Sunday, March 20, 2011

[R1] Dugin (Eng.)

 By A.Dugin

Answering the interesting and very relevant text of Professor Olavo de Carvalho, I would like to stress some important points:

Individualism and holism

First of all, it seems clear to me that our discussion (if the term “debate” doesn’t fit exactly here -- as Professor de Carvalho has pointed out) is something more than the exchange of the opinions of the two isolated individuals. There is something very symbolic in the accentuation of a certain asymmetry in our mutual positions, noted by Professor de Carvalho at the beginning of his introductory text. Describing this asymmetry, he defines himself as a pure individuality that can speak only in his own name, expressing a highly personal point of view. He isn't speaking on the name of anything except himself: he wants to stress this point from the very beginning. At the same time he tries to construct the opposite image of my person, underlining the fact of my implication in the political, public and scientific circles and my involvement in concrete politics and in the process of decision making and ideological struggle. It seems to be a correct observation, but it has one less evident dimension. Speaking so, Professor Olavo de Carvalho drives our attention to the really existing differences between the Western and the Russian (Eurasian) civilizations. The metaphysical basis of the West is individualism. The French sociologist Louis Dumont in his works – «Essai sur l'individualism[1]», «Homo Aequalis I[2]» and «Homo Aequalis II[3]» -- has described clearly enough the individualistic nature of the Western society and Western civilization from the Middle Ages until now. So, accentuating purely personal position in our debates, Professor Olavo de Carvalho is acting in accordance with most general and «collectivist» manner, reflecting the social particularity of Western culture and system of values. For the Western man a declaration of individualism is a natural thing (socially defined), and, being a «natural» thing, it is social and therefore more than individualistic. In other words, individualism is a common feature of the West. So there is little of «individual» in individualism, it is rather a stereotype.

The same stereotype is clearly seen in the projection of the opposite identity on the representatives of Russian (Eurasian) society. This identity should be collectivist a priori, manifesting holistic or totalitarian (in the case of pejorative attitude) features. And Professor de Carvalho finds easily the confirmation of such projection in the biographical details of his vis-a-vis. The context is thus well defined and the mutual photos add to it more visual expression. The “hunter” vs the “soldier”. The “lonely man” vs the “collective man”. The “West” against the “Rest”.

I accept it fully and agree to recognise the fact that our Russian (Eurasian) individuation consists in the desire to manifest something more general than our individual features. So, being a collective entity (the Russian name «sobornost'» fits here better) for me is rather an honour. The more holistic is my position, the better it is.

That is precisely the symbolic dimension mentioned earlier. In the debate of two personalities there are two massive structures of different civilizations, different systems of values that affront each other through us. The Western individualism confronts the Russian (Eurasian) holism.

Here we need to make one precision. As far as I understand, Brazilian society and Brazilian culture are not fully Western and individualistic. There are many collectivist and holistic features in them. So, Latin America and Brazil in particular have some social and cultural differences in comparison with the European or North American societies and cultures. And in the case of Professor de Carvalho, the fact of his living in the USA, plays an important role. Not his geographical residence, I mean, but his cultural identification. This is confirmed by the texts of Professor de Carvalho, that I’ve managed to read. They witness of his adherence to the North American tradition (in its “right” or “traditionalist” version) and of his distance from the main features of Brazilian cultural (critical) attitude towards USA. Being politically on the right wing (I presume) Professor de Carvalho castigates Latin (and Brazilian) “leftism” (le gauchisme). My sympathy in this case is rather on the Latin America’s side. Being critical in front of USA and the Western civilization as a whole, I find a lot of very charming (Eurasian) features in the South and Central American societies. So, I am in some way more pro-Brazilian than the “brazileiro puro” Professor de Carvalho, who rather defends the West as a whole and certain (conservative) sides of USA.

Having stressed this point, we can proceed to the other arguments of Professor de Carvalho.

Three global projects

First of all let us consider the three projects of global dominance, described by him. Not being convinced that they give the correct vision of main geopolitical trends in the contemporary world, I can recognise some realistic features in that picture. Professor de Carvalho describes it explicitly:

“The agents that personify these projects today are respectively:

1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of those two countries.
2. The Western finance elite, as represented especially in the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of several Islamic countries and some Muslim countries governments.”

Later on in his exposition Mr. Carvalho points out that each of the three global projects reflect three kinds of global weapons – the military force, the market economy and strong religious creed (fundamentalism). We can easily remark that this hypothetic structure, consisting of three main forces, represent three classical functions of a hierarchic traditional society: the religious clerics (brahmans), the warriors (kshatryas), the merchants (vayshyas). Accepting this vision we could evaluate the three forces in different ways. For the materialists and the pacifists, the capitalist market society of the West (USA and its allies) would be preferable. But that is not the case for those who defend other sets of values – spiritual and immaterial ones. The “order of Money” (according to Jaques Attali’s vision[4]) can only be challenged by the “order of the Force” or by the “order of Spirit”. The actual globalization is essentially based on the economical order, it represent the future world as the global market where ”the history has ended” (F.Fukuyama[5]). So, the struggle of “the Russian and Chinese militarism” and of the “Muslim Brotherhood” against the West, USA and the globalization is a good and just case that should be supported by all citizens in the world. that rejects the hypermaterialist empire of the frenetic consumption and of North American hegemony. The rule of the warriors and of the priests, for me personally, (and implicitly for the majority of Eurasian people) is much better than the order of merchants. More than that,  I would suggest the alliance between the “Russian Chinese militarism” and “Muslim Brotherhood” in common struggle to overthrow the American World Order and to finish with the globalization and “American way of life”.

So, in the terms of Professor Olavo de Carvalho, every consequent traditionalist should be on the Eurasian and Islamic side against materialist and capitalist decline of the castes. Professor Olavo de Carvalho recognised the fact that Western financial elite is concentrated in some global organizations, such as the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, which serve as the headquarter of capitalism and North American imperialism. So we have real enemy in front of us that should be attacked.

If we consider the circumstance that globalization process is far more powerful now than two other forces and the might of USA is nearly unchallenged, we arrive at the conclusion that precisely the globalist project is much more dangerous and realistic than the two other projects are. So we are dealing not with three more or less equal trends, but with the only one that is absolutely leading and dominating and the two others that try to challenge the first one (successfully or not). In such a situation the question is posed in the following way: should we accept the global financial elite transnational rule as something inevitable and resign from the struggle for any alternative only because we don’t like Eurasian or Islamic projects? If we could imagine some other doctrine as an alternative, it would be a good thing, but it is not so easy.

So we have the main course of things (the creation of One World, the World Government and ruling global financial oligarchy) and we have the possible opposition, the most impressive and most articulate versions of which are the Russian-Chinese “national-militarism” and Islamic religious fundamentalism. The choice is clear and everyone is invited to make it by himself.

It seems that Latin America is more and more inclined to choose the alternative approaching the Eurasian and Arab camps. Professor Olavo de Carvalho doesn’t recognize the neo-socialism with strong ethnic feature explicitly present in Latin America as a major trend. This is the difference in our approaches, but that is not crucial. We could include this Latin neosocialist trend approximately in the camp of the Eurasian militarism and Islamic fundamentalism. So we arrive to the point of the clash of civilizations made famous by S.Huntington[6]: The West against the Rest. That is (in the terms of Professor Olavo de Carvalho) the Western finance elite against Eurasians and Islamists as well as against all other instances who reject USA hegemony and absoluteness of free market, human rights, liberalism, individualism and parliamentarian democracy Standards.

 So, operating with the world map proposed by Professor Olavo de Carvalho, I admit that I would rather take consciously position in the “Eurasian (Russian-Chinese) militarism” camp, accompanied by great sympathy to the world of anti-Western Islamic movement (not sharing its theological positions, being orthodox Christian). The critical and pejorative description by Professor Olavo de Carvalho of the Russian-Chinese and Islamic project makes me suggest that his own choice is quite different and opposite to mine. If we remain in the limits of the Global World Map, proposed by him, the only logical solution is the choice of the global West and the hegemony of the Western global financial elite.

If there are only three forces (it is Professor Olavo de Carvalho who affirms it, not me) the realistic choice should be made accepting one of them as a position. But this point is not clearly affirmed in Professor Olavo de Carvalho’s text. We see that he hates the Russian-Chinese “statism” and Islamic fundamentalism. It is explicit. So, from this point of view we are waiting for the next step – the defense of the West. But some remarks of Professor Olavo de Carvalho indicates that it is no so. He treats the Western globalization in skeptical  and critical terms as well. So we rest perplexed and hope he would make this point clear in the future.

Theoretically we could suggest that he is against any kind of global project whatsoever and rejects them all, hating all scenarios of globalistic visions and praxis. If that is the case, he  should attack first of all  heaviest, most serious and most impressive one – the USA hegemony, the unipolar world and the rule of the financial elite. This is the first and most powerful trend – much more effective than two others. But Prof. Carvalho lives in the USA and in his introductory texts fiercely attacks the Eurasianism and Islamic fundamentalism before anything else. So his position rests a little bit enigmatic and intriguing. For  his style of  discussion this seems to be a rather clever stylistic step – so that the observers would follow the discourse with closer attention, being intrigued as me myself. KGB, the Communist Party and Al-Quaeda sins are sufficiently exposed by the professor. But what about CIA, Bilderberg, Pentagon, neocons, PNAC, “imperial grunts”, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Serbia?

The validity of the classical geopolitics

Second point: Prof. Carvalho affirms:

“Even though in current debates these three blocks are almost invariably designated  by names of nations, States and governments,  to depict their interactions as a dispute among nations or national interests is a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us at all to understand the present situation.”

I can not agree with the affirmation concerning “a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us at all to understand the present situation”. I am convinced that classical geopolitical analysis is still relevant and does help us “to understand the present situation”. The modern (and postmodern as well) USA global power and its allies in Europe or elsewhere during the last centuries up until nowadays manifested themselves as the direct incarnation of the Sea Power, exposed by Halford Mackinder[7], Nicholas J. Spykmen[8], K.Haushofer[9] and all other geopolitical thinkers and analysts. The American global hegemony  geographically, strategically and (most importantly) sociologically is a pure “tallassocracy”, the classic manifestation of the eternal Carthage, which became a worldwide phenomenon. The Atlantic localization of the Core of the global world (the Rich North), the capitalist essence of its rule, the material innovative technology as the basis of the conquest of the colonies, the strategic control of the sees and oceans with the NAVY forces – all these features of the globalization and present days unipolarity (sometimes in the soft version, presented as multilateralism) are the classical characteristics of the Sea Power. And the Sea Power is in the permanent quest against the Heartland, being on its direct way to the world domination.

That is why the old geopolitical analysis is highly relevant. It reflects perfectly the main goals of the implementation of the thallassocratic world system.

If we observe the major projects opposite to the globalization (described by Professor Olavo de Carvalho) we see the other half of the classical geopolitical Mackinder’s map. What are Russia and Chine geopolitically? They form together whole Eurasia, the Heartland’s zone, two greatest continental spaces. So, we deal with tellurocracy in its essence. Geopolitics allows the visualization of both political-geographical and sociological spheres. It makes a synthesis of the political powers, borders and “les dispositifs” on the one hand, and cultural, social and value system, on the other. So, tellurocracy, the Rome's paradigm, is the geopolitical continental kind of the strategy and civilization taken together. So the hostility between USA-unipolarity-globalization-financial oligarchy-modernization-capitalism and Russia-Chine-militarism- sovereignty of state-traditional society-(crypto-socialism) is perfectly geopolitical.

Where is the place of Islam in classical geopolitical vision? It corresponds to the Rimland, precisely to the large part of Rimland going from the Maghreb through Middle East to the Central Asia and further to Islamic societies of the Pacific. Geopolitical nature of Islam opens to it two options: Sea Power or Land Power, the thallassocracy or tellurocracy? The radical Islam rejecting the West, the USA, the globalization and consequently the thallassocracy, is logically inclined to the alliance with the Land Power. But this zone as a whole can optionally make the other decision, preferring the alliance with the West (as some Arab regimes).

The balance between the thallassocracy and tellurocracy today is in favour of the first. So the present situation can be correctly evaluated in the classical (“old”) geopolitical terms. The Sea Power, striving to control the Heartland (Eurasia) in order to rule the World (imposing everywhere its market/human rights/individualist patterns and values), is confronting with the Eurasian forces (Russia-China) and its temporary allies (Islamists, Latin America anti-colonialists, neo-socialists and «independentistas» and so on).

The «open society» heresy and the American crimes

Next point: Professor Olavo de Carvalho points out that Eurasian analysis of the American society is wrong, concerning the identification of the essence of it with the concept of «open society» of Karl Popper[10]. As far as I know, in 1990-ies the Popper's concepts were very relevant in the analysis of the main values of the European, Western civilization. Further, I have myself read hundreds of Western sociologists and philosophers that gave different description of the basic Western values, but the fact of the profound individualism in all those authors remains their main feature (especially in the Modernity). That is the point of view of Max Weber or of the excellent French sociologist Louis Dumont, already mentioned. I could accept the fact that Popper as such is dear only to Mr. Soros and to the CFR people, but that is not little. The elite, that understands the essence of values, can not be too large. But I don't insist on Popper. The most important moments in the West are individualistic. The East, on the contrary, is holistic. The Eurasian society is a holistic one. If there are other holistic cultural or political movements, they should be logically allies of the Eurasianism. The Western traditionalists (R. Guenon, for example[11]) were on the side of the East. J.Evola[12] was the partisan of the Western tradition but in absolute opposition to the Modernity and to the USA.

There may be another America, but that does not change anything in general. Another America (not that of the CFR, neocons and “world Carthage”) is virtual. The real America we know well.

 The other thesis of Professor Carvalho also sounds a bit strange to me:

The globalist elite is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries potentially associated to the Eurasian Project, but, on the contrary, it is their collaborator and accomplice in the effort to destroy the sovereignty, the politico-military power and the economy of the United States.

What can that mean? The globalization of the world and the installation everywhere of the American control, including the direct intrusion in the nominally sovereign countries, the promotion of American way of life and the uniformization of the different human societies, accomplished by USA, is considered by the professor as “nothing”, being ignored and forgotten. The contamination of Russian society by decadent consumerist individualist patterns, the support for the anti-Russian regimes in the post-soviet space is nothing. The USA is an absolute plague for the mankind. And the globalist elite is the quintessence of USA, it rules USA and through it in the rest of the world. The globalist elite of the USA is the absolute enemy of the Russia, China and Islamic countries, it corrupts our political elite, the society, the country. For us it is obvious. «The sovereignty, the political-military power and the economy of the United States” are no more than the instruments in the hand of this elite, its accomplices, voluntary or not.

There are many other important and interesting points in the text of Professor Olavo de Carvalho that I would like to discuss in details but I will have stop here and to return to the topic in the next round.

[1] Dumont L. Essais sur l'individualisme. Une perspective anthropologique sur l'idéologie moderne. Paris: Le Seuil, 1983
[2] Dumont L. Homo Æqualis I: genèse et épanouissement de l'idéologie économique. Paris: Gallimard/BSH, 1977.
[3] Dumont L.  Homo Æqualis II: l'Idéologie allemande. Paris: Gallimard/BSH, 1978.
[4] Attali J. Lignes d'horizon. Paris:Fayard, 1990.
[5] Fukuyama Francis. The End Of History and the Last Man. NY:The free press, 1992.
[6] Huntington S. P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
[7] Mackinder H. J. The geographical pivot of history The. Geographical Journal.1904.№ 23, С.421–437; Idem. The Round World and the Winning of the Peace//Foreign Affairs. 1943. Vol. 21& № 4 (July); Idem. Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1996.
[8] Spykman N. The Geography of the Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1944.
[9] Haushofer K. Geopolitik der Pan-Ideen. Berlin: Zentral-Verlag, 1931.
[10] Popper Karl R. The Open Society And Its Enemies. Volumes I and II. NY., 1962
[11] Guenon R. Orient et Occident. Paris, 1976.
[12] Evola J. «La Rivolta contro il mondo moderno». Roma, 1998

Comments, suggestions or criticisms about the debate or about this blog should be sent to with the tag #reader# 

Monday, March 7, 2011

Olavo - Introduction

 "What are the historical, political, ideological and economic factors and actors that now define the dynamics and configuration of power in the world and what is the U.S. position in what is known as New World Order?”

Olavo de Carvalho

Words change their meaning, weight and value according to the situations of speech. Upon entering this debate I must clarify from the outset that it is not a debate at all. The very idea of a debate presupposes as much an opposite symmetry between the contending parties, from the point of view of their convictions, as some direct symmetry of their respective socio-professional status: intellectuals discuss with intellectuals, politicians with politicians, professors with professors, preachers of religion with preachers of atheism, and so forth.

As for convictions, if we understand this term as only general statements about the structure of reality, mine do not differ from Professor Dugin’s in many essential points. Does he believe in God? So do I. Does he think a metaphysics of the absolute is possible? So do I.  Does he wager in a meaning of life? So do I. Does he understand traditions, homeland, and family as the values that must be preserved above supposed economic and administrative conveniences? So do I. Does he see with horror the globalist project of the Rockfellers and Soros? So do I.  It is not possible to organize a debate between two people who are in agreement.

On the contrary, from the viewpoint of the real positions we occupy in society, our differences are so many, so deep and so irreducible that the very proposal of putting us face to face has a certain comic incongruity to it. I am just a philosopher, writer, and professor, committed to the search of what seems to me to be the truth and to educating a group of people who are so kind as to pay attention to what I say.  Neither these people nor I hold any public job.  We do not have any influence on national or international politics. We do not even have the ambition – much less an explicit project – of changing the course of History, whatever it may be.  Our only hope is to know reality to the utmost degree of our strength and one day leave this life aware that we did not live in illusions and self-delusion, that we did not let ourselves be misled and corrupted by the Prince of this World and by the promises of the ideologues, his servants.  In the current power hierarchy of my native country, my opinion is worthless, except maybe as an anti-example and an incarnation of absolute evil, which is a great satisfaction to me.  In the country where I live, the government considers me, on the most hyperbolical hypothesis, an inoffensive eccentric.

No political party, mass movement, government institution, church or religious sect considers me its mentor. So I can give my opinion as I wish, and change my opinion as many times as it seems right to me, with no devastating practical consequences beyond the modest circle of my personal existence.

Now Professor Dugin, the son of a KGB officer and the political mentor of a man who is the very incarnation of the KGB, is the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time – a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents. Saying that Professor Dugin is at the center and pinnacle of power is a simple question of realism.  In order to fulfill his plans, he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his “Eurasian” project. As for myself, besides not having a plan not even for my own retirement, I count only, as far as war resources go, on my dog Big Mac and an old hunting shotgun.

This tremendous existential difference (fully illustrated by the attached photos) makes our opinions, even when their verbal expressions coincide to the letter, signify entirely different things in the framework of our respective goals. The answers to the questions that inspire this debate will show this, I hope, as clearly as the photos do. 

The questions are two: who are the actors in the world scene and what is the position of the United States in it?

As for the first question: aside from Catholic and Protestant Christianity, of which I shall speak later on, the historic forces that today fight for power in the world arrange themselves into three projects of global dominance, which I will provisionally call the “Russian-Chinese,” the “Western” (sometimes mistakenly called “Anglo-American”) and the “Islamic” one.

Each of them has a well documented history, which shows their remote origins, the transformations they have gone through in the course of time and the present state of their implementation.

The agents that personify these projects today are respectively:

1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of those two countries.

2. The Western finance elite, as represented especially in the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

3. The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of several Islamic countries and the some Muslim countries governments.

Of these three agents, only the first one can be conceived of in strictly geopolitical terms, since its plans and actions correspond to well-defined national and regional interests.  The second one, which is more advanced in the implementation of its plans for world government, places itself explicitly above any national interests, including those of the countries where it originated and which serve as its basis for operations. In the third one, conflicts of interests between national governments and the overarching goal of a Universal Caliphate end up always being resolved in favor of the latter, which, though currently existing only as an ideal, enjoys a symbolic authority founded upon Koranic commandments that no Islamic government would dare to overtly challenge.

The conceptions of global power that these three agents strive to implement are very different from one another because they stem from heterogeneous and sometimes incompatible inspirations.

Therefore, they are not similar forces, species of the same genus. They do not fight for the same goals and, when they occasionally resort to the same weapons (for example, economic warfare) they do so in different strategic contexts, where employing such weapons does not necessarily serve the same objectives.

Although nominally the relations among them are of competition and dispute, sometimes even of military nature, there are vast zones of fusion and collaboration, as flexible and changing as they may be. This phenomenon disorients the observers, producing all sorts of misguided and fabulous interpretations, some under the form of “conspiracy theories,” others as self-proclaimed “realistic” and “scientific” refutations of those theories.

A good deal of the nebulosity in the world scene is produced by a more or less constant factor: each one of the three agents tends to interpret in its own terms the plans and actions of the other two,  partly for deliberate propaganda purposes,  partly due to  genuine misunderstanding of the situation.

The strategic analyses from all involved reflect, each of them, the ideological bias that is proper to it. Even though they attempt to take into account the totality of available factors, the Russian-Chinese scheme stresses the geopolitical and military viewpoint, the Western scheme the economic, and the Islamic scheme the dispute among religions.

This difference reflects, on its turn, the sociological composition of the ruling classes in the respective geographical areas:

1) Stemming from the communist Nomenklatura, the Russian-Chinese ruling class is essentially made up of bureaucrats, intelligence service agents and military officers.

2) The preponderance of financiers and international bankers in the Western establishment is too well known and it is not necessary to insist on it.

3) In the various countries of the Islamic complex, the authority of the ruler depends substantially on the approval of the umma – the multitudinous community of authoritative interpreters of the traditional religion. Even though these countries display great variety in their domestic situations, it is not an exaggeration to describe the structure of their ruling power as “theocratic.”

Thus, for the first time in the history of the world, the three essential modalities of power – politico-military, economic and religious – find themselves personified in distinct supranational blocks, each of them with its own plans for world dominance and its peculiar mode of action. This does not mean that they do not act in all fronts, but only that their respective historical views and strategies are ultimately delimited by the modality of power they represent. It’s not far-fetched to say that the world today is the object of a dispute among the military, bankers and preachers.

Even though in current debates these three blocks are almost invariably designated  by names of nations, States and governments,  to depict their interactions as a dispute among nations or national interests is a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us at all to understand the present situation.

It is only in the Russian-Chinese case that the globalist project symmetrically corresponds to national interests, and that the principal agents are the respective States and governments. This is so for the simple reason that the Communist regime, ruling there for decades, has dissolved or eliminated all the other possible agents.  The globalist elite of Russia and China is the government of these two countries.

On its turn, the Western globalist elite does not represent any national interest and does not identify itself with any particular State or government, though it controls several of them. On the contrary, when its interests collide with those of the nations where it originated (and this necessarily happens), it does not hesitate to turn itself against its own homeland, to subjugate it and, if necessary, to destroy it.

Islamic globalists serve, in principle, the general interests of all Muslim States, united in the grand project of a Universal Caliphate. Divergences arising from clashes of national interests (as for example between Iran and Saudi Arabia) have not proved sufficient to open incurable wounds in the unity of the long-term Islamic project. The Muslim Brotherhood, main leader of the process, is a transnational organization: it governs some countries and in others it is the political opposition party, but its influence is omnipresent in the Islamic world.

The heterogeneity and asymmetry of the three blocks is reflected in the image that they have of each other, as it becomes manifest in their propaganda speeches – a system of errors suggesting that the fate of the world is in the hands of delirious madmen:

1. The Russian-Chinese perspective (enlarged today under the form of Eurasianism, which will be one of the topics of this debate) describes the Western block as (a) a global expansion of American national power; (b) the materialized expression of the “open society” liberal ideology, such as eminently proposed by Sir Karl Popper; (c) the living incarnation of the Enlightenment’s materialist, scientistic and rationalist mentality, and therefore the enemy par excellence of all traditional spirituality.

2. Western globalism declares it does not have any enemies other than “terrorism” – which it does not identify at all with the Islamic block, describing it a residue of barbaric beliefs on the way to extinction – and “fundamentalism,” a notion that indistinctly blends the ideological spokesmen of Islamic terrorism and the “Christian right,” as if it the latter were an ally of the former and not one of its main victims. This way, fear of Islamic terrorism is used as a pretext to justify the official boycott to the Christian religion in Europe and in the United States!  Russia and China are never presented as possible aggressors, but as allies of the West. In the worst case, China is portrayed as a trade competitor. In short: the ideology of Western globalism speaks as if it already personified an established universal consensus, opposed only by slightly insane marginal and religious groups

3. The Islamic block describes its Western enemy in terms that only reveal its disposition to hate it per fas et per nefas, presenting it sometimes as the heir to the ancient Crusaders and sometimes as the personification of modern materialism and hedonism. The generous collaboration of Russian and China with terrorist groups is certainly the reason why these two countries are non-existent in the Islamic ideological discourse.  This way, incurable theoretical incompatibilities are circumvented.  Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one.

In the same measure as each of the three blocks cultivates a false image of their competitors, so does each of them also project a false image of itself.  Leaving aside for now the Islamic and Western projective fantasies, let’s address the Russian-Chinese ones.

The Russian-Chinese block presents itself as an ally of the United States in the “fight against terrorism,” while at the same time it provides weapons and all sorts of support to practically all terrorist organizations of the world and to the anti-American regimes of Iran, Venezuela, etc., and spreads the legend that the attack on the World Trade Center was the work of the American government.[1]Russia complains that she was “corrupted” by Boris Yeltsin’s liberal reforms, of American inspiration, as if before them she lived in a temple of purity and not in the endless rot of the Communist regime. It is worth recalling that the Soviet government lived essentially out of theft and extortion for over 60 years without ever having to account for it. At the same time, it corrupted its population through the institutionalized habit of kickbacks, exchange of political favors and influence peddling, without which the state machinery would simply not work.[2]  When its assets were allotted after the official dissolution of the regime, those benefitted were the members of the nomenklatura  themselves, who became billionaires overnight, without severing the ties that united them to the old state apparatus, especially to the KGB (“there is no such thing as former KGB,” confessed Vladimir Putin). Imagine what would have happened in Germany after WWII if the winners, instead of prosecuting and punishing the supporters of the old regime, had awarded them access to the assets of the Nazi State.  That is exactly what happened in Russia: as soon as the USSR was officially dissolved, its agents of influence in Europe and in the United States launched a successful operation to block any investigation of Soviet crimes.[3] Nobody was ever punished for the murder of at least tens of millions of civilians and for the creation of the most efficient machinery of state terror known to mankind. On the contrary: the chaos and corruption that followed the dismantling of the Soviet State were not caused by the new system of free enterprise, but by the fact that the first to benefit from it were the masters of the old regime, a horde of thieves and murderers as never before seen in any civilized country.

There’s more: while whining about being corrupted by American capitalism, Russia forgets that it was she who corrupted it.  Since the 1930s the Stalin government, aware that the strength of America resided in “its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life” (sic), unleashed a gigantic operation, in the words of its main perpetrator, Willi Münzenberg, designed to “make the West so corrupt it stinks.” The purchase of consciences, the involvement of high-level officers in espionage and shady businesses, the intense propaganda campaigns to debilitate the moral beliefs of the population and the generalized infiltration in the educational system ended up producing results particularly after the 1960s, radically modifying American society to the point of rendering it unrecognizable.

It was also the Soviet action that gave planetary dimensions to drug-trafficking since the 1950s. Its history is well documented in Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West, by Joseph D. Douglass.  When Russia wails that after the fall of Communism she was invaded by the drug culture, she is simply harvesting what it sowed.

Nothing of this vast corrupting action is a thing of the past. Nowadays there are more Russian agents in the United States than during the Cold War.[4]China, well-fed by American investments, gives evidence that the apparent liberalization of its economy was only a cover-up for maintaining the totalitarian regime, ever more solid and seemingly indestructible.

As for the position of the United States in the world scene, let us first take a look at how Prof. Dugin describes it, and then see how it is in reality.

According to the Eurasian doctrine, the United States are the incarnation, par excellence, of liberal globalism.[5]  Liberalism as Prof. Dugin sees in the face of America is, essentially, the one of the “open society” advocated by Sir Karl Popper. This is how Prof. Dugin summarizes the liberal idea:

“To understand the philosophical consistency of the national-Bolshevik ideology... it is absolutely necessary to read the fundamental book of Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies.

“Popper developed a fundamental typology for our subject. According to him, the history of humanity and the history of ideas divide themselves in two (unequal) halves. On the one hand, there are the partisans of the ‘open society,’ which represents in his view the form of normal existence of rational individuals (so are for him all men), who base their conduct upon reasoning and the supposedly free personal will. The sum of such individuals must logically form the ‘open society, essentially ‘non-totalitarian, since it lacks any unifying idea or value system of a collectivist nature, be it supra-individual or non-individual. The ‘open society’ is open precisely because it ignores all ‘teleologies,’ all ‘absolutes,’ all established typological differences; therefore it ignores all limits that emanate from the non-individual and non-rational domain (supra-rational, a-rational, or irrational, the latter being the more frequent term in Popper).

“On the other hand, there is the ideological camp of the ‘enemies of open society, where Popper includes Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, the medieval Schoolmen, as well as the German philosophy of Schlegel, Fichte, and above all of Hegel and Marx.  Karl Popper… points the essential unity of their approaches and discerns the structure of their common Weltanschauung, whose characteristic traits are the denial of the intrinsic value of the individual, whence stems the loathe for autonomous rationalism, and the tendency to submission of the individual and his reason to the ‘non-individual’ and ‘non-rational’ values, which always and fatally, according to Popper, leads to the apology of dictatorship and political totalitarianism. (…)

“National-Bolsheviks…accept absolutely and without reservations Popper’s dualist view and are totally in agreement with his classification. However, in contrast, they consider themselves to be the resolute enemies of the ‘open society’ and their philosophical foundations, that is, the primacy of the individual, the value of rational reasoning, the progressive social liberalism, egalitarian atomic numeric democracy, free criticism, the Cartesian-Kantian Weltanschauung…”[6]

As for globalism:

“Nowadays, it is evident that the World State conceived as a World Market is not a distant or chimerical perspective, because that liberal doctrine [Karl Popper’s] is little by little becoming the governing idea of our civilization. And this presupposes the final destruction of nations, as vestiges of a bygone era, as the last hurdle to the irresistible expansion of globalization…The globalist doctrine is the perfect and finished expression of the ‘open society’ model.”[7]

Therefore, liberal globalism is the project in progress that aims to establish throughout the world the Popperian model of the “open society,” necessarily destroying on its way national sovereignties and every metaphysical or moral principle that aspires to be superior to individual rationality. It is the end of nations and of all traditional spirituality, the former substituted for a global scientific-technocratic administration, the latter by a mix of scientism, materialism and relativistic subjectivism that inspires the globalist elites of the West.

Being the United States the main radiating focus of this project, and Russia its main focus of resistance (for motives we shall see later), the clash is inevitable:

“The main thesis of the neo-Eurasianism is that the struggle between Russia and the United States is inevitable, since the United States is the engine of globalization seeking to destroy Russia, the fortress of spirituality and tradition.”[8]

I made a point of quoting with some detail my opponent’s opinion because, though I do not consider it to be false with respect to the mentality of globalist elites, which are really inspired on Popperian ideals, I can prove with a narrow margin of error that:

1. The description cannot in any way be applied to the United States, a nation where Popperianism is a recent implant, with no local roots and totally hostile to American traditions.

2. The United States are not the command center of the globalist project, but on the contrary, its priority victim, marked to die. 

3. The globalist elite is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries potentially associated to the Eurasian project, but, on the contrary, it is their collaborator and accomplice in the effort to destroy the sovereignty, the politico-military power and the economy of the United States.

4. Far from favoring free-enterprise capitalism, the globalist project has supported statist and controlling policies everywhere. And in this, it does not differ from the interventionism advocated by the Eurasianists.  Globalism is only “liberal” in the local sense that the term has in the United States, as a synonym for “leftist.” The globalist project is a direct heir and continuator of Fabian socialism, a traditional ally of the Communists.  Popperian ideology itself is not liberal-capitalist, in the sense of classical liberalism, but above all else “a ‘test and evaluate’ approach to social engineering.”[9]

5. Eurasianism turns against the Popperian “open society” as an abstract ideological model.  However, as Eurasianism is not only an abstract ideological model, but a geopolitical strategy, it is obvious that it fires at the Popperian ideology to reach, behind it, a specific national power, that of the United States, which has nothing to do with the Popperian ideology and can only expect evil from it.  Even worse: American nationalism is a powerful Christian resistance to the globalist ambitions which have been trying to take over the country in order to destroy it as an autonomous power and use it as a tool for their essentially anti-national plans. The destruction of American power will remove the last reasonable hurdle to the establishment of a world government. Then all that will be left is the sharing of the spoils among the three globalist schemes, the Western, the Russian-Chinese and the Islamic one.

6. Russia is not at all the “fortress of spirituality and tradition,” appointed by a celestial mandate to castigate the flesh the United States for the sins of the immoral and materialist West.  Today as in Stalin’s time, Russia is a den of corruption and wickedness as never before seen, one dedicated to the spreading of its mistakes around the world, as announced in the prophecy of Fatima.  It should be noted that this prophecy never referred particularly to Communism, but to “the errors of Russia” in a generic way, and it announced that the dissemination of these errors, with all its ensuing retinue of disgrace and suffering, would only cease if the Pope and all Catholic bishops of the world perform the rite of the consecration of Russia.  Since this rite has never been carried out, there is no reason not to see in the Eurasian project a second wave and an upgrade of the “errors of Russia,” the announcement of a catastrophe of incalculable proportions.

7. If Russia today, through the lips of Prof. Dugin, presents itself to the world as the bearer of a great saving spiritual message, it is necessary to recall that she has done it twice before: (a) In the nineteenth century, all the thinkers of the Slavophile stripe, as Dostoewsky, Soloviev and Leontiev, saw the West as the source of all evils and announced that in the following century Russia would teach the world “true Christianity.” What happened was that all this spiritual arrogance was impotent to detain the advance of communist materialism in Russia herself. (b) Russian communism promised to bring to the world an era of peace, prosperity and freedom beyond the most beautiful dreams of previous generations.  All it managed to do was to create a totalitarian inferno of which neither Attila nor Genghis-Kahn could have caught a glimpse in a nightmare.

It would be wonderful if each country learned how to heal its own evils before pretending to be the savior of humanity. Alexandre Dugin’s Russia seems to have taken the opposite lesson from her crimes and failures.

[1] See my article “Suggestion to clear thinkers: check into an asylum,” Diário do Comércio, January 30 2002, at
[2] See Konstantin Simis, URSS: The Corrupt Society: The Secret World of Soviet Capitalism, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1982, and Alena V. Ledeneva, Russia`s Economy of Favours, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[3] See Vladimir Boukovski, Jugement à Moscou.
[4] See:
[5] The two elements that this definition fuses into a unity do not have the same origin, and were not friendly to each other at birth. The first liberal movements of the nineteenth century, coming on the top of the wave of independence movements against the colonial powers, were highly nationalistic, and the first projects for global government that appeared in the beginning of the twentieth century were inspired by notoriously interventionist and statist ideas.
[6] Alexandre Douguine, “La métaphysique du national-bolchevisme,” Le Prophète de l’Eurasisme, Paris, Avatar Éditions, 2006, pp. 131-133.
[7] Id., p. 138.
[8] Vadim Volovoj, “Will the prediction of A. Dugin come true?,” in Geopolitika, 10.11.2008,  at
[9] Ed Evans, “Do you really know this person?” at

Comments, suggestions or criticisms about the debate or about this blog should be sent to with the tag #reader# 

Dugin - Introduction

"What are the historical, political, ideological and economic factors and actors that now define the dynamics and configuration of power in the world and what is the U.S. position in what is known as New World Order?”

By Alexandr Dugin  

The World Order questioned

New World Order as a concept was popular in a concrete historical momentum – precisely that when the Cold War ended (late 80’s, Gorbatchev era) and the global cooperation between the USA and Soviet Union was considered near and very probable. The basis of NWO was presumably realization of the convergence theory predicting the synthesis of Soviet socialist and Western capitalist political forms and near cooperation of the Soviet Union and USA in the case of regional issues – for example first Gulf War in the beginning of 1991. Hence, as the Soviet Union split soon after, this project of NWO was naturally set aside and forgotten.

After 1991 the other World Order was considered as something being created under our eyes – Unipolar World with open global hegemony of USA. It is described well in Fukuyama’s political utopia “End of history”. This World Order ignored any other poles of power except the USA and its allies (first of all Europe and Japan) and was thought as universalization of free market economy, political democracy and human rights ideology as global pattern accepted by all countries in the world.  

The skeptics thought that it was rather illusion and the differences between the countries and people would reappear in other forms (for example, in the famous clash of civilizations of S. Huntington or ethnic or religious conflicts). Some experts regarded unipolarity not as the properly speaking World Order but as the unipolar momentum (J.Mearsheimer). In any case, what is questioned in all these projects is National Statehood. The Westphalian system did not correspond any more to the present global balance of powers. New actors of transnational or subnational scale affirm their growing importance and that was clear that the World was in need of new paradigm of International Relations.

So our actual contemporary world cannot be regarded as properly realized NWO. There is no definitive World Order of any kind at present. There is a Transition from the World Order we knew in XX century to the some other paradigm whose full features rest to define. Will the future be really global? Or the regionalist tendencies will win? Will there be a unique Order? Or there will be different local or regional Orders? Or may be we are going to deal with World Chaos? It is not clear yet, the Transition is not accomplished. We are living in the middle of it.

If the global elite (first of all the United States political elite) has the clear vision of the desired future (that is rather doubtful), even so the circumstances can prevent the realization of it in practice. If the global elite lack the consensual project – the issue is much more complicated. 

So only the fact of Transition to some new paradigm is certain. The paradigm as such is on the contrary quite uncertain.

World Order from USA point of view

USA position in this shift is absolutely assured but the future of USA is under question. The USA undergoes now the test of global imperial rule and they have to deal with many challenges – some of them quite new and original. They could proceed in three different ways:

1)  Creating an American Empire strictu sensu with a consolidated technically and socially developed central area (Imperial Core) while the outer spaces would keep divided and fragmentized in the state of permanent unrest (near the chaos); it seems the neo-cons are in favor of such a pattern.

2)   Creating multilateral unipolarity where the USA would cooperate with other friendly powers (Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, Israel – possibly other countries) in solving the regional problems and making pressure on the «rogue countries» (Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Northern Korea) or on the hesitating counties striving to assure their own regional independence (China, Russia and so on); it seems that democrats and Obama are inclined to do so;

3)       Promoting accelerated globalization with the creation of World Government and swift desovereignization of the National States in favor of creation of United States of the World ruled by the global elite on the legal terms (that is the CFR project represented by the strategy of George Soros and his foundations; the colored revolutions are viewed here as the most effective weapon destabilizing and finally destroying States).

       It seems that USA tries to go by these three ways simultaneously promoting all three strategies at the same time. This three directions strategy of USA creates the global context in International Relations, USA being the key actor on the global scale. Beyond the evident differences of these three images of future they have some essential points in common. In any case USA is interested in affirming its strategic, economical and political domination; in strengthening of the control or other global actors and in weakening them; in gradual or accelerated desovereignization of now more or less independent States; in the promotion of “universal” values reflecting the values of Western world (the liberal democracy, parlamentarism, free market, humans rights and so on).

So we are in the contemporary world in strong and permanent geopolitical field where in the Core is situated USA and where the rays of its influences (strategic, economical, political, technological, informational and so on) permeate all the rest of the World depending of the grade of the will to accept it in the case of different countries, ethnic or religious ambiances. It is a kind of “global imperial network” operating on a planetary scale.
This USA-centric global geopolitical field can be described on different levels:

Historically: The USA considers itself to be the logical conclusion and the peak of the Western civilization. In the ancient terms it was presented as the Manifest Destiny of USA. Now they speak in the terms of human rights, promotion of the democracy and of technology, free market institutions and so on. But in the essence, we deal with a new edition of the Western universalism that passed by Roman Empire, Medieval Christianity, the Modernity (with the Enlightenment and colonization) and up to present day postmodernism and ultra-individualism. The history is considered to be univocal (monotone) process of technological and social progress, the way of growing liberation of individuals from all kind of collective identities. The tradition and conservatism are regarded as the obstacles for the freedom and should be rejected. The USA is in vanguard of this historical progress and has the right and obligation (mission!) to move the history further and further. The historical existence of USA coincides with the course of the human history. So “American” means “universal”. The other cultures have only an American future or no future at all.

Politically: there are very important trends in World politics that define the Transition. We watch the passage from the liberalism becoming global and only possible political option (as the peak of the political thought of Modernity won the victory over alternative political doctrines – fascism and socialism) to the post-modern and post-individual concept of politics (generally described as post-humanism). The USA plays again here the key role. The politics promoted by USA globally is liberal democracy. So USA supports the globalization of the liberalism preparing thus the next step to the political post-modernity (described in the famous book of A.Negri and M.Hardt “Empire”). There is some distance between liberal ultra-individualism and properly postmodern post-humanism (promoting the cyborgs, genetic modification, cloning and the chimeras), but in the periphery of the World we have the common tendency – the accelerated destruction of any holistic social entities, the fragmentation and atomization of society included in the technology (internet, mobile phones and so on) where the principle actor is strictly individual and excerpt from the natural and social context. There is important testimony of dual use of promotion of democracy explicitly described in the article of American military and political expert Stephen R. Mann[1] who affirms that democracy can work as self-generating virus strengthening the existent and historically rife democratic societies but destroying and immersing in chaos the traditional societies not properly prepared for it. So democracy is thought to be an effective weapon to create the chaos and to govern the dissipating world cultures from the Core emulating and installing everywhere the democratic codes. We see how it works in the last events in the Arabic countries. After the accomplishing the full fragmentation of the societies to the individual atoms there will begin the second phase: the division of the individuals themselves on the parts and new (genetic, for example) combinations of the elements in the way of post-human creativity. That can be described as the post-politics as the last horizon of the political futurism. 

Ideologically: There is the tendency in the case of the USA to link more the ideology and politics in the zone of the periphery. Before, USA acted on the basis of the pure realism: if the regimes were pro-USA they were tolerated with no regards of their ideological principles. The Saudi Arabia represents the net example of that. So some features of the double morality were ideologically accepted. It seems that recently the USA have began to try to deepen the democracy, supporting popular revolts in Egypt and Tunis whose chiefs were trustfully friends of USA being at the same time corrupted dictators. The double standards in the ideology is vanishing and the deepening of democracy progresses. The culminant point will be reached in the case of the probable unrest in the Saudi Arabia. In this moment this trend of promoting the democracy on the ideological basis – including in the politically difficult circumstances – will be tested.

Economically: the USA economy is challenged by the Chinese growth, the energy issue, the critical disproportion between the financial sector and the zone of real industry. The overgrowth of American financial institutes and the delocalization of the industry have created the discontinuity between the sphere of the money and the sphere of the classical capitalist balance of the industry and demands. It was the main cause of the financial crisis of 2008. The Chinese economical politics tries to reaffirm its independence in front of the USA global strategy and once can become the main factor of the competition. The Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan and some other relatively independent (from USA) countries control over the huge amount of the natural resources puts the limits to the American economical influence. The economy of European Community and the Japanese economic potential represent the two poles of competition inside the strategic partners and military allies of USA. So the USA tries to solve all these problems using not only purely economic instruments but also politics and sometimes military power. We could interpret in this manner the intrusion in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possible intervention in Libya, Iran and Syria. Indirectly promoting opposition in Russia, Iran and Chine and trying to cause some problems with Turkey and radical Islamism in general for Europe USA wants to reach the same goal. But these are only technical solutions. The main challenge is how organize the post-modern and financially-centered economy with granted growth overcoming the more and more critical gap between the real sector and the financial instruments whose logic become more and more autonomous. 

So we have observed the main and asymmetric actor USA situated in the center of the present Transition state of world affairs. This actor represents the true hyperpower (H.Vidrine) and the strongest geopolitical field (that includes all the levels revised before) is structured around this American Core, representing its multilevel networks. The question can be raised here: is this actor fully conscious of what it does and whether it understand well what he will obtain in the end; which kind of Order it is going to get? It seems that the opinions on this most important point are divided: the neocons proclaim the New American Century being optimistic as to the future American Empire. But in their case it is obvious that they have clear (that doesn’t mean necessary realistic) vision of the future (American, more precisely North-American future). In this case the World Order will be American Imperial Order based on the unipolar geopolitics. At least theoretically is has some positive point: it is clear and honest. 

The multilateralists are more cautious and insist on the necessity to invite the other regional powers to share with the USA the burden of the planetary rule. It is obvious that only similar (regarding the USA) societies can be partners, so the success of promoting democracy becomes here the essential care. The multilateralists act not only in the name of USA but also in the name of the West, considered as something universal. The image of the future World Order is foggier. The fate of the global democracy is misty and not so clearly defined as the image of American Empire. 

Yet hazier is the extreme version of promoters of accelerated globalization. It could effectively overthrow the existing national states but in some cases it will only open the way to much more archaic, local, religious or ethnic forces. So the earth-scale open society is such fantastic a perspective that it is much easier to imagine the total chaos and the war of everybody against everybody. 

So the image of the future World Order differs with regard to the group of American ideologists and decision makers. More consequent strategy is at the same time more ethnocentric, openly imperialistic and hegemonic. It is unipolar World Order. The other two versions are much more dim and uncertain. Up to certain point they can give way to world disorder. They are called summarily “non-polar” (R. Haass).

So the Transition in question, in any case, is Americano-centric by its nature and the global geopolitical field is structured so that main global processes would be moderated, orientated, directed and sometimes controlled by the unique actor performing its work lonely or with the help of the essentially pro-American Western (or at least pro-Western) allies.

The World Order from the non-USA point of view

The Americano-centric world perspective described above being the most important and central as global tendency is not the only one possible. There can be and there are the alternative visions of World architecture that can be taken into consideration. There are secondary and tertiary actors that are inevitable losers in the case of the success of USA-strategy: the countries, states, peoples, cultures that would loose all and gain nothing when the USA strategy realizes. They are multiple and heterogeneous. We could group them in the different categories.

1) The first category is composed by the more or less successful national States that are not happy to let their independence to the supranational exterior authority – not in the form of open American hegemony, nor in the Western-centered kind of World Government, nor in the chaotic dissolution. There are many of such a countries – beginning from China, Russia, Iran, India, including many Southern American and Islamic States. They don’t like the Transition at all, suspecting (with good reasons) the inevitable loss of the sovereignty. So they are inclined to resist the main trends of the planetary Americano-centric geopolitical field or adapt to it in such a manner that it would be possible to avoid the logical consequences of the success of American general strategy (it doesn’t make difference whether imperialistic or globalist). The will of the conservation of the sovereignty represents the natural contradiction and the point of resistance in front of the pro-American (or globalist) trends. These countries in general hardly possess the alternative vision of the future World Order. What they want - it is to preserve the status quo and national States in the present form adjusting and modernizing them if necessary. Between the members of this national Statehood clubs there are three kinds of actors: 1) those who try to adapt their societies to the Western standards and to keep friendly relations with the West and USA, but to avoid the direct desovereignization (India, Turkey, Brazil, up to the certain point Russia, Kazakhstan);

2) Those who are ready to cooperate with USA but under condition of the non-interference in their inner affairs (Arabia Saudi, Pakistan and so on);

3) Those who, cooperating with USA, strictly observe the particularity of their society making permanent filtration of what is compatible in Western culture with domestic culture or what is not, at the same time trying to use the dividends received by this cooperation to the strengthening of nation independence (China);

4)  Those who try to oppose the USA directly rejecting the Western values, the unipolarity and the USA hegemony (Iran, Venezuela, North Korea).

All these groups lack the global alternative strategy that could be symmetrically comparable with the American (there is not even a consensual or clear) vision of the future. Everybody acts by themselves and in their own direct interests. The difference consists only in the radicalism of the rejection of Americanization. We could define their position as reactive. This strategy of reactive opposition varying from the rejection to adaptation is sometimes effective, sometimes it is not. In sum it doesn't give any kind of future vision. The future of the World Order is considered as eternal conservation of status quo – Modernity, national Statehood, Westphalian systems, current ONU configuration and so on.

The Second category of actors who reject the Transition consists of subnational groups, movements and organizations that oppose Americanism as the structures of the global geopolitical field by ideological, religious or cultural reasons. These groups are quite different and vary from one concrete state to another. They are mostly based on the religious faith incompatible with the secular doctrine of americanization, westernization and globalization. But they could be motivated by the ethnical or ideological (for example, socialist or communist) doctrines. Some other act on the regionalist grounds. The paradox is that in the globalization ambiance that aims to uniform all particularities and collective identities on the basis of purely individual identity, such subnational actors easily become transnational – the same religions and ideologies being present in different countries and national States. So in these circles we could find some alternative vision of the future World Order that can be opposed to the Transition and its structures.

We can roughly summarize the different ideas of some of the most important sub-national/trans-national groups:

1) The most famous one is the islamist world vision which represents the utopia of Islamic World State (Global Caliphate). This project is as opposed to the American architecture as to the status quo of the modern national States. Bin Laden is the symbol of such a trend of ideas and the two towers of New-York World Trade Center 9/11 are the prove of the importance and seriousness of such a network. 

 2) The other project can be defined as neo-socialist plan represented in the South American Left and personally by Hugo Chavez. This is roughly a new edition of Marxist critic of capitalism strengthened by nationalist emotion and in some cases (Bolivia, Zapatistas) ethnic sentiments. Some Arab regimes (as Libya of Kaddhafi until recently) can be considered in the same line. The next World Order here is presented as global socialist revolution preceded by the anti-USA liberation campaigns in every country. The Transition is identified by this group as the incarnation of classic imperialism criticized by Lenin. 

 3) The third example of such kind can be found in the Eurasian Project (aka “multipolar”, aka “great spaces”) proposing the alternative model of World Order based on the principle of civilizations and great spaces. It presupposes the creation of different transnational political strategic and economic entities united by community of civilization and main (in some cases religious in some – secular and cultural) values. They should consist of integrated States and represent the poles of the multipolar world. European Union could be example of such a form. There can be also Eurasian Union (project of Kazakhstan’s President N.Nazarbayev), Islamic Union, the South-American Union, Chinese Union, the Indian Union, Pan-Pacific Union and so on. The North-American great space can be regarded as one of the several other more or less equal poles, nothing more. 

We could add some other theories but they are of smaller scale. 

There is, in the present state of affair, a serious gap between the national States and ideological movements mentioned above operating on the different levels. So the national States lack the vision, and movements lack sufficient infrastructure to put their ideas in practice. If we imagine that, in some circumstances, that gap could be bridged, the alternative to the Transition and to the Americano- or Western-centric tendencies (taken in consideration the demographical, economical and strategic weight of the Non-Western world) will obtain the realistic shape and can be regarded seriously as consequent and theoretically founded plan of concrete future Order. 

[1] Stephen R. Mann Chaos Theory and Strategc Thought/ Parameters 2U3, Autumn, 1992.

Comments, suggestions or criticisms about the debate or about this blog should be sent to with the tag #reader#