For years and years, media by media, he was labeled as “The most dangerous philosopher in the world”, “Putin’s Rasputin: the dangerous mind” [1].

“Ultranationalist and ultraconservative, a guru for far-right activists”, whose ideas would be “furiously anti-Western, anti-liberal, totalitarian and socially backward” [2].

And we come to 2020, Covid was in full swing: “While world democracies quarrel, Putin and his deranged philosopher are plotting to create an autocratic world order” [3].

Really Aleksandr Dugin, perhaps the greatest Russian intellectual of our time, would have invented an ideology threatening the world, namely “a mixture of previous anti-Bolshevik, Italian fascist and German Nazi thoughts, adapted to the current circumstances of Russia [4]?

ComeDonChisciotte.org met him in Moscow at the headquarters of the International Eurasian Movement, which is located within the Ministry of Education. And perhaps we have understood the reasons for so much Western propaganda: the best defense is always attack.

Aleksandr Dugin has managed to elaborate a new political theory which, if widely implemented, could wipe out in only one blow the liberalism that dominates the world, including the two ravenous cardboard tigers that today still allow him to rule: communism and fascism, by now tired media holograms used to legitimize ruling powers and delegitimize dissidents.

“There is no alternative”. TINA: Margaret Thatcher had spoken clearly and, since then, everything has remained so everywhere, or almost so. However, a new wind seems to be coming from Russia. Seen from here, the “Great Reset” or the epochal change underway in the West is already short of breath: “it is drowning”. So Dugin begins. And he appeals to the peoples: “we need everyone’s help to make it definitively defeated”.

The great Russian thinker sees the ongoing gestation of a Great Awakening: a new, multipolar world, where every people will be able to freely choose how to live and how to progress, beyond the diktats of the multinationals, sanctioned by those technocratic powers that represent them and that they make us modern slaves.

The model to follow? Everybody will find their own, according to their own culture and their own history, starting from Russia. Perhaps that is why in the West, Aleksandr Dugin is considered a public enemy. To geto the final control of the globe, it is Heartland that is missing from the appeal: the heart of the Earth.

• Professor, what does “Eurasianism” mean?

“Eurasianism has distant roots. It is a political philosophy formed a hundred years ago within Russian immigration. More specifically, it is a very profound vision of the world that is based on the thought of the great Slavophiles such as Konstantin Nikolaevič Leont’ev and on the traditionalists of Russian conservatism. First of all, Eurasianism means considering Russia not as a country (European or otherwise) but as a civilization in its own right. A civilization that does not have to orient itself towards East or West because it has its own specific identity. An identity with both European and Asian features: therefore, Russia is both a synthesis and a thing in itself. This is our vocation, as well as the political and intellectual prophecy of Eurasianism: the patriotic Russian philosophy that explains what Russian civilization is.”

• Could Eurasianism be used as a model in other societies today?

“In the geopolitical map of the world created by the Anglo-Saxons, the division between Sea Power e Land Power is clear and unequivocal. Eurasianism is certainly “Land Power”, that is continentalism. In other words, ours is multipolarity as opposed to unipolarism desired by the maritime powers: TELLUROCRACY vs TALASSOCRACY. And, therefore, one of the fundamental roles of Eurasianism is the protection it exercises against Eurocentric globalism. It is in this sense that it can also be useful in other contexts and in other regions of the globe. Anyone who accepts the existence of various identities, cultures, logos … is close to Eurasian thought.

As for Europe, it must be kept in mind that it is the West, but from the Eurasian point of view it should instead be based on its uniqueness as an alternative to the American model and other cultures. Basically, as an alternative to globalism. Therefore, in this specific case, we should speak of Eurocontinentalism, as Europe should enhance its ideals and promote a model of its own.

Eurocontinentalism, therefore, alongside many other “continentalisms” around the world: Islamic, Japanese, Asian, Latin American and African.

As we have seen recently, there is even an American Western continentalism: during the “Trump era”, US focused its efforts on internal affairs, to some extent weakening its “global hegemonic policy”. Therefore, in general, Eurasianism can also be applied to other regions, but it must always be kept in mind that it is to be considered as a broad concept of continentalism. In essence, continentalism is spoken of as ideas and social constructions based on specific and different roots and identities, in open opposition to the maritime civilization of industry and capitalism (i.e. technocratic civilization).

Paraphrasing Marx, we could say: Eurasianists from all over the world unite.”

• Let’s talk about Russian history: from the Eurasian point of view, how do you evaluate the three different great phases of your contemporary history, from the Soviet experiment to the time of Putin?

“The Eurasian philosophy has proved to be the one closest to reality with respect to established historical facts. The Eurasianists, before the Soviet Union was formed, had already predicted what would happen at the time of its fall, that is, the path on which Russia would have to move in the post-Soviet era.

In other words, when the civil war was still ongoing it was predicted that the USSR – even if built on Marx’s Western universalist ideologies – would still go towards continentalism. In any case, it would have followed the road towards the construction of a continentalist Eurasian giant. Nobody thought so, not even the Bolsheviks or white Russian immigration (they thought of a universal model valid for the whole world).

But it went as predicted by the Eurasians.

Therefore, from the point of view of the latter, the USSR was the true Eurasian state and for this same reason it was in opposition to the Western civilization of capitalism and the sea. A version that is at the same time universalistic because it is based on the socialist ideas of Marx, but also continentalist in fact.

This was one of the stages of Eurasian evolution, even if it was not complete and not perfect, but which in any case went towards real Eurasianism.

The first Eurasianists of the 1920s had therefore predicted that at some point the Soviet Union, due to its opposition to religion and traditions, would fall. And they also said that when that happened, we would have only two avenues in front of us: liberalism or Eurasianism. The choice was made in 1991: Atlanticism, in the opposite direction to Eurasianism. The Russia of the time, atlantist and liberal, was therefore moving towards the civilization of the sea.

For this reason, all the criticism of the 90s matches so well with our perception of inner identity. We are Eurasians and the Russia of the 1990s was a deviation from our mission.

In the 90s, after the fall of the communist idea, our group created, with me at the head, the school of geopolitics and we started teaching the Eurasian idea. The idea that became very famous among the Siloviks: institutional political thought told them that we Russians were now united with the West, but NATO’s expansion towards the East continued anyway. And so, they were looking for an explanation: for example, I personally knew Yeltsin’s defense minister, Igor Rodionov, who adhered to the Eurasian idea. Thus, in the 1990s, Yeltsin’s official policy was Atlanticist, as army officers began to become Eurasian. During Putin’s government, Atlanticist thinking was set aside and Eurasian thinking became predominant: with the start of Putin’s era, Russia is back on the path of Eurasianism. However, the time of Yeltsin was very important and dangerous, because the positions at the top conquered by these characters (atlantists, globalists) were many and important. And not even Putin has managed to get rid of it completely.

Now we are moving towards Eurasianism: hence conservatism and the idea of ​​control over the post-Soviet area. Also, the reunification with Crimea, the Donbass issue and the Caucasus.

specifically, today we can say that Russia is a “middle way” between Atlanticism and Eurasianism. It is a fact that we cannot say that Eurasianism has won: the true Eurasian age of Russia is still to be seen.”

• What are the predominant political and cultural tendencies in Russia today?

“It is a very difficult question, as the people are split: a part of them wants conservatism, strong power, nationalism, an important role for religion, a true recognition for history, etc. Another part, however, still follows the trends that arose in the 90s towards the West, especially among young people. So, the Russian borders are open to Western ideas and for this reason in all families and among Russians there is a continuous struggle between these ones and the Eurasian ideas.

If we take, for example, the cultural question, here the West and Atlanticism prevail. While the majority of the Russian population and the conscious part of young people are oriented towards Eurasianism.

So, from the Western point of view, it may appear that Putin is an integral conservative and that Russia is conservative, but if you look closely, we see that this is certainly not the case. Our intellectual elite is moving towards Western values: gender theory, feminism, influence in cinema, theater, etc. Even if traditional values ​​prevailed in the last votes, with the green light to reform the Constitution in this sense, Western liberal values ​​unfortunately prevail among young people.

If we take contemporary mass culture in this country, it is Russophobic, Western and globalist. Hatred of all Russian things is an entrance ticket to becoming part of today’s Russian cultural elite.

This happens because Putin does everything in half: in geopolitics he is very strong, but as far as culture is concerned, he has almost everything managed by his circle (where almost all of them are pro-Western). “I turned on the TV and was disgusted by it” Putin said some time ago. So, the President lets television do what he himself disgusts. This is why it is politically bipolar.

It is one of the biggest problems facing Russia today: we are not far from the most disgusting examples of Western culture, that is, of what it has become.”

• What is currently the weight of the influence of Western culture and its system of values within the Russian school and university system?

“Difficult question, as we are in an ambiguous situation: on the one hand, most of the teachers had a Soviet background and therefore even if they are no longer Marxists, they are still materialists who have never given much weight to spiritual values. This materialism, which already gave too little importance to spiritual values, was then greatly worsened by the liberalism of the 90s which annihilated any residual spiritual value: almost all our professors and teachers are as if they had become monsters. All these professors – having been infected by the ideological Covid of the 90s – are no longer able to transmit any spiritual ideology: the values ​​they propose are liberal-capitalist ones. Precisely for this reason, Putin has not even touched the field of education: because these are the positions of almost all the professors.

For example, since they accepted the so-called “Bologna Process” and the State Tests were unified, they have lost the possibility of evaluating young people with regard to their real preparation in the individual subjects and this has caused a collapse of all Russian scholastic thought, especially in the humanistic branch. Furthermore, Western LGBTQI +, gender, Transgender, etc. thought has arrived in our educational system. The ideas of technocrats and some degenerate and depraved who continue to support anti-human technologies and ideologies have arrived. And there are many of these disadvantaged intellectuals in our society.

This is why the situation in Russia – especially in the humanities – is pitiful.”

• Why does the current government allow this?

“This is one of the main problems. Some time ago I wrote a book entitled “Putin against Putin” where I tell about the bipolar disorder of our Leader. Not in the psychiatric sense (obviously not schizophrenic) but on a political level.

It is a question of “world view”. Putin strengthens the Eurasian vision but, at the same time, moves towards the Western vision in culture, in education, in the humanistic sphere in general. In short, these two visions survive in the same person who has absolute power.

This super power, of course, does not come from above but it is us people who need a monarchical power. This absolute power has been granted to him, while this duplicity is part of him. If we went to read his texts (since nobody does it), we would notice that there are great contradictions, even in crucial matters, for example, of defense.

“In view of global defense agreements, Russia must be independent.” This is clearly a contradiction. This is how all his documents are constructed. And so is his government: divided between liberals and conservatives.

It is difficult to build a future with this bipolar vision. You can build the present, but not the future. Putin accepts this bipolarity because he thinks it is possible to go on like this. And this way of acting and governing will continue as long as Putin is there. When Putin is gone, these two sides will clash and one of them will prevail.”

• Why are liberal values becoming more and more popular than traditional ones?

“First of all, it is good to underline that being young is not a disease. We all have been, only to grow old.

Young people always need an example to follow.

The question is that parents and grandparents lived in a decadent historical period, where there was decay and decay: it was the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and then moved on to the disastrous nineties. When today’s young people look at their parents they often see managers or bandits and many divorced: values ​​in decay. Depraved, degenerate, corrupt and perverted people. And they cannot be a positive example for young people. Because of this, our society goes through so many problems.

There is a lack of figures who can be an example, both in private and public life, as well as in culture. Have you ever seen a Russian TV series? It only depicts losers or ruthless people: in essence, it’s just garbage. These post-91 TV and real-life losers often disgust even younger viewers, who therefore rely on the internet to find something decent. And here worse than ever: American and Western films, including all of their shows. The traditional values, therefore, are not even there and, in essence, it is all disgusting.

For this reason, too often young people tend to abandon their individuality to become part of a global neural network based on technology. They conform to technology, thus losing their ability to be individuals. This also applies to European society and, in general, to Western societies, where there is no longer any opposition to this post-humanistic society.

It should be emphasized that, however, there is still resistance to this drift here.

In Russia, both the Church and Putin are opposed to these trends, even if – in general – the atmosphere of decay prevails in our society. For example, one of the values ​​that seems to prevail is that of staying young forever is possible. And this means always remaining basically stupid (as young people misled by wrong models). See, for example, even grandmothers starting to use Tik Tok.

Here the idea of ​​positive personal growth disappears: all remain bandits and depraved and are preparing to be part of a post-humanistic and virtual society. Unfortunately, Putin does not do enough against this because he is not behind social networks and if he knows something he knows it thanks to Dmitry Peskov. It is he who tells him if there is something to know on social networks, otherwise the President will know nothing.

Putin lives in his own world and does not fully understand that society – for which he is responsible – is not going towards well, he fails to realize that young people are going towards darkness. In Russia we still have values, but it is not the island of salvation. We are not yet at the void of Europe and the United States but we are moving in this direction. We are not on a different path from the West, it is just a question of speed: we go slower. Nobody cares about our young people. Not even Putin, who is the only one with the last word.”

• The West, with the imprint of the World Economic Forum, also known as the “Davos Forum”, is trying to implement what its founder Klaus Schwab called the global “Great Reset” [5]: economic and demographic, even using the COVID-19 emergency. They are imposing fourth generation capitalism on the peoples. Italy, for example, is an epicenter of these policies which have dramatic political, economic and social consequences on the national community. In your opinion, is Russia also part of this picture or can it instead be considered what once would have been defined as a “non-aligned” nation and which is, therefore, in an alternative position with respect to the Great World Reset?

“The Great Reset is the desperate reaction of the globalists who see how the world is becoming multipolar.

This project, despite the opposition of most of the peoples of the globe, wants to reach its goal by also focusing heavily on the pandemic. The Great Reset comes from the early 2000s, when the globalists began to feel the loss of their strength and therefore tried and are trying in every way to recover a positive situation for them.

For example, the liberal elite has imposed a state of emergency to regain power over people’s minds, as more and more human beings are moving away from the globalist design. The liberal elite, despite having proved unable to manage the Covid emergency, still wants to use this thing (and the state of emergency) to stay at the top.

All of this looks rather like a “liberal agony£ and personally I think the Great Reset has drowned.

This is also because if Western restrictions and the state of emergency are used by the liberal elite to maintain power and defend globalism, Russia and China have shown that the right measures to contain the virus can only be used for the own sovereign interests (contrary to globalism): similar measures but with different visions.

Italy was the most unfortunate of all because it chose the worst possible President. I don’t imagine anyone worse than Draghi. The latter does not carry any promises with him, but he is one who is there to guarantee the pure status quo. And this is the scariest thing: not changing anything – in today’s trends – is the most serious crime.

Draghi perfectly embodies the liberal elite.

Although the Great Reset essentially failed, however, it is clear that some territories are still under the control of the liberal elite.

The latter which, together with the technocratic monopolies that do not submit to any political power, have used the coronavirus emergency on the one hand to keep itself in power and on the other to try to strengthen their influence and their domination.

However, the “Great Awakening” is opposed to the Great Reset. And this phase, which has just begun, is developing as a war between two opposing visions. In practice, the populations on the one hand and the liberal elite on the other. This will not be a war between countries, but a war – in Europe and around the world – between the people who are for the Great Awakening, and their elites who are for the Great Reset.

If we talk about Russia’s role in this civil war, it will be on the side of the Great Awakening even if we still have the tentacles of the Great Reset inside. For example, our Gref [Herman Gref, President of Sberbank, the country’s main banking group] would be like your Draghi. The fundamental difference is that we left it where it is, while you put Draghi at the head of the European Central Bank and now at the head of the Italian government.

The globalist influence inside Russia is very strong and is present above all in economic power: if the soul of Russia is with the Great Awakening, for the more concrete issues it is not entirely so. So, Russia is in a position of “hostile neutrality” towards the Great Reset and this too is already a good sign.

For us Orthodox, the Great Reset means the project of the Antichrist. Therefore, all those who are really against the Antichrist are saints. And Putin’s Russia has almost taken the leading position in this circle of saints who are against the Antichrist.

In general, it should always be borne in mind that no one can solve this problem but the people themselves. If an Italian or a Frenchman does not rise up against the global evil that has the face of Draghi or Macron, no one else will do it for them. It doesn’t matter if they are pro Le Pen or Mélenchon, for example: the important thing is to move against Macron.

This also applies to Americans: if they don’t stand up and defend their identity, no one else will do it for them, not even Putin.

This is a struggle of humanity against anti-humanity. Although the globalist monster is drowning, we need – all the more reason – everyone’s help so that it is definitively defeated. In this struggle, even a person alone (even going against his family or his brother, as the Gospel says) will be able to change the balance of the world. Even a small grain can make a difference.”

• What are the signs of this global failure?

“The signs of the failure of the globalist elite can be seen, for example, in the frantic US withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as from Syria. The Taliban gave a kick in the ass to the invincible North American armies that by withdrawing left the general chaos: wherever they go, in fact, they no longer bring order but only destruction. For example, all those post-Soviet States to which the US has promised to assist have lost their territorial integrity in return.

Americans can no longer be the owners of the world and their policy is inadequate in every respect. These are the clearest signs of this failure.

So, even if the globalists still manage to keep themselves in power, they have no seductive ideas for the people; they can use fear and scare everyone, they can introduce the Green Pass and put surveillance cameras everywhere, but they offer no idea of ​​the future. For example, if we watch American movies that focus on our near future, they all end badly. There is no future, like in “Mad Max” and other films. The idea, in fact, is always the same: they will all die or only a few will survive but in a bad way, perhaps as totally dehumanized reptilian men. So, as we can clearly see, the globalists have no idea of ​​the future and civilizations without an idea of ​​the future are civilizations in agony, as they always have been. They try to stay in power with their teeth, squeezing it tightly with their hands, but the power is slipping just the same.

Another example is China: they wanted to subdue it, but it was out of their control. The CCP (Communist Party of China) resisted and was not overruled. Therefore, Beijing is also trying to protect its identity. And Putin has been doing the same since coming to power in 1999, when he started (and managed) to put Russia back on its own path: that of his own identity.

In conclusion, it is possible to say that in the future more and more poles will emerge worldwide and therefore the globalists are failing and now they are in agony.”

• Aleksandr Dugin is the bearer of a new idea of the future: what does the “Fourth Political Theory” consist of and what kind of society does it aspire to build?

“It is the theory that questions Eurocentric (Westernocentric) universalism: contemporary European history is based on the idea of ​​being the vanguard of humanity. The concept is to consider oneself the center of humanity and not just one of its parts. According to this perspective, all societies must follow this single model. And when they don’t, they are somehow forced. Western ideology is based on racism of two types: territorial and temporal.

From a territorial point of view, Europe sees itself as the fulcrum and all the others are considered as those uncivilized peoples who must adapt. Temporal racism, on the other hand, says that everything new is good, while everything old is bad. The idea of ​​progress is based on racism against one’s past.

Not only that, all the other peoples of the world are seen as barbarians, and even the past history of Europe itself (compared to the contemporary one), like the Middle Ages, must be seen as inferior.

In this climate, the three great political theories were formed: communism, fascism and liberalism. And all these political theories are racist at their basis, as John Atkinson Hobson perfectly demonstrates. So, all three, namely liberalism that puts the individual at the top, communism the society, and Nazi-fascism the country, are European ideals and intrinsically racist (both temporal and territorial).

The Fourth Political Theory discards this Eurocentric worldview (in the broadest sense of the term) and says that there are no:

• Hierarchy between societies.
• West – East contrast
• Modern – Ancient Juxtaposition. For example, medieval society also had its beautiful things (it was not totalitarian in the first place), as did the non-European societies of today.

When we talk about building a different future, therefore, we must overcome these three anti-humanistic and racist ideologies (as also demonstrated by Hannah Arendt), these three totalitarianisms.

The main feature of the contemporary age is totalitarianism.

There are obviously differences between these three ideologies, but the biggest one is that only liberalism has remained standing, while the other two have faded. By remaining the only actor in the field, liberalism embodies all this double racism.

Today shows us that the world of Orwell “1984” was not the face of communism but that of liberalism. Orwell’s world does not come from the mystical East but from the liberal West.

To demonstrate the rampant Eurocentrism, then, it is enough to see that to demonize their opponents, the liberals call them fascists or communists (according to them it is an offense, but which always remains in the wake of Western creations) and we cannot say anything against liberalism if we do not want to be pointed out as communists or fascists. If this is not totalitarianism!

Well, all this happens because political science is based only on these three ideologies.

And we cannot fully criticize liberalism if we remain chained to these three Eurocentric ideologies, which have a “common” racist basis and which cannot provide answers to the real needs of the world.

The Fourth Political Theory tells us to take the three previous theories – created by Westerners and implemented around the world – and throw them in the garbage bag. But on their own, they will never end there and so we have to push them.

It is we who must raise all humanity against the West.

The Fourth Political Theory tells us how we Russians can live: we can live by building our Russian monarchy. But leaving other peoples free to live as they see fit.

The Islamic world can live under Muslim rules while China can live under the rules of Confucianism.

Again, in India there have always been castes and we cannot hide them under pseudo-democracy.

We have to recognize and admit how various societies live and it is in this sense that we can also find people in the West who support the Fourth Political Theory.

But there in the West there is a grave danger: if they renounce liberalism they could fall back into communism or fascism. And in order not to fall into all this, they must accept the Fourth Political Theory, that is, admit all the variety of cultures and civilizations, without “forcing themselves” to technological progress (as if it were necessarily everyone’s destiny) or that gender equality together with advanced technology may be the one and only way for humanity to progress. The West too must be able to recover its values, setting aside the ideologies that have reduced it to such agony: communism, fascism and liberalism.

Today, however, if you are not a liberal you tend to have to be deleted, just like a simple channel deleted from YouTube that violates their company policy. Therefore the “Cancel Culture” is a clear demonstration of the face of the liberal totalitarianism.

As supporters of the Fourth Political Theory, we understand that communism and fascism are now only used to advance liberalism. We propose to awaken and use the Fourth Political Theory in all cultures. There is therefore no single future for the whole world but each culture builds its own and does so thanks to its own history, its own traditions, its own religion.

Everyone has to find their own model.

Therefore, a multipolar world created by the following poles: Eurasia and Muslim, European, African, American worlds. This is multipolarity.

Among all these civilizations, of course, even if they are based on the Fourth Political Theory, there may be more or less unity and collaboration or more or less disagreements. Thanks to the Fourth Political Theory, however, the age-old problem of the other being wrong because it does not reflect Western canons is solved: it is instead to be considered simply different and, for this very reason, it deserves our respect.

The Western perception of the other as identical, or as inferior, is wrong: it should instead be considered simply as another and that’s it.

The Fourth Political Theory is in fact based on the positive evaluation of the other: we know we’re not Chinese, but the Chinese don’t want us to look like them either. This principle should be applied to everyone and maybe we Russians would choose the Tsar, religion and something else like peasant life.

So, we Russians will choose what we want, without having to submit to the diktats of anyone else: neither of the Muslims, nor of the European commissioners. When we have to make this historic choice, we will not let anyone into our affairs.

And with the Fourth Political Theory we recommend everyone to do so, following this “method”.

Europe will also have to choose what it likes but on condition that it does not find itself again with rules prescribed by the elite such as liberal democracy and Western-centric human rights: for example, if you like LGBTQI+ thinking, take it and use it, but don’t force us to internalize it. The Fourth Political Theory says that everyone can and should build their world based on their values. Hence, we must deny liberalism and the other two Eurocentric ideologies: communism and fascism. The Fourth Political Theory is an invitation to a “free creativity” towards one’s future.”

*****************************************************

Original column by Alessandro Fanetti & Jacopo Brogi:

https://comedonchisciotte.org/aleksandr-dugin-il-grande-reset-e-fallito-e-lora-del-grande-risveglio/

Reposted on Geopoltica.ru:

https://www.geopolitica.ru/it/article/il-grande-reset-e-fallito-e-lora-del-grande-risveglio