By the way, also inthe proximity of critical theory in the MO theory, and multi-polar world is a wonderful text by Alexandra Bovdunova ,voiced at the Conference on the Theory of a multipolar world in Moscow, Moscow State University on 25-26 April 2012 .

4PT is not a complete doctrine, this is still the first steps toward the exit from the conceptual impasse in which we find ourselves in the face of liberalism, today rejected by more and more people around the world, in the collapse of the old anti-liberal political theories – Communism and Fascism. In a sense, the need for 4PT – is a sign of the times, and really can not be disputed by anyone. Another matter, what will be 4PT in its final form. The temptation appears to build it as a syncretic combination of elements of previous anti-liberal doctrines and ideologies …

I am convinced that we should go another way. It is necessary to understand the root of the current hegemony. This coincides with the root of modernity as such, and it grows from the roots of modernity in all three pillars of political theories – liberalism, communism and fascism. To manipulate them to find an alternative to modernity and liberalism, respectively, and of the liberal hegemony of the West, is in my view, pointless. We must move beyond modernity in general, beyond the range of its political actors – individual, class, nation, state, etc.

Therefore 4PT as the basis of a counter-hegemonic planetary front should be constructed quite differently. Like the theory of a multipolar world 4PT operates with a new concept – “civilization”, but 4PT puts special emphasis on the existential aspect of it. Hence the most important, the central thesis of 4PT that its subject is the actor -  Dasein. Every civilization, its Dasein, which means that it describes a specific set of existentials. On their basis, should be raised a new political theory  generalized at the following level into a “multipolar federation Of Dasein” as the concrete structure of counter – hegemony. In other words, the very counter-hegemony must be conceived existentially, as a field of war between the inauthentic globalization (global alienation) and the horizon of authentic  peoples and societies in a multipolar world (the possibility of overcoming the alienation  of civilizations).

- When we talk about cognitive uprising, however first of all, our actions should be aimed at the overthrow of the dictatorship of the West?

- The most important step is the beginning of the systematic preparation of a global revolutionary elite-oriented to multi-polarity 4PT. This elite must perform a critical function – to be a link between the local and global. At the local level we are talking about the masses and the clearest exponents of their local culture (religious leaders, philosophers, etc.). Often, these communities do not have a planetary perspective and simply defend their conservative identity before the onset of toxic globalization and Western imperialism.

Raising the masses and the traditionalist-conservatives  to a realized uprising in the context of a complex union of a counter-hegemonistic block is  extremely difficult. Simple conservatives and their supportive mass, for example, of the Islamic or Orthodox persuasion are unlikely to realize the necessity of  alliances with the Hindus or the Chinese. This will be the play  (and they are already actively playing it) of the globalists and their principle of “divide and conquer!” But the revolutionary elite, which is the elite, even within a particular traditionalist elite of society, should take the , heartfelt deep and deliberate feelings of local identity and correlate it within a total horizon of multi-polarity, and  4PT.

Without the formation of such a elite the revolt against the  post-modern world and the overthrow of the dictatorship of the West will not take place. Every time and everywhere   the West has a problem, he will come to the aid of anti-Western forces, which, however, will be motivated by narrow bills to specific civilizational neighbors – most often, just as anti-Western as they are. So it will be and already is the instrumentalization of globalists of various conservative fundamentalist and nationalist movements. Islamic fundamentalists to help the West is one. European nationalists – is another. So a “unipolar moment” extends not only to exist in itself, but also playing the antagonistic forces against him. The overthrow of the dictatorship of the West will become possible only if this strategy  will be sufficient enough to create or make appear a new counter-hegemonic elite. A initiative like Global Revolutionary Alliance – the unique example of really revolutionary and effective opposition to hegemony.

- You have repeatedly said that Eurasianism is a strategic, philosophical, cultural and civilizational choice. Can we hope that the political course chosen by Vladimir Putin (establishment of a Eurasian Union ) Is the first step towards a multipolar model?

- This is a difficult question. By himself, Putin and, especially, his environment, they act  more out of inertia, without calling into question the legitimacy of the existing planetary status quo. Their goal – to win his and Russia’s  rather appropriate place within the existing world order. But that is the problem: a truly acceptable place for Russia is not and can not exist, because the “uni-polar moment”, as well as the globalists stand for the desovereignization of Russia, eliminating it as an independent civilization, and strategic pole.

This self-destruction seems to suit, Dmitry Medvedev and his entourage (INSOR) for he was ready to reboot and go for almost all of it. Putin clearly understands the situation somewhat differently, and his criteria of “acceptability” is also different. He would most of all psychologically  arrange  a priority partnership with the West while maintaining the sovereignty of Russia. But this is  something  unacceptable under any circumstances to the unipolar globalists -  practically or theoretically.

So Putin is torn between multipolarity, where he leads the orientation of  sovereignty and Atlanticism, where he leads the inertia and the tireless work of a huge network of influence that permeates all of the structure of Russian society. Here’s the dilemma. Putin makes moves in both directions – he proclaims multi-polarity, the Eurasian Union, to protect the sovereignty of Russia, even spoke of the peculiarities of Russian civilization, strengthening vertical power, shows respect (if not more) to Orthodoxy, but on the other hand, surrounds himself with pro-American experts (eg, “Valdai Club”), rebuilds, education and culture under the globalistic Western models, has a liberal economic policy and suffers comprador oligarchs, etc.

The field for maneuver Putin is constantly shrinking. The logic of the circumstances pushes him to a more unambiguous choice. Inside the country this uncertainty of course causes growing hostility, and his legitimacy falls.

Outside the country  the West only increases the pressure on Putin to persuade him towards globalism and the recognition of “unilateralism”, specifically – to cede his post to the Westerner Medvedev. So Putin, while continuing to fluctuate between multipolarity and Westernism, loses ground and support here and there.

The new period of his presidency will be very difficult. We will do everything we can to move it to a multipolar world, the Eurasian Union and 4PT. But we are not alone in Russian politics – against us for influence in Putin’s circles we have an army of liberals, agents of Western influence and the staff of the global oligarchy. For us, though, we have the People and the Truth. But behind them – a global oligarchy, money, lies, and, apparently, the father of lies. Nevertheless, vincit omnia veritas. That I have no doubt.

Entretien avec Alexandre Douguine

Entretien avec Alexandre Douguine

Propos  recueillis  par le magazine allemand “Zuerst”

( http://www.zuerst.de )

Q.: Monsieur Douguine, la Russie subit un feu roulant de critiques occidentales, surtout depuis  la  réélection de Vladimir Poutine à la présidence  de la fédération de Russie. Les politiciens etl es médias prétendent que les élections ont été truquées, que Poutine n’est pas un démocrate et qu’il bafoue les “droits de l’Homme”...

AD: Vladimir Poutine, qu’on le veuille ou non, apprtient aux vrais grands sur la scène politique internationale. Pourtant, il faut dire que la  politique qu’il préconise est très spéciale, ce que bon nombre de politiciens et de médiacrates occidentaux ne sont apparemment pas capables de comprendre. D’une part, Poutine est un libéral, un homme politique résolument tourné vers l’Occident; d’autre part, il est un défenseur acharné de laa  souveraineté et de l’indépendance russes. C’est pourquoi il s’oppose de front aux Etats-Unis et à  leurs intérêts géopolitiques. Poutine est donc simultanément libéral-démocrate et souverainiste. Il est ensuite un réaliste politique absolu, une personnalité politique non fantasque. Poutine serait par voie de  conséquence  le partenaire idéal de tout pays occidental qui accorderait à la  souveraineté une valeur identitque et aussi élevée. Mais les pays  d’Occident ont abandonné depuis longtemps les valeurs du réalisme politique...

Q.: Que voulez-vous dire par là?

AD: Voyez-vous, ce que croit l’Occident aujourd’hui, c’est qu’un jour toutes  les démocraties libérales abandonneront leur souveraineté et se fonderont dans une sorte de “super-nation” sous l’hégémonie américaine. Telle est bien l’idée  centrale de la globalisation à l’oeuvre aujourd’hui. Ce projet est irréalisable avec un Vladimir Poutine car il s’y oppose et défend la souveraineté russe. Ensuite, il ne reconnaît pas la  prétention américaine à exercer cette hégémonie en toute exclusivité. C’est là qu’il faut chercher la vraie raison des attaques acharnées que commet l’Occident contre lui et de sa diabolisation. C’est aussi la  raison pour laquelle l’Occident soutient de manière aussi spectaculaire l’opposition russe: il s’agit d’acquérir de l’influence et de consolider l’hégémonie occidentale.

Q.: D’après vous donc, Poutine fait tout ce qu’il faut faire...

AD: Bien sûr que non. Il a commis  des erreurs, notamment lors des dernières élections pour le Parlement. Elles n’ont pas été aussi transparentes qu’elles auraient dû l’être.

Q.: La critique occidentale s’adresse surtout aux élections présidentielles...

AD: Pourtant, lors de ces élections-là, c’était le contraire: elles ont été parfaitement transparentes. La  grande  majorité des électeurs  soutient Poutine, voilà tout, même si l’Occident ne peut ni ne veut le comprendre. L’étranger ne soutient qu’une minorité pro-américaine, ultra-libérale et hostile à toute souveraineté russe, pour qu’elle s’attaque à Poutine. Tel est l’enjeu. Voyez-vous, Poutine peut être bon ou mauvais en politique intérieure, cela n’a pas d’importance pour l’Occident. La mobilisation de ses efforts pour maintenir l’idée de souveraineté  —et pas seulement la souveraineté russe—  et l’existence d’un monde  multipolaire fait qu’il est la cible de toutes les attaques occidentales.

Q.: L’Ukraine aussi subit désormais de lourdes attaques médiatiques en provenance de l’Occident. C’est surtout la détention de Ioulia Timochenko  que critiquent les médias. Est-ce que l’enjeu en Ukraine est le même qu’en Russie?

AD: La situation en Ukraine est complètement différente, même si les critiques occidentales visent également la souveraineté du pays.

Q.: Le président ukrainien Viktor Ianoukovitch est considéré par les agences médiatiques occidentales comme “pro-russe”...

AD: C’est pourtant faux. Ianoukovitch tente de maintenir un équilibre politique entre la  Russie et l’Union Européenne. Bien sûr, il n’estp as aussi pro-occidental que ne l’était Mme Timochenko. Ce qui dérange l’Occident, c’est que Ianoukovitch s’est à nouveau rapproché de la Russie. C’est contraire aux intérêts atlantistes. Ioulia Timochenko est aujourd’hui le symbole de ce que l’on a appelé  la “révolution orange”  —que l’Occident a soutenu matériellement et idéologiquement en Ukraine. C’est pour cette raison  que les forces atlantistes la considèrent comme une héroïne.

Q.: Ce que l’on critique surtout, ce sont les conditions de  détention de Ioulia Timochenko. On dit que ces conditions bafouent lourdement les règles convenues quant aux droits de l’Homme...

AD: L’Occident utilise les droits de l’Homme à tour de bras pour pouvoir exercer influence et chantage sur les gouvernements qui lui déplaisent. Si l’on parle vrai et que l’on dévoile sans détours ses plans hégémoniques et ses véritables intérêts politiques, on obtient moins de succès que si l’on adopte un langage indirect et que l’on évoque sans cesse les droits de l’Homme. Voilà ce qu’il faut toujours avoir en tête.

Q.: Vous venez d’évoquer la “révolution orange” qui a secoué l’Ukraine en 2004. Les protestations et manifestations contre Poutine à Moscou, il y a quelques mois et quelques semaines, ont-elles, elles aussi, été une nouvelle tentative de “révolution colorée”?

AD: Absolument.

Q.: Pourquoi ces manifestations se déroulent-elles  maintnenant et pourquoi cela ne s’est-il pas passé auparavant?

AD: Il me paraît très intéressant d’observer le “timing”. Il y a une explication très simple. Le Président Dmitri Medvedev est considéré en Occident comme une sorte de nouveau Gorbatchev. L’Occident avait espéré que Medvedev aurait introduit des réformes de nature ultra-libérales lors de son éventuel second mandat présidentiel et se serait rapproché des Etats-Unis et de l’UE. Mais quand Medvedev a déclaré qu’il laisserait sa place de président à Poutine et qu’il redeviendrait chef du gouvernement, la “révolution” a aussitôt commencé en Russie.

Q.: Les protestations et manifestations visaient cependant les fraudes supposées dans le scrutin et le manque de transparence lors des présidentielles...

AD: Non, ça, c’est une “dérivation”. Il s’agissait uniquement d’empêcher tout retour de Poutine à la présidence. Une fois de plus, bon nombre d’ONG et de groupes influencés par l’Occident sont entrés  dans la danse. Cela a permis d’accroître l’ampleur des manifestations, d’autant plus que certains déboires el a politique de Poutine ont pu être exploités. La politique de Poutine n’a pas vraiment connu le succès sur le plan social et il restait encore quelques sérieux problèmes de corruption dans son système. C’était concrètement les points faibles de sa politique. Mais répétons-le: la révolte contre Poutine a été et demeure inspirée et soutenue par l’étranger et n’a finalement pas grand chose à voir avec ces faiblesses politique: il s’agissait uniquement de barrer la  route au souverainisme qu’incarne Poutine.

Q.: D’après vous, Medvedev serait pro-occidental...

AD: La politique russe est plus compliquée qu’on ne l’imagine en Occident. Laissez-moi vous donner une explication simple: d’une  part, nous avons le souverainiste et le Realpolitiker Poutine, d’autre part, nous avons les “révolutionnaires (colorés)” et les atlantistes ultra-libéraux soutenus par l’Occident. Medvedev se situe entre les deux. Ensuite, les oligarques comme, par exemple, Boris Abramovitch Beresovski qui vit à Londres, jouent un rôle important aux côtés des révolutionnaires ultra-libéraux.

Q.: A ce propos, on ne fait qu’évoquer la figure de Mikhail Khodorkovski, sans cesse arrêté et emprisonné. Dans les médias occidentaux, il passe pour un martyr du libéralisme et de la démocratie. Comment jugez-vous cela?

AD: Il représente surtout le crime organisé en Russie. Dans un pays occidental, on n’imagine pas qu’un individu comme Khodorkovski ne se retrouverait pas aussi en prison. Il est tout aussi criminel que les autres oligarques qui ont amassé beaucoup d’argent en très peu de temps.

Q.: Et pourquoi les autres ne sont-ils pas en prison?

AD: C’est là que je critiquerai Poutine: les oligarques qui se montrent loyaux à son égard sont en liberté.

Q.: Quelle a été la faute de Khodorkovski?

AD: Khodorkovski n’a fait que soutenir les positions pro-occidentales, notamment quand il a plaidé pour un désarmement de grande envergure de l’armée russe. Il a soutenu les forces libérales et pro-occidentales en Russie. Pour Khodorkovski, le “désarmement” de la  Russie constituait une étape importante dans l’ouverture du pays au libéralisme et à l’occidentalisation. Il fallait troquer l’indépendance et la souveraineté contre un alignement sur les positions atlantistes. Alors qu’il était l’homme le plus riche de Russie, Khodorkovski a annoncé qu’il était en mesure d’acheter non seulement les parlements mais aussi les électeurs. Il est même allé plus  loin: il a fait pression sur Poutine pour faire vendre aux Américains la plus grosse entreprise pétrolière russe, “Ioukos”.

Q.: Khodorkovski était donc opposé à Poutine en bien des domaines?

AD: Effectivement. Khodorkovski a ouvertement déclaré la guerre à Poutine. Et Poutine a réagi, fait traduire l’oligarque en justice, où il a été condamné, non pas pour ses vues politiques mais pour les délits qu’il a commis. Pour l’Occident, Khodorkovski est bien entendu un héros. Parce qu’il s’est opposé à Poutine et parce qu’il voulait faire de la Russie une part du “Gros Occident”. Voilà pourquoi de nombreux gouvernements occidentaux, les agences médiatiques et les ONG prétendent que Khodorkovski est un “prisonnier politique”. C’est absurde et ridicule. Ce qui mérite la critique, en revanche, c’est que dans notre pays un grand nombre d’oligarques sont en liberté alors qu’ils ont commis les mêmes délits que Khodorkovski. Ils sont libres parce qu’ils n’ont pas agi contre Poutine. Voilà la véritable injustice et non pas l’emprisonnement que subit Khodorkovski.

Q.: Peut-on dire que, dans le cas de Khodorkovski, Poutine a, en quelque sorte, usé du “frein de secours”?

AD: Oui, on peut le dire. Avant que Khodorkovski ait eu la possibilité de livrer à l’étranger le contrôle des principales ressources de la Russie, Poutine l’a arrêté.

Q.: Vous  parlez de groupes et d’ONG pro-occidentaux qui soutiennent en Russie les adversaires de Poutine et qui, en Ukraine et aussi en Géorgie, ont soutenu les “révolutions colorées”. Qui se profile derrière ces organisations?

AD: Celui qui joue un rôle fort important dans toute cette agitation est le milliardaire américain Georges Soros qui, par l’intermédiaire de ses fondations, soutient à grande échelle les groupements pro-occidentaux en Russie; A Soros s’ajoutent d’autres fondations américaines comme par exemple “Freedom House” dont les activités sont financées à concurrence de 80% par des fonds provenant du gouvernement américain. “Freedom House” finance par exemple la diffusion de l’ouvrage de Gene Sharp, politologue américain auteur de “The Politics of non violent Action”, auquel se réfèrent directement les “révolutionnaires colorés” d’Ukraine. Beaucoup d’autres groupements et organisations sont partiellement financés par le gouvernement américain ou par des gouvernements européens en Russie ou dans des pays qui firent jadis partie de l’Union Soviétique. Nous avons affaire à un véritable réseau. Toutes les composantes de ce réseau sont unies autour d’un seul objectif: déstabiliser la Russie pour qu’à terme le pays deviennent une composante de la sphère occidentale.

Q.: Est-ce là une nouvelle forme de guerre?

AD: On peut parfaitement le penser. Les révolutions colorées représentent en effet une nouvelle forme des guerre contre les Etats souverains. Les attaques produisent des effets à tous les niveaux de la société. Dans cette nouvelle forme de guerre, on ne se pas pas en alignant et avançant des chars ou de l’artillerie mais en utilisant toutes les ressources des agences de propagande, en actionnant la pompe à finances et en manipulant des réseaux avec lesquels on tente de paralyser les centres de  décision de l’adversaire. Et l’une des armes les plus importantes dans le nouvel arsenal de  cette nouvelle forme de guerre, c’est la notion des “droits de l’Homme”.

Q.: Monsieur Douguine, nous vous remercions de nous avoir accordé cet entretien.

Zuerst Magazin: Interview mit Alexandr Dugin

Zuerst Magazin: Interview mit Alexandr Dugin

ex: http://www.zuerst.de/

Herr Dugin, Rußland wird seit Monaten mit einem Trommelfeuer westlicher Kritik überzogen – vor allem nach der Wiederwahl Wladimir Putins zum Präsidenten der Russischen Föderation. Politiker und Medien behaupten, die Wahlen seien gefälscht gewesen, Putin sei kein Demokrat und verletze die Menschenrechte…

Dugin: Wladimir Putin gehört wohl zu den wirklichen Größen in der internationalen Politik. Seine Politik ist zudem sehr speziell, das mögen viele Politiker und Journalisten im Westen vielleicht nicht verstehen. Einerseits handelt es sich bei Putin um einen liberalen, durchaus pro-westlichen Politiker, andererseits ist er ein starker Verfechter der russischen Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit. So tritt er gegenüber den USA und ihrer geopolitischen Interessen stark auf. Er ist also gleichzeitig liberal-demokratisch und souveränistisch. Putin ist zudem ein absoluter politischer Realist und kein Phantast. Putin wäre eigentlich der perfekte Partner für jedes westliche Land, welches sich ebenfalls der Souveränität einen so hohen Stellenwert einräumt. Aber der Westen hat längst dem politischen Realismus eine Absage erteilt.

Wie meinen Sie das?

Dugin: Sehen Sie, der Westen glaubt heute doch, daß alle liberalen Demokratien unter Aufgabe ihrer Souveränität zu einer Art Supernation unter US-Führung verschmelzen sollen. Das ist doch die Idee der Globalisierung. Doch das ist mit Wladimir Putin nicht zu machen, er wehrt sich dagegen und verteidigt die russische Souveränität. Zudem erkennt er nicht den Hegemonialanspruch der USA an. Das ist der wahre Grund, weshalb er aus dem Westen so scharf attackiert und dämonisiert wird. Und das ist auch der Grund, weshalb der Westen so massiv die Opposition in Rußland unterstützt – es geht um Einfluß und westliche Hegemonie.

Macht Putin also Ihrer Ansicht nach alles richtig?

Dugin: Natürlich nicht. Fehler wurden beispielsweise bei den vergangenen Parlamentswahlen gemacht. Diese waren nicht so transparent, wie sie hätten sein sollen und müssen.

Die westliche Kritik richtete sich aber vor allem auf die Präsidentenwahlen…

Dugin: Da war ja genau das Gegenteil der Fall: Diese Wahlen waren sehr transparent. Die große Mehrheit der Wähler unterstützt nun einmal Putin, auch wenn es der Westen nicht verstehen kann oder will. Nur eine Minderheit, die pro-amerikanisch, ultra-liberal und anti-souveränistisch eingestellt ist, wurde vom Ausland unterstützt, damit sie Putin angreift. Darum geht es. Sehen Sie, Putin kann in der Innenpolitik gut oder schlecht sein, das spielt für den Westen keine Rolle. Sein Eintreten für die Souveränität – und nicht nur für die von Rußland – sowie für eine multipolare Welt macht ihn zum Angriffsziel des Westens.

Auch die Ukraine ist schweren medialen Angriffen aus dem Westen ausgesetzt. Vor allem die Inhaftierung von Julia Timoschekow wird kritisiert. Geht es dort um die gleichen Dinge wie in Rußland?

Dugin: Die Situation in der Ukraine ist eine völlig andere, obgleich die Kritik aus dem Westen ebenfalls auf die Souveränität des Landes abzielt.

Der ukrainische Präsident Wiktor Janukowytsch gilt in den etablierten westlichen Medien als „pro-russisch“…

Dugin: Das ist aber falsch. Janukowytsch versucht das politische Gleichgewicht zwischen Rußland und der Europäischen Union zu halten. Natürlich ist er nicht so pro-westlich, wie es Timoschenkow war. Aber was den Westen stört, ist daß Janukowytsch sich wieder an Rußland angenähert hat. Das widerspricht den transatlantischen Interessen. Julia Timoschenkow hingegen ist heute ein Symbol für die sogenannte „Orangene Revolution“ – die vom Westen materiell und ideologisch unterstützt wurde - in der Ukraine. Im Westen gilt sie deswegen als Heldin.

Vor allem die Haftbedingungen von Julia Timoschenkow stehen in der Kritik. Es ist die Rede davon, daß diese einen schweren Verstoß gegen die Menschenrechte darstellen…

Dugin: Der Begriff der Menschenrechte wird vom Westen immer wieder gerne dafür genutzt, um auf mißliebige Regierungen Einfluß auszuüben. Spricht man über Hegemonie und Interessen, hat man für seine Politik weniger Unterstützung als wenn man über die Menschenrechte spricht. Das ist der Punkt.

Sie erwähnten die „Orangene Revolution“ in der Ukraine im Jahr 2004. Waren die Proteste und Demonstrationen gegen Putin in Moskau vor einigen Wochen ebenfalls ein Versuch einer solchen „Farbrevolution“?

Dugin: Absolut.

Warum erst jetzt und nicht schon früher?

Dugin: Das Timing ist sehr interessant. Und es gibt dafür eine sehr einfache Erklärung. Präsident Dmitri Medwedew wurde vom Westen als eine Art zweiter Gorbatschow betrachtet. Die Hoffnung des Westens war, daß Medwedew in einer zweiten Amtszeit als Präsident entscheidende ultra-liberale Reformen umsetzen würde und sich der EU und den USA annähern. Als aber Medwedew erklärte, er werde das Präsidentenamt für Putin freimachen und stattdessen wieder Regierungschef werden, war das der Start für die „Revolution“ in Rußland.

Die Proteste und Demonstrationen richteten sich doch angeblich gegen die mutmaßlichen Wahlfälschungen und gegen die fehlende Transparenz bei den Präsidentenwahlen…

Dugin: Nein, das ist Unsinn. Es ging einzig und allein darum, eine Rückkehr Wladimir Putin ins Präsidentenamt zu verhindern. Und wieder mischten dabei viele westlich beeinflußte Gruppen und Nichtregierungsorganisationen mit. Dabei wurde dieser Protest gegen Putin noch ausgeweitet, was durch die Mißerfolge Putins natürlich einfacher wurde. Er war vor allem in sozialen Belangen nicht sehr erfolgreich und es gibt nach wie vor große Probleme mit der Korruption im System Putins. Das sind tatsächliche Schwachpunkte seiner Politik. Aber nochmals: Die Revolte gegen Putin war und ist inspiriert und unterstützt von ausländischen Kräften und hat nichts mit diesen Schwachpunkten zu tun – es geht einzig und allein um Putins souveränistische Ausrichtung, die bekämpft werden soll.

Medwedew gilt als pro-westlich?

Dugin: Die russische Politik ist etwas komplizierter, als man im Westen allgemein annimmt. Lassen Sie es mich so erklären: Wir haben auf der einen Seite den Souveränisten und politischen Realisten Wladimir Putin, auf der anderen Seite sind die ultra-liberalen, vom Westen geförderten „Revolutionäre“ und Transatlantiker. Zwischen diesen beiden Positionen steht Medwedew. Übrigens spielen auch die Oligarchen wie beispielsweise Boris Abramowitsch Beresowski, der in London lebt, auf Seiten der ultra-liberalen Revolutionäre eine wichtige Rolle.

In diesem Zusammenhang wird auch immer wieder der inhaftierte Michail Chodorkowski genannt. In den westlichen Medien gilt er mittlerweile als eine Art liberaler, demokratischer Märtyrer. Wie sehen Sie das?

Dugin: Er steht für das organisierte Verbrechen in Rußland. Es ist kaum vorstellbar, daß ein Mann wie Chodorkowski in einem westlichen Land nicht in Haft säße. Er ist genauso kriminell wie die vielen anderen Oligarchen, die in sehr kurzer Zeit und sehr viel Geld gekommen sind.

Warum sitzen dann die anderen nicht im Gefängnis?

Dugin: Das ist wieder ein Kritikpunkt an Putin: Die Oligarchen, die ihm gegenüber loyal sind, sind auf freiem Fuß.

Was war Chodorkowskis Fehler?

Dugin: Chodorkowski machte sich zunehmend für pro-westliche Positionen stark, sprach sich unter anderem für eine starke Abrüstung der russischen Armee aus. Er unterstützte westlich-liberale Kräfte in Rußland. Für Chodorkowski war eine russische „Entwaffnung“ ein wichtiger Weg, das Land für die westlich-liberale Entwicklung zu öffnen. Unabhängigkeit und Souveränität sollten gegen eine größere Bindung an den Westen eingetauscht werden. Als reichster Mann Rußlands verkündete Chodorkowski sogar, er könne nicht nur Parlamente, sondern auch Wahlergebnisse kaufen. Chodorkowski ging sogar noch weiter: Er erpreßte Putin damit, daß er das größte Erdölunternehmen Rußlands „Jukos“ an die Amerikaner verkaufen würde.

Damit stand Chodorkowski also im Widerspruch zu Putin…

Dugin: Genau das ist der Punkt. Chodorkowski hat Putin quasi öffentlich den Krieg erklärt. Und Putin reagierte und ließ den Oligarchen vor Gericht stellen, wo er natürlich nicht wegen seiner politischen Ansichten, sondern wegen seiner Verbrechen verurteilt wurde. Für den Westen ist Chodorkowski natürlich ein Held. Denn er wollte es mit Putin aufnehmen und Rußland zum Teil des Westens machen. Daher behaupten nun verschiedene westliche Regierungen, Medien und NGOs, Chodorkowski sei ein politischer Häftling. Und genau das ist Unsinn. Kritik verdient aber die Tatsache, daß so viele andere Oligarchen bei uns noch immer frei herumlaufen, obwohl sie die gleichen Verbrechen begangen haben wie Chodorkowski. Diese sind nur deshalb frei, weil sie nicht gegen Putin agieren. Genau das ist die große Ungerechtigkeit und nicht die Haftstrafe Chodorkowskis.

Hat Putin bei Chodorkowskis sozusagen die Notbremse gezogen?

Dugin: Genau so kann man das sagen. Bevor Chodorkowskis die Möglichkeit hatte, die Kontrolle der wichtigsten Ressourcen Rußlands an das Ausland zu vergeben, hat ihn Putin gestoppt.

Sie sprechen von den pro-westlichen Gruppen und NGOs, die in Rußland die Putin-Gegner unterstützen und in der Ukraine, aber auch in Georgien die „bunten Revolutionen“ unterstützt haben. Wer steht hinter diesen Organisationen?

Dugin: Eine wichtige Rolle spielt hierbei der US-Milliardär George Soros, der über seine Stiftungen pro-westliche Gruppen in Rußland massiv unterstützt. Dazu kommen andere US-Stiftungen, wie beispielsweise „Freedom House“, die ihrerseits mit etwa 80 Prozent mit Geldern der US-Regierung finanziert wird. „Freedom House“ sorgt für die Verbreitung der Schrift The Politics of Nonviolent Action des US-Politologen Gene Sharp, auf die sich die Revolutionäre in der Ukraine explizit berufen. Viele andere Gruppen und Organisationen, teilweise direkt von der US-Regierung oder den europäischen Regierungen finanziert, engagieren sich in Rußland und in den Ländern der ehemaligen Sowjetunion. Es gibt es regelrechtes Netzwerk. Sie alle eint ein Ziel: die Destabilisierung Rußlands, damit das Land ein Teil des westlichen Systems wird.

Ist das eine neue Form des Krieges?

Dugin: So kann man das betrachten. Die bunten Revolutionen sind eine neue Form des Krieges gegen souveräne Staaten. Die Angriffe wirken auf allen Ebenen der Gesellschaft. In diesem neuen Krieg kämpft man nicht mit Kanonen, sondern mit Propaganda, Geld und weit verzweigten Netzwerken, mit denen man versucht, die Entscheidungszentren des Gegners lahmzulegen. Eine der wichtigsten Waffen dieses neuen Krieges ist der Begriff der „Menschenrechte“.

Herr Dugin, vielen Dank für das Gespräch.

Julius Evola e o Tradicionalismo Russo

Julius Evola

e o Tradicionalismo Russo

 por Aleksandr Dugin

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com/

1) A Descoberta de Evola na Rússia

Os trabalhos de Julius Evola foram descobertos nos anos 60 pelo grupo de intelectuais esotéricos e anti-comunistas conhecidos como “os dissidentes da direita”. Eles compunham um pequeno círculo de pessoas que conscientemente se negavam a participar da “vida cultural” da URSS e que, ao invés disso, tinham escolhido uma vida subterânea para si. A disparidade entre o cultura Soviética presente e a verdadeira realidade Soviética foi quase que totalmente o motivo que os levou a buscar os princípios fundamentais que poderiam explicar as origens daquela terrível idéia absolutista. Foi pela sua recusa do Comunismo que eles descobriram certos trabalhos de autores anti-modernos e tradicionalistas: acima de tudo, os livros de Rene Guenon e Julius Evola. Duas personalidades centrais animavam este grupo – o filósofo islâmico Geidar Djemal e o poeta não-conformista Eugene Golovine. Graças a eles, esses “dissidents da direita” souberam os nomes e as idéias do dois maiores tradicionalistas do século. Nos anos 70, uma das primeiras traduções de um trabalho de Evola (A Tradição Hermética) apareceu e foi distribuída dentro de um grupo, de acordo com os métodos do Samizdat [1]. No entanto, as traduções originais eram particularmente ruins em qualidade, porque elas foram feitas por amadores incompetentes muito distantes do grupo de verdadeiros intelectuais tradicionalistas.

Em 1981, uma tradução do Heidnische Imperialismus apareceu de maneira similar, como o único livro desse tipo disponível na Livraria Lenin em Moscow. Desta vez, a distribuição pelo Samizdathavia se tornado muito maior e a qualidade da tradução era muito melhor. Pouco a pouco eles distanciaram a verdadeira corrente tradicionalista do anti-comunismo, e a aproximaram do anti-modernismo, extendendo a sua negação da existência Soviética para a rejeição do mundo moderno, de maneira muito próxima à visão tradicionalista integral. Deve notar-se que as idéias tradicionalistas em questão, neste ponto particular, foram completamente removidas dos outros grupos de “dissidentes da direita”, que geralmente eram Cristãos ortodoxos, monarquistas e nacionalistas. Nesta época, Evola era mais popular entre aqueles interessados no espiritualismo em sentido amplo: praticantes de yoga, teosofistas [2], psiquistas [3], e daí em diante.

Durante a Perestroika, todos os tipos de dissidência anti-comunista se manifestaram e dos “dissidentes da direita” vieram as ideologias políticas e culturais da Direita atual: nacionalistas, nostálgicos, anti-liberais e anti-Ocidentais. Neste contexto e depois do desenvolvimente de idéias estritamente tradicionalistas, como resultado do Glasnost, os nomes de Guenon e Evola foram introduzidos no conjunto cultural russo. Os primeiros trabalhos de Evola apareceram nos anos 90, nas amplamente lidas partes da mídia conhecidamente “patriótica” ou “conservadora” e o assunto do tradicionalismo tornou-se tema de virulentas polêmicas e era um assunto importante para a Direita Russa como um todo. Periódicos como Elementy, Nach Sovremennik, Mily Anguel, Den, etc, começaram a publicar fragmentos dos escritos de Evolas, ou artigos inspirados nele, ou em que seu nome e citações apareciam.Pouco a pouco o campo “conservador” veio a ter uma estrutura ideológica que produziu cisões entre os velhos nostáligcos e monarquistas da Direita e os mais abertos não conformistas e participantes da Direita menos ortodoxa (algumas vezes chamados de “novye pravye”, em russo, pode-se estar inclinado a fazer um paralelo com a “nouvelle droite”, mas foi um fenômeno bem diferente como um todo em relação com a ND européia). Pode-se categorizar este segundo grupo de patriotas como sendo parte da “Terceira Via” ou “Nacional-Revolucionários” e por aí em diante. O ponto de separação se dá exatamente sobre a aceitação ou rejeição da idéias de Evola, ou talvez mais apropriadamente, da idéias de Evola que não poderiam ser consideradas naturalmente “conservadoras” ou “reacionárias”, como a idéia de “Revolução Conservadora” e de “Revolta Contra o Mundo Moderno”.

Recentemente, o primeiro livro “Heidnische Imperialismus” teve 50.000 cópias publicadas. Até mesmo um programa de televisão voltado a Evola foi feito por uma canal popular. Então, pode-se ver que a descoberta de Evola pela Rússia foi feita em uma escala bastante ampla. Ele, que uma vez constitui o núcleo intelectual hiper-marginal da Rússia, antes da Perestroika, se tornou agora um fenômeno político e ideológico considerável. Mas é bem claro que Evola escreveu seus livros e formulou suas idéias num contexto temporal, cultural, histórico e étnico bem diferente. Isso, então, torna-se um problema: quais partes da filosofia de Evola são relevantes para a Rússia moderna e quais partes precisam ser trabalhadas, melhoradas ou mesmo rejeitadas, nessas circunstâncias? Esta pergunta necessita de uma rápida análise comparando e contrastando o tradicionalismo sagrado de Evola e o fenômeno político estritamente russo.


2) Contra o Ocidente Moderno

Desde o começo, se torna óbvio que a rejeição do mundo mercenário profano moderno, manifestado na Civilização Ocidental durante os últimos séculos, é comum tanto para Evola quanto para a totalidade da tradição intelectual da Eslavofilia Russa. Autores russos como Homyakov, Kirievsky, Aksakov, Leontiev e Danilevsky (entre os filósofos), assim como Dostoevsky, Gogol e Merejkovsky (entre os romancistas), criticaram o mundo Ocidental quase na mesma linguagem em que o fez Evola. Pode-se observar que todos eles possuiam o mesmo ódio pelo governo dos mafiosos, ou seja, o sistema democrático moderno, e que eles consideravam este sistema como degradação espiritual e profanação total. Similarmente, pode-se observar o mesmo diagnóstico para essas doenças do mundo moderno - a Franco-Maçonaria Profana, o judaismo depravado, o avanço da plebe, a deificação da “razão” – em Evola e na cultura “conservadora” russa. Obviamente, a tendência reacionária aqui é comum a ambos, então a crítica de Evola do Ocidente está totalmente de acordo com, e é aceitável para a linha de pensamentos do conservadorismo russo.

Mais freqüentemente do que não [freqüentemente], pode-se ver que as críticas de Evola estão mais proximamente relacionadas com a mentalidade russa do que com uma mais amplamente européia – o mesmo tipo de generalização, a invocação freqüente de objetivos mitológicos e místicos, a noção distinta de que o mundo espiritual interno é organicamente separado das realidades imediatas modernas da perversão e do desvio. Em geral, a tradição conservadora russa de hodiernamente explicar eventos históricos num sentido mitológico, é de alguma forma, obrigatória. O apelo ao sobrenatural/irracional, aqui, está em perfeita congruência com o pensamento russo, que faz da explicação racional a exceção, e não a regra.

Pode-se notar a influência que os conservadores russos exeerceram em Evola: nos seus trabalhos ele freqüentemente cita Dostoevsky, Merejkovsky (quem ele conhecia pessoalmente) e muitos outros autores russos. Na outra mão, as frequëntes referências que ele faz à Malynsky e Leon de Poncins carregam parcialmente a tradição contra-revolucionária tão típica do Ser europeu. Pode-se citar também as referências que ele faz a Serge Nilus, o compilador do famoso “Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião”, que Evola reeditou na Itália.

Ao mesmo tempo, fica claro que Evola conhecia relativamente pouco sobre os meios conservadores russos, e, de fato, ele nem mesmo estava particularmente interessado neles, devido à sua idiossincrasia anti-cristã. A respeito da tradição Ortodoxa ele fez apenas alguns insignificantes comentários. Mesmo assim, a semelhança entre a sua posição sobre a crise do mundo moderno e o anti-modernismo do autores russos é dada, amplamente, pela comunidade de reações orgânicas – Grandes Homens e “indivíduos”, no caso de Evola e heróis, no caso dos russos. Mas graças à espontaneidade das convergências anti-modernas, a gravidade dos desacordos de Evola, se tornam muito mais interessantes e muito mais críticos.

Em qualquer nível, as interpretações de Evola se encaixam perfeitamente no quadro de ideologia moderna da “novye pravye”, [isso ocorre] tão amplamente, que ela [novye pravye] agrega mais à sua visão da degradação da modernidade, aplicando, algumas vezes, as suas idéias [de Evola] mais globalmente, mais radicalmente e mais profundamente. Deste modo, as teorias de Evola são muito bem aceitas na Rússia moderna, onde o anti-Ocidentalismo é um fator político-ideológico extremamente potente. 

3) Roma e a Terceira Roma

Um aspecto particular do pensamento de Evola é sentido pelos russos como de uma extrema e iminente importância: sua exaltação do Ideal Imperial. Roma representa o ponto principal da visão-de-mundo de Evola. Este poder sagrado vivente, que se manifestou por todo o Império era, para Evola, a própria essência da herança do Ocidente tradicional. Para Evola, as ruínas do Palácio de Nero e dos prédios romanos eram como um testamento direto de uma santidade orgânica e física, da qual a integridade e continuaidade fora aniquilada pelo “castelo” kafkiano [4] do Vaticano Católico Guelfo.

A sua linha de pensamento Guibelina era clara: Imperium contra a Igreja, Roma contra o vaticano, a sacralidade iminente e orgânica contra as abstrações sentimentais e devocionais da fé, implicitamente dualista e Farisaica[5].

Mas uma linha de pensamento similar, aparentemente, é naturalmente sentida pelos russos, de quem o destino histórico sempre esteve profundamente ligado ao [Ideal] do Imperium. Esta noção estava dogmaticamente enraizada na concepção Ortodoxa da filosofia staret[6] – “Moscow: A Terceira Roma” – Deve-se tomar nota que a “Primeira Roma” nesta interpretação cíclica Ortodoxa não era a Roma Cristã, mas a Roma Imperial, porque a “Segunda Roma” (ou “a Nova Roma”) era Constantinopla, a capital do Império Cristão. Então a mesma idéia de “Roma” mantida pelos Ortodoxos Russos, corresponde ao entendimento de sacralidade como a importância daquilo que é Sagrado e assim, a necessária e inseparável “sinfonía” entre autoridade espiritual e o reino temporal. Para a ortodoxia tradicional, a separação católica entre o Rei e o Papa é inimaginável e beira a blasfêmia, este conceito é até mesmo chamado de “heresia Latina”.

Mais uma vez, pode-se ver a perfeita convergência entre o dogma de Evola e o pensamento comum da mentalidade conservadora russa. E outra vez mais, a clara exaltação espiritual do Imperium nos livros de Evola, é de inestimável valor para os russos, pois isto é o que eles veem como a sua verdadeira identidade tradicional. O “imperialismo sinfônico”, ou melhor, “Imperialismo Guibelino”.

Existe um outro detalhe importante que merece ser mencionado aqui. É sabido que o “Autor do Terceiro Reich” Artur Müller van den Bruck, foi profundamente influenciado pelos escritos de Fiodor Dostoievsky, para quem o conceito de “Terceira Roma” era vitalmente significativo. Pode-se ver mesma visão escatológica de van den Bruck do “Último Império”, nascido da convergência metafórica entre as idéias dos montanistas paracléticos[7] e as profecias de Joachim de Flora[8].

Van den Bruck, de quem as idéias eram algumas vezes citadas por Evola, adaptou o seu conceito de “Terceira Roma” da tradição Ortodoxa russa, e aplicou na Alemanha, onde ele foi ulteriormente trabalhado espiritual e socialmente pelos Nacional-Socialistas. Um fato interessante é que Erich Müller, o protegé de Nikisch[9], que fora grandemente inspirado por van den Bruck, comentou certa vez que o Primeiro Reich havia sido Católico[10], o Segundo Reich, Protestante[11], o Terceiro Reich deveria ser, exatamente, Ortodoxo!

Mas o próprio Evola participou amplamente nos debates intelectuais dos círculos revoluionários-conservadores alemães (ele era membro do “Herrenklub” de von Gleichen, que era a continuação do “Juniklub” fundado por van den Bruck), onde assuntos similares eram discutidos de uma maneira muito vívida. Agora é fácil ver outra maneira em que a mentalidade conservadora russa está ligada às teorias de Evola. Obviamente, não é possível dizer que as suas idéias, nesses problemas particulares, eram idênticas, mas ao mesmo tempo, existem conexões extraordinárias entre os dois que podem ajudar a explicar a assimilação das idéias de Evola para a mentalidade russa, que possui visões muito menos “extravagantes” do que aquelas pertencentes à Europa Conservadora Tradicional, que é majoritariamente Católica e Nacionalista nos dias de hoje, e raramente Imperialista.

***

[1] Samizdat foi um sistema na antiga URSS em que os livros oficialmente “impermissíveis” circulavam pelo país; estes eram cópias de cópias e não tinham boa qualidade, mas eles tendiam a chegar ao seu objetivo.

[2] Um escola religiosa/filosófica fundada pela ocultista russa Helena Blavatsky.

[3] Um conceito teosófico relacionado à todos os fenômenos mentais; C.G. Jung também o discutiu ocasinalmente.

[4] Para aqueles que não estão familiarizados com o trabalho de Kafka, esta é uma referência para o seu livro chamado “O Castelo”, que é sobre um homem que contrai o que deveria ser uma trabalho relativamente fácil num lugar distante, fazendo o levantamento das terras de um nobre local, mas que não consegue começar ou muito menos completar o seu trabalho, devido à burocracia imposta pelo seu próprio empregador (que ele nunca conhece pessoalmente, apenas por um representante ou representante de um representante) e que se frustra muito pelo fato de que o imenso e opressivo castelo do Conde pode ser visto de qualquer parte da cidade, mas ele não consegue nunca ir até lá para começar a sua tarefa. Obviamente, esta é uma acusação metafórica contra a totalidade do sistema judaico-cristão e como ele se relaciona com uma aparentemente impossível salvação. Da mesma forma, “Guelfo” se refere à uma coalisão alemã/italiana da Idade Média que apoiava a casa real de Guelfo contra a Dinastia Imperial Alemã dos Guibelinos, que era hostil ao Papa e ao Catolicismo.

[5] Referete aos Fariseus, hipocrisia, duplicidade, falsidade, fingimento.

[6] Os starets eram conselheiros espirituais, mas não sacerdotes: Rasputin poderia ser considerado como um.

[7] Os montanistas foram os precursors das seitas pentecostais modernas, i.e., aqueles que acreditam em revelações divinas pessoais e falar em linguas diferentes.

[8] de Flora era o Abade de Corazzo que completou um ensaio bastante presciente sobre a “era da razão”, por volta de 1200, onde ele escreveu “no novo dia, homens não dependerão da fé, porque tudo será fundamentado no conhecimento e na razão.”

[9] Ernst Nikisch, um nacionalista alemão da mesma época.

[10] o Sacro Império Romano-Germânico

[11] a Prússia sob o governo de Frederico, o Grande

Alexandree Douguine sur "Méridien Zéro"

Alexandre Douguine

sur "Méridien Zéro" (Paris)

Alexander Dugin: "The Apparent and the Unbelievable" + "Pure Satanism"

"The Apparent and the Unbelievable": Alexander Dugin and Sergei Kapitsa (English subtitles) Part I

Dugin and Kapitsa 2 (Complete)



"Pure Satanism": Alexander Dugin on Postmodernity in Western Society

Traditionalism and Dugin, in Russian

Traditionalism and Dugin, in Russian

There is a new article in Russian on Dugin by Andreas Umland and Anton Shekhovtsov, "Philosophia Perennis и «неоевразийство»: роль интегрального традиционализма в утопических построениях Александра Дугина" (Philosophia Perennis and 'Neo-Eurasianism:' The Role of Integral Traditionalism in the Utopian Constructions of Aleksandr Dugin), in Форум новейшей восточноевропейской истории и культуры - Русское издание 2 (2010), available at http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/forum/inhaltruss14.html. This is a translation of Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland, "Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist? 'Neo-Eurasianism' and Perennial Philosophy" The Russian Review 68 (October 2009), pp. 662–78, discussed in a previous post.

Geopolitica della Romania

Aleksander G. Dughin:

Geopolitica della Romania

1. I geni romeni e l’identità romena


La Romania ha dato al mondo, specialmente nel XX secolo, tutta una pleiade di geni di livello mondiale : Nae Ionescu, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, Eugen Ionescu, Ştefan Lupaşcu, Jean Pârvulescu, Vasile Lovinescu, Mihail Vâlsan e molti altri.

Per quanto sia un piccolo Paese dell’Est europeo, sul piano intellettuale la Romania ha dato un contributo significativo alla civiltà, paragonabile a quello delle grandi nazioni europee e per poco non le ha superate. L’intellettualità romena ha di caratteristico che essa riflette lo spirito del pensiero europeo ed è indissolubilmente legata allo spirito tradizionale, traendo le proprie origini dalla terra e affondando le proprie radici nell’Antichità e in nell’Ortodossia di un immutato Oriente europeo.

Nel suo saggio su Mircea Eliade e l’unità dell’Eurasia, riferendosi alla natura eurasiatica della cultura romena, Claudio Mutti cita Eliade : « Mi sentivo il discendente e l’erede di una cultura interessante perché situata fra due mondi : quello occidentale, puramente europeo, e quello orientale. Partecipavo di questi due universi. Occidentale per via della lingua, latina, e per via del retaggio romano, nei costumi. Ma partecipavo anche di una cultura influenzata dall’Oriente e radicata nel neolitico. Ciò è vero per un Romeno, ma sono sicuro che sia lo stesso per un Bulgaro, un Serbo-Croato – insomma per i Balcani, l’Europa del Sud-Est – e per una parte della Russia » (M. Eliade, L’épreuve du Labyrinthe. Entretiens avec Claude-Henri Rocquet, Pierre Belfond, Paris 1978, pp. 26-27).

L’identità romena presenta una simbiosi tra vettori di civiltà orientali e occidentali, senza che gli uni prevalgano sugli altri. In ciò consiste l’unicità della Romania come società e come territorio e dei Romeni come popolo. La Romania e i Romeni si sono trovati divisi tra gl’imperi dell’Oriente (l’impero ottomano) e dell’Occidente (l’impero austro-ungarico), appartenendo alla chiesa ortodossa di rito bizantino e alla famiglia dei popoli di lingua neolatina.

Per gli eurasiatisti russi, questo è solo uno dei punti di approccio possibili, poiché essi prendono in considerazione una combinazione di coordinate occidentali ed orientali nella cultura e nella storia russa, dichiarando una specifica identità del popolo russo e dello Stato russo.

Quindi, nel quadro del dialogo culturale romeno-russo dovrebbe esser considerata la dottrina dell’eurasiatismo, la quale è autonoma, però, grazie alle varietà e alle proporzioni di cui essa dispone, ci offre una solida base per un mutuo approccio, ed una comprensione e un’amicizia reciproche.

Perciò la traduzione in romeno del libro I fondamenti della geopolitica, che contiene il programma della scuola geopolitica russa dell’eurasiatismo, può essere considerata un’opera di riferimento. Confido nel fatto che i Romeni, entrando in familiarità con la dottrina geopolitica dell’eurasiatismo di scuola russa, comprendano il paradigma del pensiero e dell’azione di Mosca sia in relazione al passato, sia in relazione al presente.

1. La Romania e la struttura delle opzioni geopolitiche (euroatlantismo ed eurocontinentalismo)


Adesso, alcune parole sulla geopolitica della Romania. Nelle condizioni attuali, l’espressione « geopolitica della Romania » non è molto appropriata, se prendiamo in considerazione la Romania come soggetto di geopolitica. Nell’architettura del mondo contemporaneo un soggetto del genere non esiste. Ciò è dovuto alla logica della globalizzazione, nella quale il problema si presenta in questi termini : o ci sarà un solo « Stato mondiale » (world state), con un governo mondiale guidato e dominato direttamente dall’ « Occidente ricco », in primo luogo dagli USA, oppure si stabilirà un equilibrio tra i « grandi spazi » (Grossraum) dei « nuovi imperi », i quali integreranno quelli che finora abbiamo conosciuto come « Stati nazionali ». Nel nostro mondo, o si passerà dagli Stati nazione sovrani (come nell’Europa tra il XVI e il XX secolo) al governo mondiale (mondo unipolare) o avrà luogo il passaggio verso un nuovo impero (mondo multipolare).

In entrambi i casi, la dimensione della Romania come Stato non ci consente di dire – nemmeno in teoria – che la Romania possa diventare un « polo » ; perfino la Russia, col suo potenziale nucleare, le sue risorsde naturali e il suo messianismo storico, si trova in una situazione analoga.

In tali condizioni, la « geopolitica della Romania » costituisce una sezione della « geopolitica dell’Europa unita ». Questo non è soltanto un dato politico attuale, essendo la Romania un Paese membro dell’Unione Europea, ma è un fatto inevitabilmente connesso alla sua situazione geopolitica. Anzi, la stessa « geopolitica dell’Europa unita » non è qualcosa di garantito e sicuro. Perfino l’Europa presa nel suo insieme, l’Unione Europea, può basare la sua sovranità solo su un mondo multipolare ; solo in un caso del genere l’Europa sarà sovrana, sicché la Romania, in quanto parte dell’Europa, beneficierà anch’essa della sovranità. L’adozione del modello americano unipolare di dominio, che rifiuta all’Europa la sovranità, coinvolge anche la Romania in quanto parte dell’Europa.

Perciò la familiarità con le questioni geopolitiche non è qualcosa di necessario e vitale, ma l’argomento va preso in considerazione quando si tratta di allargare l’orizzonte intellettuale.

In verità, se prendiamo in considerazione quello che abbiamo detto più sopra ikn relazione al contributo dei Romeni alla scienza ed alla cultura dell’Europa, la geopolitica potrebbe essere una base molto importante per determinare il ruolo e le funzioni della Romania nel contesto europeo. Non è quindi casuale il fatto che le prospettive geopolitiche occupino una parte significativa nei romanzi di quell’Europeo esemplare che  stato l’eccellente scrittore franco-romeno Jean Pârvulescu, saggista, poeta e pensatore profondo.

Il dilemma della geopolitica europea può essere ricondotto a una scelta fra l’euroatlantismo (riconoscimento della dipendenza da Washington) e l’eurocontinentalismo. Nel primo caso l’Europa rinuncia alla sua sovranità in favore del « fratello maggiore » oltremarino, mentre nel secondo caso essa insiste sulla propria sovranità (fino a organizzare un modello geopolitico e geostrategico proprio). Questa opzione non è completamente definita e sul piano teorico dipende da ciascuno dei Paesi dell’Unione Europea, quindi anche dalla Romania. Per questo motivo, che ha a che fare con la geopolitica della Romania nel senso stretto del termine, nel contesto attuale si rende necessaria una partecipazione consapevole e attiva nella scelta del futuro dell’Europa : dipendenza o indipendenza,  vassallaggio o sovranità, atlantismo o continentalismo.

Una geopolitica del « cordone sanitario »

Nella questione dell’identità geopolitica dell’Europa è possibile individuare il modello seguente : ci sono i Paesi della « Nuova Europa » (New Europe), paesi est-europei che tendono ad assumere posizioni russofobiche dure, aderendo in tal modo all’orientamento euroatlantico, delimitandosi ed estraniandosi dalle attuali tendenze continentali della Vecchia Europa, in primo luogo la Francia e la Germania (la Gran Bretagna è tradizionalmente alleata degli USA).

Questa situazione ha una lunga storia. L’Europa dell’Est è stata continuamente una zona di controversie tra Europa e Russia : ne abbiamo un esempio tra il secolo XIX e l’inizio del secolo XX, quando la Gran Bretagna usò deliberatamente questa regione come un « cordone sanitario » per prevenire una possibile alleanza tra la Russia e la Germania, alleanza che avrebbe posto fine al dominio anglosassone sul mondo. Oggi si verifica ancora la stessa cosa, con la sola differenza che adesso viene messo l’accento sui progetti energetici e nei Paesi del « cordone sanitario » si fa valere l’argomento secondo cui si tratterebbe anche di una rivincita per l’ »occupazione sovietica » del XX secolo. Argomenti nuovi, geopolitica vecchia.

La Romania è uno dei Paesi della « Nuova Europa » e quindi fa oggettivamente parte di quel « cordone sanitario ». Di conseguenza, la scelta geopolitica della Romania è la seguente : o schierarsi dalla parte del continentalismo, in quanto essa è un Paese di antica identità europea, o attestarsi su posizioni atlantiste, adempiendo in tal modo alla funzione di « cordone sanitario » assegnatole dagli USA. La prima opzione implica, fra le altre cose, la costruzione di una politica di amicizia nei confronti della Russia, mentre la seconda comporta non solo un orientamento antirusso, ma anche una discrepanza rispetto alla geopolitica continentalista dell’Europa stessa, il che porta a un indebolimento della sovranità europea in favore degli USA e del mondo unipolare. Questa scelta geopolitica conferisce a Bucarest la più grande libertà di abbordare i problemi più importanti della politica internazionale.

La Grande Romania

Come possiamo intendere, in questa situazione, il progetto della costruzione geopolitica nazionalista della Romania, progetto analogo a quello noto col nome di « Grande Romania » ? In primo luogo si tratta della tendenza storica a costruire lo Stato nazionale romeno, tendenza sviluppatasi in condizioni storiche e geopolitiche diverse. Qui possiamo richiamarci alla storia, a partire dall’antichità geto-dacica e citando Burebista e Decebalo. In seguito sorsero i principati di Moldavia e di Valacchia, formazioni statali che esistettero in modo indipendente fino alla conquista ottomana.

Bisogna menzionare anche Michele il Bravo, che agli inizi del secolo XVII realizzò l’unione di Valacchia, Moldavia e Transilvania. Fu solo nel secolo XIX che la Romania conquistò la propria statualità nazionale, la quale venne riconosciuta nel 1878 al Congresso di Berlino. Il peso strategico della Romania è dipeso, anche nelle condizioni della conquista dell’indipendenza, dalle forze geopolitiche circostanti. Fu una sovranità relativa e fragile, in funzione dell’equilibrio estero di potenza, tra Sud (impero ottomano), Ovest (Austria-Ungheria, Germania, Francia, Inghilterra) ed Est (Russia). Di conseguenza, l’obiettivo “Grande Romania” rimase una “utopia geopolitica nazionale”, anche se ricevette un’espressione teorica integrale coi progetti di realizzazione di uno Stato romeno tradizionalista dei teorici della Guardia di Ferro (Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Horia Sima), mentre nel periodo seguente la Realpolitik di Bucarest fu obbligata, da forze di gran lunga superiori al potenziale della Romania, a operare una scelta: Antonescu fu attratto verso la Germania, Ceausescu verso l’Unione Sovietica.

Per rafforzare l’identità nazionale, l’”utopia nazionale” ed anche l’”utopia geopolitica”, è estremamente importante non rinunciare in nessun caso al progetto “Grande Romania”, ma non si prendono in considerazione gli aspetti concreti dell’immagine della carta geopolitica, poiché un appello all’”ideale” potrebbe essere un elemento di manipolazione, tanto più che la Romania non dispone, nemmeno di lontano, della capacità di difendere, in queste condizioni, la sua sovranità sulla Grande Romania nei confronti dei potenziali attori geopolitici a livello globale e regionale (USA, Europa, Russia).

5. La strumentalizzazione del nazionalismo romeno da parte dell’atlantismo

Una delle forme più evidenti di strumentalizzazione dell’idea di “Grande Romania” si manifesta ai giorni nostri, quando una tale idea viene utilizzata negli interessi dell’atlantismo. Ciò ha uno scopo evidente: il nazionalismo romeno (perfettamente legittimo e ragionevole di per sé) nella Realpolitik fa appello all’idea di integrazione della Repubblica di Moldavia. Sembrerebbe una cosa del tutto naturale. Ma questo legittimo desiderio dell’unione di un gruppo etnico in un solo Paese, nel momento in cui la Romania è membro della NATO, sposterebbe ulteriormente verso la Russia le frontiere di questa organizzazione e, in tal caso, le contraddizioni tra Mosca e l’Unione Europea – e l’Occidente in generale -  si esacerberebbero. In altri termini, l’utopia nazionale della “Grande Romania” si trasforma, nella pratica, in una pura e semplice estensione del “cordone sanitario”, la qual cosa non avverrebbe a beneficio dell’Unione Europea, bensì degli USA e dell’atlantismo. In questo contesto, il progetto atlantista mira in fin dei conti a privare l’Europa della sua sovranità, mostrando indirettamente il suo carattere antieuropeo o, quanto meno, anticontinentalista.

All’integrazione della Repubblica di Moldavia si aggiunge anche la Transnistria, che per la Russia rappresenta una posizione strategica in questa regione. Dal punto di vista strategico la Transnistria è molto importante per Mosca, non solo in quanto si tratta di una leva su cui essa può agire nelle relazioni a lungo termine con la Repubblica di Moldavia, ma, fatto più importante, nella prospettiva del probabile crollo dell’Ucraina e della sua divisione in due parti (orientale e occidentale), che prima o poi si verificherà per effetto della politica di Kiev successiva alla “rivoluzione arancione”. Nei Fondamenti della geopolitica c’è un capitolo sulla disintegrazione dell’Ucraina. Il capitolo in questione è stato scritto all’inizio degli anni NOvanta, ma, dopo la “rivoluzione arancione” del 2004, questa analisi geopolitica è diventata più esatta, più precisa. In una certa fase, la Transnistria diventerà un’importantissima base della Russia nella regione. In questa prospettiva, la Grande Romania diventa un ostacolo, cosa che gli strateghi atlantisti hanno previsto fin dall’inizio.

Le frizioni tra Romania e Ungheria, così come alcune frizioni con l’Ucraina, non sono importanti per gli atlantisti e questo aspetto del nazionalismo romeno non avrà il sostegno dell’atlantismo, a meno che ad un certo momento gli USA non pensino di poterlo utilizzare per destabilizzare la situazione secondo il modello della disintegrazione jugoslava.

Puntando sui sentimenti patriottici dei Romeni, gli operatori della geopolitica mondiale si sforzeranno di raggiungere il loro specifici obiettivi.

6. La Romania nel quadro del Progetto Eurasia

Adesso è possibile presentare, in poche parole, il modello teorico della partecipazione della Romania al Progetto Eurasia. Questo progetto presuppone che nella zona settentrionale del continente eurasiatico si stabiliscano due unità geopolitiche, due “grandi spazi”: quello europeo e quello russo. In un quadro del genere, l’Europa è concepita come un polo, come un’area di civiltà. A sua volta, la Russia comprende il Sud (Asia centrale, Caucaso) e l’Ovest (Bielorussia, Ucraina orientale, Crimea). Il momento più importante in un’architettura multipolare è l’eliminazione del “cordone sanitario”, questo perpetuo pomo della discordia controllato dagli Anglosassoni che è in contrasto sia con l’Europa sia con la Russia. Di conseguenza questi Paesi e questi popoli, che tendono oggettivamente a costituire la Nuova Europa, dovranno ridefinire la loro identità geopolitica. Tale identità si deve fondare su una regola principale: contemporaneamente accanto all’Europa e accanto alla Russia. L’integrazione in Europa e le relazioni amichevoli con la Russia: questo è il ponte che unisce i due poli di un mondo multipolare.

Tre Paesi dell’Europa orientale, possibilmente alleati degli altri, potrebbero adempiere a questo compito meglio di altri Paesi: la Bulgaria, la Serbia e la Romania. La Bulgaria è un membro dell’Unione Europea, è abitata da una popolazione slava ed è ortodossa. La Serbia non è un membro dell’Unione Europea, è abitata da Slavi, è ortodossa e tradizionalmente simpatizza per la Russia. Infine la Romania: Paese ortodosso, con una sua missione metafisica ed una accresciuta responsabilità per il destino dell’Europa. Alla stessa maniera, ma con certe varianti, si potrebbe parlare della Grecia. In tal modo la Romania potrebbe trovare una posizione degna di lei nel Progetto Eurasia, sviluppando qualitativamente lo spazio culturale e sociale che collega l’Est (Russia) con l’Ovest (Europa), spazio che assumerebbe l’identità dei Paesi ortodossi dell’Europa, mentre le caratteristiche distintive nazionali e culturali resterebbero intatte, vale a dire non si dissolverebbero nel mondo stereotipato del globalismo né si troverebbero sotto l’influenza del modo di vita americano, che annulla tutte le peculiarità etniche. Integrandosi nell’Unione Europea e stabilendo stretti legami con la Russia, la Romania potrà assicurare il proprio sviluppo economico e potrà conservare la propria identità nazionale.

Senza alcun dubbio, questo progetto richiede un’analisi attenta e deve costituire il risultato di uno sforzo intellettuale particolarmente serio da parte dell’élite romena, europea e russa.

7. Correzioni all’opera I fondamenti della geopolitica

Il libro è stato scritto per lettori russi, ma, come dimostrano le sue numerose traduzioni e riedizioni in altre lingue – specialmente in turco, arabo, georgiano, serbo ecc. – esso ha destato interesse anche al di fuori delle frontiere della Russia. Non bisogna dimenticare che esso è stato scritto negli anni Novanta del secolo scorso per quei Russi che, nel clima e nella confusione generale di riforme liberali e di espansione dell’Occidente, avevano perduto l’ideale nazionale; per lo più, infatti, esso riflette le realtà internazionali di quel periodo. Al di là di tutto questo, però, l’opera contiene riferimenti essenziali alle costanti della geopolitica – le quali sono identiche in ogni epoca – e, in modo particolare, allo spazio eurasiatico.

I principi enunciati nei Fondamenti della geopolitica sono stati sviluppati ed applicati alle nuove realtà storiche dei primi anni del XXI secolo e si ritrovano nelle mie opere successive: Progetto Eurasia, I fondamenti dell’Eurasia, La geopolitica postmoderna, La quarta teoria politica ecc.

I fondamenti della geopolitica si distingue per la presentazione del metodo geopolitico di base applicato al caso dell’Eurasia.

In diversi momenti successivi alla sua pubblicazione, il testo dei Fondamenti della geopolitica è stato riveduto, ogni volta sotto l’influenza degli eventi in divenire, e ciò ha indotto a chiarire certi punti di vista. In primo luogo, l’autore ha riveduto la sua posizione nei confronti della Turchia, posizione inizialmente negativa a causa dell’appartenenza della Turchia alla NATO, nonché dell’azione svolta negli anni Novanta dagli attivisti turchi nei Paesi della CSI. Verso la fine degli anni Novanta, però, la situazione della Turchia ha cominciato a cambiare, poiché alcuni membri dei gruppi kemalisti degli ambienti militari, così come l’élite intellettuale e molti partiti e movimenti politici si sono resi conto che l’identità nazionale turca è minacciata di scomparsa qualora Ankara continui ad eseguire gli ordini di Washington nella politica internazionale e regionale. Questi circoli sollevano un grande interrogativo, perfino per quanto concerne l’integrazione della Turchia nell’Unione Europea, proprio a causa dei timori relativi alla perdita dell’identità turca. I Turchi stessi parlano sempre più di Eurasia, vedendo in quest’ultima il luogo della loro identità, così come già fanno i Russi e i Kazaki. Per adesso i pareri sono discordi, non solo nell’élite politica, ma anche presso la popolazione. Ciò si riflette anche nel caso di alcuni dirigenti politici turchi (ad esempio il generale Tuncer Kilinc), che considerano la possibilità di ritirare la Turchia dalla NATO e di avvicinare la Turchia alla Russia, all’Iran e alla Cina nel nuovo contesto multipolare.

Di questa evoluzione della politica turca non c’è traccia nei Fondamenti della geopolitica; a tale argomento è completamente dedicato il recente lavoro L’Asse Mosca-Ankara. Nonostante i brani antiturchi, i Turchi hanno mostrato interesse nei confronti dei Fondamenti della geopolitica, che sono diventati un testo di riferimento ed un vero e proprio manuale per i dirigenti politici e militari, aprendo loro una nuova prospettiva sul mondo, non solo verso l’Occidente, ma anche verso Est.

Parimenti, nel libro non sono presi in esame la vittoria di Mosca in Cecenia, i fatti di New York dell’11 settembre 2001, i tentativi di creare un asse Parigi-Berlino-Mosca al momento dell’invasione americana in Iraq, la secessione del Kosovo e la guerra russo-georgiana dell’agosto 2008.

Ciononostante, il lettore attento dei metodi presentati nei Fondamenti della geopolitica avrà la possibilità di effettuare la propria analisi in relazione al Progetto Eurasia. La geopolitica è in grado di rispondere alle domande “che cosa” e “dove”, facendo sì che le risposte siano precise quanto più possibile. Ma, per quanto concerne un determinato momento del futuro, si capisce bene che le previsioni non possono essere altrettanto rigorose. La geopolitica descrive il quadro di manifestazione degli eventi in relazione con lo spazio, ma anche le condizioni e i limiti dei processi in divenire. Come sappiamo, la storia è una questione sempre aperta, per cui gli eventi che possono aver luogo nel loro quadro avverranno e si manifesteranno in modi diversi. Certo, gli eventi seguono il vettore della logica geopolitica, per allontanarsene qualche volta o addirittura per spostarsi su una direzione contraria. Ma anche questi allontanamenti recano in sé un senso e una spiegazione geopolitica, implicando tutta una serie di forze, ciascuna delle quali tende ad assumere i processi e gli avvenimenti a proprio vantaggio. Per questo si usano metodi diversi, al di fuori dell’esercito, che nei decenni passati aveva un ruolo essenziale, mentre adesso un ruolo più efficiente viene svolto dalla “rete” armata (guerra delle reti); quest’ultima ha l’obiettivo di stabilire un controllo sull’avversario ancor prima del confronto diretto, attraverso la cosiddetta “azione degli effetti di base”. In questa “guerra delle reti” la conoscenza o l’ignoranza delle leggi della geopolitica (e ovviamente di tutti gli effetti connessi) è determinante.

Quindi non c’è da meravigliarsi se proprio coloro che traggono il massimo vantaggio dai frutti della geopolitica dichiarano, rispondendo alla domanda circa la serietà di quest’ultima, che essi in linea di principio non si sottopongono ai suoi rigori.

(Trad. di C. Mutti)

* Aleksandr G. Dugin (n. 1962), dottore in filosofia e in scienze politiche, è rettore della Nuova Università, direttore del Centro Studi Conservatori dell’Università di Stato di Mosca, nonché fondatore del Movimento Eurasia. Il testo qui tradotto è la Prefazione scritta da A. Dugin per l’edizione romena dei Fondamenti della geopolitica (Bazele geopoliticii, Editura Eurasiatica, Bucarest 2011).

Alexander Dugin talks about the Conservative Revolution at Moscow State University

Alexander Dugin talks about the Conservative Revolution at Moscow State University