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.