Question 1)

The July 19 edition of the Turkish newspaper Milliyet features an op-ed by

United Nations Secretary-General Gueterres, where he expresses the following
view: “Above all, we cannot return to the system that has caused the current
crisis. What we need is to build a better system that allows for the growth of
societies and economies with greater sustainability, inclusivity, and gender
equality”. What kind of a New World Order do you think humanity needs? What
is to be done to achieve such a goal?

Answer 1)

So Gueterres says: “we cannot return to the system that has caused the
current crisis. What we need is to build a better system that allows for the
growth of societies and economies with greater sustainability, inclusivity, and
gender equality”. I think these are pure senseless words. Not real thoughts.
Current crisis is logical phase of the decay of global liberal system with
clear leadership of the West. That is going in its way. It is a kind of liberal
hegemony doubled by geopolitical unipolarity. So the crisis is caused by the
Western liberalism and unipolar Western system.
We all in some sense are “the West”. The western modern liberal
civilization is a kind of pattern example to follow to for all other societies. And I
think that precisely the problem with this present day crisis is direct
consequence of the impossibility to overcome the coronavirus on global scale
basing on the international institutions that proved to be utterly uneffective.
This economic crisis, the fall of general demand, the crash of the oil
prices and beginning of real civil war in the US, all that put together, represents
a kind of a clear sign of the end of the western-centred world. So, that is
important.
 That is the double-faced crisis. On one side, we see the liberalism as a
historical social vision, as philosophy. It is not only economic liberalism, the
defense of free market or political liberal democracy, parlamentarianism and so
on. It is metaphysical understanding of the nature of the humankind as mass of
individuals. For liberalism, the man is equal to individual. That is the basis of all
liberal ideology as well as progress, understood as accumulation of liberty. More
and more liberty, more and more progress in the eyes of liberals themselves is
just the same as the progress and growth of liberalism. With this growth of
liberalism, the West affirmed its own hegemony, its own domination.
In order to be more modern, developed and prosperous you are obliged to
be more liberal, more liberal democratic, to have more open society, more civil
society. In that global context the West itself has secured or thought to secure
for itself a kind of leading role, as a pattern to follow. The history of the West is
presumed to be equivalent to the universal destiny of humanity. On this
ideological level the liberalism is thought as necessary universal ideology that
should be in obligatory way adapted by all. If you resist you will be put among
“rogue countries” with all the consequences, war and regime change operations.
Political ideology of globalist liberalism is doubled with other aspect, with
geopolitical, economical and political leadership of the Western countries and
about all of the US.
So we have on one side ideological unipolarity with domination of
liberals. On the other side, we have geopolitical, military, political, strategical
and economical unipolarity of the West. That is the system where we still are we
link in.
The crisis, we are speaking of, is precisely the crisis of this unipolar
geopolitical/ideological system. When United Nations Secretary-General
Guterres says that “we should build a better system” and immediately after he
explains that he means “growth of societies and economies” he rests totally
inside the liberal paradigm. Economical growth in liberal theory is the main
measure to define the success of economical activity. The concept of economical
growth is thus pure liberal. That is the system we already have. But Guterres just
one line before affirmed that “we need to build a better system”. Guterres
proposes to cure crisis, created by liberalism, with more liberalism, with “more
growth of economy” On the other hand, the concept of “greater sustainability” is
the thesis developed of the Club of Rome’s. Very idea of sustainable
development is promoted by left liberalism and it means that riches should take
care about poor in order to avoid proletarian revolutions and all kind of social
protests. That is Fabian society style of political agenda. Finally, the same Club
of Rome who pretended to promote sustainable development insisted on the
reduction of human population of the planet, stressing the limits of the growth.
So Guterres should choose: either growths of economy (classical liberal thesis)
or Club of Rome’s type of sustainability.
Next point: inclusivity. The main problem with that inclusivity consists in
the fact that Western culture can not imagine Other outside of himself. The
Western Cartesian subject considers as “Other” as its own unconsciousness.
According to Lacan, it is some entity, some unconscious subject that lives inside
of Western man. So when we speak about inclusivity with western man, he
naturally means precisely this kind of inclusivity – i.e. concerning his own
unconscious self. The psychoanalysis helps us to understand why the West is so
deeply racist. It is racist including when he obliges all to fight racism – it is
obligatory because of the fact the West itself has decided to do that… So liberal
anti-racism itself is Western-centric and profoundly racist. The Other for the
West belongs to its own unconsciousness. So it is pathogenic and pathological.
Finally, gender equality, that is last and more stupid point. To get to the
real gender equality, we need to destroy the gender as such. Because the
relations between man and woman are based on asymmetry, i.e. precisely on the
absence of the equality, on the non-equality, and non-equivalence, to use the
terms of Jacques Lacan. To proclaim gender equality is to destroy man and
woman as such. It was realistically described in “Cyborg manifesto” of famous
modern feminist Donna Haraway
So, what we have in this statement? “We need the better system”, says
Guterres. That means we need more liberalism for growth of economy, in the
same time we need more limits of growth with Club of Rome concept of
sustainability, more inclusivity of the unconscious Other (that means we need
more ego-centric, western-centric racism, that totally absorbs its own psychic
diseases – capitalist neurosis or post-modernist psychosis) and we need to
destroy the gender. The phrase of UN Secretary-General, Guterres, is thus
extremely senseless and deeply contradictory. So, that is idiotic speech of
someone who does not understand a bit of the meaning of the concept of words.
People like that try to build better system based on the premises as existing one.
How to cure liberalism in decay with more liberalism adding with some
elements of Deleuzian far left post-modernism and cyberfeminism? It seems we
need to mix liberalism with elements of Fabianism, anarchism and cultural
marxism. To hear Guterres is the same as to be put in some psychiatric clinic.
What he says is the symptom, not correct formulating the problem not to speak
about diagnosis or choice of the cure.
The problem is not Guterres personally. The problem is global elite,
liberal elite desperately insisting to cure all the logical disaster and crises
proceeding from liberalism with more liberalism, with the same liberalism
mixed with extravagant post-modernist concepts.
I think, we are already in this new world order if we follow the description
of Guterres. If we understand new world order as the continuation of liberal
globalization, we need not to improve and embellish it, but get out of it, get rid
of it – of all these idiots as Guterres, as United Nations officials, as global liberal
elites. They try to cure us with poison, to cure all the crises made by domination
of liberal ideology with more liberalism. We need liberate ourselves all the
people, Turkish people, Russian people, Chinese people, European people,
American people from this international liberal Swamp.
We need to liberate ourselves from this totalitarian discourse constructed
on the “self evident” dogma that there is only liberalism to be accepted as
universal ideology, there are only Western values that should be assimilated as
something universal. They try to improve now some technical functional
problems of their system with just the same approach. We need real alternative
to Guterres, to United Nations, to liberalism, to western modern technological
civilization. It is the civilization of the hell. We need to find the way out of it,
not to go deeper in it.

Question 2)
Your portrayal of Eurasia and Eurasianism carries within it something more than
a mere geographical description. It also extends to the political alliance of all
those opposed to the Atlanticist world order. In this regard, how would you
interpret the China-proposed Belt & Road Initiative from a Eurasianist
perspective?

Answer 2)

First of all, the Belt & Road Initiative started as a kind of Atlanticist
project, conceived by Chinese elite with the help of American globalists.
Initially idea was to create a direct tie between China and Western Europe
linking together all coastal area in order to avoid geopolitically Russia,, to
encircle Russia and to cut it from access to the warm seas. That is always
traditional geopolitics of Atlanticists. That project, the Belt & Road Initiative
started precisely as such. China thought that it was very good opportunity to
develop and to secure its markets as well to promote its own political and
economical interests in outside of the China. Western globalist elites supported
that because the project excluded Russia.
But many things have changed in some last years.
First of all, China became so powerful, so independent, so sovereign that
began to represent a new challenge to the globalists themselves, to the West.
China became the second pole. Observing that China becomes more and more
independent, the part of globalist/ western elite started to attack China. Now, we
see how with this Huawei, with Trump’s campaign in order to get out all
Chinese assets from US, with the closure of mutual consulates in USA and in
China. We see economic war with China.
So these changes have put the Belt & Road Initiative in geopolitically new
context.
Little by little China came to the conclusion on necessity to include
Russia in the Belt & Road Initiative, transforming this in united Eurasianist
Initiative. So the whole project started to be changed into “Eurasian road”.
Initially it was conceived as an Atlanticist project, trying to encircle with
“cordon sanitaire” (they say in geopolitics that “cordon sanitaire “ is important
tool to separate Russia from neighbor countries) but with the growth of China
and with insistence to defend and to enlarge Russian sovereignty by Putin, Belt
& Road Initiative in last two years was transformed in something new. Now it
represents rather the strategy to secure Chinese independence and Russian
independence working together, in alliance. That was confirmed by Russian-
Chinese recent agreement.
So, the meaning of the Belt & Road Initiative has drastically changed and
now I think that we could speak about Russian-Chinese alliance as geopolitical
alliance oppose to Atlanticist world order, to the unipolarity.
 Initially BRI was supported by the West, but now, it is rather under attack.
The West tries to use Japan and India in order to reduce importance of this
project sometimes by trying to directly sabotage it.

Question 3)
Many of your publications point to the need for Russia to cooperate with China,
Turkey and Iran against Atlanticist globalization. However, there are also those,
from various circles, who argue against your view that: “Historically speaking,
Russia, Turkey, Iran and China are geopolitical rivals. They all possess
contradicting national interests and geostrategic goals.” How can one
accommodate these countries’ interests and reconcile their diverging goals?

Answer 3)

Every national State, taken as such, is rival to other national States.

That is that very foundation of national State -- egoistic, realistic attitude. So
from realist point of view the rivalry, competition and conflicts are always
possible. We could never exclude them a priori. They are logical consequence
from the very principle of sovereignty.
But on the other hand, Atlanticist globalization, Western hegemony, it is not
realist paradigm at all. The liberalism insists that western values, western system
should dominate the world and that all national countries, national States should
recognize international organizations led by liberals, as higher authorities.
Liberalism in International Relations is precisely idea that each country should
overcome its national interests and follow liberal agenda. Otherwise, affirm
liberals, there will be the war. Using the argument of rivalry liberals try to
impose their own rule on all countries.
When the States, as Russia, Turkey, Iran and China want to oppose to this
liberal pressure, to this globalization of the West, they could not rely only on
realist paradigm – competing with each other or trying to avoid liberalism alone.
That strategy to secure sovereignty is doomed.
Nobody among national States can effectively resist the Atlanticist
globalization. Russia, Turkey, Iran, China and other countries including India,
Pakistan and many other Arab countries, African countries, and Europe itself
they can secure its real independence only by the way of creating a kind of
geopolitical Eurasian alliance, multipolar alliance in order to liberate all
countries from this Atlanticist globalization, resisting against pressure of liberal
hegemony.
Russia alone could not play the role of alternative pole to globalization and also
China alone can not do that -- not to say about Turkey and Iran who are
regional power. They are very strong but regional. I think only working together
Russia, Turkey, China, Iran and other great countries can establish really
multipolar world order.
Now, we are still in unipolar world order. People like Guterres, when
they are recognising the growing problems, are still in the same globalist liberal
unipolar hegemonic paradigm. They still think in terms of unipolar world.
Being alone we could not put the end to that unipolarity. When there is unipolar
liberal world order there is no real sovereignty for national States. The national
States can not only relying on themselves establish, secure and keep real
sovereignty. We need to oppose this global pressure together. Maybe, Turkey,
Russia, Iran and China are geopolitical rivals but that is secondary. We need to
move this rivalry to the second level.
There is the conflict of the first level. It is precisely: either global world order
will be still unipolar with some adjustment or it will be multipolar and full scale
multipolarity will arrive. If we live in multipolar world order without any unique
hegemon, we would go out from this liberal agenda and also from the
domination of liberalism and all its ideological impositions -- human rights,
individualism, technological development and artificial intelligence.
Now we are in front of the choice that will seal our destiny. If we
choose the multipolarity on the ideological level that means that neither human
rights nor gender equality or other equality nor technological development will
be considered anymore as obligatory for everybody. Everybody will be free to
follow its own values, Russia could follow its own traditions, Turkey, China and
Iran, all follow their own traditions and pursuit its interests.
Only after creating and securing multipolar world order we could speak about
geopolitical rivalry between these countries and great civilizations – not before.
If we start to stress this rivalry between countries, all of them being under attack
of globalism, Atlantism and western hegemony will win and we will fail, we
will go deeper into the western liberal hegemony. Now this hegemony is in deep
crisis and that is a great opportunity for all of us -- to get out of this, to step aside
when it dies.
First of all, on the present stage, we need to establish multipolar alliance
between all the powers, all the States, all the countries and civilizations fighting
for their independence. Independence and real sovereignty, geopolitical
sovereignty should be obtained first and only afterwards we could speak
geopolitical rivalries. But for globalist, liberals the picture is quite opposit. They
say “Russia! You are Christian country different from Islamic Turkey. Turkey!
You are Sunni country and you, Iran is Shiah country. So all of you should fight
among yourselves. China! You are great economic power, you can beat Russia
that is economically weak but military dangerous and so on”. They try to divide
and rule.
We need to unite and to create a new paradigm of the global world
order based on multipolarity and we should do that together. Only after we can
evaluate balances, interests and eventually some disagreements. I think we could
easily come to conclusion of cooperation instead of rivalry.
Yes, we have some different and sometimes contradictory interests and
geostrategic goals but we always could find a kind of solution when there is no
direct involvement of Western liberal hegemony. We could somehow manage
these contradictions.
For example, Russian and Turkish military troops are patrolling together in
Nord-Eastern part of Syria. That doesn’t prevent us to have some disagreements
on issue of Libya or Idlib, but nevertheless we are overcoming these local
problems. So, we could repeat that approach in many situations. But when there
is a third power, US or globalists, they immediately create new points of
conflicts. With them all conflicts seem to be inevitable but without we almost
always find solutions. I think that having sometimes divergent goals don’t
cancel necessity to create geopolitical alliance between Russia, Turkey, Iran and
China in order to promote multipolar world order. Only after we could
concentrate on solving our secondary problems. Not before.

Question 4)
What is the role of Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China in building a multipolar
world order, taken individually as well as in terms of their relationships among
themselves?

Answer 4)

Today we see that outside of the Western world, we have already two
alternative almost full scale poles, not yet totally complete, not yet totally
perfect but already something very serious. I mean China and Russia.
 China is economically already a pole, strategically is growing at very high
speed and I think it will become soon real and totally independent pole in all
senses.
We have Russia that is economically relatively weak, but provided with
rich natural resources. The decisive argument is its huge nuclear military power.
Russia is as well almost a pole.
So we have already more than two poles, including obviously the West,
USA, NATO States. Chine is almost perfect one, Russia is another military and
geopolitically very powerful. And the West.
We see at the same time that Western pole, that was recently unique and
most powerful, now is in very deep disaster. It is still greater and more powerful
than China and Russia, but not more powerful than Russian and Chinese poles
taken together.
US is much more powerful than China or Russia separately, but summing
up the powers of Russia and China, the equation is somehow different. That
creates a global situation where everything depends on Russian-Chinese
alliance. That is the key factor. If this alliance will manage to go on, to develop,
there will be very soon full scale multipolarity.
So with the Russian-China alliance we get the multipolar world order.
This multipolar world order will give to Iran and Turkey, to other Islamic
countries, the opportunity to build Islamic civilization. It is up to Turkey, to Iran,
to Arab countries, to Pakistan, to all other Islamic societies to find the form for
it. There could be some different centers of powers, some united structure, or
maybe a kind of set of great spaces Shiah, Sunni, Arab and so on. That will be a
kind of composed pole – differentiated ideologically, religiously,
psychologically and so on. But I think the Muslim society is ready for that, in
spite of many divergencies and rivalries.
But without Russia and China, I think that Islamic pole can not be
created, Islamic countries are too weak and too divergent for that. Today, there
are too many contradictions that not let the Islamic world to unite and to
represent a real alternative pole to the Western one. Islamic society, Islamic
civilization very badly needs Russia and China, not because of Christianity or
Chinese kind of national communism but rather for their geopolitical power that
can counterbalance the Western powers. Russian and Chinese alliance is the key
element, central to establishment of the multipolar world order. But I think,
Islamic civilization, India, Latin America and maybe Africa as well should play
very important role in that.
If there will the total collapse of present unipolarity, of still existing
hegemonic liberal world order, the other civilizations, the other type of societies
could find the opportunity to affirm themselves as new and independent,
sovereign poles.
Now, everything starts with China and Russia and the Belt & Road
Initiative project is a kind of symptom of this multipolarity.
I think the other symptom is Islamic civilization whose main
representatives are Iran and Turkey as well as Arab world.
I think that we are approaching the moment of the real multipolarity and
that is precisely what the unipolar political liberal globalist elites doesn’t want.
They try to find the way to avoid this necessity. Nobody among them could
accept multipolarity because that will be the end for their ideological,
economical, strategical, political, cultural and diplomatic domination. They will
lose their dominant position in education, in culture, in technology and so on.
Now, the course of history is still somehow controlled by the West but the
Western elites understand more and more that the West can not anymore lead
the world. They try to transmit this mission to Artificial Intelligence. They can
use the other tricks or – very probable – start new wars or promote colored
revolutions.
I think that now the life on the earth is a stake. The human nature itself is
about to be replaced by some new kind of post-human, post-living species. That
is the real goal of the globalist world order. We need to understand it clearly and
we need to resist against that threat in order to safe humanity from this coming
plague. Because the liberal global post-modern West became a kind of plague
for the civilization, for all of us, for Russians, for Chinese, Iranians, Turks and
for everybody else.

Question 5)

In one of your articles, when evaluating Samuel Huntington’s “clash of

civilizations”, you stated that: “If there must be a ‘clash’ of civilizations, it has
to be a clash between the West and the ‘rest of the world’. And Eurasianism is
the political formula which suits this ‘rest’.” You also emphasized the need for
mobilizing a united front of civilizations against globalism, which you portray as
the common enemy. How do you define points of divergence between the
Western civilization and the rest of the world?

Answer 5)

First of all, we need to understand deeper what Western civilization really

is. Western civilization was born when the West has cut the ties with its real
traditional values. Western civilization is based on act of castration or suicide.
The West has cut its ties with Christianity, with Greco-Roman culture. In the
Enlightenment the West has entered in totally artificial civilization based on
wrong ideas – such as progress, materialism, technology, capitalism, selfishness
and atheism. That was Enlightenment – Luciferian pride, the war against the
Heaven. That coincides with Western colonial expansion. Colonialism was a
kind of projection of the same disease on the global scale. No civilization
concentrated so much efforts on the material aspect of life as the West. Chinese
have discovered the powder long ago but used it in order to make beautiful
fireworks. It was a kind of cultural and artist phenomena. When European have
discovered the same gunpowder, they started immediately to kill each other and
all other peoples. Western hegemony is based on the disease so we should
recognize the Western civilization of the modernity as the pathology.
Modernity is the problem, not the Western Antiquity or Middle Ages.
During Middle ages all civilizations were more or less the same. Then coexisted
Western civilization, Islamic civilization, Chinese civilization, Indian
civilization and many other. The problem began with the Modernity, with the so
called era of geographical discoveries, with colonization. The modern West
started then to occupy all the planet, conquering all the humanity. The problem
is the modern Western civilization that has created a kind of asymmetry between
the Master and the Slave (as Hegel put it in his “Phenomenology of Spirit”). The
Master was the modern West. All the humanity, all the Rest was considered to
be the Slave and the tool of total domination was precisely material power. That
was a great catastrophe.
That Western expansion in the era of great geographical discovery has
destroyed fragile balance between civilizations. This racist, colonial, imperialist
nature of the West still exists in this century. Liberalism, an idea of universality
of so called human rights, gender equality and other stupidities are elements of
new version of the same racist, colonial, imperialist ideology. The West tries to
impose its own values as something universal including when they criticize their
own past.
The Modernity has started with criticism of European past and now, Post-
modernity tries once more to cut the ties this time with the Modernity as the
Modernity has done with Pre-modernity, with the classical Middle ages phase in
the periods of the Western history. It is not new, it is continuation of the long
lasting suicide but the Western civilization tries to involve in this process of
suicide all humanity.
 This homicide, killing of the Other transforming it in “lesser self” is
precisely what the modern liberal globalist West brings to all the other peoples.
But it is evident that the Rest, all non-Western civilizations, all non-Western the
societies don’t recognize themselves anymore in this pathological Western
liberalism, in LGBT+ norms, in pretended optionality of the genders, in this
techno-centric highly anti-humanist, post-humanist way of developing
technology and industry, in intolerant and totalitarian “cancel culture”.
All the (non-Western) Rest that has its own civilizational basis and
should be united against globalism. That is logic continuation of decolonization.
The decolonization is not finish, it just started.
And now, we experience next circle of colonization. We are colonized
with Western patterns, with Western technologies, with Western values, with
Western democracies, with Western market procedures, with Western education,
with Western politics of so called “liberal democracy”. All that is imposed on us
as something universal but that is the realty pure ethnocentrism.
Now, this Western civilization is in clash with all other who don’t
recognize themselves within Western destiny, Western history. That is the
crucial moment. It is not only manifestation of some secondary differences
between civilizations. Before the beginning of expansion of the modern West on
the global scale, there were different civilizations that co-existed – more or less
peacefully and harmoniously. I agree there were some conflicts and wars and so
on but they were more or less local. The real genocide war arrived with
Modernity when humans started to use technic in order to exterminate each
other.
But pacifism is illogical. To dream world without wars is the same as to
dream the man without humanity. It will be possible only in totally inhuman
society. The war is very bad, we need to avoid but the war is always possible.
We need to reduce its probability but not to try to destroy the war as such
because in order to do that, they need to destroy the humanity itself. I think that
we the real divergence is not so much between Western civilization and the rest
of the world but between modern Western civilization and the rest of the world.
That is the real divergency between two fundamental kinds of civilization.
Modern Western civilization in present globalist liberal stage is in reality anti-
Western completely nihilistic kind of civilization. It has destroyed its own
identity and tries to destroy in the same way the identities of others.
But to fight against post-modern Western civilization, we have many
allies in the West because not all of the Western people share the same liberal
ideology, the perverted and morbid values of global liberal elite. There are
protests against this elites, the rise of populism, the growth of revolutionary
populist movement. Trump himself is the symptom of this anti-globalist
tendencies growing inside of American society.
I think that we need deep analysis of the origins of modern Western
civilization. Critical deconstruction of the present stage of the civilization will
lead us to clear conclusion that we need. Deconstruction in question means not
total destruction of Western civilization, but rather reduction of its universalist
pretentions to realist proportions, to natural historical limits. We need to reduce
the West to its organic borders. It is just one of the many region of humanity –
nothing but a Province.
The Rest should defend and resurrect the plural identities proper to non-
Western regions, to other Provinces of humanity. We should restore and develop
our own traditions -- Islamic traditions, Chinese traditions, Russian traditions,
Christian traditions without any regards on what the liberal human right activists
of Soros or colored revolution promoters or some internet cancel culture
activists will oppose to us. Nobody cares, their opinion can signify something
only in their zones of influences – strictly inside the West.
The Western liberals are free to judge their own society, we could judge
our own. The Rest should now come to the final clash. But this clash against
Huntington will be not between civilizations but between Civilization that still
pretends to impose its own historically and geographically limited values and
foundations, principles as something universal, and the World that consists from
multiple civilizationS.
We should put the end to expansion of the Western liberal globalization
and reduce the West to its due space. Afterwards we should begin the mission of
Renaissance, reconstruction, reformation of our destiny. And from that
Renaissance we can deduce the necessary clash between reborn civilizationS.
They could prosper and develop basing on dialog, on cooperation, on mutual
recognition. And not necessary coming into the conflicts. There is only one real
clash of civilizations that is inevitable: the clash of the humanity and this
aggressive, today liberal but always racist West.

Question 6)
Thank you very much for your time, Dr. Dugin. Is there anything else that you
would like to add?

Answer 6)

I have nothing else to add. Thank you for your attention.