World

The Olavo-Dugin debate ten years later

In 2012, Vide Editorial published the debate between Olavo de Carvalho and Alexandre Dugin on the new world order. At that time, the debate was extremely marginal, apparently between two weirdos with no relevance to the country. However, in 2011 Brazil met Olavo de Carvalho through Bolsonaro’s election. And now, in 2022, Dugin begins to emerge on the national scene: either because of the internal quarrels on the left (with progressives calling the Duguinists fascists), or because of the internal quarrels on the right (with Dugin being called a communist), or even because of the approximation with the Army (whose War School invited him to speak). In addition, of course, to being appointed as Putin’s guru, just as Olavo was appointed as Bolsonaro’s guru.

Ali in the middle of the years 2000, at the time of Orkut, Brazil began to discuss traditionalism and to read forbidden authors from the European right – such as Julius Evola (1886 – 1976), René Guenon (1886 – 1898) and Alain de Benoist (1943). They chorus against modernity, liberalism and evoke a natural mysticism for the public sphere. They are prohibited because they actually have points of contact with historical fascism; yet none of them is more committed to Nazism than Martin Heidegger (1898 – 1976), which every quinoa eater finds very beautiful and no one cancels.

Both Olavo and Dugin share this bibliography had a base of young Brazilian admirers who studied these prohibitions and liked to discuss them online. Thus, in 2011, the Duguinists and the Olavetes spoke with their respective masters to organize a written debate. First Dugin would write, then Olavo, and then there would be rejoinders and rejoinders, followed by conclusions. The title of the book – The USA and the New World Order – was consistent with the biggest disagreement between them, namely, the role that the USA plays in promotion of globalism.

Dugin’s hypothesis

Dugin believes that in 2011 the world lived an indefinite period that he called Transition. We left the unipolar world , in which the US was the only power pole in the world, with a view to reaching a multipolar world, with several poles of power. In the years 90 after the US victory over the USSR, Francis Fukuyama had expressed the dominant ideology: humanity had reached the End history, and the world would experience a global democracy and free market. There would be no more ideological conflicts. However, the Arab world has shown that this is not how the band plays (see the attempts to impose liberal democracy by force); moreover, China emerged as a worthy adversary, with its model that combines dictatorship and market.

To solve the problem and try to lead the world back to unipolarity, the US has three distinct currents: the neocons want to make the world a big Iraq and impose democracy and the free market by force; multilateralists want to do the same thing, but with the help of partner countries; and the globalists want to destroy national states as quickly as possible – something that would inevitably lead to very great instability. The neocons speak on behalf of the US; the multilateralists, from the West, and the globalists are very nebulous. Dugin thought that the US acted on all three streams at the same time. Today I believe that the neocons have nothing.

As for the particular desires of the global elites, I quote the summary that his pupil Giuliano Morais made in the presentation: “In the economic sphere, it would consist in the complete and obligatory imposition of the capitalist market system on the entire world; on the geopolitical level, it would be the absolute predominance of the countries of the historical-geographical West in relation to the East; at the ethnic level, it would consist in the promotion of indiscriminate miscegenation, in the fight against any localized racial, national, ethnic and cultural unity; and, finally, on the religious plane, the New World Order prepares the emergence of a certain mystical figure who will unveil a new religion that will unify humanity”. Who’s behind this? “The ideologues of the so-called Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the American Council on Foreign Relations and various thinkers who are at the service of international globalism.”

For Dugin, the USA, as a country, state and culture, are agents of this capitalist plot. They impose the American as universal and aim at the destruction of particular cultures. As for miscegenation – defamed and fought in Brazil by progressives – I believe that Dugin can consider, in an integralist way, that Brazil has a mestizo race, in such a way that fostering apartheid

sexual implies dissolving Brazilianness.

As the globalist project attacks national sovereignty, Dugin considers that it is in the interest of all States to oppose unipolarity based In the USA. He lists four types of countries according to the posture adopted: those that juggle to maintain friendly relations with the West the US, but strive not to lose sovereignty (in 2011 he placed Brazil and Russia in that bloc); those who cooperate without admitting interference in internal affairs (such as Saudi Arabia); those who cooperate and filter Western influences (China) and those who openly oppose (Iran, Venezuela and North Korea).

Dugin considers that all states and religions Traditional traditions should cooperate with each other to contain the unipolar globalist project and create the multipolar world.

Olavo’s culturalist vision

I believe that much of the disagreement between the two comes from what would be important to consider as a country. The US, for Dugin, is the elites and the US state. For Olavo, the USA is the country that does most private charity, they are very good Christians, they are a society with a markedly community culture, which is averse to the idea of ​​a state charity. This society of community values ​​is good in itself, and that is the USA for Olavo.

Olavo, as my college colleague Ricardo Almeida explains in the presentation, has a philosophy open, without closed schemes, made while responding to the problems that arise. Besides, he doesn’t have as close a hypothesis as Dugin’s. He is in full agreement with the existence of a globalist elite that tries to impose its totalitarian values ​​on the whole world, regulating every aspect of private life – see the increasingly invasive demands of political correctness. But the US elite is anti-national and stateless. For Olavo – and I agree with him on this – Dugin is wrong to call this capitalism. To designate the phenomenon, he coined the expression “metacapitalism”; the metacapitalists are “capitalists who have become so rich in the regime of economic freedom that they can no longer submit to market fluctuations”. Metacapitalists strive to corrupt and control states; therefore, they finance communists and socialists because they always want to increase the power of the state over individuals.

Thus, metacapitalists associate themselves culturally to countries. He then speaks very badly of the Chinese and Russians, attributing all the deaths of the communist regimes to the people of those regimes. With these accounts, he proves “objectively” that the Russians and Chinese are more evil than the Americans, because the balance of communism is greater than that of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

For Olavo, the metacapitalists make up a Consortium that buys governments and has the socialists as its greatest allies. Therefore, Russia and China make up a power bloc aligned with the globalist bloc. There are three power blocs: Western, Russian-Chinese and Islamic. In the first, the financiers and bankers rule; in the second, the heirs of the Soviet Nomenklatura; in the third, theocrats. “For the first time in the history of the world,” he says, “the three essential modalities of power – political-military, economic and religious – are embodied in distinct supranational blocs”. And among them Olavo prefers none; alleges that the Russian-Chinese are in league with the financiers and, at the same time, finance Islamic terrorism.

To Dugin what is from Dugin

Time has proven that Olavo was sorely mistaken about the collusion between Russia and the globalists. “Russia and China are never presented as possible aggressors, but as allies of the West”, he says to infer that “the ideology of Western globalism speaks as if it already personified an established universal consensus, only antagonized by marginal and religious groups a so insane”. Now, the Ukraine issue and the attacks on Putin’s “toxic masculinity” show that globalists see Russia as a great villain. Furthermore, the encirclement of Russia by NATO shows that this perspective is not new. And it never hurts to remember that the “democracy” of Ukraine has, as a member of the state, an anti-Russian neo-Nazi battalion, with power over a Russian-speaking population that would like to separate from Ukraine. People’s self-determination does not apply there.

As for culturalism, Dugin’s assertions that the USA experienced by Olavo are irrelevant to geopolitical analysis seem correct to me. Olavo moved from a large Brazilian city to a city in the interior of Virginia and was delighted with the community spirit so common outside the metropolises. Now, a foreigner could move to the interior of Piauí, meet many fervent Catholics and be enchanted by the true spirit of Brazilian roots, contrary to those of the Leblon. The spirit of the interior of Piauí would be irrelevant to evaluate the performance of Brazil, a member of the São Paulo Forum. Anthropology does not replace geopolitics – even more so when it comes to a peripheral subculture. The fact of the distance between the elites and the people is undoubtedly relevant, but it is widespread throughout the world. Russia is probably an exception – see the freedom that a Russian has to say that women don’t have a penis, compared to England or even Brazil.

Dugin doesn’t neglect the culture. He accuses the “globalization of the world and the installation into all corners of American control, including direct intrusion into nominally sovereign countries, the promotion of the American way of life, and the standardization of different human societies, the contamination of Russian society by the decaying patterns of consumerism and the support of anti-Russian regimes in the post-Soviet space”. The propaganda of an American culture, then, corrupts the cultures of the countries. As for this being promoted by the state, it’s never too much to remember that the US threw gender ideology in Afghanistan and put a quota for women in parliament. And if there is any country responsible for making solipsistic pleasure a goal in life – achievable through drug use, non-reproductive sex and the purchase of trinkets – it is certainly not Russia or China. The US is a pernicious and very dangerous cultural agent. I don’t think they’re just that, but I’m sure they’re that too

. Whoever disapproves of Planned Parenthood and the Ford Foundation will have to agree. And well, seeing Simone Tebet, the newest identity of the MDB, I must subscribe to what Dugin says: “the US globalist elite it corrupts our political elite, society, the country.”

Furthermore, he is absolutely right not to swallow the talk of Olavo being scientific and impartial. Dugin would practically be a KGB agent, while Olavo boasted that “no political party, mass movement, government institution, church or religious sect considers me their mentor”. Time proved him wrong. Referring to both, he mentions the “asymmetry of the respective roles of the political agent [i. e., Dugin] and the scientific observer [i.e., Olavo]”. I expected more from him.

To say that one is “objective” and “scientific” for calculating evil with the number of deaths is ridiculous. It’s like a d German dictator couldn’t be as bad as a Chinese dictator, since demography prevents him from reaching the maximum evil.

To Olavo what is Olavo’s

As far as political facts are concerned, it seems to me that Dugin gives Olavo a bath. Where Olavo gets it right, however, is in an epistemological critique of values. Dugin protests against the US claiming that no culture should be able to judge another culture – he even goes so far as to etymology to say that “reality” is a Latin social construction. This is a Heideggerian expedient and is a thing of Nazism (as well as Identitarianism). All races/cultures become incommunicable thanks to an etymological crazy Creole samba. Thus, to speak of “reality” would be “intellectual racism”. To this, Olavo responds: “Every accusation of racism, with or without quotation marks, presupposes the equal dignity of all races, which is a universal concept founded on the general uniformity of human nature. The denial of the universal identity of human nature in the name of the diversity of races and cultures would make these the insurmountable limit of all human knowledge, automatically justifying, for example, the incommensurability of a ‘Jewish science’ and an ‘Aryan science’. Tertium non datur: either there is a universal human nature, or nothing can be argued against racism”.

Back to top button