Understanding Dugin is easy for those who don't romance the current rich West

In the face of international perception, Aleksandr Dugin (pronounced Dúguin) is for Putin what Olavo de Carvalho was for Bolsonaro: no one outside the circle of initiates really knows, but the entire earthly orb is sure that it is enough to decipher his philosophy to understand the evil plans of the evil and undemocratic ruler they serve. Things are rarely that simple, so it’s worth nudging this importance. To color it does not mean to deny it. If understanding Olavo was not the same thing as revealing Bolsonaro’s intentions and Brazil’s direction, at least it was informative about an important current of current Brazilian thought.

To shade the differences between Dugin and Putin , it is worth noting that the former has a busy political life; he created a party (the National-Bolshevik, which fuses the visual identities of communism and Nazism) and is appointed as the leader of an internal political movement in Russia (the Eurasian Movement). He supports Putin, but between supporting and being a guru there is a big difference. It is difficult to measure his influence on Putin without knowing Russian politics.

It is also worth nudging the differences between him and Olavo. The Brazilian led a movement within Brazil. It is possible to find Portuguese olavetes, I have no doubt that there are Angolans and Mozambicans. Olavo seems to have enjoyed an intellectual life also in Romania, whose natives understand Portuguese easily. In any case, it is safe to say that Olavo’s influence, at least in life, did not overcome the barriers of Lusophony. Not even in Spanish, and his residence in the United States seems to have been a mere bodily accident, as his mind was still in Brazil.

Dugin, on the other hand, impresses with the amount of languages ​​into which he was translated. On his website, there are a lot of little flags on which you can click and choose your language – from Japanese to Ukrainian. The content of the site varies according to the language, that is, it is not a uniform content that is all translated. It remains to be seen if he has a strong militancy in Japan, to the point of doing free translations, or if there is money behind the project, and, if there is money, where does it come from.

Dugin in Brazil

In the list of flags, the Brazilian flag is included, not the Portuguese flag. Dugin made himself reasonably known in Brazil through Olavo de Carvalho, who introduced him to his readers. The debate between the two resulted in the book The USA and the New World Order, first published in 2012. Dugin established a small but fierce militancy in Brazil called Nova Resistance, symbolized by a green star. From what I see from social media, the love was short lived. The olavetes are certain that the duguinists are communists, and the duguinists are certain that the olavetes are in the service of the CIA. The politicized olavetes are divided between those who support Bolsonaro and those who believe in Weintraub. The Duguinists were already gathering around Aldo Rebelo, believers in his candidacy for the presidency.

Well, last month the Escola Superior de Guerra, together with UERJ, invited Dugin to present a conference. After protests, it was canceled by UERJ. Commander Robinson Farinazzo, whom the Gazeta subscriber already knows through lives on YouTube of the Guerra Jogos column, received him on his channel, with the commitment to keep the conversation going with the Russian – who understands Portuguese and expresses himself in a mixture of Spanish and Italian that is intelligible to the average literate, but not to the corner guy. Since Dugin honored the commitment and participated in one more interview, I decided to watch it and bring my notes.

Given the history of cancellation, the accusations of fascism, the visual identity of the national party- Bolshevik and Satan’s (ie, Putin) guru treatment, no doubt the soundtrack to Hitchcock’s Psycho is playing in the reader’s head. Now open the shower curtain and…

No big deal

No screaming girl, no stab in the bathroom. Dugin’s philosophical views expressed there seemed quite familiar to me, and I haven’t read anything from him (I commissioned the debate with Olavo while writing the previous section). But some of what he said coincides with what Jonah Goldberg says and some with what John Gray says. Like Jonah Goldberg, he uses the expression “liberal fascism”. I don’t know if he took it from Goldberg, if he took it from the source of Golberg (namely: the influential and now well-reputed HG Wells, who seriously proposed liberal fascism, an enlightened Nazism), or if it’s coincidence. I couldn’t figure out what his intellectual background would be, so it’s possible that it’s a coincidence.

If I want to call something plagiarism, I’m fried, because last month I was asked how I saw the war in Ukraine and I replied that I saw a conflict between a national state and supranational bodies. I preferred to speak of supranational ESG (“environmental and social governance”) imperialism, which aims to undermine national states. I also felt the need to heed the concept of “liberal fascism”, but I credited it to Goldberg and Wells. If I’ve seen the same thing as Dugin without having read Dugin, it’s because that thing must be easy to see for anyone who doesn’t romance the current rich West.

He talks about liberal fascism meaning the same thing. : “new liberalism, or neoliberalism” is different from old liberalism. One said you can do whatever you want; the new one, that you are obliged to do what I want, which is a fascist trait. Anyone who looks at political correctness without adhering to it will make this association between it and fascism, regardless of their political orientation. And anyone who is not a dazzled Americanophile will agree that political correctness is exported by force by the USA (even to Afghanistan!).

In addition, Dugin’s speech reminded me Black Mass, by John Gray, regarding the subject of democracy. Asked, Dugin says that the Russian people see Gorbachev as a traitor and hate Yeltsin. It is often said that Putin is an authoritarian, etc., as if it were obvious that no one liked authoritarians. Now, John Gray recalls that, with the fall of the Soviet Union, liberals expected that Russia would turn into a liberal democracy with a free market economy. In fact, chaos ensued, and the pro-Western ruler (Ielstin) suffered crushing defeats against Putin, the former KGB agent who rules the country with an iron fist. In my view, it is more sensible to judge the population’s satisfaction with their regime by checking emigration. If a country has to lock up its population, it is because things are going very badly; otherwise, it means that there are few uncomfortable people willing to move.

According to John Gray’s point of view, part of the USA is as ideological as the communists, as they intend to reach the End of History by implementing a political regime – Economic all over the world. Indeed, the Hegelian philosopher Francis Fukuyama had said that the US was the first society in the world to reach the End of History, with its liberal democracy and free-market economy. A consequence of this would be the country’s willingness to shoot, punch and bomb to establish democracy in the Middle East, whether it wants to or not. I quote John Gray, in a passage that comments on the symbiosis between Tony Blair and George Bush on the eve of the Iraq War: “In the decade of 150, it was well-regarded to say that the The world had reached a ‘post-Westphalian’ era – a reference to the Treaty of Westphalia, of 1648, generally considered to be the moment when the modern State gained legal status. It was believed that this system had come to an end in the post-Cold War period: state sovereignty was no longer at the center of the international system, which was governed by global institutions” (Black Mass

, P. 150). The book is by 2008. In 2008, a professor at the London School of Economics could speak of globalism as a threat to sovereignty without passing as a conspiracy theorist. John Gray is far from a leftist theorist; he is a Hayek scholar.

Important information

Anyone would say that what is called liberalism today is not the liberalism of a moment ago. Anyone could point out traces of fascism in him, and, especially in Brazil, there is no shortage of people who point out traits of communism. Dugin sums up the general confusion by saying that the three political ideologies of the last century have merged into one. Therefore, we need a Fourth Political Theory, which is his own.

In his opinion, this liberal-fascist West faces Russia during Ukraine’s “special operation”. Dugin sympathizes with Bolsonaro for having been an ally of Trump, whom Dugin sees as an opponent of fascist liberalism and, therefore, an opponent of globalism.

A novelty is that he says that fascist liberalism promotes small Nazisms, that is, small National Socialisms, to attack the great nations. This seems to me a judicious assessment, given that for a long time globalist NGOs have been engaged in talking about indigenous nations oppressed by the Brazilian state, and it is not new that the military fears the establishment of a Yanomami country. This association between indigenism and Nazism is not my invention or Dugin’s, but Victor Farías’s, who shows how indigenism in Spanish-speaking countries – especially in Chile and Bolivia – uses the same lexicon of Heidegger to deal with its people, as well as its special connection with the soil and nature. See Heidegger e sua Inherança, published in Brazil by É Realizações.

Especially on the issue of Russia, it can be seen that the claims of separatism are not all received identically by supranational bodies. The Dignity Revolution, which took place in 2014, overthrew the pro-Russian government using weapons and accusations of corruption. Now, the neo-Nazi militia Azov was instrumental in this battle, and that’s why it was incorporated into the Ukrainian state. In the same year, the regions of Ukraine inhabited by ethnic Russians called, despite Kiev, a plebiscite to separate from Ukraine, be able to use the Russian language and escape the yoke of neo-Nazis. In the case of the Russian ethnic minority, the principle of self-determination of the peoples does not apply. A neo-Nazi can be a State, which the UN does not complain about and the international media finds it beautiful. But a lot of ongueiros can do a fuzuê with Yanomami and Brazil passes for villain.

The important fact brought by Dugin is that there is a Western philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lévy, explicitly aligned with the Azov . He had gone to Ukraine during the Euromaidan (the 2013 protests that led to the Revolution) to promote the cause alongside the Azovs. And now, with everyone knowing that the Azovs are neo-Nazis, Bernard-Henri Lévy publishes a sloppy interview with Ilya Samoilenko, the movement’s second-in-command. In other words: it is perfectly possible for the West to support Ukraine because of the neo-Nazis, not in spite of them.

Lévy belongs to a French current that opposes Marxism and is a supporter of something he calls of liberalism. More intriguingly, he is Jewish. It shows, after all, that the 21st century is a hell of a mess.

Back to top button