En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mardi, 18 septembre 2012

An interview with Filip Martens

An interview with Filip Martens
GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

F.M.:  In the beginning of the Syrian conflict, there were obviously sincere demonstrations for political reforms. And president al-Assad did listen to them: he started a political proces of reforms, which resulted in a new constitution, parliamentary elections and a new government that is composed of all political tendencies in Syria. Moreover, presidential elections will take place in 2014 and the new Syrian constitution clearly states that the president can remain just two terms.

The terrorists consist of jihadists and by Saudi Arabia and Qatar financed mercenaries from Turkey, Libanon, Jordanië, Libya, Chechnya, Yemen, Afghanistan, … They are supported by Syrian Muslim Brothers and by American, British, French, Turkish and Qatarese Special Forces. In addition, criminal gangs abuse the insecurity to rob and plunder. So once again the Western media play a game of disinformation.

Only since about two months, the Syrian army strikes back hard. And of course with extreme caution in order to spare the civilian population as much as possible. First there was the agreement with the Arab League in which the Syrian goverment promised to withdraw the army from the cities and to respect a truce. The Syrian goverment has kept its word, but the terrorists only abused this truce by immediately infiltrating the cities where the Syrian army withdrew.

Than there was the mediation attempt by the U.N. and the observers. Here happened the same. The Syrian army kept itself as good as possible to the armistice, but again the terrorists only abused the situation to sow terror, to infiltrate and – with help of the West, the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) and Turkey – to spread disinformation and lies. This was followed by the attack in Damascus on 18th July 2012, which killed some senior officials of the Syrian state. And afterwards, there was the withdrawal of the U.N. observers.

After all this and after 18 months of practicing patience, the Syrian army decided to eradicate terrorism. Now the army rules firmly and the terrorists are on the run. Daraa, Homs en Damascus are largely safe. In Aleppo, the terrorists are also driven out and this city will be again under full control of the Syrian authorities very soon. Of course, there are still serious incidents, like bombings and shootings. But this absolutely doesn’t mean that the jihadists and mercenaries still occupy entire neighbourhoods and terrorise the civilians. These acts of violence are the last convulsions of the terrorists. Wherever the terrorists resurface, they are immediately eradicated by the Syrian army, that can rely on the strong support of the people.

Syria has long and porous borders, that make it impossible to practice full control. That is why the terrorists infiltrate the country from the neighbouring countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. And that is also why the terror attacks will continue for a long while. The infiltration of jihadists and mercenaries through the borders is a tedious but limited problem. The only thing which they are still capable of are bombings and terrorist acts, but acquiring control over a region or neighbourhood has become impossible. After the victory in Aleppo the army will control entire Syria again.

However, the terrorists have about endless financial and logistical resources from the West, Turkey and a few Arab countries. For instance, the financial resources of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are inexhaustible thanks to the oil dollars. But the question is what purpose these inexhaustible financial resources and foreign support for the terrorists can serve when they absolutely have no sympathy at all from the Syrian people?

Therefore a solution can only come from the Syrians themselves. And in this, the interfaith ‘musalahah’ movement, which was born a few months ago, offers hope. This Arab word means ‘reconciliation’. It was an initiative of Syrian civilians in order to find a solution for the crisis in their country. This means that the musalahah movement arose neither from the Western sponsored ‘opposition’, nor the regime of al-Assad. The origin of the musalahah movement is only the Syrian people. In crucial places, like Homs, already hundreds of young people chose such a conciliatory internal dialogue. The basic vision of this movement is that Syria is one family, where there is no place for violence and sectarianism, where the different religious groups live together in peace. That is the desire of the silent majority of the Syrian people.

Russia, China and Iran can play a positive role in this, because they are the only powers that the Syrian people trust. But I don’t see any alternative for president al-Assad: any other ‘solution’ can only create chaos in Syria.

GRA: How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

F.M.:  To understand what is happening in Syria, it is good to consult Zbigniew Brzezinski. His books and articles are directing Washington’s foreign policy. According to Brzezinski the control of Eurasia is crucial to the U.S. to remain the world leader. Eurasia counts 75% of the world population, produces 60% of the world’s wealth and has 75% of the world’s energy resources.

Brzezinski calls the critical zone in Eurasia the ‘New Global Balkans’. This area extends from the Suez Canal to the western borders of China and from Central-Russia to the Indian Ocean. It is this area that the U.S. wants to control. That is why the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the American attempts to destabilize Pakistan (through bombings directed by the CIA and the ‘export’ of the Taliban from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s North West Frontier).

A problem for the U.S. is that since 1979 Iran arose as a non-Western regional power. We must bear in mind that the finger of the alliance between the West and the GCC is pointed at Hezbollah and Iran. And that Syria is the link between Hezbolllah and Iran. The demise of the al-Assad regime in Syria is crucial in order to isolate Iran and also in order to disable Lebanon and eventually also Iran. Without Syria’s support and the supply routes from Iran to Lebanon, Hezbollah will no longer be able to play a dominant role in Lebanon and Iran’s regional influence will greatly decrease. Also will Russia lose an important partner and its only military base in the Mediterranean Sea. And last but not least, after a future collapse of Iran it will be possible to create similar ethnic and religious wars in Russia.

A direct military intervention of the U.S. in Syria would put the entire region in flames, but most important of all is that the U.S. is not capable of doing this. Therefore the preference goes to a kind of ‘intervention light’. This works through subcontracting: local militias, allied armies and private firms. This was tried out successfully for the first time in Libya. The deployment of American troops is limited to Special Forces, because the U.S. is increasingly dependent on its allies.

Russia and China vetoed any kind of militarily aggression against Syria in the U.N. and there is no reason why they would change their mind. And because of this strong Russian and Chinese resistance the U.S. won’t attack Syria without U.N. permission (like in the case of Iraq). The U.S. is now using a persiflage on their ‘weapons of mass destruction’ propaganda, which they used against Iraq, by trying to convince the U.N. with ‘chemical weapons’ propaganda in order to find a reason to attack Syria. But there won’t be an American attack on Syria before the presidential elections in the U.S. (which take place in November).

In my opinion, the American public will not pay attention to a possible invasion of Syria. Why not? It’s just another country attacked by their government.


GRA: How do you assess Russia's position in this issue? Is Russia able to compromise, yielding to the wiles of the West (for example, the proposal of Hillary Clinton to establish demilitarized zone), despite the fact, that Russia has already received a very difficult experience in the situation in Libya?

F.M. : Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah are a Eurasian resistance block against the Atlantist arrogance. Russia has the potential and the resources to confront this challenge. It has an acute awareness of what is historically going on in the world and a deep consciousness of its own eschatological mission. Therefore Russia can play a central role in this.

It is useless to try to compromise with universalist fanatics. Russia already compromised when it abstained from blocking the Libyan intervention in the U.N. President Medvedev committed a real crime against Libya and helped to initiate the Western supported interventions and color revolutions in the Arab world. The West was behind the Libyan insurgency, that destroyed this rich country and killed tens of thousands of Libyans. Also the murder of Gaddafi was partly Medvedev’s responsibility. Russia has blood on its hands for allowing Libya to be bombed back into prehistoric times. But all the people around Medvedev were liberals. Russia should have defended Libya, because the fall of Libya was a defeat for Russia. A possible fall of Syria will be another defeat. Russia should present itself internationally as the country that votes “Njet!” to war in the U.N.

Fortunately, the mistake committed in Libya has not been repeated in the Syrian conflict. Syria has a much higher strategic value for Russia’s security and stability. With Putin back in power, Russia’s position is much better. He is consistent in his support for president Bashar al-Assad. The explosive situation in Syria is the most important geopolitical threat for Russia at this moment. All the liberals and pro-Atlantist forces are against Putin. Russia needs Putin to make a fist against the West on foreign policy, especially because new destabilization by secessionist movements (supported by Saudi Arabia and the U.S.) arose in the Caucasus.

And the Europeans should realise that the world is broader than only the U.S. and Europe. Syria develops fast its economical relations with other major powers and area’s: Russia, China, India, South America, South Africa, Belarus, etc. Russia (and also China) will be happy to take the place of the Europeans as trade partner. The only ones who suffer the economic sanctions against Syria and have a lot to lose there, are the Europeans themselves. However, they should know better, because a similar dirty game is going on against Iran already for years. European oil companies lost very lucrative contracts in Iran because of silly economic sanctions inspired by the U.S.

GRA: How, in your opinion, will deploy the situation after the overthrow of Bashar Assad? According to the information, disseminated through the media, there are already dozens of catastrophic scenarios.

F.M.: The destabilization of the Mediterranean region and the Near East threatens the Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean and also paves the way for new color revolutions, uprisings and insurgencies in Iran, Central Asia and even Russia. So, the fall of the al-Assad regime and the destruction of Syria would make it easier to destabilize other countries in Eurasia.

In a destabilized Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood can arise as political power. Another possibility is the creation on the Syrian territory of small and weak states, based on sectarian identities, which can easily be manipulated by the West.

Millions of people would suffer from these violent political changes, the further disintegration of the Near East and ethnic and religious wars in Eurasia. The final objective of the alliance between the U.S., Israel, the GCC, Turkey and Western Europe is the destruction of Iran, the downfall of Russia and the containment of China, Pakistan and India.

GRA: One possible scenario is the territorial division of Syria into three parts. Chagry Erhan, Director of the Center of Strategic Research of the European peoples, believes that the Baath regime, that is being removed from power, will try to create a new state on the basis of belonging to a madhhab through Latakia-Tartus, what can lead to a decision of destruction or assimilation of the Sunni population. In addition, such a step (creation of a new state) can undertake also Kurds. And here raises a difficult question - how to prevent the partition of the country? Erhan believes that once the government will intervene in the process by violent means, this will lead to more bloodshed. How likely do you think, this scenario is?

F. M.: A madhhab represents the entire school of thought of a particular mujtahid Imam, together with many first-rank scholars that came after him and checked his evidences and refined his work. The scenario above is about the division of Syria in an Alawite state, a Kurdish state and a Sunni state. It’s an idea that mainly lives in Atlantist circles. But Erhan is totally wrong: in the past two months, the terrorists were almost complety defeated by the Syrian army.

Geopolitically, Syria is situated in a central and crucial region, which is intersected by 2 important fault lines: one religious (Shia vs. Sunni) and two ethnic (Turks vs. Kurds and Turks vs. Alawites). Turkey, the GCC and the jihadists are mainly Sunni. Iran and the Alawites minority are Shia. And after the demise of Saddam Hussein, the Shia also came to power in Iraq, which narrowed the GCC’s sphere of influence. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to regain this dominant position at all costs by turning Syria into a kind of vassal state in order to tackle Iran.

The Turks will do everything to avoid another Kurdish state – there is already one in Northern Iraq – because they have a large Kurdish minority of their own. And an Alawite state can cooperate with their Alevi brothers in Turkey. Syria already now supports the Kurdish PKK in Turkey, because of the Turkish support for the terrorists in Syria. All this means that also Turkey can become a victim of the balkanization of the Near East in the future.

This balkanization is a necessary condition for Western geopolitics. It is certainly not far-fetched, because it is similar to the Yinon Plan from 1982. This aimed to break the existing states in the Near East and to create mini states, hostile to each other and controlled by the West.  


mercredi, 13 juin 2012

Civilization as political concept

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.