Russian geo-political theorist and activist Professor Alexander Dugin was recently interviewed for the website Counter Currents. Professor Dugin has a great deal of influence in a Russia which increasingly appears to be the leader of an emerging anti-globalist alliance that is challenging (and defeating in some cases such as South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the Ukraine) the so-called ‘Western’ powers. Apologists for this ‘Western’ power bloc, militarily led by the US and to a lesser extent the UK, often refer to their world-view as Atlanticism. Wrapped in language about human rights, democracy, pluralism and the rule of law, Atlanticism operates as a cover for US and UK interventionism throughout the world. The financial power of the City of London and Wall Street, combined with the military power of the US Federal Government, form the backbone of what George H Bush famously referred to as the ‘New World Order‘ – a globalist order ruled from these Western power centres. What Dugin terms ‘Neo-Eurasianism‘ is essentially his answer to Atlanticism and universalism. Anton Shekhovtsov at Sevastopol National Technical University writes:
Neo-Eurasianism is based on a quasi-geopolitical theory that juxtaposes the ‘Atlanticist New World Order’ (principally the US and the UK) against the Russia-oriented ‘New Eurasian Order’. According to Dugin, the ‘Atlanticist Order’ is a homogenizing force that dilutes national and cultural diversity that is a core value for Eurasia. Taken for granted, Eurasia is perceived to suffer from a ‘severe ethnic, biological and spiritual’ crisis and is to undergo an ‘organic cultural-ethnic process’ under the leadership of Russia that will secure the preservation of Eurasian nations and their cultural traditions.
In his interview with Counter Currents, Professor Dugin explains his ideas for an alternative, organic order:
It is not only a struggle against Western universalism. It is a struggle against all universalisms, even Islamic ones. We cannot accept any desire to impose any universalism upon others – neither Western, Islamic, socialist, liberal, or Russian. We defend not Russian imperialism or revanchism, but rather a global vision and multipolarity based on the dialectic of civilization. Those we oppose say that the multiplicity of civilizations necessarily implies a clash. This is a false assertion. Globalization and American hegemony bring about a bloody intrusion and trigger violence between civilizations where there could be peace, dialogue, or conflict, depending on historical circumstances. But imposing a hidden hegemony implies conflict and, inevitably, worse in the future. So they say peace but they make war. We defend justice – not peace or war, but justice and dialogue and the natural right of any culture to maintain its identity and to pursue what it wants to be. Not only historically, as in multiculturalism, but also in the future. We must free ourselves from these pretend universalisms.
Some of Dugin’s language is a bit different from what we are familiar with, but the core of his ideas, his support for organic and independent ethnic and cultural groups cooperating with each other rather than being blended out of existence under a globalist order of centralised, multi-national states, certainly shares much in common with Southern nationalist thinking. Shekhovtsov writes:
As Dugin believes the nature of an ethnic community to be superior to, and deeper than, that of a state, Neo-Eurasianism refutes the idea of a modern nation-state, even the Russian one, and promotes the concept of a ‘Eurasian empire’ built on the principles of ‘Eurasian federalism’. According to the concept, all the political units of this ‘empire’ should be established in accordance with cultural, historical, and ethnic identifications rather than simple administrative division.
This is a point we genuine Southern nationalists have repeatedly emphasised – the nation is the organic ethnic/cultural body and this is superior to the state, which is simply the government. To the extent that the state exists, it should serve the nation, not vice versa. This is only possible if the nation is free and independent, instead of being forced under the dominion of a multi-national state, such as the United States of America.
In an article re-published on Open Revolt, Dugin summarises his worldview:
“Not ours,” from a spiritual point of view, is the modern world, western civilization starting with Enlightenment, humanism, cartesianism and kantianism, individualism, materialism, domination of merchant society.
Our ideas might not be exactly the same but they are similar enough (and each of us respects the other’s right of self-determination) that a Southern nationalist-led free South might have a close friend in Professor Dugin’s Russia. Dixie and Russia could certainly be a powerful force standing against the globalist elites and their destructive and statist vision for the future.
Also see: Individualism, globalism & resistance, Post-modernity, liberalism & the collapse of politics, Against ‘global liberal hegemony’
You convinced me sometime ago about the situation in South Ossetia, but I don’t trust Russia. I’m not convinced they are any better than the United States on any of these issues, and they may be worse. They are certainly intervening everywhere in the world themselves, though they usually are not so blatant. For example, they have been involved in Syria longer than we have. They are encroaching on Canada to control resources, they have been in South America, they are getting close with China. There is plenty of evidence of fraudulent elections in Russia.
I’m not saying the United States is innocent, I’m just saying I don’t view Russia as any sort of alternative.
29thtn, two points in reply to your comment. 1) Is Russia occupying or bombing any countries in the Middle East? No. In fact, they are doing all they can to stop US/NATO intervention in Syria. Did they support US/NATO intervention in Iraq or Libya? No. Granted, Medvedev didn’t take as good a position on this as Putin, but now that Putin is back as president, you’ll notice Russia is taking stronger positions again. Their involvement in Syria has consisted of leasing a military base there since the 70s. They have also sold weapons to the Assad government. These are business deals. And in my view the Assad government is much better than the alternative. He protects the religious minorities. They had one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the region before the US began to destabilise it.
2) While it’s true that I take a much more positive view of developments in Russia (especially on the geo-political front) than you do, I didn’t really propose Russia as an alternative to anything. The alternative I mentioned was Dugin’s ideas. He support Putin on some things and opposes him on others. He has some influence in Russia but he is by no means an insider in the Putin government. There is much he would like to change about Russia.
the comment above this makes some good points – distrust of moscow is ALWAYS in order (as is distrust of DC). i would point out, though, that this particular russian scholar no more deserves to be identified with the Leviathan that demands tribute where he lives than lew rockwell deserves to be identified with the Leviathan that demands tribute where HE lives.
interesting thought i had whilst reading this article: saint andrew.
he was an epic hero of the faith, and he is associated by history and heraldry with (among other places) russia (the largest single country in either christendom, east or west), scotland (the old world origin of southron culture’s celtic contingency, as well as classical liberalism) and of course dixie herself.
also an interesting corollary point: a book i read this year, the millionaire next door, brings up a tangential statistic (on page 17):
http://books.google.com/books?id=qRMqB2BSJr4C
if you look on the table on page 17, on the right hand column the percentage of ancestry group that are millionaires is ranked. russia is #1 and scotland #2. the author estimates that this is related to cultural traits towards living frugally within one’s means, investing as much as possible (especially in things other than financial instruments – like real estate, ownership or partial ownership in small businesses, precious metals and mining rights) and lack of interest in/celebration of unnecessary or ostentatious use/display of resources. this contrasts, of course, with the cultural behaviour traits of anglo-saxon yankess (both on household expenditures and through the governments in dc and london, and of course the un world empire as well): spend, spend, spend; defraud those who productive but not shrewd, and forcibly extort resources from those who are productive and shrewd but not well-armed. in other words: the peoples (on both sides of the atlantic) of orthodox christianity and celtic christianity serve as a stable, productive, violence-averse host populace, to which the secular, non-productive bloodthirsty populi of money-changers and statists (in moscow, london and dc alike) attach themselves parasitically.
another interesting link, loosely related to my comment and the article itself (which, by the way, is excellent!)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman44.html
I agree with you about the Assad regime probably being better than the alternative, as was also the case in most of the other “Arab Spring” revolutions, however, the reason Russia is there is probably because of their interest in a warm water port, which is a historical Russian issue. However, considering the expert use of some of those Russian weapons, it’s probable that Russia troops shot down the Turkish jet, so yes, I believe Russia is actively engaged in military conflicts, just less blatantly. I’ll give them credit for a more intelligent handling of situations, but I think that people are still dying because of Russia’s involvement in conflicts in which they are playing for their own benefit.
Why is Russia rattling sabers to take Canadian territory? Why are they rattling sabers to take Alaskan territory, which the administration has practically ceded? Why are they allied with the likes of Hugo Chavez? Why is Obama so cozy with Putan? A great example of this being the conversation with the Russians about Obama’s support for Putan when he thought the microphones were off. Russia looks plenty scary to me.
Yes, it’s possible Russians shot down that Turkish jet. I have no problem with that. The Turks were over Syrian air space and were trying to start a war. They have tried as hard as possible to get NATO to declare war on Syria because the Turks dream of ruling Syria again. They especially want to put down the Kurds in Syria (and remember that 1/3 of Turkey is Kurdish land – the US helps them keep the Kurds down there). I don’t look too kindly on Turkey.
I don’t hear any saber rattling against Canada and Alaska. Not from Russian leaders. Perhaps from some marginal figures. Russia has much better relations with most countries than does the US.
I also don’t see Obama as being cozy with Putin. I see Putin as holding all the cards and Obama being pushed around a bit. I like that. I like it when the US Empire loses. And more than that, I agree with Russia’s position on these things.
I guess I see Russia very differently than you. They are not perfect. Not by a long shot. But their geo-political decisions are usually right. And the direction of their society is moving in the right direction. And I like Putin’s leadership. I don’t agree with everything he has done. But Putin is anti-globalist. He’s against my enemies. I see him as a good guy in a global struggle.
As far as Chavez, we probably disagree on this too. Internally, I’m no fan of Chavez’s policies. But he too, geo-politically speaking, opposes my enemies. I like that. He is anti-globalist. The same goes for China. Internally, I disagree with a whole lot of what they do. But internationally, I like their geo-political decisions. To a lesser extent, this also goes for Germany. Of course, Germany has far less room to operate. But they have made some pretty clear moves towards the Russian-Chinese camp, and I see this as a good thing.
I’m just wary of all of them.