Against the establishing of the atlantist world order and globalisation stand the supporters of the multi-polar world – the eurasists. The eurasists defend on principle the necessity to preserve the existence of every people on earth, the blossoming variety of cultures and religious traditions, the unquestionable right of the peoples to independently choose their path of historical development. The eurasists greet the generality of cultures and systems of values, the open dialogue among peoples and civilizations, the organic combination between the devotion to traditions and the creative impulse. Eurasists are not only the representatives of the peoples living in the Eurasian continent. Being eurasist is a conscious choice, which means combining the aspiration to preserve the traditional forms of life with the aspiration to free creative (social and personal) development. In this way, eurasists are all free creative personalities who acknowledge the values of tradition; among them are also the representatives of those region which objectively form the bases of atlantism. Eurasists and atlantists are opposed to each other in everything. They defend two different, alternative, mutually excluding images of the world and its future. It is the opposition between eurasists and atlantists which defines the historical outline of the XXI century.
There are no universal patterns of development. The plurality of landscapes on Earth produces a plurality of cultures, each one having its own cycles, internal criteria and logics. Geographical space has a huge (sometimes decisive) influence on peoples’ culture and national history. Every people, as long as it develops within some given geographical environment, elaborates its own national, ethical, juridical, linguistic, ritual, economic and political forms. The “place” where any people or state “development” happens predetermines to a great extent the path and sense of this “development” – up to the point when the two elements became one. It is impossible to separate history from spatial conditions, and the analysis of civilizations must proceed not only along the temporal axis (“before”, “after”, “development” or “non-development”, and so on) as also along the spatial axis (“east”, “west”, “steppe”, “mountains” and so on). No single state or region has the right to pretend to be the standard for all the rest. Every people has its own pattern of development, its own “times”, its own “rationality”, and deserves to be understood and evaluated according to its own internal criteria. The climate of Europe, the small extension of its spaces, the influence of its landscapes generated the peculiarity of the European civilization, where the influences of the wood (northern Europe) and of the coast (Mediterraneum) prevail. Different landscapes generated different kinds of civilizations: the boundless steppes generated the nomad empires (from the Scythians to the Turks), the loess lands the Chinese one, the mountain islands the Japanese one, the union of steppe and woods the Russian-Eurasian one. The mark of landscape lives in the whole history of each one of these civilizations, and cannot be either separated form them or suppressed.
The first pattern represents the inertial cliché of the Soviet (mainly later Soviet) period. It has somehow taken roots in the psychology of some Russian managing systems, often unconsciously, pushing them into adopting such or such decision on the basis of the precedents. This pattern is supported with the “relevant” argument: «It worked earlier, it will work also now». It concerns not only those political leaders who consciously exploit the nostalgic complex of the Russian citizens. The Soviet reference pattern is much wider and deeper than the structures of the KPFR [Communist Party of the Russian Federation], which now stands at the rim of executive power, far from the decisional centres. Everywhere politicians and officials, formally not identifying themselves in any way with communism, are guided by it. It is an effect of education, life experience, formation. In order to understand the substance of the undergoing processes in Russian politics, it is necessary to admit this “unconscious sovietism”. The second pattern is the liberal-democrat, pro-American one. It started taking shape with the beginning of “perestroyka” and became some kind of dominant ideology in the first half of the 1990s. As a rule, the so-called liberal-reformers and the political forces close to them identify themselves with it. This pattern is based on choosing as system of reading of the American socio-political device, copying it on the Russian ground and following US national interests in international issues. Such pattern has the advantage to allow to lean on the quite real “foreign present”, as against the virtual “domestic past” around which the first pattern gravitates. The argument here too is rather simple: «It works for them, it will work for us too». Here it is important to stress that we are not simply talking about “foreign experience”, but about the orientation towards the US, as to the flagship of the successful Western capitalist world.
Almost all religions and traditions claim – globalization, “new world order” , “unipolar world”, “world cabinet” – are symbols of Lucifer , strategic constructions of “God enemies” – Archangel Michael`s direct enemies. Christians identify this “new world order” as “antichrist”, muslims as “dadjallah”, judes – “great melting” (“erev rav”), hinduists – as forces of Kali Juga, Buddhists – Mara, demon of illusion.v On the other side of all differences between doctrines, rituals and dogmata exists special tradition – tradition of Archangel Michael, “michaelic” veiled light. It is affiliation of human to “hierohistory”, right (and obligation) to be a soldier of one of the two opposing armies.
Eurasian idea in its highest sense – projection of michaelic, vertical outtime pillar of light on history in its final stage of redemption.
Archangel Michael is often pictured with a sword in one hand and with scales in another. Scales mean justice. German philosopher M. Haidegger in his “Holzwege” analyzed very important for us poem of Rhien Maria Rilke. It was about “handing over the scales from merchant to Archangel”.
In contrast to the absolutization of the liberal pattern laying at the economic base of the «new world order», the Eurasist Project supposes the reference to a wide spectrum of the socially oriented patterns of a social system, which can be sometimes globally called as «socialism» or «socially oriented community». The social environment is the natural habitat of the man, and in his basic features man is defined just as in relation to a definite community. As against dogmatical Marxism, this community can be understood in very different ways —as a cultural type, as community collective unconscious, as ethnic identity, as religious faith, as a social-historical formation, as a class-professional belonging etc. All these social features can be taken into account in a common summary pattern, which, conditionally, it is possible to call as the «eurasist socialism», free from the dogmatists, creative, open, incorporating both traditional forms of social identification and new social forms growing in modern conditions. The social feature of Eurasism does not exclude at all the value of the individual, and the more so it does not reject some definite elements of market management. It is a common spirit, a priority attitude toward the social system, where in the economic, social, scientific and political areas the models based on the principle of the general social subject are encouraged, and the major basic instance is the organic collective of an old or new kind.
The Eurasian Idea represents a fundamental revision of the political, ideological, ethnic, and religious history of mankind, and it offers a new system of classification and categories that will overcome standard cliches. The Eurasian theory went through two stages - a formational period of classical Eurasianism at the beginning of the XX century by Russian emigrant intellectuals (Trubeckoy, Savickiy, Alekseev, Suvchinckiy, Iljin, Bromberg, Hara-Davan etc.) followed by the historical works of Leonid Gumilev and, finally, the constitution of neo-Eurasianism (second half of 1980's to the present).
Continent Eurasia – cradle of human culture and civilization. Eurasian continent gave birth to different social, spiritual and political forms that constitute major substance of human history. Eurasia is dipolar. It is possessed of Europe and Asia, West end East. Human history is subsequent dialogue, dialectic energy, value and technology exchange between these two poles that lasts more than thousand years.
East and West supplement each other
Eurasia has been crossed from West to East and back by nations and civilizations. Hordes of modern Europeans far ancestors had been crossing Asian deserts and at the same time civilizations of China, India and Persia flourished with advanced philosophy, technology and life comfort. Each culture has its own historical timing, different from any other.
Eurasism in social sphere means the priority of the public principle above the individual, subordination of economic patterns to strategic, social problems. The whole economic history of Eurasia proves that the development of economic mechanisms here happens according to an alternative logic than the liberal-capitalist, individualist patterns of personal benefit which evolved in the West on the basis of Protestant ethics. The liberal logic of management is alien to Eurasia, and despite enormous efforts there is no way to break this deep-rooted feature of our people. The collective, communitarian principle of governing the economy, the contribution of the criterion of “equity” in the distribution process – all this represent a steady feature of our economic history. Eurasism insists on a positive account and evaluation of this circumstance, and on this basis gives preference to socially-oriented economic patterns.
Eurasism implies a positive re-evaluation of the archaic, of the ancient. It fervently refers to the past, to the world of Tradition. The development of cultural process is seen by Eurasism in a new reference to the archaic, to the insertion of original cultural motives in the fabric of modern forms. The priority in this area is given back to national motives, to the sources of national creativity, to the continuation and revival of traditions.
The largest landmass in the world, the Eurasian continent, connects East and West via communication, transportation, and trade routes. More importantly, Eurasia has long been considered the geopolitical heartland of the world, one necessary for any future world power. Due to its historical sense of identity, vast amounts of resources, capable population, and location in the heart of Eurasia, Mother Russia is the nation most likely to take its rightful seat at the head of a new Eurasian power structure destined to offset American influence in the world and help derail the New World Order by creating a multipolar world. The Eurasian idea will likely become the official post-Soviet national ideology of Russia and a banner under which the oppressed peoples of the world can fight.
The Eurasian idea is not a new one, even though it might currently be relevant more than ever before. Russia’s Eurasian movement traces its roots back to the 18th century in the historical conflict between pro-Western “reformers,” who wished to modernize Russia by adopting Western political solutions to solve Russian problems, and Slavophiles, who saw Russia as a unique nation set apart from both the West and East, which must find its own path. The question of whether Russia is part of Europe, Asia, or something unique has had a tremendous influence on the Russian national mindset. The Slavophiles did not look kindly on Western materialism and considered the Enlightenment a source of moral decay that was destroying traditional Russian values.
We know that Marxism was a somewhat futuristic idea – Marxism prophesied the future victory of Communism at a time that nonetheless remained uncertain. In this regard it is a messianic doctrine, seeing the inevitability of its victory that would usher the culmination and end of the historical process. But Marx was a false prophet and the victory never eventuated.
Jean Baudrillard also states that this is not a clash of civilisations, but an almost innate resistance between one universal homogeneous culture and those who resist this globalisation.
Apart from liberalism two more ideologies are known for having tried to achieve world supremacy: Namely Communism (i.e. Marxism in its various aspects) and Fascism/National Socialism. As Alexander Gelyevich Dugin fairly notices, Fascism has arisen after the two ideologies and has disappeared before them. After the disintegration of the USSR the Marxism that was born in the 19th Century has been definitely discredited as well.
This question asked in the beginning of Putin’s career has been created during the transmutation of the political language of current Russia from Modern into the Post-Modern. In classical language Putin as a human being is an essence, a reality, a personality in the first place. Then he’s being understood inside the political context along his political actions. This is the approach for the Age of the Enlightenment: there is Vladimir Putin, a politician, a person with certain specifics, with certain roots, and there is also his system of evaluations and thoughts. This was true until the Epoch of the Post-Modern has come...
Inside the Post-Modern a person is an empty space, because all a human being deals with is an interpretation of his/her consciousness. As a result, Vladimir Putin’s image appears not from the knowledge of Vladimir Putin, and not from the analysis of his actions, but from the language context he is in. This is why the question "Who is mister Putin?" inside the Post-Modern system has no answer at all. This is a forever open question.
After the Gulf War, almost all mass media outlets in Russia, as well as in the West, injected into the common speak the formula "New World Order," coined by George Bush, and then used by other politicians including Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The New World Order, based on the establishment of a One World Government, as has been candidly admitted by odeologists of the Trilateral Commission and Bildenburg, is not simply a question of politico-economic domination of a certain "occult" ruling clique of international bankers. This "Order" bases itself on the victory on a global scale of a certain special ideology, and so the concept concerns not only instruments of power, but also "ideological revolution," a "coup d'etat" consciousness, "new thinking." Vagueness of formulations, constant secretiveness and cautiousness, deliberate mysteriousness of the mondialists do not allow, until the last moment, to clearly discern the contour of this new ideology, which they decided to impose on the peoples of the world. And only after Iraq, as if following somebody's orders, certain bans were take off and multiple publications appeared, which began to call things by their own names. So, let us try, on the basis of analysis conducted by a group of employees of the editorial board of "Elements," to, in the most general terms, define the basics of the ideology of the New World Order.
The historical National-Bolsheviks (Nikisch, Ustryalov, Thiriart) have intuitively come close to this complex, but even they have faltered from the path: Nikisch saw positive meaning in technology and process, Ustryalov flirted with NEP and wasn't aware of Germany's meaning for Russia, Tieriard denied esoterism and religion, remaining a materialist pragmatic.
National-Bolshevism is by far the most interesting phenomenon of the 20th century. It has adopted everything that fascinates us within Bolshevism or fascism. Whatever brought these ideologies to an end, contradicts with the spirit of this virtual doctrine.
National-Bolshevism helps us understand where the anti-liberal regimes of our century went wrong and why they were bound to fall. This analysis is loyal to the past and graphic, when it comes to our time, when the "new" right and "new" left are but parodies of what even in its own time were merely parodies of the virtual National-Bolshevism.
The history is rivalry, the battle between two “macro-nations”, tending to universalization of their spiritual and ethical ideal at the moment of culmination of history. These are “nation of the West” (Roman-German world) and “nation of the East (Eurasian world). Gradually these two formations come to the most large-scale, purified, refined expression of their “manifest destiny”. The Manifest Destiny of “nation of West” is incarnated in conception of “10 lost tribes” of the protestant fundamentalists, underlies the planetary English dominance and later makes up the foundation of the civilization, which in reality is coming close to realization of the sole world control. “Russian truth” from the national state ascends to the state of empire and incarnates in Soviet bloc, having rallied round itself the mere half of the world.
Not only social or exclusively human existence is filled with the various types of bounds, transgressing which gives birth to various types of aggression. The structure of all reality is built just on various bounds, separating every thing and every mode of existence from all the rest ones. In some sense, the bound itself makes of every thing what the latter is by itself, being the embodiment of the difference, differentiation from the rest objects. In the most general sense, the aggression can have also a cosmic, universal dimension, showing through the violent interference of one into another. There is abundant example of aggression in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, in which the existence of a species or an individual is often sustained by doing violence to others, that makes the continuous round of transformations, assimilation and adaptations of Universe's environment and of beings, inhabiting it. Consequently, the aggression is something general, universal, and integral to the basis of the reality itself.
The term “national-bolshevism” can mean several quite different things. It emerged practically simultaneously in Russia and Germany to signify some political thinkers` guess about a national character of bolshevik revolution of 1917, hidden in orthodox Marxism internationalist phraseology. In Russian context “national-bolsheviks” was a usual name for those communists, who tried to secure the integrity of state and (either consciously or not) continued the Great Russian historical mission geo-political policy. Those Russian national-bolsheviks were both among “whites” (Ustrialov, smenovekhovtsy, left Eurasians) and among “reds” (Lenin, Stalin, Radek, Lezhnev etc.)(1). In Germany the analogous phenomenon was associated with extremely left forms of nationalism of 20s-30s, in which the ideas of non-orthodox socialism, the national idea and positive attitude to Soviet Russia were combined. Among German national-bolsheviks Ernst Niekiesch was undoubtedly the most consistent and radical, though some conservative revolutionaries may also be referred to this movement, such as Ernst Juenger, Ernst von Salamon, August Winnig, Karl Petel, Harro Schultzen-Beysen, Hans Zehrera, communists Laufenberg and Wolffheim, and even some extremely left National-socialists, such as Strasser and, within a certain period, Josef Hoebbels.