El problema del Islam y Alexandr Duguin

[Publicamos este texto enviado por el autor con objeto de animar el debate acerca de los temas tratados, pese a que la Página Transversal no comparte las opiniones que se expresan en el mismo].

por Ernesto Milá

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Leo en la web titulada “4ª Teoría política” un artículo de Alexadr Duguin sobre el Islam que me sugiere algunos comentarios. Lamentablemente, no disponemos de todo el tiempo del mundo, especialmente en este momento en el que nos encontramos lejos de la Patria y de nuestros apuntes sobre la materia, pero sí creemos que vale la pena realizar unos cuantos apuntes a la vista de la rapidez con la que se suceden los acontecimientos en Europa y la necesidad de análisis precisos sobre el problema. Así pues, esto no es una contestación, sino más bien una enumeración de sugerencias que lanzamos como observaciones críticas al planteamiento de Duguin.

1. Islam, aquí y ahora. Personalmente me considero “tradicionalista” en el sentido dado a esta palabra por Julius Evola y René Guénon en el siglo XX. Pero esto no quiere decir que sus planteamientos, especialmente el de Guénon, sean intocables e incluso no susciten ciertas perplejidades (la menor de todas ellas el hecho de que muriera como musulmán en Egipto). Ambos autores coinciden en encontrar en el Islam “valores tradicionales” y, por tanto, incorporarlo en sus planteamientos. Pero no son infalibles y, al menos en el caso de Evola, ni lo pretende. Evola se equivoca, por ejemplo, al considerar que en el Islam el concepto de “gran guerra santa” es una guerra en sentido interior, metafísico, mientas que la definida por El Corán como “pequeña guerra santa” sería la guerra convencional. Ese concepto no es propio del islam sino una interpretación realizada por teólogos islamistas del siglo XIX para intentar “suavizar” las relaciones con los colonialistas ingleses que ocupaban buena parte del mundo árabe. Pero hay otras posiciones sobre las que podemos lanzar algunas dudas.

Un error muy frecuente entre los “tradicionalistas” consiste en considerar a cualquier fiel islámico como una especie de “doctor en teología”, y así era hasta los años 80, cuando en España los únicos islamistas que existían eran autóctonos que había llegado, en su “búsqueda espiritual”, al convencimiento de que el Islam era la “verdad revelada” que más se adaptaba a su carácter y procuraban profundizar en su relación con el islam. Hubo en toda Europa unas pocas decenas de militantes de extrema–derecha en los 80 que se convirtieron al islam. Alguno de ellos, incluso, encarcelado, utilizaba una brújula para buscar la dirección de La Meca a la hora de realizar sus plegarias. Ese islam “europeizado” e intelectualizado no fue el islam que llegó con la inmigración, reducido a unas cuantas prohibiciones, unas pocas prácticas, mucho fanatismo y que apenas puede ser considerado como algo más que un conjunto de supersticiones propias de otras tierras. En absoluto europeas.

Un anticipo de todo esto lo vimos cuando el Sha de Persia y la dinastía de los Palhevi estaban a punto de caer. Era 1979, nosotros mismos nos deslumbramos con el carácter anticomunista de la revuelta desencadenada en Irán que, al mismo tiempo, era anticapitalista. Creímos, por un momento, que “aquello” era “lo nuestro”. Incluso en Europa trabajamos con “estudiantes islámicos” cuando la embajada norteamericana en Teherán fue ocupada, distribuimos libros sobre Jhomeini que nos habían enviado esos medios y creímos en que la “revolución iraní” representaba una conmoción para los EEUU. Pronto, en plena revolución iraní, nos empezó a preocupar lo que veíamos por la TV: masas fanatizadas, histéricas y enloquecidas enarbolando ejemplares del Corán y libros con los pensamientos de Jomeini. Eran la muestra más clara de masificación, despersonalización en sentido más negativo y fanatización que pudiera concebirse en la época. Así que leímos los escritos políticos de Jomeini publicados por una gran editorial española. Nos sorprendieron algunos argumentos y las prohibiciones prescritas (como aquella que impedía orinar en la tapia de los cementerios…). Cuando en París conocimos a exiliados iraníes y a las primeras chicas con chador, nos dimos cuenta de que no hablábamos el mismo lenguaje de la “tradición”, y fuera de la apreciación de lo malos que eran “rusos y americanos”, no estábamos hablando de lo mismo. Cuando, de retorno del exilio, conocimos a combatientes de la guerra Irán–Irak que habían sido tratados en España de sus heridas, nos volvió a sorprender el reduccionismo que hacían de una “religión tradicional” al mero nivel de superstición.

La inmigración masiva nos confirmó en todas estas primeras impresiones. Imanes analfabetos que realizaban una interpretación literal del Corán, fieles que reducían la religión, no solo a mero “exoterismo”, sino a simple práctica supersticiosa, desconocimiento absoluta de la más mínima forma de “esoterismo”, es lo que podemos constatar hoy a poco que nos acerquemos –como “tradicionalistas”– a una mezquita instalada en suelo europeo. Nada que no hayamos visto antes en la historia medieval de España donde asistimos, desde masacres (como la “noche de las fosas de Toledo”) hasta formalismos cómicos (los poetas sufíes andaluces se inspiraban bebiendo vino de dátil a la vista de que el Corán prohibía el vino de uva). A los lloriqueos humanistas del catolicismo progresista se unían ahora los lloriqueos mendicantes de los musulmanes llegados con la inmigración.

No se trata de que el islam sea una “tradición” sino de que, salvo en raros núcleos y en círculos cerrados, no se vive como tal y en Europa, desde luego, masivamente el islam se sigue como superstición mucho más que como tradición y, por mucho que Tarik Ramadán y algún otro papanatas expliquen que el Islam “es Europa”… nunca como hoy se perciben en el islam acentos tan absolutamente ajenos a nuestro continente.

2. Islam y tradición. No es que el Islam sea “tradicional”… es que a ojos de un europeo “tradicionalista” el islam PARECE “tradicional” en la medida en que las sociedades de las que procede están atrasadas entre 200 y 400 años en relación a la marcha del continente europeo y remiten a una época pre-moderna. Ese desfase es lo que genera el engaño de los sentidos. Si uno visita una tariqah sufí en Marruecos o Turquía, seguramente se hará una idea muy diferente del islam de la que se hace si va a una mezquita–garaje en cualquier punto de Europa. No se trata solamente de una diferencia entre “esoterismo” y “exoterismo”, sino de dos horizontes antropológicos completamente distintos. Una “tradición” está arraigada sobre un pueblo y sobre una tierra. Cuando se trasplantan a otro pueblo y a otra tierra, los inevitables desfases hacen que una “tradición” sea percibida por otro pueblo como un arcaísmo… salvo que la práctica de esa religión se reduzca al “esoterismo” ante el cual sí que podría aceptarse la fórmula de Schuon de que “todo lo que sube, converge”. Pero ese ni es el caso del islam instalado en territorio europeo, ni siquiera la corriente principal del islam mundial. Vale la pena, pues, decir algo sobre el islam y la Tradición, por mucho que suponga una vulneración de la estricta observancia guénoniana.

El Islam es, históricamente, la “última religión revelada”. Aparece en un momento en el que en todo el mundo ya han irrumpido “las masas” en la historia. Algo que ya podía intuirse con la transformación del cristianismo primitivo en religión paulista abierta a todos. En ambos casos se trataba de crear un sistema religioso adaptado a las masas, esto es, con el listón de admisión bajo para permitir que entraran con facilidad en su comunidad. En el caso del islam esto es todavía más visible: Mahoma lo que crea es un sistema de prescripciones y prohibiciones para disciplinar a un pueblo primitivo. Lo que hay de “tradicionalismo” en el Islam viene dado por la época en la que fue creado mucho más que por sus contenidos. Tomando elementos preexistentes en distintas creencias de la zona, atribuyendo todo esto a una revelación divina, Mahoma logró ejercer el papel de “legislador” en el mundo árabe, en una zona geográfica que había contado ya con Hammurabi, Abraham (o el mítico Melquisedec), hacia los siglos XVI y XVII antes de Cristo. Los ciclos religiosos oscilan entre 2.100 y 2.500 años. Puede intuirse que el paso de la historia había borrado casi completamente las huellas de estos primeros legisladores y que en el siglo VI, la desintegración de la obra de aquellos primeros “legisladores tradicionales” estuviera ya completamente difuminada. Es entonces cuando Mahoma se erige como “nuevo legislador” y crea su sistema. Pero este se resiente de que la humanidad ya ha entrado en el período de las masas y hay que hacerlo suficientemente abierto y con el listón rebajado para poder ser aceptado por esas mismas masas.

Evola achaca al cristianismo el que sea una “tradición incompleta” en la medida en que le ha sido amputada toda su parte “esotérica”. En realidad, tienen razón quienes ven en la doctrina de los sacramentos un residuo de aquel “esoterismo” cuyos rastros se adivinan vagamente en algunas frases del paulismo. Pero en el “exoterismo” islámico tales huellas están completamente ausentes. Si aceptamos que las visiones de Mahoma en el desierto son el origen de su religión revelada, deberemos aceptar igualmente que las visiones de Joseph Smith, fundador de los mormones, y todo lo que deriva de la “segunda oleada religiosa” de los EEUU, son igualmente “tradicionalistas”. El “tiempo” marca la diferencia. Al entrar cada vez más profundamente en el período de las masas, los productos religiosos están cada vez más adaptados a la época y, por tanto, tienen menor calado metafísico. La sustitución de la metafísica por la teología ya implica una primera caída de nivel.

Así pues, ver en el islamismo una “religión tradicional” es ver el vaso medio lleno. Y en realidad, el vaso está casi vacío. Seco, a tenor del islam que ha llegado a Europa con la inmigración masiva: ya no estamos ante una religión sino ante una mera superstición.

3. Islam y americanismo. Dice Duguin que “en el mundo actual, el Islam es la religión mundial que resiste más activamente a las fuerzas de la globalización”. Sigue explicando que los EEUU tratan de desacreditar al Islam atribuyéndoles el ser “enemigo número uno”, lo que lleva a considerar al islam como “campo de batalla prioritario contra el imperialismo norteamericano”. Hay que poner en caución todo este sistema de argumentaciones. En primer lugar, hay que negar que los EEUU y el islam se opongan realmente. Creemos difícil desmontar el siguiente argumento: ningún otro país ha hecho tanto para facilitar los avances del Islam como los EEUU. Si tenemos en cuenta que las “revoluciones verdes” han sido todas, sin excepción, generadas por los EEUU (con la ayuda de la Francia de Sarkozy) y que todas ellas, también sin excepción, han dado vida a regímenes fundamentalistas, si tenemos en cuenta que los EEUU, desde los tiempos de la presencia soviética en Afganistán se preocuparon de estimular al islam como foco de resistencia, si recordamos que desde el primer tercio del siglo XX estaba claro para los estrategas del imperialismo norteamericano que era preciso estrechar vínculos con la dinastía de los Saud en Araba Saudita (principal exportador mundial de islamismo fundamentalista) para garantizar el suministro petrolero, si recordamos el interés puesto por los EEUU en desmembrar a Yugoslavia y crear un “corredor turco” en los Balcanes, llegando a bombardear Serbia para crear Kosovo con mayoría islamista, si tenemos en cuenta que EEUU (y sus satélites europeos empezando por Aznar) fueron los primeros y más insistentes valedores para la entrada de Turquía en la Unión Europea (no la Turquía de Ataturk sino la de Erdogan), si tenemos en cuenta que la acción de los EEUU en Irak, Afganistán, Siria, ha tenido como consecuencia –como no podía ser de otra manera y como era imposible que los analistas del Pentágono y la CIA ignoraran– el establecimiento de fuertes núcleos islamistas, si recordamos todo esto, no hará falta retrotraernos treinta años para recordar el Caso Irán–Contras en el que la inteligencia norteamericana vendía armas a Irán para financiar la lucha antisandinista en Nicaragua… ¿Dónde está la oposición de los EEUU al islamismo más allá de los titulares de una prensa superficial e ignorante?

A decir verdad, los terroristas islámicos de hoy, tienen el mismo papel que los anarquistas de finales del siglo XIX: con sus acciones estúpidas, con sus crímenes propios de bestias sedientas de sangre –véase lo sucedido en París– no tienen otro papel histórico más que de servir para estimular reacciones en contra. Si el complejo militar–petrolero–industrial norteamericano ha podido ser apoyado por la población de los EEUU ha sido gracias a los ataques del 11–S y a Al–Qaeda.

Duguin se equivoca. El imperialismo norteamericano sobrevive después de la caída del Muro de Berlín, gracias a que a partir de mediados de los 90 fue capaz de designar a un enemigo: el “eje del mal”. Pero los hechos demuestran que la acción de los EEUU, lejos de ser contraria al islamismo, en los últimos 35 años no ha hecho otra cosa que estimular el islamismo especialmente en “Eurasia”, manteniéndolo alejado de los EEUU. Duguin, en tanto que ruso, debería recordar que el islamismo ha sido utilizado por los EEUU, sistemáticamente, CONTRA RUSIA Y SUS ALIADOS. Y esto nos lleva a otra cuestión.

4. La diversidad e insuficiencia de “Eurasia”. En varios parágrafos de su artículo, Duguin nos propone un análisis de las distintas corrientes islámicas, concluyendo que el Islam es algo diverso y multiforme en el que lo peor y lo mejor se encuentran. ¿Es necesario pormenorizar el análisis? llegar hasta sus últimas consecuencias ¿no implicará percibir solo esas hojas que nos impiden ver el bosque? Mucho nos lo tememos. Quizás planteamientos de este tipo puedan servir para viajar a los países árabes y mantener contactos con dirigentes políticos o religiosos de los mismos, o para participar en discusiones eruditas realizadas en el interior de los recintos tradicionalistas europeos, pero son completamente superfluos para entender los acontecimientos mundiales que se están desarrollando ante nuestros ojos y que nos han llevado a establecer una primera conclusión, a saber: que el Islam es un ariete que los EEUU utilizan contra “Eurasia” y ante el cual, ellos mismos, son los primeros en prevenirse. El resto es secundario, en relación a este hecho. Algo de esto parece intuir Duguin cuando, en el punto 8 de su trabajo, estudia el papel mundial del salafismo. Lo vamos a decir con toda la tosquedad de que somos capaces para que se nos entienda sin necesidad de extendernos: en la modernidad no existen “islas de oro” en medio de “océanos de mierda”. Querer ver en pequeños exponentes de determinadas corrientes del islam a “gurús tradicionales” es demostrar un optimismo contrario a la objetividad propia de todo conocedor de los planteamientos de Julius Evola. Nadie va a dudar que tales corrientes existan, lo que se duda es que tengan preeminencia en este momento político en relación a las corrientes y sentimientos dominantes en el islam.

Si Duguin se interesa tanto por identificar la existencia de corrientes “tradicionalistas” en el interior del Islam es simplemente para salvar su concepción “eurasiática”. Una parte importante de Eurasia es precisamente la “dorsal islámica” que se abre del Atlas marroquí hasta Filipinas. La idea “eurasiática” sería imposible de concebir sin el concurso del mundo islámico. Y tal es el problema: que Eurasia es demasiado diversas como para poder aludir a ella como un “todo”, como si tuviera un solo destino histórico propio o como si bastara la “oposición al imperialismo norteamericano” para dar un objetivo a todos los bloques diferenciados que componen el espacio eurasiático.

Sin olvidar que para un nacido en Rusia la proximidad del mundo islámico es determinante y puede entenderse que Duguin escriba: “Tenemos que trabajar para oponerle una alianza escatológica de los musulmanes y de los cristianos ortodoxos (en toda Rusia) contra los Estados Unidos, el liberalismo occidental y la modernización”. A lo que habría que decirle: es la visión de un euroasiático… ruso; la versión de un euroasiático… español, sería completamente diversa. Aquí tenemos un recuerdo de la presencia islámica que duró ocho siglos. A esto se le llamó en los romances medievales “la pérdida de España”, de manera extremadamente gráfica, plástica y definitoria. Aquí (y en Portugal) se ven las cosas de otra manera por mucho que se traduzcan los trabajos de Duguin y aparezcan “euroasiáticos” esporádicamente: los pueblos de la península ibérica colonizaron desde el Sur de los EEUU hasta el Cabo de Hornos.

Escribo esto desde Centroamérica. Desde los años 70 he viajado por estas tierras. Sé del nacionalismo de estos pueblos, de la hostilidad creciente de sus poblaciones hacia el imperialismo norteamericano que ellos han sufrido directamente desde la segunda mitad del siglo XIX. Escribo desde un país que ha sido una colonia de la “United Fruit Company”. Hablo con ellos y veo que hablamos lenguajes comunes sin necesidad de sofisticaciones eruditas, ni sutiles diferencias sobre matices teológicos. No veo el fanatismo religioso, el providencialismo escatológico presente en las corrientes mayoritarias del islam. Veo, además, que su presencia en el interior de los EEUU prospera y que la gran amenaza que tiene hoy este país no es el islam sino la entrada de unos valores diferentes de los WASP: la concepción de la familia que traen los hispanos que llegan a los EEUU contraria a la anglosajona, la lengua castellana que está arraigada en sus genes y que conservan y expanden incluso los inmigrantes hispanos de segunda y tercera generación, su concepción de la religión –también con elementos supersticiosos, ciertamente, pero tolerantes– pero que, en cualquier caso opone un “cristianismo social” a la concepción calvinista anglosajona, como mínimo tan irreconciliables entre sí como las distintas ramas del islam chiíta o sunnita.

¿Hemos de creer que el imperialismo norteamericano caerá porque los pueblos “eurasiáticos” se unan en su lucha? Eurasia es demasiado diversa, contradictoria y amplia como para que pueda pensarse en que algún día podrá actuar y opinar como una unidad. Hace falta venir a Centroamérica para ver el nivel de la penetración de la República Popular China en esta zona: construcción de un canal interoceánico en Nicaragua, construcción de una carretera en Costa Rica, factorías chinas en toda la franja… Hemos hablado del mundo árabe ¿para cuándo hablar de China como “país eurasiático”? Imposible hacerlo. Nadie en China cree en una ficción geopolítica de esta magnitud y hoy solamente quieren fronteras tranquilas para inundar con sus manufacturas de mala calidad todo el mundo.

¿Hasta cuándo vamos a olvidar que China está jugando su papel en la política internacional y que los dirigentes chinos no tienen el más mínimo interés en otra cosa que no sea seguir creciendo a un ritmo del 5–7% para evitar convulsiones interiores y lograr una posición preponderante en los mercados mundiales? ¿Hasta cuándo vamos a olvidar que Irán no tiene más interés que convertirse en una potencia regional? ¿Hasta cuándo olvidaremos que Putin tiene exactamente el mismo interés de garantizar la supervivencia de su país? Nada une a estos regímenes políticos… salvo el que tienen en los EEUU al adversario principal. Pero este elemento no es suficientemente fuerte como para dar la coherencia necesaria para poder hablar de “Eurasia” como espacio –político o geo–político– unitario. Existen otras zonas en el planeta que tienen los mismos anhelos… y sin que el fanatismo islamista constituya un problema. Es más previsible que los EEUU sufran un proceso de desplome económico-étnico-social interior que no que se quiebren a causa de la presión de los pueblos eurasiáticos.

En las conclusiones de su artículo Duguin aporta elementos interesantes: “La islamofobia es un mal, pero un mal puede ser también la actividad en favor de la “islamización” [y] que se presenta bajo la bandera del “Islam puro”. Cada uno debería seguir su tradición. Si no lo logramos, entonces la culpa debe ser puesta sobre nosotros, no sobre la Tradición. A un nivel puramente individual la elección es posible, pero ver a los rusos convertirse en masa al Islam me repugna, porque buscan el poder fuera de sí mismos y de su tradición y son por lo tanto enfermos, débiles y cobardes”. Vale la pena meditar sobre esta frase que constituye el último párrafo de su escrito.

Si a Duguin le repugna la conversión de rusos al islam, puede imaginar lo que nos repugna a los españoles el que se entregue la nacionalidad española a islamistas con apenas unos años de presencia en nuestro suelo. Ni el islam pertenece a nuestra tradición, ni los nacidos en el Magreb se convierten por una mera decisión administrativa en “españoles”. Ni mucho menos en “camaradas” porque odien a los “imperialistas” y desprecien al régimen político español. Hay posiciones que solamente pueden sostenerse y argumentarse desde el punto de vista teórico, pero que son imposibles de llevar al plano político. Solidarizarse en España, por la mañana, con el pueblo palestino y acudir a manifestaciones en defensa de sus derechos junto a miles de magrebíes inmigrados es una opción política. Pero esa opción es incompatible con protestar luego, por la tarde, contra la inmigración masiva. Ambas posiciones son aceptables… pero incompatibles. Hay que elegir. En el fondo es lo que ya dijo Carl Schmidt: hay que elegir entre “amigo” y “enemigo”. Los eclecticismos son malos compañeros. Los planteamientos exclusivamente intelectuales difícilmente pueden mantenerse sobre el plano político. Hay que elegir. Y lo primero, precisamente, a elegir es entre realidades objetivas y ficciones geopolíticas, entre abstracciones doctrinales y realidades políticos, entre amigos ideales e idealizados y enemigos tangibles. Hay que elegir entre hacer política o hacer disquisiciones teóricas con pocos contactos con la realidad política del día a día. Eso es lo que le reprochamos al “eurasismo” y a los “eurasiáticos”.

Y en tanto que tradicionalistas queremos añadir un último párrafo: el análisis tradicional de la historia sirve sobre todo para poder aplicarse a grandes ciclos históricos, pero es contradictorio y puede llevar a equívocos si lo aplicamos a la modernidad. ¿Quiere decir eso que el pensamiento tradicional es inútil en la modernidad? No, queremos decir que el pensamiento tradicional sirve para dar un sentido a la vida de quienes lo comparten mucho más que para interpretar fenómenos puntuales de la modernidad.

http://info-krisis.blogspot.com

“La Cuarta Teoría Política”

Revista “Nihil Obstat”,

Nº 23. Dossier:

“La Cuarta Teoría Política”

Nihil Obstat, Nº 23

Revista de historia, metapolítica y filosofía

Tarragona, otoño/invierno 2014

21×15 cms., 160 págs.

Cubierta impresa a todo color, con solapas y plastificada brillo

PVP: 15 euros

Sumario

Editorial: Rusia, la gran esperanza / José Alsina Calvés 5

Algo más sobre metafísica / Alberto Buela 7

Un relato sobre ‘Nouvelle Droite’ y el ‘Front National’ / Jesús J. Sebastián 19

¿El imperio de la duda? / Juan de Pinos 33

¿Tiene el Occidente una idea de sí mismo? / Julius Evola 41

Ética tradicional y rebelión contra el mundo burgués / Cámille Bercyen 47

DOSSIER: La Cuarta Teoría Política

La Cuarta Teoría Política / José Alsina Calvés 57

Notas sobre la Cuarta Teoría Política / Léonid Sávin 67

La izquierda vista desde la Cuarta Teoría Política: el caso español / Fernando Rivero 75

Eurasia, socialismo y tradición / Jordi Garriga 85

Las ecúmenes y el pluralismo / Alberto Buela 89

Algunas reflexiones sobre la creación del eurasianismo intelectual / Gábor Vona 95

La iglesia católica en Galicia ante la II República y la Guerra Civil.

Nacionalcatolicismo y nacionalsindicalismo / Álvaro Rodríguez Núñez 103

José Antonio, creador de una nueva retórica / Félix del Río 113

Abel Bonnard / Jean Ferré 119

La marcha del Fascismo sobre Roma / José Plá 123

La revolución a paso gentil / Rafael Sánchez Mazas 125

La entrevista de José Antonio Primo de Rivera con

Mussolini / Giorgio Pini y José Antonio Primo de Rivera 129

El fenómeno anarquista / Pierre Drieu la Rochelle 135

Tradiciones europeas: Samhain y Yule / Carmen M. Padial 139

El paganismo de Alain de Benoist y la filosofía de Martin Heidegger / José Alsina Calvés 147

¿Ha inventado Francia el Fascismo? / Renaud Dély 153

Fuente: Ediciones Fides

Robert Stark interviews Paul Gottfried on Dugin & Neoconservatives

Robert Stark interviews Paul Gottfried on Dugin & Neoconservatives

Ex:

http://www.starktruthradio.com

Audio:

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=934

Paul Gottfried recently retired as Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

Topics include:

Alexander Dugin and Martin Heidegger

The definition of Liberalism

The Eurasian school of thought

National Review’s Hit Piece on Dugin

How Neoconservatives attack their enemies such as Dugin as Fascist or Nazis

How Neoconservatives are a faction of the left

The Neoconservative View toward Russia

The Cold War and whether it was a mistake

The conflict with Russia in the Ukraine

Why Paleoconservatives tend to dislike Israel

Paul Gottfried’s upcoming book Fascism: The Career of a Concept

Eurasisme et multipolarité

Eurasisme et multipolarité - Entretien avec Alexandre Douguine

Ex: http://www.levraipost.fr

Dans son dernier discours aux représentants de la nation russe, Vladimir Poutine a rappelé que l’union économique eurasienne va être opérationnelle en janvier 2015. Il est intéressant de revenir ici sur les fondements théoriques et géopolitiques possibles de cette union continentale qui nous est (...)

Dans son dernier discours aux représentants de la nation russe, Vladimir Poutine a rappelé que l’union économique eurasienne va être opérationnelle en janvier 2015.

Il est intéressant de revenir ici sur les fondements théoriques et géopolitiques possibles de cette union continentale qui nous est présentée comme une alternative au monopole et à l’hégémonie occidentale. Qu’en est-il en réalité ? Quelle place pour les français et les européens dans une telle alliance ? La Russie peut-elle être la figure de proue d’un nouveau non-alignement civilisationnel face au nouvel ordre mondial ? Voire dans le nouvel ordre mondial ?

Même si la théorisation de l’Eurasisme ne se superpose pas exactement aux froids enjeux à l’œuvre derrière l’union eurasiatique, en tant que théoricien majeur de l’Eurasisme contemporain, Alexandre Douguine est un interlocuteur majeur sur les questions relatives à l’unité continentale et à la multipolarité.

Nous avions eu l’occasion de rencontrer le professeur Alexandre Douguine le lendemain de sa conférence à Paris de mai 2013.

Cet entretien a été réalisé il y a plus d’un an dans cette période un peu spéciale pour les patriotes français qui allait du départ de Dominique Venner à la dernière grande "manif pour tous" de 2013. Nous publions aujourd’hui hui cet entretien plus que jamais d’actualité.

Nos remerciements à qui a permis cette rencontre et la réalisation de cette vidéo.

Les Non-Alignés.

http://www.les-non-alignes.fr/

Het Eurazisme van Aleksandr Doegin

Woensdag 12 november 2014, 19 uur!

Prof. B. de Cordier: Doegin en het projekt "Groot-Eurazië"

Dugin on the Subject of Politics

An agent of chaos: Alexander Dugin with the chaos star, symbol of Eurasianism[1]

Dugin on the Subject of Politics

By Giuliano Adriano Malvicini

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

Dugin’s Social Constructionism

The claim that there is no biological basis for the concept of race, or that it is not useful in explaining contemporary reality, is of course patently false. But Dugin follows postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Althusser in arguing that not only race, but all political subjects are constructs. 

Race is a product of society, rather than society a product of race. Man, he argues, exists as a subject only within the political realm. “What man is, is not derived from himself as an individual, but from politics. It is politics that defines the man. It is the political system that gives us our shape. Moreover, the political system has an intellectual and conceptual power, as well as transformative potential without limitations” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 169). In other words, the subject does not create itself, nor is it a natural given like race or the individual. The subject is a construct, existing only within a political system.

It follows that ultimately, there is no master subject who creates or exercises conspiratorial control over the system. On the contrary: subjects exist only as functions, produced by subjectless political structures. As the political system changes, shifting from one historical paradigm to another — from traditional society to modern society, for example — it constructs the normative type of subjectivity it requires to function. “[T]he political concept of man is the concept of man as such, which is installed in us by the state or the political system. The political man is a particular means of correlating man with this state and political system. […] We believe we are causa sui, generated within ourselves, and only then do we find ourselves within the sphere of politics. In fact, it is politics that constitutes us. […] Man’s anthropological structure shifts when one political system changes to another” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 169). In other words, the subject does not bring about a political paradigm shift on its own — it is the new paradigm that will call a new subject into being through a process of “interpellation.”

The study of the anthropological shift from the type of man belonging to traditional society to the type of man belonging to modern society leads to the relativization not only of modern man, but of modern rationality as such. This relativization of modernity is “postmodernity.” The modern idea of progress towards a humanity unified on the foundation of universal Reason is shown to be an illusion, and this implies that traditional societies are placed on the same level as modern society.

Dugin’s reasoning appears to be as follows: the subject cannot radically break through the system (carry out a revolution or “paradigm shift”) and go beyond it if it is itself a product of the system, and can only exist within the limits of that system. This was why class, race, and the individual, all of which are subjects constituted and defined within the horizon of modernity, failed to overcome the crisis and impasses of modernity. In other words, the subject would have to be grounded in a reference point outside of the political system, in order to have the leverage needed for any radical political agency. There would have to be a “radical subject,” and for Dugin the “radical subject” seems to be chaos ^[2]. Chaos is freedom beyond its capture within the limits of the bourgeois or humanist conception of the individual. The shattering of the liberal individual is not the negation of freedom, but the revelation of the essence of freedom as anarchic, sovereign chaos, a chaos that will be mastered only through the emergence of a new kind of subject.

The political subject acts within the realm of politics, but must be founded in a realm beyond and before the political – in the case of modern, secular ideologies, the realm of nature. The subject of politics must transcend the sphere of politics in order to be able to master it, define it, and set its boundaries and goals. For example, liberal ideology posits the existence of the individual as a natural given, prior to the existence of the social order. Only in this way can it found the political order on the individual and its universal, natural rights.

Analogously, National Socialists view race as a biological given existing prior to and beyond the political, and the state as possessing meaning only insofar as it is an instrument through which a race is protected, preserved and its potentialities are actualized and enhanced. This means that for National Socialists, race transcends the political realm, subordinating it to itself. The political consciousness they strive to awaken others to is racial self-consciousness, much as Marxists attempt to awaken the proletariat to class consciousness.

For Marxists, the means of production transcend the political realm, forming its material basis and driving force. A class constitutes itself as a political subject by taking control of the means of production. Marx defined labor as “the metabolism of nature.”

“The definition of a historical subject is the fundamental basis for political ideology in general, and defines its structure” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 38). For example: for nationalists, the real subjects of history are nations, viewed as a sort of supra-individuals with a will and a destiny of their own. History is the history of nations. Identity is primarily national, and the friend/enemy distinction (which is constitutive for the political) goes along national lines. For racism, on the other hand, the true subjects of history are the various races, locked in a Darwinian struggle for life. This view of history is determined by the modern concepts of biological evolution and progress. Identity is primarily racial, and the friend/enemy distinction goes along racial lines. For Marxism, the subjects of history are classes, again viewed as forms of collective subjectivity, and consequently, the whole of history was interpreted as the history of class struggle. Identity is class identity, and the friend/enemy distinction goes along class lines.

The political subject is also an historical subject. This means that each modern political ideology corresponds to a “grand narrative” — an over-arching interpretation — of history. History as a whole is viewed as created through the agency of a certain historical subject. It then becomes obvious that political ideologies are secular substitutes for a theological interpretation of history, and that the historical subjects posited by them are substitutes for divine Providence as the transcendent subject of history. As Carl Schmitt argued, all the fundamental concepts of politics are secularized theological concepts.

The place of the political subject — a kind of vacuum left by the withdrawal of God from the world and history — is the site of contestation between the various modern political ideologies. Each of them fought to occupy that vacant place with their own concept of the political subject. Each of them claimed to master the destructive and creative forces liberated by modernity, bringing modernity to its full actualization. Communism saw itself as the final, inevitable and culminating phase of modernity, towards which industrial capitalism had only paved the way. Liberalism views the progressive liberation of the individual, along with the processes of secularization, modernization, and globalization, as an historical necessity. Fascism saw itself as an avant-garde, revolutionary movement, dismissed liberal, bourgeois democracy as a doomed residue of the nineteenth century, and claimed that the organic state was the only adequate form through which the masses could be mobilized in modern societies. Both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism modernized and revolutionized their respective nations, and would not have been politically successful if they had not done so. Early Fascism was influenced by the avant-garde modernism of Futurism, which called for the nihilistic destruction of the past and unconditionally worshipped modern technology and “progress.” (This lead Evola to reject Futurism as a form of “Americanism.” Marinetti retorted that he had as little in common with Evola as with “an Eskimo.” Bizarrely — for someone who claims to be a traditionalist — Dugin views Futurism as one of the admirable elements of early Fascism that he wishes to recuperate.)

Each of these political systems, then, claimed that it was the most appropriate form for modern, technologically advanced society. This form corresponded to a certain figure or human type, an embodiment of a certain political project, the normative “man of the future”: be it homo sovieticus, the new Fascist man, the racially purified Aryan superman, or the enlightened, bourgeois individual. In other words, each of these ideologies or “political theories” posited a normative subject as the basis of its political vision and its interpretation of history. The transition into fully realized modernity was not only a political revolution, but also an anthropological revolution: the production of a “new man.”

According to Dugin, in the crisis of the end of modernity, not only race and class, but also the nation-state ceases to be an authentic political subject, even though he recognizes that the will to preserve national sovereignty is, in the current situation, a natural locus of resistance to globalism. The de-sovereignization of the nation is its de-subjectivization. After 1945, European nations ceased to be sovereign, independent historical actors, and effectively also ceased to exist as historical subjects with a real identity.

However, Dugin sees this de-sovereignization/de-subjectivization as inevitable, even inherent in the nature of the nation itself. He fully accepts the postmodern idea that the nation is an artificial, ideological, and political construct, an “imagined community” created as a means of unifying fragmented, modern societies. The nation is, in his view, merely a simulacrum, an artificial substitute for the lost totality of traditional society (presumably, he views race similarly, as being a modern simulacrum of the “ethnos”). Historically, its emergence corresponds to the precise moment when traditional society enters into crisis. It is a compromise, a transitional form, a ruse.

Moreover, he views the function of the nation as a device for facilitating the transition from pre-modern, traditional society to fully modern, liberal, civil society. As a result, it cannot constitute an enduring force of resistance to liberal globalization. He views the nation as a dispositive of power geared to producing a certain standardized, normative type of political subject: the bourgeois individual (citizen). In doing so, it destroys regional, organic, ethnic communities (for example, through the suppression of regional autonomy, traditions, and linguistic variation in Italy and France, and the imposition of a standardized national language) as well as liquidating the last residues of traditional elites (the aristocracy).

Thus, the concept of “ethno-nationalism” is, in his view, ultimately an absolute contradiction in terms: the nation is inherently “ethnocidal ^[3].” It destroys the ethnos and replaces it with a “demos.” Nationalism, according to Dugin, must be condemned not just because it has been the cause of pointless, destructive wars, but because the nation itself is inherently violent — violent in the sense that it is an arbitrary construct without any sacred, transcendent basis. Its violence is the violence of modernity itself. (Certainly, this is true of many nations, perhaps most notably of the nation of Israel, which is an entirely modern, artificial construction, as is perhaps the idea that Jews are a unified, homogeneous race or ethnic group.) Nothing, however, so far assures us that the idea of Eurasian empire dominated by Russia would be less artificial, violent or “ethnocidal.”

(The new European post-war order projected by the dominant faction of the Waffen SS was not based on the nation-state, but on a pan-European federation of culturally autonomous regions. Dugin fails to mention this fact, but his characterization of National Socialism is tendentious.)

In any case, the ultimate incompatibility of Eurasianism with ethno-nationalism is clear. David Beetschen of the Eurasianist artists’ association has given poetic expression to this incompatibility in the following (stirring!) lyrical effusion:

Have you dreamt of the eurasian parliament
for which all energy we have joyfully spent.
There isn’t any discriminatory segregation
in class, race, sex or in any form of a nation.

As for the fascist concept the organic state, based on Hegel’s philosophy of the state, Dugin does not discuss his reasons for rejecting it as a credible candidate for the political subject. In general, Dugin simply takes the defeat of both the second and third political theories as axiomatic, without providing much in the way of substantial argument for this. The third political theory simply does not exist after 1945. “Each and every declared fascist after 1945 is a simulacrum” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 174). In his view, modernity has been fully actualized in liberal society, and consequently, the ideological contest of modernity is over.

This view is more credible with regard to communism than with regard to fascism. The death of communism was, as Dominique Venner has written, an “inglorious demise.” Its collapse was due to its own bureaucratic inertia and utter failure to effectively manage economic development. Fascism and National Socialism, on the other hand, were spectacularly successful as political experiments, and, perhaps for this very reason, had to be militarily destroyed by their international rivals.

Dugin clearly views the defeat of National Socialist Germany as a consequence of its anti-Russian and anti-communist policies. Since Dugin views both of these policies as connected with the infection of National Socialism by atlanticism and Anglo-Saxon, biological racism, he views the defeat of the third position as a consequence of ideological errors, and not simply as an historical contingency. Not only was Nazi Nordicism a vulgar, materialist misinterpretation of the traditional doctrine of the north as the pole of tradition, National Socialism was anti-communist and anti-Slavic because it was anti-Eastern, that is, pro-Western (modern).

Today, according to Eurasianists (who in this respect are inheritors of National Bolshevism), European nationalists are repeating the disastrous errors of the German National Socialists when they again oppose “the East” in the form of Islamisation. Generally, Eurasianists try to downplay the idea of a “clash of civilizations” or any claim that there is a sharp opposition between Islam and European civilization. They accuse nationalists who view Islam as incompatible with European values of confusing “Europe” with “the West.”

Any interpretation of European history that sees some enlightenment values as rooted in the European tradition itself — in classical Greece, for example — is accused of trying to legitimate “the West” by inventing historical precedents and falsifying the true European tradition, which is rooted in Eurasia and in no way opposed to Islam. This is undoubtedly consistent with a Traditionalist position, which only recognizes those elements of European civilization as valid that are derived from the unitary, universal Tradition, of which Islam is viewed as a part. However, the exclusivist claims of Islam, especially in its modern, radical form, are wholly non-Traditional.

Dugin sees the triumph of liberalism as a necessary, fatal triumph, in a sense. Liberalism has triumphed because it can legitimately lay claim to being the most successful actualization of the potentialities of modernity. Liberalism did indeed succeed in modernizing the West to a much greater degree than communism succeeded in modernizing the countries of the Eastern bloc, so much so that “the West,” and particularly the United States, is today more or less synonymous with modernity. In the decades after the second world war, capitalism, using economic means, modernized Western European societies to a degree undreamed of by fascism, making the third position ideologies seem archaic and obsolete by comparison. In a sense, liberalism is the origin of the other ideologies of modernity – both communism and fascism emerged as attempts to overcome liberalism, while mastering the forces liberated by modern industrial capitalism and technology. It has also outlived the adversaries it engendered.

Dugin Contra Nationalism

Why does Dugin reject nationalism? His negative view of nationalism differs to some extent from that of Evola, who saw it not only as destructive of the traditional European order, but also as leading towards modern collectivism (Dugin, on the contrary, sees collectivism as something positive). Does Dugin follow Heidegger in viewing nationalism as an “anthropologism” (cf. “Letter on Humanism”)? What Heidegger mean by this is that nationalism, like Marxism, places man, rather than Being, at the center of history. Nationalism is a “subjectivism,” in the sense that it views man as the subject of history. In this sense, nationalism is indeed a modern phenomenon, since modernity, for Heidegger, is essentially an epoch in the history of metaphysics that was initiated with Descartes’ cogito: with the rational subject as the secure foundation of philosophy and science. Descartes identifies the subject with reason (ratio). This became the metaphysical foundation for the Enlightenment and its anthropology.

However, Dugin does not, unlike Heidegger, reject subjectivism as such. On the contrary, the whole point of the fourth political theory is that it is the search for a new “political subject,” an alternative to the individual as a political subject.

Why does Dugin give Heidegger’s concept of “Dasein” the pivotal role in the “fourth political theory”? Heidegger elaborated his analysis of Dasein as an attempt to overcome the abstractions of the metaphysical concept of the subject. Hence, his “analytic of Dasein” offers the possibility of going beyond the modern political ideologies based on various interpretations of the subject. Dasein is beyond, or prior to, the subject-object split. Dasein is not the rational subject as the abstract basis of the concept of universal man. Dasein is the historical, spatio-temporal structure of concrete existence. The subject is outside of the world, relating to the world as a system of objects. Dasein is always already in the world, involved in it, struggling within it. The world, as Heidegger uses the term, is a totality of relations of meaning. Each thing refers to other things in a circuit of relations. Dasein’s relation to things is one of understanding and interpretation, not (primarily) one of objectification.

The subject is reason, that is, it is defined by its relation to an ultimate cause and foundation (Grund). Dasein is defined by its relation to finitude, death, and the abyss (Ab-grund). However, all this means that it is not clear how Dasein, which according to Heidegger is precisely not the subject, can be called “the subject” of the fourth political theory. Dasein is not a subject that arbitrarily imposes its will, creates itself from nothing or freely makes history. Instead, it is part of a cosmic process that transcends man and his agency. Man does not decide the history of Being. Heidegger is not interested in re-elaborating or modifying the concept of the subject, nor is he interested in returning man to “God and Tradition” in the sense of metaphysical foundations, but is trying to overcome metaphysics itself, that is, all thinking in terms of the Being of beings as a “foundation” (Grund). This also means that Heidegger is far from the metaphysical conceptions of Traditionalism.

If Dugin invokes Heidegger and the analytic of Dasein, we must assume that behind the critique of liberalism and the West, he is attempting a critique of modernity as such (identified with the West). Heidegger’s critique of modernity is linked to an attempt to overcome the philosophy of the subject. In Heidegger’s view, modernity, when the humanitarian masks of the Enlightenment fall off, is technological nihilism, and this nihilism is the fatal consequence of Western metaphysics. Western metaphysics, however, is the foundation of Western civilization as a whole.

Heidegger’s critique is not simply political. He is criticizing bolshevism, liberalism (which paved the way for bolshevism), and other modern ideologies for failing to understand not only their own essence, but the essence of modernity itself: technological nihilism. According to Heidegger, the emancipation of the subject (humanity interpreted as subject) is not the purpose of technological development. It is the other way around — the emancipation of the the subject is a means through which technology emancipates itself. Here, Heidegger’s interpretation of modern technology draws on Nietzsche’s concept of the Will to power. According to Nietzsche, the self is not the subject of the will to power, but is brought into being by the will to power. The last glimmers of transcendence are extinguished from the world so that technology can pursue, unobstructed and on a planetary scale, the endless, circular self-enhancement of its productive power, drawing everything into its vortex, with no ultimate goal or end other than power for its own sake. The West becomes “das Abendland,” the evening-land, the realm of the darkening of the divine, the withdrawal of the gods. Technology as “Ge-stell” is not mastered by man (the subject), but an impersonal destiny of Being itself. Man as a subject can never master technology, since the essence of technology as Gestell constitutes man as a subject. Technological development has no intrinsic, immanent limit, and no boundary can be arbitrarily set to it as long as thinking remains within the horizon of the philosophy of the subject (humanism) and of technological calculation (the final deviation of the Western logos). But as modern technology reaches the full actualization of its dominion, the subject that it once called into being enters into crisis, begins to “vanish.” It is liquidated in a system of purely functional relations without a center, without fixed norms or foundations. The essence of the subject reveals itself to be a kind of limit, which initially functioned as a necessary ground or condition, but now becomes only an obstacle to be overcome. For Heidegger, this crisis, this ultimate threshold of nihilism — brought about by technology itself — opens up the possibility of thinking the essence of man and Being in a much deeper dimension, beyond or before the subject. Instead of man as subject, Heidegger tries to think the historicity of Dasein. This is why the “inner truth” of National Socialism for him meant the confrontation between modern technology and historical man (that is, not man as subject).

For Heidegger, Western modernity and materialism are not, as traditionalists claim, the consequence of a fall from the normal, traditional society of medieval Europe. On the contrary, he views the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age more as a development than as a radical break with the traditional past. For Heidegger, medieval scholasticism, with its misinterpretation of the Greek logos as “ratio” and its onto-theological synthesis of Greek philosophy with Christianity, prepared the way for Descartes’ rationalism. In a sense, Heidegger develops Nietzsche’s idea that nihilism is not so much a break with Christianity, but instead a revelation of the nihilistic essence of Christianity. As a Christian and a traditionalist, however, Dugin consistently avoids the anti-Christian aspect of Heidegger’s thought, without, however, being able to articulate a critique of it. For Heidegger, as for the majority of the conservative revolutionaries, the origin of modernity is Christian, or rather, it lies in the “onto-theological” synthesis of Christianity and Greek metaphysics. It is the Christian conception of the “sovereignty” of God with regard to the world as creation that is at the origin of the modern concept of the subject, just as the Christian notion of the free individual with a personal relation to God and the Christian concern with the salvation of the immortal soul of all individuals is the origin of modern mass individualism. It is God as the “highest being” — both causa sui and causa prima, the first cause, sovereign over all other beings and the “maker” of the world — that is at the origin of the sovereign subject whose relation to things is one of instrumental manipulation and objectification. Modern secular humanism is onto-theological: it has its origin not in Greek thought, but in the Christian interpretation of Greek thought.

We may add that the Evola of Revolt Against the Modern World also sees Christianity as a primary cause of the involution of the West. He does not view modernity as a fatality somehow inherent in the nature of the West. For Evola, the Western mode of spirituality, which is primarily an active rather than contemplative spirituality, was cut off from the dimension of transcendence by the Semitic, lunar, self-mortifying type of religiosity of Christianity, which ultimately lead to the Western drive to activity being deviated, finding an outlet only on a purely material and human plane.

In any case, whether from a Heideggerian or Traditionalist view, one may agree that race, insofar as it is conceived as a purely human, biological characteristic, is ultimately insufficient, or rather, that it is too narrowly anthropological, and must be integrated into a deeper conception. This is not the same as liquidating the concept of race. It does mean the rejection of certain narrow forms of racism, where the biological concept of race plays an analogous reductive role to the Marxist concept of a material base that determines the ideological superstructure (culture, mentality etc.) of a society.

Man is not the unconditioned, self-creating subject of modern metaphysics. Human existence is conditioned and finite — men are, as Jünger wrote, “sons of the earth.” Race is one of the earthly conditions of man’s existence. An historical world is not an unconditioned, arbitrary “construct.” There is, in Heidegger’s terms, an historical world is always founded through a struggle between world and earth — the world, an articulated, historical space of possibilities and decisions, and the conditions set by the un-objectified, elemental forces of the earth. Blood and soil are given the meaning of a destiny in an historical world (this is not at all the same as claiming that it is an arbitrary historical and social construct). For Heidegger, the limits set by the biological potentialities of human beings are not arbitrary historical creations — what is historical is the particular “figure” or constellation of relations that gives them meaning.

We can also note that the statistical concept of race referred to by race realists today is very different from National Socialist racial theories, which were based on the idea of racial purity. The modern concept of race is not on its own sufficient to non-reductively account for the specificity of our or other civilizations or cultures. The differences between the mentality of Americans of European descent, on the one hand, and the mentality of Europeans, on the other, underscores this clearly. However, it is more than obvious that race plays a role in shaping the general character of civilizations.

Editor’s Note

1. On the chaos star, see Wikipedia ^[4].

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/dugin-on-the-subject-of-politics/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dugin-chaos-star-e1410484135489.jpg

[2] chaos: http://against-postmodern.org/dugin-necessity-metaphysics-chaos

[3] ethnocidal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdH6JgqNsPo

[4] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos

Dugin Contra Liberalism

Dugin Contra Liberalism

By Giuliano Adriano Malvicini

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

Editor’s Note:

This is a beginning of a series of more or less self-contained articles on Alexander Dugin drawn from a larger text, “Race, ‘Ethnos,’ and the Fourth Political Theory.”

Alexander Dugin has designated “liberalism” as the enemy of the “fourth political theory.” Or rather, since the enemy can only be an actually existing group of people and not an idea or ideology, he has designated as the enemy all those are in favor of the global hegemony of liberalism (the hegemony of “the West” and “atlanticism”): “If you are in favor of global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy.”

What does Dugin mean by “liberalism”? Is it the ideology of the people referred to as “liberals” in America? Calling someone a “liberal” in Europe means something quite different from calling someone a “liberal” in the United States. “Liberals” in the United States are on the left: they vote for the Democratic party and are in favor a welfare state and a regulated economy. In Europe, they would be considered social democrats. Ideologically, they are egalitarians and tend to be critical of laissez-faire capitalism. They oppose “racism,” “sexism” and “homophobia” from an egalitarian point of view. They view prison sentences as therapeutic and socializing rather than as forms of punishment. They believe in “social justice” rather than justice through retribution. They believe that human beings are basically good and can be redeemed through “social work.” They believe in social conditioning rather than personal responsibility. They tend to be in favor of a strict separation of church and state, while at the same time advocating an egalitarian world-view that is essentially a form of secularized Christianity.

In Europe, “liberals” are on the right: they are generally opposed to the welfare state, in favor of free markets, the privatization of the infrastructure and a largely unregulated economy. Traditionally, they also support various conservative social policies, placing an emphasis on individual responsibility as the correlative of the notion of individual rights. In other words, liberalism is a bourgeois ideology, favoring a capitalist economy, based on the enlightenment concept of individual human rights.

Today, however, the polarity between left and right is becoming much less sharp, and is gradually being replaced by a general consensus. The social policies of European liberal parties often coincide with those associated with the post-1968, libertarian left. Liberal, pro-capitalist parties oppose “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia” from the point of view of individualist libertarianism. Everyone is supposed to be treated as an individual, in an unprejudiced” way. Forms of collective identity — national, religious or racial – are declared passé. National borders and ethnic communities, insofar as they limit the freedom of the individual, are to be abolished. The freedom of the individual must be defended as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals. This is the liberalism that Dugin has designated as the enemy: globalist capitalism founded on the ideology of human rights. The fourth political theory is anti-capitalist, against globalism, and against the ideology of human rights.

Today, the common foundations and origins of the social democratic, egalitarian left and the bourgeois, liberal right in the enlightenment ideology of human rights has become clearer, as “the left” and “the right” become increasingly hard to distinguish from one another. Both left and right-wing mainstream parties today tend to favor multiculturalism, immigration, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. They share fundamental views about gender equality and sometimes drug liberalization. These policies are legitimized by the “right” from the point of view of individual rights, and by the “left” from the point of view of egalitarianism. Moreover, the middle-class leftist “revolutionaries” of the late ’60s and early ’70s have often made a transition from the communist left to the libertarian right, realizing that their adherence to the left was based on an ideological self-misunderstanding. They were essentially bourgeois, left libertarians who briefly mistook themselves for communist revolutionaries.

In other words, the differences between the left and the right in Europe today are only differences of interpretation of a single legacy: the enlightenment. It would more correct to talk about “liberal-egalitarian hegemony” rather than simply “liberal hegemony.” Both liberalism and egalitarianism are based on the ideology of human rights, but emphasize different aspects. Right-wing liberals emphasize the individual aspect of human rights. Leftist egalitarians emphasize the universal aspect of human rights. Both conceptions of humanity — universal man and individual man — are abstractions, that is, defined only in negative terms. Both universal man and individual man are defined as not belonging to a particular group or category (ethnic or otherwise). Insofar as man is universal, “he” cannot belong to any particular ethnic group, gender or other category. The individual, on the other hand, cannot as such be subsumed under any category or defined as belonging to any collectivity (nationality ethnicity, gender, etc.) since this would violate his or her absolute singularity. “The individual,” then, is any and every human being and potentially corresponds to all of humanity. The individual is universal (as a representative of “humanity” as such) and all human beings are, as human beings, individuals. In other words, “universal man” can only be “individual man.” Egalitarianism and individualism ultimately boil down to the same abstract conception of man.

All established, mainstream political parties in Europe today gravitate towards this liberal-egalitarian center. This leaves all other groups marginalized. This center is the rational, humane, bourgeois individual, monopolizing the legacy of the enlightenment, with reason itself as the defining trait of humanity, it follows that those who deviate in some way from the center are non- or less-than-human (monsters), irrational and unenlightened. The marginalized are de-humanized and dismissed as irrational, “mentally ill” or “extremist.” They are denied a voice, the capacity to think and a right to participate in the political sphere: in other words, they are in various ways deprived of political subjectivity.

These groups include the various losers of liberal modernity, such as religious conservatives who oppose gay rights and the separation of church and state. Christian religious conservatives are not completely marginalized — they still have a presence within established political parties, albeit one that is steadily weakening. Communists, who oppose the idea of individual rights, free enterprise, and private property are not entirely marginalized, especially within academia and cultural institutions. When necessary, they post-communist parties in Europe are allowed to form parts of coalition governments. Leftist activists, in the form of “antifa” groups are tolerated insofar as they perform functions as the watchdogs of the system, when measures are required that lie outside of the limits of legality. They also share a common basis with the established political parties in the egalitarian, universalist aspects of their ideology, which has its roots in the enlightenment.

Much more marginalized and demonized are nationalists, who oppose, in varying degrees, universalism (to the extent that they value national identity), free trade (to the extent that they want to protect national economies), and individualism (to the extent that they view national and ethnic identity as in some cases having primacy over individual identity). Finally, the most marginalized and demonized group of all are racialists and racial nationalists, who oppose not only universalism, but also egalitarianism. However heterogeneous these groups are, they are sometimes placed in the same category – that of “totalitarian” or “anti-democratic” movements – by the liberal center.

It is on this basis that Alain de Benoist, Dugin, and Alain Soral have wanted to create an “alliance of the periphery against the center,” that is, of more or less marginalized groups against the dominant political establishment. In their case, this has so far meant not so much an alliance between the radical left and the radical right as an alliance between religious conservatives (to a large extent Muslims) and ex-communists. A good example of this in Western Europe is Alain Soral’s “Egalité et réconciliation” (“Equality and Reconciliation”), which rejects the repatriation of immigrants, instead embracing “communitarianism,” and attempts to build an alliance between Muslim immigrants and French “patriots.” The name of Soral’s movement already makes it clear that a critique of egalitarianism is not part of the agenda. Neither, of course, is racialism or racially-based nationalism.

It is noteworthy that Dugin, too, avoids any critique of egalitarianism. To the extent that opposition to egalitarianism is the essence of the true right, this means downplaying the real differences between left and right by focusing entirely on attacking “liberalism.” The concept of “liberalism” — intentionally left ambiguous, referring at times to capitalist economic individualism, at times to the moral individualism of gay rights activists and secularists — is meant to function as a central pole of opposition that will artificially unify into a single, cohesive front groups that are otherwise profoundly heterogeneous.

It is crucial to understand that Dugin, who calls for a “crusade against the West” is not opposed to liberalism because it is leading to the destruction of the white race. On the contrary, he frequently identifies “the West” with the white race (since he does not view Russians as white, as will be explained later). His primary stated goal is to destroy liberalism, even if that means destroying the white race (“European humanity”) along with it. As he puts it in The Fourth Political Theory:

. . . liberalism (and post-liberalism) may (and must – I believe this!) be repudiated. And if behind it, there stands the full might of the inertia of modernity, the spirit of Enlightenment and the logic of the political and economic history of European humanity of the last centuries, it must be repudiated together with modernity, the Enlightenment, and European humanity altogether. Moreover, only the acknowledgement of liberalism as fate, as a fundamental influence, comprising the march of Western European history, will allow us really to say ‘no’ to liberalism. (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 154)

He also defines the race of the subject of the “fourth political theory” as “non-White/European” [Ibid. p. 189]. He has predicted world-wide anti-white pogroms as retribution for the evil deeds of the white race, pogroms that Russians, however, will be exempt from, since they are not, according to him, fully white ^[2].

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/dugin-contra-liberalism/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dugin4.jpg

[2] not, according to him, fully white: http://www.arcto.ru/article/1289

LA NUEVA DERECHA RUSA EURASIÁTICA

ELEMENTOS Nº 70:

ALEXANDER DUGIN Y LA CUARTA TEORÍA POLÍTICA

LA NUEVA DERECHA RUSA EURASIÁTICA

 

 

Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com

Descargar con google.com

Sumario

 

Alexander Dugin: la Nueva Derecha rusa, entre el Neo-Eurasianismo y la Cuarta Teoría Política, por Jesús J. Sebastián

 

 

Más allá del liberalismo: hacia la Cuarta Teoría Política, por Alexander Dugin

Necesidad de la Cuarta Teoría Política, por Leonid Savin

La Cuarta Teoría Política y la “Otra Europa”, por Natella Speranskaya

El Liberalismo y la Guerra Rusia-Occidente, por Alexander Dugin

Alexander Dugin, o cuando la metafísica y la política se unen, por Sergio Fritz

La Cuarta Teoría Política, entrevista a Natella Speranskaya, por Claudio Mutti

 

El quinto estado: una réplica a Alexander Dugin, por Marcos Ghio

La Tercera Teoría Política. Una crítica a la Cuarta Teoría Política, por Michael O'Meara

La gran guerra de los continentes. Geopolítica y fuerzas ocultas de la historia, por Alexander Dugin

La globalización para bien de los pueblos. Perspectivas de la nueva teoría política, por Leonid Savin

Alianza Global Revolucionaria, entrevista a Natella Speranskaya

Contribución a la teoría actual de la protesta radical, por Geidar Dzhemal

 

El proyecto de la Gran Europa. Un esbozo geopolítico para un futuro mundo multipolar, por Alexander Dugin

Rusia, clave de bóveda del sistema multipolar, por Tiberio Graziani

La dinámica ideológica en Rusia y los cambios del curso de su política exterior, por Alexander Dugin

Un Estado étnico para Rusia. El fracaso del proyecto multicultural, por Vladimir Putin

Reportaje sobre Dugin (revista alemana Zuerst!), por Manuel Ochsenreiter

 

Dugin: de la Unión Nacional-Bolchevique al Partido Euroasiático, por Xavier Casals Meseguer

"United by Hatred"

"United by Hatred"

Interview with Alexander Dugin

by Manuel Ochsenreiter

Ex: http://manuelochsenreiter.com

Prof. Dugin, the Western mainstream media and established politicians describe the recent situation in Ukraine as a conflict between pro-European, democratic and liberal oppositional alliance on the one side and an authoritarian regime with a dictator as president on the other side. Do you agree?

Dugin: I know those stories and I consider this type of analysis totally wrong. We cannot divide the world today in the Cold War style. There is no “democratic world” which stands against an “antidemocratic world”, as many Western media report.

Your country, Russia, is one of the cores of this so called “antidemocratic world” when we believe our mainstream media. And Russia with president Vladimir Putin tries to intervene in Ukrainian domestic politics, we read...

Dugin: That´s completely wrong. Russia is a liberal democracy. Take a look at the Russian constitution: We have a democratic electoral system, a functioning parliament, a free market system. The constitution is based on Western pattern. Our president Vladimir Putin rules the country in a democratic way. We are a not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, we are not a soviet communist regime.

Our politicians in Germany call Putin a “dictator”!

Dugin: (laughs) On what basis?

Because of his LGBT-laws, his support for Syria, the law suits against Michail Chodorchowski and “Pussy Riot”...

Dugin: So they call him “dictator” because they don´t like the Russian mentality. Every point you mentioned is completely democratically legitimate. There is not just one single “authoritarian” element. So we shouldn´t mix that: Even if you don´t like Russia´s politics you can´t deny that Russia is a liberal democracy. President Vladimir Putin accepts the democratic rules of our system and respects them. He never violated one single law. So Russia is part of the liberal democratic camp and the Cold War pattern doesn´t work to explain the Ukrainian crisis.

Violent protesters in Kiev

So how can we describe this violent and bloody conflict?

Dugin: We need a very clear geopolitical and civilizational analysis. And we have to accept historical facts, even if they are in these days not en vogue!

What do you mean?

Dugin: Todays Ukraine is a state which never existed in history. It is a newly created entity. This entity has at least two completely different parts. These two parts have a different identity and culture. There is Western Ukraine which is united in its Eastern European identity. The vast majority of the people living in Western Ukraine consider themselves as Eastern Europeans. And this identity is based on the complete rejection of any pan-Slavic idea together with Russia. Russians are regarded as existential enemies. We can say it like that: They hate Russians, Russian culture and of course Russian politics. This makes an important part of their identity.

You are not upset about this as a Russian?

Dugin: (laughs) Not at all! It is a part of identity. It doesn´t necessarily mean they want to go on war against us, but they don´t like us. We should respect this. Look, the Americans are hated by much more people and they accept it also. So when the Western Ukrainians hate us, it is neither bad nor good – it is a fact. Let´s simply accept this. Not everybody has to love us!

But the Eastern Ukrainians like you Russians more!

Dugin: Not so fast! The majority of people living in the Eastern part of Ukraine share a common identity with Russian people – historical, civilizational, and geopolitical. Eastern Ukraine is an absolute Russian and Eurasian country. So there are two Ukraines. We see this very clear at the elections. The population is split in any important political question. And especially when it comes to the relations with Russia, we witness how dramatic this problem becomes: One part is absolute anti-Russian, the other Part absolute pro-Russian. Two different societies, two different countries and two different national, historical identities live in one entity.

So the question is which society dominates the other?

Dugin: That´s an important part of Ukrainian politics. We have the two parts and we have the capital Kiev. But in Kiev we have both identities. It is neither the capital of Western Ukraine nor Eastern Ukraine. The capital of the Western part is Lviv, the capital of the Eastern part is Kharkiv. Kiev is the capital of an artificial entity. These are all important facts to understand this conflict.

Western Media as well as Ukrainian “nationalists” would strongly disagree with the term “artificial” for the Ukrainian state.

Dugin: The facts are clear. The creation of the state of Ukraine within the borders of today wasn´t the result of a historical development. It was a bureaucratic and administrative decision by the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was one of the 15 constituent republics of the Soviet Union from its inception in 1922 to its end in 1991. Throughout this 72-year history, the republic's borders changed many times, with a significant part of what is now Western Ukraine being annexed by the Red Army in 1939 and the addition of formerly Russian Crimea in 1954.

Some politicians and analysts say that the easiest solution would be the partition of Ukraine to an Eastern and a Western state.

Dugin: It is not as easy as it might sound because we would get problems with national minorities. In the Western part of Ukraine many people who consider themselves as Russians live today. In the Eastern part lives a part of the population that considers itself as Western Ukrainian. You see: A simple partition of the state wouldn´t really solve the problem but even create a new one. We can imagine the Crimean separation, because that part of Ukraine is purely Russian populated territory.

Why does it seem that the European Union is so much interested in “importing” all those problems to its sphere?

Dugin: It is not in the interest of any European alliance, it is in the interest of USA. It is a political campaign which is led against Russia. The invitation of Brussels to Ukraine to join the West brought immediately the conflict with Moscow and the inner conflict of Ukraine. This is not surprising at all of anybody who knows about the Ukrainian society and history.

Some German politicians said that they were surprised by the civil war scenes in Kiev...

Dugin: This says more about the standards of political and historical education of your politicians than about the crisis in Ukraine...

But the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused the invitation of the West.

Dugin: Of course he did. He was elected by the pro-Russian East and not by the West. Yanukovych can´t act against the interest and the will of his personal electoral base. If he would accept the Western-EU-invitation he would be immediately a traitor in the eyes of his voters. Yanukovych´s supporters want integration with Russia. To say it clearly: Yanukovych simply did what was very logical for him to do. No surprise, no miracle. Simply logical politics.

 

 

There is now a very pluralistic and political colorful oppositional alliance against Yanukovych: This alliance includes typical liberals, anarchists, communists, gay right groups and also nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups and hooligans. What keeps these different groups and ideologies together?

Dugin: They are united by their pure hatred against Russia. Yanukovych is in their eyes the proxy of Russia, the friend of Putin, the man of the East. They hate everything what has to do with Russia. This hate keeps them together; this is a block of hatred. To say it clearly: Hate is their political ideology. They don´t love the EU or Brussels.

What are the main groups? Who is dominating the oppositional actions?

Dugin: These are clearly the most violent neo-Nazi groups on the so called Euro-Maidan. They push for violence and provoke a civil war situation in Kiev.

Western Mainstream media claims that the role of those extremist groups is dramatized by the pro-Russian media to defame the whole oppositional alliance.

Dugin: Of course they do. How do they want to justify that the EU and the European governments support extremist, racist, neo-Nazis outside the EU-borders while they do inside the EU melodramatic and expensive actions even against the most moderate right wing groups?

But how can for example the gay right groups and the left wing liberal groups fight alongside the neo-Nazis who are well known to be not really very gay friendly?

Dugin: First of all, all these groups hate Russia and the Russian president. This hate makes them comrades. And the left wing liberal groups are not less extremist than the neo-Nazi groups. We tend to think that they are liberal, but this is horribly wrong. We find especially in Eastern Europe and Russia very often that the Homosexual-Lobby and the ultranationalist and neo-Nazi groups are allies. Also the Homosexual lobby has very extremist ideas about how to deform, re-educate and influence the society. We shouldn´t forget this. The gay and lesbian lobby is not less dangerous for any society than neo-Nazis.

We know such an alliance also from Moscow. The liberal blogger and candidate for the mayoral position in Moscow Alexej Nawalny was supported by such an alliance of gay rights organizations and neo-Nazi groups.

Dugin: Exactly. And this Nawalny-coalition was also supported by the West. The point is, it is not at all about the ideological content of those groups. This is not interesting for the West.

What do you mean?

Dugin: What would happen if a neo-Nazi organization supported Putin in Russia or Yanukovych in Ukraine?

The EU would start a political campaign; all huge western mainstream media would cover this and scandalize that.

Dugin: Exactly that´s the case. So it is only about on which side such a group stands. If the group is against Putin, against Yanukovych, against Russia, the ideology of that group is not a problem. If that group supports Putin, Russia or Yanukovych, the ideology immediately becomes a huge problem. It is all about the geopolitical side the group takes. It is nothing but geopolitics. It is a very good lesson what is going on in Ukraine. The lesson tells us: Geopolitics is dominating those conflicts and nothing else. We witness this also with other conflicts for example in Syria, Libya, Egypt, in Caucasian region, Iraq, Iran...

Any group taking side in favor of the West is a “good” group with no respect if it is extremist?

Dugin: Yes and any group taking side against the West – even if this group is secular and moderate – will be called “extremist” by the Western propaganda. This approach exactly dominates the geopolitical battlefields today. You can be the most radical and brutal Salafi fighter, you can hate Jews and eat human organs in front of a camera, as long as you fight for the Western interest against the Syrian government you are a respected and supported ally of the West. When you defend a multi-religious, secular and moderate society, all ideals of the West by the way, but you take position against the Western interest like the Syrian government, you are the enemy. Nobody is interested in what you believe in, it is only about the geopolitical side you chose if you are right or wrong in the eyes of the Western hegemon.

Prof. Dugin, especially Ukrainian opposition groups calling themselves “nationalists” would strongly disagree with you. They claim: “We are against Russia and against the EU, we take a third position!” The same thing ironically also the salafi fighter in Syria would say: “We hate Americans as much as the Syrian government!” Is there something like a possible third position in this geopolitical war of today?

Dugin: The idea to take a third and independent position between the two dominating blocks is very common. I had some interesting interviews and talks with a leading figure of the Chechen separatist guerilla. He confessed to me that he really believed in the possibility of an independent and free Islamic Chechnya. But later he understood that there is no “third position”, no possibility of that. He understood that he fights against Russia on the side of the West. He was a geopolitical instrument of the West, a NATO proxy on the Caucasian battlefield. The same ugly truth hits the Ukrainian “nationalist” and the Arab salafi fighter: They are Western proxies. It is hard to accept for them because nobody likes the idea to be the useful idiot of Washington.

To say it clearly: The “third position” is absolutely impossible?

Dugin: No way for that today. There is land power and sea power in geopolitics. Land power is represented today by Russia, sea power by Washington. During World War II Germany tried to impose a third position. This attempt was based precisely on those political errors we talk about right now. Germany went on war against the sea power represented by the British Empire, and against the land power represented by Russia. Berlin fought against the main global forces and lost that war. The end was the complete destruction of Germany. So when even the strong and powerful Germany of that time wasn´t strong enough to impose the third position how the much smaller and weaker groups want to do this today? It is impossible, it is a ridiculous illusion.

Anybody who claims today to fight for an independent “third position” is in reality a proxy of the West?

Dugin: In most of the cases, yes.

Former German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle shows solidarity with the "Euro-Maidan"

Moscow seems to be very passive. Russia doesn´t support any proxies for example in the EU countries. Why?

Dugin: Russia doesn´t have an imperialist agenda. Moscow respects sovereignty and wouldn´t interfere in the domestic politics of any other country. And it is an honest and good politics. We witness this even in Ukraine. We see much more EU-politicians and even US-politicians and diplomats travelling to Kiev to support the opposition than we see Russian politicians supporting Yanukovych in Ukraine. We shouldn´t forget that Russia doesn´t have any hegemonial interests in Europe, but the Americans have. Frankly speaking, the European Union is not a genuine European entity – it is an imperialist transatlantic project. It doesn´t serve the interests of the Europeans but the interests of the Washington administration. The “European Union” is in reality anti-European. And the “Euro-Maidan” is in reality “anti-Euro-Maidan”. The violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine are neither “nationalist” nor “patriotic” nor “European” - they are purely American proxies. The same for the homosexual rights groups and organizations like FEMEN or left wing liberal protest groups.

Dugin und Heidegger

Dugin und Heidegger

von David Beetschen

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Alexander Dugins „Vierte politische Theorie“ sorgte für kontroverse Debatten. Um den Kern seiner propagierten authentischen Existenz zu erfassen, muss man sich mit Heideggers Seinsfrage auseinandersetzen.

Treffend hat Markus Willinger in seinem Artikel über „Dugins Alternative“ erwähnt, dass der Kern der Theorie nicht klar herausgeschält wird. Insbesondere umschreibt er nicht genau die Basis, auf der das Subjekt der vierten politischen Theorie gründet.

Das Sammelbecken der antiliberalen Strömungen

Die vierte politische Theorie ist als Sammelbecken konzipiert für alle Menschen, die sich gegen Globalisierung und Amerikanismus wenden, der als Leitkultur fungiert. Um dies zu verwirklichen, versucht diese Theorie die Kräfte zu bündeln, also die Menschen, die sich für die zweite und dritte politische Theorie einsetzen, wie auch für alle anderen antiliberalen Strömungen.

Dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass die vierte politische Theorie ein Synkretismus der ersten drei darstellt, oder lediglich eine gegenaufklärerische Bewegung. Die vierte politische Theorie darf nicht mit einer der anderen verwechselt werden, insbesondere nicht mit der zweiten oder dritten.

Die Theorie schält die positiven Aspekte der anderen drei Theorien heraus: beim Liberalismus die „Freiheit“, dahingehend, dass man keine Tyrannei will. Bei der zweiten den Aspekt der Solidarität und bei der dritten die von Rassismus, Chauvinismus und Xenophobie befreite Idee des Ethnos. Ein wichtiger Punkt ist, dass Dugin selbst dazu aufruft, antifaschistische und antikommunistische Ressentiments beiseite zu legen, da diese nichts anderes seien als Instrumente in den Händen der Liberalen.

Das Subjekt der vierten politischen Theorie

Die vierte politische Theorie hat als neues politisches Subjekt nach dem Individuum, der Klasse, der Rasse und dem Staat eine Heideggersche Kategorie erhalten. Hierzu soll der Terminus „Dasein“ genutzt werden, der von Heidegger in seiner Fundamentalontologie anstelle von „Mensch“ gebraucht wird, um sich von der traditionellen Philosophie und ihren Vorurteilen abzugrenzen.

So soll „Dasein“ der Philosophie die Möglichkeit bieten, an die unmittelbaren Lebenserfahrungen des Einzelnen anzuknüpfen. Um sich insbesondere von Kants Erkenntnistheorie abzugrenzen, ging Heidegger nicht von einem „erkennenden Subjekt“ aus, sondern von einem „verstehenden Dasein“.

Nach der Definition von „Dasein“ soll hier nun nicht die ganze Fundamentalontologie Heideggers ausgebreitet, sondern direkt das aufgegriffen werden, was für die vierte politische Theorie wichtig ist und dies ist Heideggers „Man“. Dieses „Man“ bildet den Lebenshintergrund des Daseins, in allen kulturellen, gesellschaftlichen und geschichtlichen Aspekten, in die das „Dasein“ durch die „Geworfenheit“ eingebettet ist.

„Dasein“ und „eigentliches Sein“

Dieser Lebenshintergrund in Form der Kultur gibt dem Menschen gewisse Möglichkeiten, die er ohne sie nicht hätte. Jedoch kann die Kultur das Denken und Handeln des Daseins vorbestimmen, ohne dass ihm dies wirklich bewusst wird, wodurch es bestimmten Verhaltensmustern und Weltanschauungen ausgesetzt ist. Heidegger nannte diese Situation des Ausgeliefertseins „uneigentliche Existenz“.

Diesen Zustand konstatiert Heidegger als Ausgangspunkt, in welchen der durchschnittliche Mensch hineingeboren wird. Die Vorherbestimmung der kulturellen und gesellschaftlichen Verhaltensangebote nimmt dem „Dasein“ sein „eigentliches Sein“ weg. Wer ihm das wegnimmt, sind „die Anderen“, wobei hier keine spezifische Person gemeint ist, sondern das „Dasein“ in seiner Alltäglichkeit als „Man“.

Folgender Satz soll die Idee dahinter vergegenwärtigen: „Wir genießen und vergnügen uns, wie man genießt; wir lesen, sehen und urteilen über Literatur und Kunst, wie man urteilt; wir ziehen uns aber auch vom ‚großen Haufen‘ zurück, wie man sich zurückzieht.“ Diese Überlegungen brachten Heidegger dazu, folgenden radikalen Schluss zu ziehen: „Jeder ist der Andere und Keiner er selbst.“

Möglichkeit des authentischen Lebens

Als Gegenkonzept zur Fremdbestimmung des Daseins führt Heidegger das „eigentliche Selbstsein“ ins Feld, das eine „existenzielle“ Modifikation des „Man“ sei. Hierfür stellt er dem „Man“ die „Jemeinigkeit“ (dies ist jenseits von ich und wir) entgegen, wobei er nach einem möglichen Weg für ein authentisches Leben sucht, dem Weg vom „eigentlichen Selbst-​sein-​können“.

Um diesen Weg zu finden, macht Heidegger eine Analyse des Verhaltens des Daseins in Bezug auf seine Existenzialien. Diese umriss er bei einer phänomenologischen Analyse des Daseins, um dessen Struktur und Verhalten geistig zu begegnen. So sind nach ihm die Existenzialien des Daseins:

1. Die „Geworfenheit“ – der Mensch ist in sein kulturelles Überlieferungsgeschehen hineingeworfen;
2. Der „Entwurf“ – Das Dasein versteht die Welt, ergreift Möglichkeiten darin oder ergreift sie nicht;
3. Die Verfallenheit an die Welt – Das Dasein ist „bei“ den Gegenständen und Personen, die ihm als unmittelbarer Orientierungspunkt dienen.

Durch die Verbindung dieser drei Punkte in einer Einheit erkennt Heidegger das „Sein von Dasein“ und definiert es als „Sich-vorweg-schon-sein-in-(der-Welt) als Sein-​bei (innerweltlich begegnendem Seienden)“. Nun definiert Heidegger, daraus ableitend, die Possibilitäten, die sich als eigentliche Existenz erweisen und kommt dabei auf zwei verschiedene Lösungen, die in Bezug auf seine Zeitlehre stehen. Hierfür ist ein anderer Terminus sehr wichtig, die „Sorge“, was die Heideggersche Abkürzung für das „Sein des Daseins“ ist.

Die Bestimmung des Daseins

Diese Sorge hat jedoch weder mit der Besorgnis etwas zu tun, noch mit der Sorglosigkeit, sondern ist eine Seinsweise des Menschen, die primär im praktischen Umgang mit seiner Umwelt liegt, worauf er auch eine theoretische Erfassung derselben vornehmen kann, aber nicht bloß im erkennenden Anschauen derselben endet.

Heidegger versucht nun, die Bestimmung des Daseins als ein „Sein zum Tode“ hin genauer zu betrachten. Er kommt dabei zum Schluss, dass die Zeitlichkeit des Daseins ihm erst die Möglichkeit biete, sich auf den Tod hin einzustellen, wobei er schlussendlich subsumiert: „Zeitlichkeit ist der Sinn der Sorge.“ Diesen Sinn findet er in drei Ekstasen, die er in Bezug auf die „Sorge“ ordnet:

1. „Schon-​sein-​in-​der-​Welt“ = Gewesenheit;
2. „Sein-​bei“ = Gegenwart;
3. „Sich-​vorweg-​sein“ = Zukunft.

Hiermit wurde nun die Basis gelegt, um das „eigentliche Selbst-​sein-​können“ zu finden und auf die beiden Lösungen zu stoßen, die Heidegger so darstellte:

1. Die erste Möglichkeit liegt in der zeitlichen Ekstase des Zukünftigen, auf das sich das „Dasein“ hin „entwirft“, durch die Ausrichtung des Lebens auf von ihm selbst geprüfte und als erstrebenswert erachtete Interessen.
2. Die zweite Möglichkeit fußt auf der zeitlichen Ekstase der „Gewesenheit“, wobei sich das „Dasein“ seine Idole in der Vergangenheit sucht und die vergangene Möglichkeit des „eigentlichen Selbst-​sein-​können“ nicht nachmacht, sondern wiederholt, worin nun die Chance für das gegenwärtige Dasein liegt, selber das „eigentliche Selbst-​sein-​können“ auszuleben.

Die Fremdbestimmung des Daseins überwinden

An diesem Punkte setzt die vierte politische Theorie ein, die genau darum besorgt ist, dass dem Menschen die Möglichkeit bleibt, das „eigentliche Selbst-​sein-​können“ zu entfalten, indem der Mensch die Taten der gewesenen „Helden“ wiederholen kann. Um die Worte Dugins zu benutzen, steht die vierte politische Theorie für „Dasein“ ein, um ihm die Chance auf eine authentische Existenz zu gewähren, um die letzten Überbleibsel zu retten, „which makes man an existential being.“

Aus diesen Betrachtungen leitet sich ab, dass die Welt multipolar werden muss und die unipolare Hegemonie des Amerikanismus abschütteln sollte. Ja, sie muss die Kultur der „Fremdbestimmung des Daseins“ überwinden, wenn sie die „connection to the roots of …being“ wiederfinden will. Hier erscheint auch wieder die Vision Eurasien, wenn die Forderung nach dem Schmittschen „Großraum“ auftaucht. In diesen Großräumen könnten sich die Kulturen souverän selbständig organisieren, verteilt auf die Kontinente, fern aber von jedem Imperialismus.

Der Feind ist der Liberalismus, nicht eine andere traditionelle Kultur

Auch die Religionen, insbesondere in Form der Schule der Integralen Tradition, spielen eine essentielle Rolle für die Theorie, da auf der Grundlage der „inneren Einheit der Religionen“ eine Basis für ein inner– und außereurasisches Verständnis für die anderen Glaubensgemeinschaften gelegt wird. Es gibt keine Feindschaft mit Juden oder Moslems, sondern der Liberalismus wird als gemeinsamer Gegenspieler aufgefasst, der die Kulturen bedroht. Dies ist sicher ein wesentlicher Unterschied zu den identitären Blöcken, die gerne offen gegen den Islam auftreten.

Die vierte politische Theorie ist nicht als Dogma aufzufassen, sondern als eine Einladung Dugins an die oben genannten Gruppen, sich in der Bewegung einzufinden und konstruktive Kritik daran zu üben. So ist Dugins Buch The Fourth Political Theory nicht die Konzeption eines abgeschlossenen Systems, sondern ein Stein des Anstoßes, eine Frage, die Dugin gekonnt in den Raum stellt.

Anm. d. Red.: Alexander Geljewitsch Dugin wurde am 7. Januar 1962 in Moskau als Sohn eines sowjetischen Drei-​Sterne-​Generals und einer Ärztin geboren. Er spricht neun Sprachen, besitzt einen Doktortitel in Geschichts– und einen in Politikwissenschaft, ist verheiratet, hat zwei Kinder und gehört den Altorthodoxen an. Als Professor besitzt er einen Lehrstuhl für die Soziologie der internationalen Beziehungen an der Moskauer Staatsuniversität und fungiert seit längerer Zeit als Berater Putins in geopolitischen Fragen.

Beispiele bestehender Gruppierungen, die sich auf Dugins Theorie beziehen: Global Revolutionary Alliance, New Resistance, Eurasian Youth Union, International Eurasian Movement, Journal of Eurasian affairs, Eurasian Artists Association.

Multipolarism as an Open Project

Alexander Dugin

Ex: http://www.eurasianaffairs.net

 Professor of the Moscow State University, Doctor of political sciences, founder of the contemporary Russian school of Geopolitics, leader of the International Social Movement “Eurasian Movement”, Moscow, Russian Federation.

 

I. Multipolarism and “Land Power”

Geopolitics of the Land in the Global World

In the previous part we discussed the subject of globalism, globalization, and mondialism in a view considered to be generally accepted and “conventional”. Geopolitical analysis of the phenomenon of the subject of globalism, globalization, and mondialism has showed that in the modern globalism we only deal with one of the two geopolitical powers, namely, with a thalassocracy, a “Sea Power” that from now on claims for uniqueness, totality, and normativeness and strives to pretend to be the only possible civilization, sociological and geopolitical condition of the world.

Therewith, the philosophy of globalism is based upon the internal surety with universalism of exactly the Western-European value system thought to be the summary of all the diverse experience of the human cultures on all stages of their history.

And finally, in its roots, globalization has an active ideology (mondialism) and power structures that spread and bring this ideology into use. If taking into account that the latter are the most authoritative intellectual US centers (such as CFR and neoconservatives), structures of the US Supreme Military Command and their analysts (Owens, Sibrowsky, Barnett, Garstka), international oligarchs (such as George Soros), a number of international organizations (The Bilderberg Club, Trilateral Commission, etc.), and innumerous amount of analysts, politicians, journalists, scientists, economists, people of culture and art, and IT sector employees spread all over the world, we can understand the reason why this ideology seems to be something that goes without saying for us. That we sometimes take globalization as an “objective process” is the result of a huge manipulation with public opinion and the fruit of a total information war.

Therefore, the picture of global processes we described is an affirmation of the real state of affairs just in part. In such a description, there is a significant share of a normative and imperative volitional (ideological) wish that everything should be quite so, which means, it is based upon wrenches and, to some extent, striving to represent our wishful thinking as reality.

In this part, we will describe an absolutely different point of view on globalization and globalism that is impossible from inside the “Sea Power”, i.e. out of the environment of the nominal “Global World”. Such a view is not taken into account either in antiglobalism or in alterglobalism because it refuses from the most fundamental philosophical and ideological grounds of Eurocentrism.  Such a view rejects the faith in:

•  universalism of the Western values, that Western societies, in their history, have passed the only possible way all the other countries are expected to pass;
• progress as an indisputable forwardness of historical and social development;
• that it is limitless technical, economical, and material development, which is the answer for the most vital needs of all humankind;
• that people of all cultures, religions, civilizations, and ethnoses are principally the same as the people of the West and they are governed by the same anthropological motives;
• absolute superiority of capitalism over other sociopolitical formations;
• absence of any alternative for market economy;
• that liberal democracy is the only acceptable form of political organization of the society;
• individual freedom and individual identity as the superior value of human being;
• liberalism as a historically inevitable, higher-priority, and optimal ideology.

In other words, we proceed to the position of the “Land Power” and consider the present moment of the world history from the point of view of Geopolitics-2, or the thalassocratic geopolitics as an episode of the “Great Continent War”, not as its conclusion.

Of course, it is difficult to refuse that the present moment of historical development demonstrates a number of unique features that, if desired, can be interpreted as the ultimate victory of the Sea over the Land, Carthage over Rome and Leviathan over Behemoth. Indeed, never in history the “Sea Power” was such a serious success and stretched might and influence of its paradigm in such a scale. Of course, Geopolitics-2 acknowledges this fact and the consequences included. But it clearly realizes that globalization can be also interpreted otherwise, namely, as a series of victories in combats and battles, not as the ultimate win in the war.

Here, a historical analogy suggests itself: when German troops were approaching to Moscow in 1941, one could think that everything was lost and the end of the USSR was foredoomed. The Nazi propaganda commented the course of the war quiet so: the “New Order” is created in the occupied territory, the authorities work, economical and political hierarchy is created, and the social life is organized. But the Soviet people kept on violently resisting – at all the fronts as well as in the rear of the enemy, while systematically moving to their goal and their victory.

Now, there is precisely this moment in the geopolitical stand of the Sea and the Land. Information policy inside the “Sea Power” is built so as no-one has any doubt that globalism is an accomplished fact and the global society has come about in its essential features, that all the obstacles from now on are of a technical character. But from certain conceptual, philosophical, sociological, and geopolitical positions, all of it can be challenged by suggesting an absolutely different vision of the situation. All the point is in interpretation. Historical facts make no sense without interpretation. Likewise in geopolitics: any state of affairs in the field of geopolitics only makes sense in one or another interpretation. Globalism is interpreted today almost exclusively in the Atlantist meaning and, thus, the “sea” sense is put into it. A view from the Land’s position doesn’t change the state of affairs but it does change its sense. And this, in many cases, is of fundamental importance.

Further, we will represent the view on globalization and globalism from the Land’s position – geopolitical, sociological, philosophical, and strategical.

Grounds for Existence of Geopolitics-2 in the Global World

How can we substantiate the very possibility of a view on globalization on the part of the Land, assuming that the structure of the global world, as we have shown, presupposes marginalization and fragmentation of the Land?

There are several grounds for this.

1. The human spirit (conscience, will, faith) is always capable to formulate its attitude to any ambient phenomenon and even if this phenomenon is presented as invincible, integral, and “objective”, it is possible to take it in a different way – accept or reject, justify or condemn. This is the superior dignity of man and his difference from animal species. And if man rejects and condemns something, he has the right to build strategies to overcome it in any, most difficult and insuperable, situations and conditions. The advance of the global society can be accepted and approved but it can be rejected and condemned as well. In the former case, we float adrift the history, in the latter one – we seek a “fulcrum” to stop this process. History is made by people and the spirit plays the central part here. Hence, there is a theoretical possibility to create a theory radically opposite to the views that are built on the base of the “Sea Power” and accept basic paradigms of the Western view on the things, course of history, and logic of changing sociopolitical structures.
2. The geopolitical method allows to identify globalization as a subjective process connected with a success of one of the two global powers. Be the Land ever so “marginal and fragmentized», it has serious historical grounds behind itself, traditions, experience, sociological and civilization background. The Land’s geopolitics is not built on a void place; this is a tradition that generalizes some fundamental historical, geographical, and strategical trends. Therefore, even on the theoretical level, estimation of globalization from the position of Geopolitics-2 is absolutely relevant. Just as well as there is the “subject” of globalization in its center (mondialism and its structures), the Land Power can and does have its own subjective embodiment. In spite of a huge scale and massive forms of the historical polemics of civilizations, we, first of all, deal with a stand of minds, ideas, concepts, theories, and only then – with that of material things, devices, technologies, finances, weapons, etc.
3. The process of desovereignization of national states has not yet become nonreversible, and the elements of the Westphalian system are still being partly preserved. That means that a whole range of national states, by virtue of certain consideration, can still bank on realization of the land strategy, i.e. they can completely or partially reject globalization and the “Sea Power’s” paradigm. China is an example of it; it balances between globalization and its own land identity, strictly observing that the general balance is kept and that only what consolidates China as a sovereign geopolitical formation is borrowed from the global strategies. The same can be also said about the states the US have equaled to the “Axis of Evil” — Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, etc. Of course, the threat of a direct intrusion of US troops hangs over these countries like the sword of Damocles (on the model of Iraq or Afghanistan), and they are continuously subject to more politic network attacks from inside. However, at the moment their sovereignty is preserved what makes them privileged areas for development of the Land Power. It is also possible to refer here a number of hesitant countries, such as India, Turkey and others, which, being significantly involved into the globalization orbit, preserve their original sociological features, getting out of accord with the official precepts of their governing regimes. Such situation is characteristic of many Asian. Latin-American and African societies. 
4. And, finally, the most general. — The present state of Heartland. The world dominance, as we know, and thus, reality or evanescence of monopolar globalization depends on it. In 1980-90-s, Heartland fundamentally reduced its influence area. Two geopolitical belts – Eastern Europe (whose countries were within the “Socialist Block”, “Warsaw Pact», Comecon, etc.) and the Federative Republics of the USSR consistently withdrew from it. By the mid 1990-s, a bloody testing for a possibility of further breakdown of Russia into “national republics” had started in Chechnya. This fragmentation of Heartland, down to a mosaic of marionette dependent states in place of Russia, had to become the final accord of construction of the global world and the “end of history”, after which it would be much more difficult to speak about the Land and Geopolitics-2. Heartland is of central importance in the possibility of strategical consolidation of all Eurasia and, thus, the “Land Power”. If the processes that took place in Russia in 1990-s had moved in a groove and its disintegration kept on, it would be much more difficult to challenge globalization. But since late 1990-s — early 2000-s, a turning-point has taken place in Russia, disintegration was stopped; moreover, the federal authorities have restored control over the rebellious Chechnya. Then V. Putin implemented a legal reform of the Federation subjects (excision of the article about “sovereignty”, governors’ appointment, etc.) that has consolidated the power vertical all over Russia. The CCI integration processes have started gathering pace. In August 2008, in the course of the five-day conflict of Russia with Georgia, Russia took its direct control over territories beyond the borders of the Russian Federation (Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia), and acknowledged their independence, in spite of a huge support of Georgia on the part of the US and the NATO countries and pressure of the international public opinion. Generally, since early 2000-s Russia as Heartland has ceased the processes of its self-disintegration, has reinforced its energetics, has normalized the issues of energy supply abroad, has refused from the practice of unilateral reduction of armaments, having preserved its nuclear potential. Whereby, influence of the network of geopolitical agents of Atlantism and Mondialism on the political authority and strategical decision making has qualitatively diminished, consolidation of the sovereignty has been understood as the top-priority issue, and integration of Russia into a number of globalist structures menacing its independence has been ceased. In a word, Heartland keeps on remaining the foundation of Eurasia, its “Core” — weakened, suffered very serious losses, but still existing, independent, sovereign, and capable to pursue a policy, if not on a global scale, then on a regional one. In its history, Russia has several times fallen yet lower: the Domain Fragmentation on the turn of the 13^th century, The Time of Troubles, and the events of 1917-1918 show us Heartland in a yet more deplorable and weakened condition. But every time, in some period, Russia revived and returned to the orbit of its geopolitical history again. The present state of Russia is difficult to recognize brilliant or even satisfactory from the geopolitical (Eurasian) point of view. Yet in general — Heartland does exist, it is relatively independent, and therefore, we have both a theoretical and practical base to consolidate and bring to life all the pre-conditions for development of a response to the phenomenon of monopolar globalization on the part of the Land.

Such an answer of the Land to the challenge of globalization (as a triumph of the “Sea Power”) is Multipolarism, as a theory, philosophy, strategy, policy, and practice.

Multipolarism as a Project of the World Order from the Land’s Position

Multipolarism represents a summary of Geopolitics-2 in actual conditions of the global process evolution. This is an extraordinarily capacious concept that demands a through consideration.

Multipolarism is a real antithesis for monopolarity in all its aspects: hard (imperialism, neocons, direct US domination), soft (multilateralism) and critical (alterglobalism, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism) ones.

The hard monopolarity version (radical American imperialism) is based upon the idea that the US represents the last citadel of the world order, prosperity, comfort, safety, and development surrounded by a chaos of underdeveloped societies. Multipolarism states the directly opposite: the US is a national state that exists among many others, its values are doubtful (or, at least, relative), its claims are disproportional, its appetites are excessive, methods of conducting its foreign policy are inacceptable, and its technological messianism is disastrous for the culture and ecology of the whole world.  In this regard, the multipolar project is a hard antithesis to the US as an instance that methodically builds a unipolar world, and it is aimed to strongly disallow, break up, and prevent this construction.

The soft monopolarity version does not only act on behalf of the US, but on behalf of “humanity”, exclusively understanding it as the West and the societies that agree with universalism of Western values. Soft monopolarity does not claim to press by force, but persuade, not to compel, but explain profits peoples and countries will obtain from entering into globalization. Here the pole is not a single national state (the US), but Western civilization as a whole, as a quintessence of all the humanity.

Such, as it is sometimes called, “multilateral” monopolarity (multilateralism, multilateralization) is rejected by Multipolarism that considers Western culture and Western values to represent merely one axiological composition among many others, one culture among different other cultures, and cultures and value systems based on some absolutely different principles to have the full right for existence. Consequently, the West in a whole and those sharing its values, have no grounds to insist on universalism of democracy, human rights, market, individualism, individual freedom, secularity, etc. and build a global society on the base of these guidelines.

Against alterglobalism and postmodern antiglobalism, Multipolarism advances a thesis that a capitalist phase of development and construction of worldwide global capitalism is not a necessary phase of society development, that it is despotism and an ambition to dictate different societies some kind of single history scenario. In the meantime, confusion of mankind into the single global proletariat is not a way to a better future, but an incidental and absolutely negative aspect of the global capitalism, which does not open any new prospects and only leads to degradation of cultures, societies, and traditions. If peoples do have a chance to organize effective resistance to the global capitalism, it is only where Socialist ideas are combined with elements of a traditional society (archaic, agricultural, ethnical, etc.), as it was in the history of the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam and takes place today in some Latin-American countries (e. g., in Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.).

Further, Multipolarism is an absolutely different view on the space of land than bipolarity, a bipolar world.

Multipolarism represents a normative and imperative view on the present situation in the world on the part of the Land and it qualitatively differs from the model predominated in the Yalta World in the period of the “Cold War”.

The Bipolar World was constructed under the ideological principle, where two ideologies – Capitalism and Socialism – acted as poles. Socialism as an ideology did not challenge universalism of the West-European culture and represented a sociocultural and political tradition that threw back to the European Enlightenment. In a certain sense, Capitalism and Socialism competed with each other as two versions of Enlightenment, two versions of progress, two versions of universalism, two versions of the West-European sociopolitical idea.

Socialism and Marxism entered into a resonance with certain parameters of the “Land Power”, and therefore they did not win where Marx had supposed, but where he excluded this possibility – in an agricultural country with the predominant way of life of a traditional society and imperial organization of the political field. Another case of an (independent) victory of Socialism – China – also represented an agricultural, traditional society.

Multipolarism does not oppose monopolarity from the position of a single ideology that could claim for the second pole, but it does from the position of many ideologies, a plenty of cultures, world-views and religions that (each for its own reasons) have nothing in common with the Western liberal capitalism.  In a situation, when the Sea has a unified ideological aspect (however, ever more going to the sphere of subauditions, not explicit declarations), and the Land itself doesn’t, representing itself as several different world-view and civilization ensembles, Multipolarism suggests creating a united front of the Land against the Sea.

Multipolarism is different from both the conservative project of conservation and reinforcement of national states. On the one hand, national states in both colonial and post-colonial period reflect the West-European understanding of a normative political organization (that ignores any religious, social, ethnical, and cultural features of specific societies) in their structures, i.e. the nations themselves are partially products of globalization. And on the other hand, it is only a minor part of the two hundred fifty-six countries officially itemized in the UN list today that are, if necessary, capable to defend their sovereignty by themselves, without entering into a block or alliance with other countries. It means that not each nominal sovereign state can be considered a pole, as the degree of strategical freedom of the vast majority of the countries acknowledged is negligible. Therefore, reinforcement of the Westphalian system that still mechanically exists today is not an issue of Multipolarism.

Being the opposition of monopolarity, Multipolarism does not call to either return to the bipolar world on the base of ideology or to fasten the order of national states, or to merely preserve the status quo. All these strategies will only play in hands of globalization and monopolarity centers, as they have a project, a plan, a goal, and a rational route of movement to future; and all the scenarios enumerated are at best an appeal to a delay of the globalization process, and at worst (restoration of bipolarity on the base of ideology) look like irresponsible fantasy and nostalgia.

Multipolarism is a vector of the Land’s geopolitics directed to the future. It is based upon a sociological paradigm whose consistency is historically proven in the past and which realistically takes into account the state of affairs existing in the modern world and basic trends and force lines of its probable transformations. But Multipolarism is constructed on this basis as a project, as a plan of the world order we yet only expect to create.

2 Multipolarism and its Theoretical Foundation

The absence of the Multipolarism Theory

In spite of the fact that the term “Multipolarism” is quite often used in political and international discussions recently, its meaning is rather diffuse and inconcrete. Different circles and separate analysts and politicians insert their own sense in it. Well-founded researches and solid scientific monographs devoted to Multipolarism can be counted on fingers[1]. Even serious articles on this topic are quite rare[2]. The reason for this is well understood: as the US and Western countries set the parameters of the normative political and ideological discourse in a global scale today, according to these rules, whatever you want can be discussed but the sharpest and most painful questions. Even those considering unipolarity to have been just a “moment[3]” in the 1990-s and a transfer to some new indefinite model to be taking place now are ready to discuss any versions but the “multipolar” one. Thus, for example, the modern head of CFR Richard Haass tells about “Non-Polarity” meaning such stage of globalization where necessity in presence of a rigid center falls off by itself[4]. Such wiles are explained by the fact that one of the aims of globalization is, as we have seen, marginalization of the “Land Power”. And as far as Multipolarism can only be a form of an active strategy of the “Land Power” in the new conditions, any reference to it is not welcome by the West that sets the trend in the structure of political analysis in the general global context. Still less one should expect that conventional ideologies of the West take up development of the Multipolarism Theory.

It would be logical to assume that the Multipolarism Theory will be developed in the countries that explicitly declare orientation upon a multipolar world as the general vector of their foreign policy. The number of such countries includes Russia, China, India, and some others. Besides, the address to Multipolarism can be encountered in texts and documents of some European political actors (e.g., former French minister of Foreign Affairs Hubert Vidrine[5]). But at the moment, we can as well hardly find something more than materials of several symposiums and conferences with rather vague phrases in this field. One has to state that the topic of Multipolarism is not properly conceptualized also in the countries that proclaim it as their strategical goal, not to mention the absence a distinct and integral theory of Multipolarism.

Nevertheless, on the base of the geopolitical method from the position of the “Land Power” and with due account for the analysis of a phenomenon called globalism, it is quite possible to formulate some absolute principles that must underlie the Multipolarism Theory when the matter comes to its more systemized and expanded development.

Multipolarism: Geopolitics and Meta-Ideology

Let’s blueprint some theoretical sources, on whose base a valuable theory of Multipolarism must be built.

It is only geopolitics that can be the base for this theory in the actual conditions. At the moment, no religious, economical, political, social, cultural or economical ideology is capable to pull together the critical mass of the countries and societies that refer to the “Land Power” in a single planetary front necessary to make a serious and effective antithesis to globalism and the unipolar world. This is the specificity of the historical moment (“The Unipolar Moment”[6]): the dominating ideology (the global liberalism/post-liberalism) has no symmetrical opposition on its own level. Hence, it is necessary to directly appeal to geopolitics by taking the principle of the Land, the Land Power, instead of the opposing ideology. It is only possible in the case if the sociological, philosophical, and civilization dimensions of geopolitics are realized to the full extent.

The “Sea Power” will serve us as a proof for this statement. We have seen that the very matrix of this civilization does not only occur in the Modem Period, but also in thalassocratic empires of the Antiquity (e.g., in Carthage), in the ancient Athens or in the Republic of Venice. And within the Modern World itself atlantism and liberalism do not as well find complete predominance over the other trends at once. And nevertheless, we can trace the conceptual sequence through a series of social formations: the “Sea Power” (as a geopolitical category) moves through history taking various forms till it finds its most complete and absolute aspect in the global world where its internal precepts become predominant in a planetary scale. In other words, ideology of the modern mondialism is only a historical form of a more common geopolitical paradigm. But there is a direct relation between this (probably, most absolute) form and the geopolitical matrix.

There is no such direct symmetry in case of the “Land Power”. The Communism ideology just partly (heroism, collectivism, antiliberalism) resonated with geopolitical percepts of the “ground” society (and this just in the concrete form of the Eurasian USSR and, to a lesser degree, of China), as the other aspects of this ideology (progressism, technology, materialism) fitted badly in the axiological structure of the “Land Power”. And today, even in theory, Communism cannot perform the mobilizing ideological function it used to perform in the 20^th century in a planetary scale. From the ideological point of view the Land is really split into fragments and, in the nearest future, we can hardly expect some new ideology capable to symmetrically withstand the liberal globalism to appear. But the very geopolitical principle of the Land does not lose anything in its paradigmatic structure. It is this principle that must be taken as a foundation for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This theory must address directly to geopolitics, draw principles, ideas, methods and terms out of it. This will allow to otherwise take both the wide range of existing non-globalist and counter-globalist ideologies, religions, cultures, and social trends. It is absolutely unnecessary to shape them to transform into something unified and systematized. They can well remain local or regional but be integrated into a front of common stand against globalization and “Western Civilization’s” domination on the meta-ideological level, on the paradigmatic level of Geopolitics-2 and this moment – plurality of ideologies – is already laid in the very term “Multi-polarism” (not only within the strategical space, but also in the field of the ideological, cultural, religious, social, and economical one).

Multipolarism is nothing but extension of Geopolitics-2 (geopolitics of the Land) into a new environment characterized with the advance of globalism (as atlantism) on a qualitatively new level and in qualitatively new proportions. Multipolarism has no other sense.

Geopolitics of the Land and its general vectors projected upon the modern conditions are the axis of the Multipolarism Theory, on which all the other aspects of this theory are threaded. These aspects constitute philosophical, sociological, axiological, economical, and ethical parts of this theory. But all of them are anyway conjugated with the acknowledged – in an extendedly sociological way – structure of the “Land Power” and with the direct sense of the very concept of “Multipolarism” that refers us to the principles of plurality, diversity, non-universalism, and variety.

3 Multipolarism and Neo-Eurasianism

Neo-Eurasianism as Weltanschauung

Neo-Eurasianism is positioned nearest to the theory of Multipolarism. This concept roots in geopolitics and operates par excellence with the formula of “Russia-Eurasia” (as Heartland) but at the same time develops a wide range of ideological, philosophical, sociological and politological fields, instead of being only limited with geostrategy and application analysis.

What is in the term of “Neo-Eurasianism” can be illustrated with fragments of the Manifesto of the International “Eurasian Movement” “Eurasian Mission»[7]. Its authors point out five levels in Neo-Eurasianism allowing to interpret it in a different way depending on a concrete context.

The first level: Eurasianism is a Weltanschauung.

According to the authors of the Manifesto, the term “Eurasianism” “is applied to a certain Weltanschauung, a certain political philosophy that combines in itself tradition, modernity and even elements of postmodern in an original manner. The philosophy of Eurasianism proceeds from priority of values of the traditional society, acknowledges the imperative of technical and social modernization (but without breaking off cultural roots), and strives to adapt its ideal program to the situation of a post-industrial, information society called “postmodern”.

The formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed in postmodern. However, postmodernism in the atlantist aspect levels them from the position of indifference and exhaustiveness of contents. The Eurasian postmodern, on the contrary, considers the possibility for an alliance of tradition with modernity to be a creative, optimistic energetic impulse that induces imagination and development.

In the Eurasianism philosophy, the realities superseded by the period of Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place – these are religion, ethnos, empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough, economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are taken from the Modern. The oppositions are overcome by merging into a single harmonious and original theory that arouses fresh ideas and new decisions for eternal problems of humankind. (…)

The philosophy of Eurasianism is an open philosophy, it is free from any forms of dogmatism. It can be appended by diversified areas – history, religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics, regional geography, culturology, various types of strategical and politological researches, etc. Moreover, Eurasianism as a philosophy assumes an original development in each concrete cultural and linguistic context: Eurasianism of the Russians will inevitably differ from Eurasianism of the French or Germans, Eurasianism of the Turks from Eurasianism of the Iranians; Eurasianism of the Arabs from Eurasianism of the Chinese, etc. Whereby, the main force lines of this philosophy will, in a whole, be preserved unalterable.(…)

The following items can be called general reference points of the Eurasianism philosophy:

• differentialism, pluralism of value systems against obligatory domination of a single ideology (in our case and first of all, of the American liberal democracy);
• traditionalism against destruction of cultures, beliefs and rites of the traditional society;
• a world-state, continent-state against both bourgeois national states and “the world government”;
• rights of nations against omnipotence of “the Golden Billion” and neo-colonial hegemony of “the Rich North”;
• an ethnos as a value and subject of history against depersonalization of nations and their alienation in artificial sociopolitical constructions;
• social fairness and solidarity of labour people against exploitation, logic of coarse gain, and humiliation of man by man.»[8]

Neo-Eurasianism as a Planetary Trend

On the second level: Neo-Eurasianism is a planetary trend. The authors of the Manifesto explain:

«Eurasianism on the level of a planetary trend is a global, revolutionary, civilization concept that is, by gradually improving, addressed to become a new ideological platform of mutual understanding and cooperation for a vast conglomerate of different forces, states, nations, cultures, and confessions that refuse from the Atlantic globalization.

It is worth carefully reading the statements of the most diverse powers all over the world: politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals and we will make sure that Eurasianists constitute the vast majority. Mentality of many nations, societies, confession, and states is, though they may not suspect about it themselves, Eurasianist.

If thinking about this multitude of different cultures, religions, confessions, and countries discordant with “the end of history” we are imposed by atlantism, our courage will grow up and the seriousness of risks of realization of the American 21^st century strategical security concept related with a unipolar world establishment will sharply increase.

Eurasianism is an aggregate of all natural and artificial, objective and subjective obstacles on the way of unipolar globalization, whereby it is elevated from a mere negation to a positive project, a creative alternative. While these obstacles exist discretely and chaotically, the globalists deal with them separately. But it is worth just integrating, pulling them together in a single, consistent Weltanschauung of a planetary character and the chances for victory of Eurasianism all over the world will be very serious.»[9]

Neo-Eurasianism as an Integration Project

On the next level, Neo-Eurasianism is treated as a project of strategical integration of the Eurasian Continent:

“The concept “the Old World” usually defining Europe can be considered much wider. This huge multicivilization space populated with nations, states, cultures, ethnoses and confessions connected between each other historically and spatially by the community of dialectical destiny. The Old World is a product of organic development of human history.

The Old World is usually set against the New World, i.e. the American continent that was discovered by the Europeans and has become a platform for construction of an artificial civilization where the European projects of the Modern, the period of Enlightenment have taken shape. (…)

In the 20^th century Europe realized its original essence and had gradually been moving to integration of all the European states into a single Union capable to provide all this space with sovereignty, independence, security, and freedom.

Creation of the European Union was the greatest milestone in the mission of Europe’s return in history. This was the response of “the Old World” to the exorbitant demands of the “New” one. If considering the alliance between the US and Western Europe – with US domination – to be the Atlantist vector of European development, then the integration of European nations themselves with predomination of the continental countries (France-Germany) can be considered Eurasianism in relation to Europe.

It becomes especially illustrative, if taking into account the theories that Europe geopolitically stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals (Ch. de Gaulle) or to Vladivostok. In other words, the interminable spaces of Russia are also valuably included in the field of the Old World subject to integration.

(…) Eurasianism in this context can be defined as a project of strategical, geopolitical, economical integration of the North of the Eurasian Continent realized as the cradle of European history, matrix of nations and cultures closely interlaced between each other.

And since Russia itself (like, by the way, the ancestors of many Europeans as well) is related in a large measure with the Turkish, Mongolian world, with Caucasian nations, through Russia – and in a parallel way through Turkey – does the integrating Europe as the Old World already acquire the Eurasianism dimension to full extent; and in this case, not only in symbolic sense, but also in geographical one. Here Eurasianism can be synonimically identified with Continentalism.[10]»

These three most general definitions of Neo-Eurasianism demonstrate that here we deal with a preparatory basis for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This is the ground view on the sharpest challenges of modernity and attempt to give an adjust response to them taking into account geopolitical, civilization, sociological, historical and philosophical regularities.

---

[1]  Murray D.,  Brown D. (eds.) Multipolarity in the 21st Century. A New World Order. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2010; Ambrosio Th. Challenging America global Preeminence: Russian Quest for Multipolarity. Chippenheim, Wiltshire: Anthony Rose, 2005; Peral L. (ed.) Global Security in a Multi-polar World. Chaillot

Paper. Paris: European Institute for Security Studies, 2009; Hiro D. After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. Yale: Nation Books , 2009.

[2] Turner Susan. Russia, Chine and the Multipolar World Order: the danger in the undefined// Asian Perspective. 2009. Vol. 33, No. 1. C. 159-184; Higgott Richard Multi-Polarity and Trans-Atlantic Relations: Normative Aspirations and Practical Limits of EU Foreign Policy. – www.garnet-eu.org. 2010. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/documents/working_papers/7610.pdf (дата обращения 28.08.2010); Katz M. Primakov Redux. Putin’s Pursuit of «Multipolarism» in Asia//Demokratizatsya. 2006. vol.14 № 4. C.144-152.

[3] Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment// Foreign Affairs. 1990 / 1991 Winter. Vol. 70, No 1. С. 23-33.

[4] Haass R. The Age of Non-polarity: What will follow US Dominance?’//Foreign Affairs.2008. 87 (3). С. 44-56.

[5] Déclaration de M. Hubert Védrine, ministre des affaires étrangères sur la reprise d’une dialogue approfondie entre la France et l’Hinde: les enjeux de la resistance a l’uniformisation culturelle et aux exces du monde unipolaire. New Delhi — 1 lesdiscours.vie-publique.fr. 7.02.2000.  [Electronic resource] URL: http://lesdiscours.vie-publique.fr/pdf/003000733.pdf

[6] Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment. Op.cit.

[7] Евразийская миссия. Манифест Международного «Евразийского Движения». М.: Международное Евразийское Движение, 2005.

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

This entry was posted in Journal of Eurasian Affairs, vol.1, Num.1, 2013 by eurasianaffairs. Bookmark the permalink.

Alexander Dugin on Syria and the New Cold War

Ex: http://www.attackthesystem.com

Alternative Right

An interview with Alexander Dugin on the Syrian crisis.

 

Prof. Dugin, the world faces right now in Syria the biggest international crisis since the downfall of the Eastern Block in 1989/90. Washington and Moscow find themselves in a proxy-confrontation on the Syrian battleground. Is this a new situation?

Dugin: We have to see the struggle for geopolitical power as the old conflict of land power represented by Russia and sea power represented by the USA and its NATO partners. This is not a new phenomenon; it is the continuation of the old geopolitical and geostrategic struggle. The 1990s was the time of the great defeat of the land power represented by the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev refused the continuation of this struggle. This was a kind of treason and resignation in front of the unipolar world. But with President Vladimir Putin in the early years of this decade, came a reactivation of the geopolitical identity of Russia as a land power. This was the beginning of a new kind of competition between sea power and land power.

How did this reactivation start?

Dugin: It started with the second Chechen war (1999-2009). Russia by that time was under pressure by Chechen terrorist attacks and the possible separatism of the northern Caucasus. Putin had to realize all the West, including the USA and the European Union, took sides with the Chechen separatists and Islamic terrorists fighting against the Russian army. This is the same plot we witness today in Syria or recently in Libya. The West gave the Chechen guerrillas support, and this was the moment of revelation of the new conflict between land power and sea power. With Putin, land power reaffirmed itself. The second moment of revelation was in August 2008, when the Georgian pro-Western Saakashvili regime attacked Zchinwali in South Ossetia. The war between Russia and Georgia was the second moment of revelation.

Is the Syrian crisis now the third moment of revelation?

Dugin: Exactly. Maybe it is even the final one, because now all is at stake. If Washington doesn´t intervene and instead accepts the position of Russia and China, this would be the end of the USA as a kind of unique superpower. This is the reason why I think Obama will go far in Syria. But if Russia steps aside and accepts the US-American intervention and if Moscow eventually betrays Bashar al-Assad, this would mean immediately a very hard blow to the Russian political identity. This would signify the great defeat of the land power. After this, the attack on Iran would follow and also on northern Caucasus. Among the separatist powers in the northern Caucasus there are many individuals who are supported by the Anglo-American, Israeli and Saudi powers. If Syria falls, they will start immediately the war in Russia, our country. Meaning: Putin cannot step aside; he cannot give up Assad, because this would mean the geopolitical suicide of Russia. Maybe we are right now in the major crisis of modern geopolitical history.

So right now both dominant world powers, USA and Russia, are in a struggle about their future existence…

Dugin: Indeed. At the moment there is no any other possible solution. We cannot find any compromise. In this situation there is no solution which would satisfy both sides. We know this from other conflicts, such as the Armenian-Azeri or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is impossible to find a solution for both sides. We witness the same now in Syria, but on a bigger scale. The war is the only way to make a reality check.

Why?

Dugin: We have to imagine this conflict as a type of card game like Poker. The players have the possibility to hide their capacities, to make all kinds of psychological tricks, but when the war begins all cards are in. We are now witnessing the moment of the end of the card game, before the cards are thrown on the table. This is a very serious moment, because the place as a world power is at stake. If America succeeds, it could grant itself for some time an absolutely dominant position. This will be the continuation of unipolarity and US-American global liberalism. This would be a very important moment because until now the USA hasn´t been able to make its dominance stable, but the moment they win that war, they will. But if the West loses the third battle (the first one was the Chechen war, the second was the Georgian war), this would be the end of the USA and its dominance. So we see: neither USA nor Russia can resign from that situation. It is simply not possible for both not to react.

Why does US-president Barrack Obama hesitate with his aggression against Syria? Why did he appeal the decision to the US-Congress? Why does he ask for permission that he doesn´t need for his attack?

Dugin: We shouldn´t make the mistake and start doing psychological analyses about Obama. The main war is taking place right now behind the scenes. And this war is raging around Vladimir Putin. He is under great pressure from pro-American, pro-Israeli, liberal functionaries around the Russian president. They try to convince him to step aside. The situation in Russia is completely different to the situation in USA. One individual, Vladimir Putin, and the large majority of the Russian population which supports him are on one side, and the people around Putin are the Fifth column of the West. This means that Putin is alone. He has the population with him, but not the political elite. So we have to see the step of the Obama administration asking the Congress as a kind of waiting game. They try to put pressure on Putin. They use all their networks in the Russian political elite to influence Putin´s decision. This is the invisible war which is going on right now.

Is this a new phenomenon?

Dugin: (laughs) Not at all! It is the modern form of the archaic tribes trying to influence the chieftain of the enemy by loud noise, cries and war drums. They beat themselves on the chest to impose fear on the enemy. I think the attempts of the US to influence Putin are a modern form of this psychological warfare before the real battle starts. The US-Administration will try to win this war without the Russian opponent on the field. For this they have to convince Putin to stay out. They have many instruments to do so.

But again: What about the position of Barrack Obama?

Dugin: I think all those personal aspects on the American side are less important than on the Russian side. In Russia one person decides now about war and peace. In the USA Obama is more a type of bureaucratic administrator. Obama is much more predictable. He is not acting on his behalf; he simply follows the middle line of US-American foreign politics. We have to realize that Obama doesn´t decide anything at all. He is merely the figurehead of a political system that makes the really important decisions. The political elite makes the decisions, Obama follows the scenario written for him. To say it clearly, Obama is nothing, Putin is everything.

You said Vladimir Putin has the majority of the Russian population on his side. But now it is peace time. Would they also support him in a war in Syria?

Dugin: This is a very good question. First of all, Putin would lose much of his support if he does not react on a Western intervention in Syria. His position would be weakened by stepping aside. The people who support Putin do this because they want to support a strong leader. If he doesn´t react and steps aside because of the US pressure, it will be considered by the majority of the population as a personal defeat for Putin. So you see it is much more Putin´s war than Obama´s war. But if he intervenes in Syria he will face two problems: Russian society wants to be a strong world power, but it is not ready to pay the expenses. When the extent of these costs becomes clear, this could cause a kind of shock to the population. The second problem is what I mentioned already, that the majority of the political elite are pro-Western. They would immediately oppose the war and start their propaganda by criticizing the decisions of Putin. This could provoke an inner crisis. I think Putin is aware of these two problems.

When you say the Russians might be shocked by the costs of such a war, isn´t there a danger that they might not support Putin because of that?

Dugin: I don´t think so. Our people are very heroic. Let us look back in history. Our people were never ready to enter a war, but if they did, they won that war despite the costs and sacrifices. Look at the Napoleonic wars or World War II. We Russians lost many battles, but eventually won those wars. So we are never prepared, but we always win.

Duguin: profeta de Eurasia

Duguin: profeta de Eurasia

Alberto Buela

Alexander Duguin (Moscú, 1952) se ha transformado hay en el más significativo geopolitólogo ruso. Inscripto en la ideología nacional bolchevique del estilo de Ernst Nietkisch sostiene un socialismo de los narodi. Esto es, un socialismo de los pueblos, despojado de todas las taras modernas como su materialismo, su ateísmo y su ilustración.

Su teoría geopolítica es la construcción de un gran espacio euroasiático con centralidad en Rusia.

En este libro que comentamos, traducción al portugués de Aganist the west (2012),  se va a ocupar en primer lugar de qué entiende por Occidente, que a partir del nacimiento de la modernidad, pasando por sus distintas etapas - Renacimiento, Nuevo Mundo, Reforma, Revolución francesa, Revolución bolchevique, Transformación tecnológica, Globalización – se ha ido transformando en el criterio normativo del mundo.

El proceso de modernización tiene dos caras, una exógena que no emerge de las necesidades de los pueblos y otra, endógena, que es un principio interno que no puede ser negado. La primera ha servido para la colonización y dominio de los pueblos, en tanto que la segundo surgió como una necesidad natural.

En cuanto a la globalización: representa el último punto de realización práctica de las pretensiones fundamentales de Occidente a la universabilidad de su experiencia histórica y de sus valores.

A la tesis de “Rusia, país europeo” va a oponer la tesis “Rusia-Eurasia como una civilización opuesta tanto Occidente como a Oriente”.

Apoyándose en la idea “gran espacio”(1939) de Carl Schmitt y teniendo como antecedente la Doctrina Monroe (1823) propone recuperar la idea de imperio.

Sostiene que la Doctrina Monroe nació como una idea anticolonialista y se fue transformando en una propuesta colonialista. Para nosotros, americanos del sur, tal Doctrina fue siempre colonialista cuyo enunciado real fue desde un comienzo: América para los norteamericanos.[1]

El concepto de imperio que se propone va más allá de los contextos históricos o políticos en que se haya dado y no se limita solo a una dimensión física ni a la presencia de un emperador. Eso si, el imperio exige un estricto centralismo administrativo y una amplia autonomía regional: El imperio es la mayor forma de humanidad y su mayor manifestación.

Cuando entre los imperios nombra el imperio comunista de la URSS y al imperio liberal de los EUA, y los pone a la misma altura que los imperios romano o autro-húngaro, Duguin no realiza la distinción entre imperio e imperialismo. Así, el imperio impone pero deja valores que le son propios (lengua, instituciones), mientras que el imperialismo es la imposición de un Estado sobre los otros para su explotación lisa y llana. El imperialismo deja solo desolación, en tanto que el imperio abre un mundo desconocido a sus dominados.

 

Un comentario especial merece su caracterización del conservadorismo, donde se ve la influencia de Alain de Benoist, seguramente el más original pensador francés vivo. El conservador no quiere conservar el pasado por ser pasado, según se lo define habitualmente, sino que pretende conservar del pasado lo constante, lo perenne. Y eso, porque no tiene una visión diacrónica de la historia sino sincrónica. El sentido del ser, de lo que es y existe no se apoya para él en la ideas de movimiento (pasado, presente, futuro) donde las cosas nos hacen un llamamiento desde el futuro bajo la idea de progreso, como sucede con el iluminismo, el modernismo y, hoy, el progresismo, sino que el sentido de las cosas hay que buscarlo en lo constante, en lo que permanece. El ser tiene una primacía sobre el tiempo; lo comanda y predetermina su estructura: el tiempo se da en el seno del ser como acontecimiento apropiador del ser.[2]

La conclusión política del conservadorismo ha dado lugar a la “cuarta teoría política”, pues así como en el siglo XX se dieron la primera teoría política con el liberalismo, la segunda con el marxismo, la tercera con el nazismo hoy, a comienzos del siglo XXI, hace su aparición la “cuarta teoría política” que hunde sus raíces en la revolución conservadora alemana del período entre guerras y que tuvo como exponentes, entre otros, a Moeller van der Bruck, Carl Schmitt, los hermanos Jünger, Martín Heidegger, von Solomon, von Papen, Werner Sombart, Stefan George que no se pudo plasmar en una práctica política concreta.

El imperio eurasiano propuesto por Duguin con Rusia como centro y cabeza que: debe pensar y obrar imperialmente, como un poder mundial que tenga opinión sobre todo hasta los lugares más distantes del planeta, tiene “carácter civilizatorio”  nos parece ambicioso, pero no inverosímil.

Nosotros creemos, y hemos intentado mostrar a través de múltiples trabajos, que las ideas de gran espacio y de imperio, en este caso, se unifican en la idea de “ecúmene”, que como la Hélade para los griegos, la romanitas para los romanos, o la hispanidad para los españoles, designan los grandes de tierra habitados por hombres que comparten entre sí, lengua, usos, costumbres, creencias y enemigos comunes. Y en este sentido sostenemos que el mundo es un pluriverso compuesto por varias ecúmenes entre las que se destaca, para nosotros, la iberoamericana.

Finalmente, toda la última parte del libro va ha estar ocupada en asuntos internos y temas casi exclusivamente rusos, de los que no nos encontramos capacitados para juzgar: la relación de Rusia con Ucrania, la filosofía del narod y su patriotismo erótico, el arcano roxo de Rusia, la estructura sociogenética de Rusia e intereses y valores post Tskhinvali.

Queremos felicitar a los traductores brasileños por este trabajo, que acerca al mundo luso e hispano hablante a un geopolitólogo de valía, prácticamente desconocido en nuestra común ecúmene cultural.

---

[1]Cfr. El excelente trabajo del mejicano Carlos Fuentes: La doctrina Monroe

[2]Cfr. Martín Heidegger: Tiempo y ser(1962), que no hay que confundir con Ser y tiempo de 1927.

The Wise Counsellor

By Israel Shamir

 

Ex: http://www.granews.info

[A Review of The Fourth Political Theory, by Alexander Dugin. Arktos, London 2012]

Ideas do not flow easily westwards. It is a norm that Western ideas are being spread in the East, not vice versa. Russia, the heir to Byzantium, is an “East”, among other great “Easts” of Dar ul-Islam, China, India; of them, Russia is the nearest to the West, and still very different. This is probably the main reason why Dugin, this important contemporary Russian thinker makes his belated entrance into Western awareness only now.

Alexander Dugin, a youngish, stylish, slim, neat, hip and bearded don at the Moscow U, is a cult figure at his homeland; people throng to his lectures; his plentiful books cover a vast spectre of subjects from pop culture to metaphysics, from philosophy to theology, from international affairs to domestic politics. He is fluent in many languages, a voracious reader, and he made the Russians aware of many less known Western thinkers. He is ready to wade deepest waters of mystical and heterodox thought with mind-boggling courage. He thrives on controversies; adored and hated, but never boring.

He is a scholar and a practitioner of Mysticism, akin to Mirchea Eliade and Guenon; a church-going adherent of traditionalist Orthodoxy; an ardent student of conspiracy theories from Templers and the Holy Grail to Herman Wirth’s Arctogaia; he is a master of tools sharpened by Jean Baudrillard and Guy Debord; but first and foremost, he is a dedicated fighter for liberation of mankind from the vise of liberal tyranny in American-dominated New World Order, or even from Maya, the post-modernist post-liberal virtuality - by political means.

Like Alain Soral and Alain de Benoist, he considers the Left or Right dichotomy obsolete. What matters is Compliance with or Resistance to the New World Order. Dugin is all for Resistance. For this purpose, he cross-breeds political ideas like one cross-breeds ferocious fighting dogs. Faith, Tradition, Revolution, Nationalism and Communism are the ingredients. If Chavez were a nuke-armed Liberation Theology priest versed in Heidegger, it would be a near thing.

Dugin tried his hand in radical politics together with Eduard Limonov, the national-bolshevik poet, with Jamal Hyder, the Islam reformer; he was an ideologist for the Red-Browns, as an alliance of hardcore Communists and Nationalists in 1990’s Russia was called; now he is chaperoning a small Eurasian movement. 

But he is not a politician by nature: like Confucius, he’d prefer to be a wise councillor to the ruler. In that, he succeeded as little as Confucius. He outlined an ideology for Putin; Putin used his words but dismissed his thoughts. Dugin was very critical of Putin for his half-baked measures, but still he supported the President when Moscow Liberals began their Fronde. In his books, he offers a blueprint for a future development of his homeland. Bearing in mind his influence, it is important to learn; and even more so if we remember that the Russians once showed the way for mankind, even if this way was eventually deserted.

Intellectually curious, Dugin has checked every concept, every idea of the East and West, even the banned and forgotten ones, as long as it could serve the Resistance. He used Communist ideas as well as those of radical traditionalists for whom Hitler and Mussolini were not sufficiently radical. He weaves theology, politics and metaphysics into a single meta-narrative. His style is lucid and pleasant.

The Fourth Political Theory as published by Arktos bears the same title as one of Dugin’s recent and more important books, but it is quite a different book altogether; it would be aptly called Dugin Reader, or Essential Dugin. It was specially prepared for a Western English-speaking reader. A good thing, too: as one who writes in Russian and English I witness that a Russian political philosophical text can’t be rendered into English directly for political cultures are too far apart. As is, the book provides a good starting point for discovery of Dugin the political thinker.

The Fourth Political Theory of the book’s title stands against three most prominent paradigms (political theories) of last century, namely Liberalism, Marxism (including Communism and Socialism) and Fascism (including National Socialism). In a century-long struggle, liberalism defeated the other two, and claimed its kingdom is forever (“End of History”). The Fourth Theory (or rather, a paradigm) is proposed to overcome and bury it. Dugin does not present a ready-made Fourth Theory to supplant the three, but rather points out some directions for its creation and practical implementation. This new theory should not explain the world, but change it. It should inspire a Crusade against West-centered liberalism, like the WW2 was a Crusade against Nazism. In other words, it is not so much a theory, rather a fighting doctrine, a call to rebuild our world.

‘The enemy is more important than friend, choose him carefully for this choice will influence your decisions”, said Dugin’s mentor Carl Schmitt. Dugin’s enemy No. 1 is Liberalism, in his view, a form of social Darwinism for the richest to survive and flourish, while the rest suffer and die spiritually and physically.

Liberalism is the greatest Evil of our days by virtue of its unavoidability, its choiceless imposition since 1990s; it is the dead end and Destiny to be defied, according to Dugin. Liberalism and its “freedom of” leads to disintegration of society; it “frees” man of family, of state, of gender, and even of his humanity. Liberalism will eventually lead to supplantation of man by genetically modified cyborgs, says Dugin.

The Fourth Paradigm should incorporate the best features of its three predecessors and reject their faults. Thus, Marxism’s tenet of historical materialism or belief in inevitability of progress, economism or belief in primacy of economics, its anti-spirituality and anti-ethnicity should be rejected, while its critique of capitalism should be retained, as well as the founding myth of return to the Lost Paradise of creative labour.

Dugin is ready to consider good points of Fascism and National Socialism, and for this reason he is sometimes branded “Nazi” by unfair critics, a misnomer, for he is definitely non-racist. In this book he preaches against racism, not only against rude biological racism of the Third Reich, but against racist unipolar civilisation, racist glamour and fashion, cultural racism, even of racist exclusion of political correctness. By expurgating racist component of National Socialism, this political theory is rendered “safe” and its positive aspects may be considered, he says. Such a positive aspect is love of people, of volk, an erotic love of men and women constituting people, ethnocentrism, acceptance of “ethnos in its environment” as a subject of history.

Though the Fourth Theory is brandished as a weapon against liberalism, some positive aspects could be taken even there. Dugin approves of freedom while rejecting individualism. Human freedom - yes, he says, individual freedom - no. He submits the concept of individual rights to scathing critique: liberalism approves of individual rights because they are puny; these are rights of a small man. Human freedom is freedom for a great man, for people, and it should be unlimited, he says.

Dugin thrives to cure faults of Communism and National Socialism, perhaps cross-breed these theories, aiming somewhere between anti-Hitlerites Strasser brothers and Ernst Niekisch on one side, and National Communists on the other side. This meeting ground of yesterday’s Far Left and Far Right should be fertilised by Myth and Tradition, desecularised, and Dasein-centered, at first.

Still, there are features of all three predecessors that are not acceptable for Dugin, and first of all belief in progress and linear development. A flyball governor, a device that prevents a steam engine’s blow up by cutting down fuel supply as it steams up, is the thing mankind needs for its endeavours. Instead of a monotonic process, there should be circular, cyclic process, what others would call a sustainable development.

Dugin intends to cure a deep ontological problem of alienation and denial of Being, in terms of Martin Heidegger, who said that the ancient Greeks confused Being-in-itself (Sein) and the human experience of Being-in-the-world (Dasein), and this small confusion, in fullness of time, caused technical progress and ushered in Nothingness. This is what Dugin wants to overcome by bringing forth Being-in-the-world as the most admirable actor of history. For liberals, the most important is Individual, for Communists it is a social Class, for Nazis it was a Race, for Fascists – a State, and for Dugin and his Fourth Paradigm – Being-in-the-world. Thus the deep night of alienation can be turned into a bright day of Being, says Dugin.

If Communist and National Socialist philosophies were based on Hegel, philosophy of Dugin as well as that of Dugin’s enemies, neocon liberals of Leo Strauss, is based on Heidegger. A contemporary wit described Stalingrad battle thus: “Leftist Hegelians fight Rightist Hegelians”. Perhaps we shall see People’s Heideggerians fighting against Elitist Heideggerians? …

Some of Dugin’s geopolitical thoughts are included in the book. He is an enemy of globalisation, and seeks independent life and development for big regions: Europe, North America, Russia, China etc. He thinks it is important to release Europe from the American yoke. Let America be free to live the way she likes beyond the ocean, but she should desist from interfering overseas and from forcing its way of life upon others.

As for Russia, he sees his homeland as a possible base of resistance to the NWO, together with other countries that defy the US diktat. He does not think today’s Russia is ready for the great challenge, it is evasive and of two minds; still this is the best we have. Its nuclear shield may defend the first saplings of new ideas from the rough justice of the world sheriff.

The Fourth Political Theory is a good beginning in delivering Dugin’s ideas to the Western reader. After all, even Heidegger’s rejection of Western nihilism is also a Western idea.

Avez-vous lu Douguine ?

Avez-vous lu Douguine ?

par Claude BOURRINET

Certains livres viennent à point, comme des fruits de saison.

La question de la temporalité est évidemment cruciale, lorsqu’il s’agit de penser. Il arrive que des œuvres pourrissent en mûrissant. Je relisais dernièrement quelques bouquins d’Alexandre Zinoviev, et je m’étonnais qu’ils fussent si anachroniques, si peu en phase avec ce qu’était devenu le monde depuis 1989, et, faut-il le dire, si illisibles. Les discours sur la réalité, si l’on dissipe les fumets de la mode et des emballements du moment, pâtissent cruellement de la dérive des choses, fût-elle minime. Soudain, c’est une fissure, parfois un abîme, qui les séparent de l’expérience collective ou individuelle, et ils deviennent alors des bavardages, des vapeurs.

Quel est donc le défaut heuristique des écrits de Zinoviev, de tous les dissidents qui s’opposaient à l’empire soviétique, et, plus généralement, de ceux qui étaient plongés dans cette gigantomachie mondiale, mettant en prise les tenants des première et deuxième théories, selon la classification métapolitique d’Alexandre Douguine, c’est-à-dire le libéralisme et le marxisme ? Comment des vérités de l’heure, bien qu’elles ne soient pas devenues pour autant des mensonges, constituent-elles néanmoins des erreurs épistémologiques ?

Il se peut bien que certaines clairvoyances ne se manifestent, ne puissent se manifester, qu’à l’achèvement d’un processus historique. C’est au crépuscule, dit Hegel, que la chouette de Minerve prend son envol. Aussi est-ce lorsque la modernité parvient à son stade terminal, devant notre regard médusé, euthanasiant l’homme, après Dieu, que la conscience vient de ce qu’est la « chose », et qu’elle soit nommable pour tous. Il fallait que la deuxième théorie moderne, le marxisme, après la troisième, le fascisme, qui sont tous deux des tentatives de modernité, mais en même temps des réactions conservatrices au processus dissolvant du libéralisme, pour que la première théorie, le libéralisme, apparût tel qu’en vérité sa nature le fonde, à savoir un destin économique, une « gouvernance » des choses, et un démontage, accompagné d’un bricolage, de la matière humaine.

Or, affirme Douguine avec réalisme, c’est de là qu’il faut partir. De la postmodernité.

Qu’est-ce que peut nous apporter la postmodernité ? D’un point de vue « scientifique » et philosophique, elle est déconstruction théorétique des sociétés. À la suite des penseurs du « soupçon » comme Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, le structuralisme de grands anthropologues tels que Lévi-Strauss ou Foucault, a démontré que la notion de progrès n’était qu’un mythe, à proprement parler une mystification visant à légitimer l’hégémonie universelle de l’Occident, et qu’il n’existait pas, dans l’absolu, de « civilisations » inférieures, ou supérieures. Pire, ou mieux ! ce que l’on appelle « pensée », ou « raison », n’est qu’une construction relative, redevable de la philosophie hellénique, laquelle a « oublié », comme le démontre Heideggger, ce grand penseur capital, auquel se réfère Douguine, l’être, en promulguant la métaphysique occidentale.

Le roi est donc nu. Brutalement, l’usurpation qui laisse croire à sa nature mécanique, irréductible, fatale, place l’entreprise libérale d’arraisonnement idéologique et guerrier du monde comme ce qu’elle est : un mensonge mortel, destructeur des altérités, de la multiplicité de l’être dans le monde.

La première leçon d’Alexandre Douguine apparaît comme une évidence. Le paradigme du flux historique a changé, il faut donc transformer les paramètres, la logique, et le vocabulaire même de notre pensée, si nous voulons non seulement nous opposer à ce qui nous semble inacceptable, mais si nous désirons même avoir accès au monde, et y agir. Il rejoint, par là, l’aventure intellectuelle d’un Alain de Benoist, dont il est proche.

Il va sans dire que toute une panoplie idéologique, comme le projet nationaliste, devient obsolète. Reprenant les analyses de Carl Schmitt, Douguine approfondit le concept de « Grand espace », d’ « Empire », et, particulièrement, d’eurasisme.

Nous, Français, nous sommes nécessairement influencés, lorsque nous abordons la notion d’Empire, par l’épopée napoléonienne, de la même façon d’ailleurs que les Allemands peuvent l’être par le troisième Reich. En Russie, l’équivalent d’un grand ensemble homogène, centralisé, autoritaire et exclusif serait la Russie de Pierre le Grand, lequel ne fit qu’imiter l’Occident. Or, l’empire nationaliste n’est que l’hypertrophie de la nation, donc une manifestation de la modernité, au même titre que l’individu, l’État calculateur, machiavélien et « scientifique », et que la science galiléenne et cartésienne. La preuve est que son expression la plus pure fut la grande révolution de 1789, révolution bourgeoise par excellence.

L’eurasisme, en tant que concept, pour Douguine, ne se cantonne pas à un territoire donné, comme la Russie et ses satellites européens et asiatiques. C’est une « Idée », presque au sens platonicien, générique, qui sert de concept opératoire pour penser les phénomènes postmodernes dans la dimension géopolitique et sociétale. En effet, dans sa course à l’abîme, l’Évangile des temps contemporains, prétendant porter le Bien, mais engendrant misère, désespoir et destruction, rencontre des résistances. Le noyau d’où partit l’expansion moderne, l’Europe, déplacé dans cette terre « purifiée » ethniquement, matrice de la pire utopie de l’histoire, les États-Unis d’Amérique, a été confronté durant deux ou trois siècle à une périphérie, qu’il s’agissait de « civiliser », c’est-à-dire de domestiquer, d’exploiter, d’aliéner, voire de génocider. Cependant, cette « périphérie » n’était rien, aux yeux des « civilisateurs », qu’un terrain vierge de culture, peuplé de sous-hommes, de sauvages ou de barbares.

Or, il était, il est la Terre de plusieurs « civilisations », de « mondes » possédant leur propre manière de voir, de sentir, de raisonner, d’aimer, de haïr, de se confronter avec les aléas du monde. S’inspirant des thèses du penseur américain Huntington, sans faire sienne de manière dogmatique l’idée de « choc », Alexandre Douguine recense un certain nombre de noyaux civilisationnels, comme la Russie, l’Iran, le monde musulman, l’Amérique latine et indienne (l’Amérique bolivarienne et brésilienne), la Chine, l’Inde, peut-être l’Europe (nous y reviendrons). Ces entités enracinées, reposant sur une longue mémoire, présentent des formes disparates. Il n’est pas besoin de s’y attarder ici, il vaut mieux lire l’ouvrage de Douguine, qui analyse parfaitement, avec lucidité et rigueur, le tableau des conflits et des légitimités actuelles. Toutefois, il faut insister sur l’expérience, et l’énergie qui paraissent nous faire espérer un retournement du cours des choses.

Ce qui frappe en effet, c’est que ce qui semblait aller de soi, surtout après la chute du mur de Berlin, devient hautement problématique. D’abord, l’étendue des désastres (économiques, humains, écologiques, culturels, sociaux, etc.). Un autre penseur, Fukuyama, qui, dans son livre La Fin de l’Histoire, proclamait une sorte de paradis consumériste, libéral, comme le fait remarquer Douguine, avec qui il eut des échanges, a reculé avec effroi devant les conséquences d’une machine qui s’emballe, transgresse tout, et ne semble avoir de finalité que le vide, le néant. D’autre part, chacun peut constater que ce qui s’annonçait comme une marche triomphale bute contre des obstacles de plus en plus rudes, aujourd’hui en Syrie, hier en Géorgie, demain dans le Pacifique… ou en Iran… La conquête libérale n’est pas un long fleuve tranquille ! Cela ne signifie pas qu’elle ne puisse réussir. Mais sur quelles ruines ?

Il est aussi un autre aspect du livre de Douguine, outre les éclaircissements théoriques qui nous permettent de mieux appréhender le présent, ce sont toutes les informations qu’il nous livre sur les rapports de forces au sein du pouvoir russe, et des aspirations de l’oligarchie et du peuple russe. Pour ce faire, il lie la longue histoire russe aux événements récents, jusqu’à l’agression provoquée par Saakachvili contre l’Ossétie du Sud. Nous voyons très bien que la Russie, ou l’Eurasie, est à un moment pivot de son histoire, et probablement de celle du monde. Car ce qui se passe là-bas présente un intérêt vital pour nous.

En effet, nous sommes devant un dilemme : être ou ne pas être. En arrimant l’Europe au vaisseau libéral amiral, l’oligarchie européenne a choisi le néant historique, la domesticité ou la complicité, et, pire, la « culture » de la destruction, la « destructivité » néo-libérale. Autrement dit, c’est un suicide, à tous les sens du terme. Il est évident que nous ne sommes pas Russes, bien que les Slaves aient souvent été très proche de notre cœur. Le projet eurasiatique nous met en demeure de réagir, et d’être. C’est une urgence, un devoir, un destin. Être de « bons Européens », comme disait Nietzsche… N’est-il pas trop tard ? Existe-t-il, ce substrat populaire, encore présent en Russie (pour combien de temps, peut-être ?), ce projet politique, autre que celui, vicié à la base, des bureaucrates de Bruxelles, et, surtout, cette spiritualité, cette métaphysique, cette théologie, cette liaison existentielle entre la terre et le ciel, les éléments du territoire, les rêves, les élans, qui se sont manifestés en Iran, qui soudent encore, par l’Orthodoxie, le peuple russe (sans qu’une cœxistence soit impossible avec d’autres spiritualités, d’autres ethnies), ou qui fortifient la foi des musulmans ? Car, s’inspirant du mystique iranien Sohravardî, Douguine nous rappelle que c’est en Orient que le Soleil se lève, et qu’en Occident, il se couche. Échapperons-nous à cette fatalité pour retrouver un destin historial ?

Claude Bourrinet

• Alexandre Douguine, La Quatrième théorie politique. La Russie et les idées politiques du XXe siècle, Éditions Ars Magna (B.P. 60 426, 44004 Nantes C.E.D.E.X. 1), 2012, 336 p. Pour recevoir le livre, écrire à l’éditeur, en accompagnant cette demande d’un chèque de 32 € franco.

• D’abord mis en ligne sur Vox N.-R., le 4 novembre 2012.

---

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2878

Interview of Dari Dugina

Interview of Dari Dugina :

“We Live In The Era Of The End”

 

Open Revolt is very happy to present a conversation between the Eurasian Youth Union’s Dari Dougina and our own James Porrazzo.

Dari, the daugher of Alexander Dugin, in addition to her work in the Eurasian Youth Union is also the director of the project Alternative Europe for the Global Revolutionary Alliance.

Dari you are a second generation Eurasianist, daughter of our most important thinker and leader Alexander Dugin. Do you care to share with us your thoughts on being a young militant this deep into the Kali Yuga?

We live in the era of the end – that’s the end of culture, philosophy, politics, ideology. That’s the time without real movement; the Fukuyama’s gloomy prophecy of the ”end of history” turns to be a kind of reality. That’s the essence of Modernity, of Kali Yuga. We are living in the momentum of Finis Mundi. The arrival of Antichrist is in the agenda. This deep and exhausting night is the reign of quantity, masked by the tempting concepts such as Rhizome of Gilles Deleuze: the pieces of the modern Subject changes into the ”chair-woman” from the “Tokyo Gore Police” (post-modern Japanese film) – the individual of the modern paradigm turns into the pieces of dividuum. ”God is dead” and his place is occupied by the fragments of individual. But if we make a political analysis we will find out that this new state of the world is the project of liberalism. The extravagant ideas of Foucault seemingly revolutionary in their pathos after more scruple analyze show their conformist and (secretly) liberal bottom, that goes against the traditional hierarchy of values, establishing pervert “new order” where the summit is occupied by the self-adoring individual, atomistic decay. 
That’s hard to fight against the modernity, but sure – it’s unbearable to live in it – to agree with this state of the things – where all the systems are changed and the traditional values became a parody – being purged and mocked in all spheres of controls of modern paradigms. That’s the reign of the cultural hegemony.
 And this state of the world bothers us. We fight against it – for the divine order – for the ideal hierarchy. The cast-system in modern world is completely forgotten and transformed into a parody. But it has a fundamental point. In Plato’s republic – there is very interesting and important thought: casts and vertical hierarchy in politics are nothing but the reflection of the world of ideas and higher good. This model in politics manifests the basic metaphysical principles of the normal (spiritual) world. Destroying the primordial cast system it in the society – we negate the dignity of the divine being and his Order. Resigning from the casts system and traditional order, brilliantly described by Dumezil, we damage the hierarchy of our soul. Our soul is nothing but the system of casts with a wide harmony of justice which unites 3 parts of the soul (the philosophical – the intellect, the guardian – the will, and the merchants – the lust). 
Fighting for the tradition we are fighting for our deep nature as the human creature. Man is not something granted – it s the aim. And we are fighting for the truth of human nature (to be human is to strive to the superhumanity). That can be called a holly war.

What does the Fourth Political Theory mean to you?

That’s the light of the truth, of something rarely authentic in the post-modern times. That’s the right accent on the degrees of existence – the natural chords of the world laws. That’s something which grows up on the ruins of the human experience. There is no success without the first attempts – all of the past ideologies contained in them something what caused their failure.

The Fourth Political Theory – that’s the project of the best sides of divine order that can be manifested in our world – from liberalism we take the idea of the democracy (but not in it’s modern meaning) and  liberty in the Evolian sense; from communism we accept the idea of solidarity, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism and the idea of collectivism; from fascism we take the concept of vertical hierarchy and the will to power – the heroic codex of the Indo-European warrior.

All these past ideologies suffered from grave shortcomings – democracy with the addition of liberalism became  tyranny (the worst state-regime by Plato), communism defended the technocentric world with no traditions and origins, fascism followed the wrong geopolitical orientation, its racism was Western, Modern, liberal and anti-traditional.

The Fourth Political Theory is the global transgression of this defects – the final design of the future (open) history. It’s the only way to defend the truth.

For us – truth is the multipolar world, the blossoming variety of different cultures and traditions.

We are against racism, against the cultural and strategic racism of the USA’s Western modern civilization, which is perfectly described by professor John M. Hobson in ”The Europocentric conception of world politics”. The structural (open or subliminal) racism destroys charming complexity of the human societies – primitive or complex.

Do you find any special challenges as both a young woman and a activist in this age?

This spiritual war against (post)Modern world gives me the force to live.

I know, that I’m fighting against the hegemony of evil for the truth of the eternal Tradition. It is obscured now, not completely lost. Without it nothing could exist.

I think that any gender and age has its forms to access  the Tradition and its ways to challenge  Modernity.

My existential practice is to abdicate most values of the globalist youth. I think we need to be different from this thrash. I don’t believe in anything modern. Modernity is always wrong.

I consider love to be a form of initiation and spiritual realization. And the family should be the union of  spiritually similar persons.

Beyond your father, obviously, who else would you suggest young militants wishing to learn our ideas study?

I recommend to make acquaintance with the books of Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Jean Parvulesco, Henri Corbin, Claudio Mutti, Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein (traditionalism); Plato, Proclus, Schelling, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, E. Cioran (philosophy); Carl Schmitt, Alain de Benoist, Alain Soral (politics); John M. Hobson, Fabio Petito (IR); Gilbert Durand, G. Dumezil (sociology). The base kit of reading for our intellectual and political revolution.

You’ve now spent some time living in Western Europe. How would you compare the state of the West to the East, after first hand experience?

In fact, before my arrival to Europe I thought that this civilization is absolutely dead and no revolt could be possible there. I was comparing the modern liberal Europe to bog, with no possibility to protest against the hegemony of  liberalism.

Reading the foreign European press, seeing the articles with titles as ”Putin – the satan of Russia” / ” the luxury life of poor president Putin” / ” pussy riot – the great martyrs of the rotten Russia” – this idea was almost confirmed. But after a while I’ve found some political anti-globalist groups and movements of France – like Egalite&Reconcilation,  Engarda, Fils de France etc – and everything changed.

The swamps of Europe have transformed into something else – with the hidden possibility of revolt. I’ve found the ”other Europe”, the ”alternative” hidden empire, the secret geopolitical pole.

The real secret Europe should be awakened to fight and destroy its liberal double.

Now I’m absolutely sure, that there are 2 Europes; absolutely different – liberal decadent Atlanticist Europe and alternative Europe ( anti-globalist, anti-liberal, Eurasia-orientated).

Guenon wrote in the ”Crisis of the modern world” that we must divide the state of being anti-modern and anti-Western. To be against the modernity – is to help Occident in its fight against  Modernity, which is constructed on liberal codes. Europe has it’s own fundamental culture (I recommend the book of Alain de Benoist – “The traditions of Europe”). So I found this alternative, secret, powerful, Traditionalist other Europe and I put my hopes on its secret guardians.

We’ve organized with Egalite&Reconcilation a conference in Bordeaux in October with Alexander Dugin and Christian Bouchet in a huge hall but there was no place for all the volunteers who wanted to see this conference.

It shows that something begins to move…

Concerning my views on Russia – I’ve remarked that the bigger part of European people don’t trust the media information – and the interest to Russia grows up – it’s seen in the mode of learning Russian, of watching soviet films and many European people understand that the media of Europe are totally influenced by the hegemonic Leviathan, liberal globalist machine of lies.

So the seeds of protest are in the soil, with  time they’ll grow up, destroying the ”society of spectacle”.

Your whole family is a great inspiration to us here at Open Revolt and New Resistance. Do you have a message for your friends and comrades in North America?

I really can’t help admiring your intensive revolutionary work! The way you are working – in the media – is the way of killing the enemy ”with it’s own poison”, using the network warfare strategy. Evola spoke about that in his excellent book ”Ride the tiger”.

Uomo differenzziato is someone who stays in the center of modern civilization but don’t accept it in his inner empire of his heroic soul. He can use the means and arms of modernity to cause a mortal wound to the reign of quantity and its golems.

I can understand that the situation in USA now is difficult to stand. It’s the center of hell, but Holderlin wrote that the hero must throw himself into abyss, into the heart of the night and thus conquer the darkness.

Any closing thoughts you’d like to share?

Studying in the faculthttp://openrevolt.info/2013/01/23/we-live-in-the-era-of-the-end-a-interview-with-dari-dougina/y of philosophy and working on Plato and neo-platonism, I can remark, that politics is nothing but the manifestation of the basic metaphysical principles which lays in the fundament of being.

Making political war for the Fourth Political Theory we are also establishing the metaphysical order – manifesting it in the material world.

Our struggle is not only for the ideal human state – it is also the holy war for reestablishing the right ontology.

http://openrevolt.info/2013/01/23/we-live-in-the-era-of-the-end-a-interview-with-dari-dougina/

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.

A. Latsa: entretien avec A. Douguine

Alexandre DOUGUINE par Alexandre LATSA

 

*

1 - Alexandre DOUGUINE, je doute que mes lecteurs ne vous connaissent pas et renvoie sinon à vos écrits et à la biographie complète de Métapedia à votre sujet. Néanmoins pouvez vous présenter et synthétiser votre combat politique et géopolitique jusqu'à ce jour ?

Je suis né le 7 janvier 1962 à Moscou, dans une famille de militaires. Mon père était officier et mère médecin. Au début des années 80 en étant dissident et ayant l'aversion pour le système communiste en peine décadence, j'ai fait connaissance des petits groupes traditionalistes et des cercles politico-littéraires de Moscou, où participaient le romancier Youri Mamleev, qui émigrera par la suite aux Etats-Unis, le poète Evgueni Golovine et l’islamiste Gueydar Djemal, fondateur en 1991 du Parti de la renaissance islamique. C’est aussi à cette époque que j'ai découvert les écrits d’Evola, de Guénon, de Coomaraswamy et de bien d’autres auteurs (en 1981, j'ai traduit en russe le livre de Julius Evola Impérialisme païen, qui sera diffusé clandestinement en samizdat).

Après la désintégration du système soviétique, au début des années 1990, j'ai crée l’association Arctogaia et le Centre d’études méta stratégiques, après les revues Milyi Angel et Elementy, qui paraîtront jusqu’en 1998-99. Mes idées ont été influencées a partir des années 80 par la Nouvelle Droite européenne et au premier lieu par Alain de Benoist que je tiens en plus grand estime jusqu'à présent. Je le considère un des meilleurs intellectuels français actuels – peut être même le meilleur.

Dernièrement je m’intéresse beaucoup à la philosophie de Martin Heidegger, à la sociologie de M.Mauss, L.Dumont, P.Sorokin et surtout à Gilbert Durand (récemment découvert par Alain de Benoist), mais également à l’anthropologie de G.Dumézil et de Claude Levy-Strauss. J’ai écrit plusieurs textes sur l’économie – entre autres sur les idées de Friedrich List, sur Schumpeter et F.Brodel.

A l’Université de l’Etat de Moscou, j’ai donné des cours de la Postphilosophie étudiant la philosophie de la postmodernité etc. Maintenant je suis professeur à la faculté sociologique et dispense les cours de Sociologie structurelle (sur la base des idées durandiennes sur l'imaginaire)

Si j'étais obligé de définir mes positions philosophiques je les décrirais comme appartenant au "traditionalisme".
Au premier lieu, je suis le disciple de René Guenon et de Julius Evola.

Dans la grande publique en Russie et dans quelques autres pays (Turquie, Serbie, le monde arabe etc) mes écrits géopolitiques sont très connus.

Mon idée est simple: il faut combattre l'impérialisme américain, le monde unipolaire et l'universalisme des valeurs libérales, marchandes et technocrate. Comme Alternative cela devrait être l'organisation du monde multipolaire comme ensemble de grandes espaces – chacun avec ses systèmes des valeurs propres – sans aucun préjugés.

Pour réaliser ce projet il faut créer le projet eurasien – commun pour l'Europe et la Russie mais avec les alliances stratégiques avec d'autres forces et cultures qui rejettent le mondialisme américain et la dictature libérale planétaire. L'eurasisme que je défends c'est le pluralisme absolu des valeurs.

2 - Les bruits ont courus que vous seriez en quelque sorte un "conseiller" (plus ou moins proche) de Vladimir Vladimirovitch Poutine. Pouvez vous le confirmer ? Et est ce que cela a changé depuis la présidence Medvedev ?

Je travaille avec les gens qui sont assez proches de Poutine et de Medvedev.
Je crois que pour l'instant Medvedev suit la même direction que Poutine.

3 - La Russie semble sortir d'une longue hibernation et se préparer a être un acteur de premier plan. Pensez vous que ce pays est les moyens de surmonter les défis en cours ? (démographie, santé, provocations militaires occidentales, immigration très forte.. etc etc). Comment jugez vous la situation en Russie en 2009, avec la crise financière mondiale ?

L'histoire est ouverte. Personne ne connais l'avenir. Je crois que la Russie va a entrer dans la période cruciale de son histoire. La crise va avoir un grand impact sur l'économie russe qui reste, hélas, libérale.
Mais cela va peut être guérir les illusion du pouvoir quant a l'efficacité des préceptes libéraux.

4 - L'unilatéralisme totalitaire décrété en 1991 par l'Amérique semble être arrivé a son terme. On assiste à une sorte de renaissance de grands espaces auto-centrés en Asie (Chine, Inde), dans le monde musulman (Turquie, union panafricaine ..), en Eurasie (Russie ..), en Amérique du sud (Brésil, Vénézuela ..), pensez vous que l'on doive s'en réjouir et pourquoi ?

Je voudrais que cela soit ainsi, mais il est trop tôt pour fêter la victoire. Un jour les États Unis tomberont mais pas maintenant. Je crois qu'ils vont faire LA guerre – Une Troisième Guerre mondiale pure et dure – qui causera d'immenses peines a l'humanité. Les États Unis ne peuvent plus gouverner le monde c'est sur, mais ils ne peuvent pas non plus se résigner – Cela serait pour eux une catastrophe. Leur seule solution – essayer de transposer leur problèmes sur les autres. Ca veut dire la guerre. Sans la fin previsible.

 

5 - L'Europe semble totalement absente de cette renaissance géopolitique, tellement elle est inféodée au parapluie Américain, quelle est votre opinion sur l'Union Européenne et sur la place que devrait avoir l'Europe dans le monde, et avec avec la Russie ?

Je crois que il y a deux Europe. L'Europe continentale (Franco-Allemande) et l'Europe atlantiste (Nouvelle Europe inclue). Ces deux Europes sont géopolitiquemet opposées en tout. Cela explique le blocage. Avec Sarkozy et Merkel la position des forces continentales est devenu plus faible. Je n'ai aucune recette pour l'Europe. C'est l'affaire des européens – quoi choisir.

 

6 - Vous êtes membre du mouvement eurasien, pouvez vous nous présenter ce mouvement (et sa structure jeune) et en définir le projet politique ?

Quelles sont ces ramifications en Europe, et ailleurs ? Pensez vous que ce "projet Eurasien" est proprement Russe ou est adaptable et conciliable avec la pensée pan-européenne (une europe libérée des chaînes Américaines) ?
Alexandre DOUGUINE ayant eu l'amabilité de détailler le programme global du mouvement Eurasien, je renvoie mes lecteurs à ce texte extrêmement intéressant ici.

7 - Pour beaucoup de Français la Russie est un modèle pour sa capacité à proposer un contre modèle civilisationnel, autre que le modèle libéral anglo-saxon et capitaliste. Cela dépasse le clivage droite-gauche, et réunit autant des communistes que des gaullistes historiques ou encore des nationalistes. Des voix s'élèvent même pour que la France intègre l'organisation de la coopération de Shanghai et quitte l'OTAN.
Pourtant au même moment, l'administration Sarkosy semble jouer sur deux tableaux : l'adoucissement avec la Russie (cf avec la guerre en Georgie) tout en réintégrant le commandement armé de l'OTAN ! Jugez vous cette double orientation crédible, et quel en est d'après vous le sens profond ?

Je la juge non crédible et contradictoire.
Quant a la Russie il est un peu naïf de croire que notre économie fonctionne bien. Il manque chez nous le secteur réel et le développement des technologies nouvelles. La Russie a besoin de l'Europe comme l'Europe a besoin de la Russie pour avoir des économies mutuelles garanties par les ressources nécessaires et l'accès aux technologies nouvelles.

8 - Pour les Européens, les grandes inquiétudes du futur sont le plausible leadership économique Chinois et l'explosion démographique des populations musulmanes, notamment à l'intérieur de l'Europe. Comment estimez vous compatible / incompatible ces deux éléments ? Il apparaît que le sujet de l'Islam, ou celui des "relations" avec la Chine par exemple n'est pas abordé de la même façon en Europe et en Russie.
On a les mêmes soucis géopolitiques. Mais on doit commencer par hiérarchiser les dangers.

Premièrement il faut se débarrasser des américains et de la dictature de la pensée unique, et seulement après s'occuper des chinois et de musulmans. Ils faut proposer aux musulmans le modèle de l'intégration dans la culture européenne mais pour cela il faut garder – parfois sauver – cette culture-la. Les chinois sont très sympathiques quand ils vivent en Chine.

Mais pour régler cette affaire de contrôle des vagues migratoires il est de nouveau – nécessaire de se débarrasser des mondialistes, libéraux et des atlantistes. Ce cercle vicieux ne peut être brisé qu'en commençant par la lutte antiaméricaine. Les musulmans et les chinois sont des défis secondaires. C'est pareil que cela soit pour l'Europe et pour la Russie.

9 - L'amérique de Obama "semble" vouloir faire la paix avec le monde entier, j'ai lu son programme, celui ci est pourtant largement plus offensif que celui de McCain notamment en Afghanistan/Pakistan pour poursuivre la lutte contre les "Talibans". Comment jugez vous cette élection et quels changements peux on attendre d'après vous dans les relations avec la Russie ?

Vous avez raison. Obama dépend du consortium politique et géopolitique américain. Donc il n'est pas libre de faire quoi que ce soit. Il va faire la guerre exactement comme le ferrait Mac cain.
C'est la logique des lois géopolitiques et non les opinions personnelles qui comptent dans les affaires réelles globales.

10 - Le pentagone semblait vouloir aspirer l'Ukraine dans l'OTAN (après l'échec Georgien) et installer sa flotte dans la mer noire. Ajouté aux remous politiques en cours et aux échéances électorales proches en Ukraine, peut on d'après vous imaginer un "conflit" proche dans ce pays et une scission en deux ou trois entités, a la manière yougoslave ?

En Ukraine habitent au moins deux peuples avec des orientations géopolitiques, stratégiques, culturelles et religieuses contraires. Il n’y a pas un peuple ukrainien. C’est l’appellation générale basée sur le critère territorial – les Ukrainiens ce sont littéralement « les habitants d’Ukraine » (en slave, ça veut dire « provence »). Ethniquement on les appelle « malorossy » -- « petits russes » littérairement. La langue ukrainienne a été créée artificiellement dans XIX siècle par les Polonais qui ont stylisé plusieurs dialectes « malorosses » avec les formes artificielles et assez affreuses imitant maladroitement le Polonais. En créant ce monstre linguistique, on a L’Ukraine actuelle est profondément divisée. L’élite politique est orange, orientée envers OTAN, l'UE et se base sur l’appui des habitants de l’Ouest ukrainien. Cette zone n’entre pas dans l’espace eurasien, il faut le reconnaître. Mais cette élite orange veut imposer sa volonté sur les masses de l’Est où la population se considère russe, rejette l'UE et l'OTAN et veut exister dans le grand espace commun avec les Russes de la Russie. Cette masse forme le second peuple (ou le premier) de l’Ukraine. Ce peuple est chrétien orthodoxe, malorosse (petit-russe) ou velikorosse (grand-russe), il consiste pour la plupart en des descendants des cosaques, et s’identifie à l’Empire eurasien. Ce peuple vote régulièrement pour le « Parti des régions » et en faveur de Yanoukovitch. La carte électorale de l’Ukraine montre comment ce pays est devisé en deux parts.
Dans le cas de l’Ukraine les eurasistes russes et ukrainiens agissent en logique avec leur vision du monde. Nous sommes contre l’Etat-Nation ukrainien parce qu’il est pro-américain, atlantiste et anti-eurasien. Mais aussi parce que le régime du néo-nazisme orange c’est une des parts du "système à tuer les peuples".
C’est le peuple de l’Ukraine de l’Est et de Crimée qui est maintenant en danger d’être oppressé, épuré et anéanti.

 

11 - L'agitation est également grande autour de l'arctique, cette zone énergétique essentielle. Récemment, les pays de l'OTAN ont organisé des manoeuvres militaires à grande échelle en Norvège (7.000 soldats de 12 pays) pour simuler une invasion de l'arctique et une sécurisation des champs pétroliers. Pensez vous que l'arctique puisse devenir la zone de conflit essentielle du 21ième siècle comme le pensent certains spécialistes en géopolitiques ?

Je pense que l'Arctique devient la place centrale de la stratégie d 'encerclement de la Russie – pour des raison stratégiques et pour la raison des ressources naturelles.

 

12 - Pensez vous plausible, ou souhaitable une alliance de l'hémisphère nord (amerique- europe - russie), comme l'a évoqué Dmitri Rogozine récemment pour parer à une éventuelle anarchie dans l'hémisphère "sud" ?

Je considère Rogozine comme atlantiste, opportuniste et neo-nazi antisémite. Il discrédite l'idée nationale russe et travaille toujours pour les américains. Il participait en Kiev à la révolution orange au cote des oligarques Berezovski et ses valets (tel Belkovsky).

13 - Comment voyez vous la situation mondiale en disons 2020 ? Et la Russie (alors que le Kremlin a développé ce fameux plan 2020) ?

Le plan 2020 ne vaut rien. Il n'existe pas. Je crois qu'au Kremlin maintenant prévalent les idées tactiques.
Donc j'attends la guerre et je crois que dans les prochaines années la situation changera trop pour faire quelques prévisions que ce soit.

14 - Le 24 mars dernier, c'était l'anniversaire des bombardements de 1999 sur la Serbie, que vous inspire cet évènement ?

La haine contre les américains et la solidarité avec le peuple serbe héroïque qui a eu assez de dignité de lancer ce "défi" au monstre américain.