A Chinese Heartland is an altogether different question. If we recognize China as bearing the status of a Heartland, then we are emphasizing the conservative aspect of China - China as Land Power. But if China declares itself to be a Heartland against Russia, just as Hitler’s Germany declared itself to be Eurasia against Russia, then conflict will immediately arise. But in the case of an apportioned (distributed) Heartland, this acquires a completely different meaning.

Then it is possible to consider such Heartlands as a Russian Heartland, a European Heartland, a Chinese Heartland, and an Islamic Heartland (at least 3-4 empires from Turkey to Pakistan). The concept of an apportioned Heartland can be expanded to India, and projected onto Latin America and Africa as well.

To overcome the Modernity is not easy. Any alternative will be impregnated by the some modern prejudices. We need be afraid of nothing – including regress, authoritarianism and so on. We are ashamed of all such phenomena because we are still Modern. I like communitarianism. It has in itself something premodern as organic community of people living in the personalized relations to the nature and each other. But we shouldn’t exclude the imagination of Empires, hierarchies and most of all sacredness, We need to restore all three traditional types – Priest, Warrior and Peasant. The economy is the field of peasant. So the peasant community and small manufacturers are the base of the material aspect of society. But outside of Modernity the materiality is the last concern. So the real basis of the society should be the Heaven – spiritual life, sacred values. The Earth should be once more conquered by the Heaven. So the Priests and Warriors should regain its essential position. So we need reverse the Modernity that began with quite opposite with the putting the material over spiritual, the Earth over the Heaven.

But why does Russia provide military aid to Syria? First, this is a geopolitical conflict. The front between Atlanticists and Eurasians runs in Syria. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a political vacuum was created in the East and in the Middle East as well. There, the U.S. pursued a project focused on destroying nation-states—dubbed the "Greater Middle East Project." It even destroyed states that had behaved more or less loyal to Washington. The U.S. creates chaos to project itself as a hegemonic power. In the 1990s, Russia was weak and did not react, but in the early 2000s, it began to recover slowly. Today, Vladimir Putin has decided to actively oppose the U.S. policy of chaos in the Middle East. Russia’s military help against terrorism in Syria can be seen as an act of Eurasian geopolitics. Syria is located at the center of the battle between the representatives of a unipolar (U.S.) and a multipolar (Russia) world order.  

I defend the plurality of civilizations, the absence of the universal (Western) pattern of social development. I strongly oppose any kind of xenophobia and nationalism as the bourgeois artificial and essentially Modern construction. 
I am not communist nor Marxist because I refuse the materialism of any kind and deny the progress. So much more correct to describe my views as Fourth Political Theory and traditionalism. 

Mao was right affirming that socialism should be not exclusively proletarian but also peasant and based on the ethnic traditions. It is closer to the truth than universalist industrial internationalist version represented by trotskyism. But I think that sacred part in Maoism was missed or underdeveloped. Its links with Confucianism and Taoism were weak. Maoism is too Modern for me. For China it would be best solution to preserve the socialism and political domination of national-communist party (as today) but develop more sacred tradition –  Confucianismand Taoism. It is rather significant that ideas of Heidegger are attentively explored now by hundreds of Chinese scientists. I think Fourth Political Theory could fit to contemporary China best of all.

Being anti-communist during the Soviet era I changed my mind in 1991 in front of the liberal revolt that I’ve judged to be worse than socialism. The result of this analysis was the first serious change in my world vision: I’d broken with anti-communism concentrating on anti-liberalism, liberalism seen as the main enemy and the final incarnation of the spirit of Modernity that was always considered by me as the absolute evil (in the sense of Guenon and Evola). The victory of liberalism over communism was the proof in my eyes of its eschatological nature. So I’ve moved from more classical right traditionalism to the left traditionalism, called something national-bolshevism. It wasn’t in fact really communism or bolshevism. It was and still is a total refusal of liberalism identified as the ideology that during his fight with communists and fascists has proved to be more consistently modern and identic with the very nature, very essence of the Modernity.

First of all… First of all, I would like to say that I have never said one single word concerning Lithuania. No word at all… That doesn‘t mean that I am great friend of modern Lithuania, but that doesn‘t mean absolutely that I am enemy of Lithuania or that I have smallest form of hostility toward your people.

To say the truth, I love Lituanian identity and Baltic identity in general, I am fan of Marija Gimbutas‘ works, concerning all European identity and I think that the Baltic ethnic groups are descendents of the ancient European tribes with very particular ant very original cultural identity.

So in general I have a very positive relation towards Lithuania. So never, nowhere, not once have I mentioned any negative comment toward Lithuania, including the fact tht(that is difference from many political patriots of Russia) I have nver criticized modern Lithuania.

Prof. Dugin, the Western mainstream media and established politicians describe the recent situation in Ukraine as a conflict between pro-European, democratic and liberal oppositional alliance on the one side and an authoritarian regime with a dictator as president on the other side. Do you agree?

Dugin: I know those stories and I consider this type of analysis totally wrong. We cannot divide the world today in the Cold War style. There is no “democratic world” which stands against an “antidemocratic world”, as many Western media report.

Your country, Russia, is one of the cores of this so called “antidemocratic world” when we believe our mainstream media. And Russia with president Vladimir Putin tries to intervene in Ukrainian domestic politics, we read...

Dugin: That´s completely wrong. Russia is a liberal democracy. Take a look at the Russian constitution: We have a democratic electoral system, a functioning parliament, a free market system. The constitution is based on Western pattern. Our president Vladimir Putin rules the country in a democratic way. We are a not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, we are not a soviet communist regime.

Europeans have frequently criticized the United States as a materialist society, but is not every society materialist? Is it not part of human nature to always to want more?

You are right. In that sense I would say that today we are all Americans. And it is true that the desire to have more is part of human nature. The difference is that much of European religion and philosophy are based on values that are more important, on the belief that for moral or religious or philosophical reasons, we must not submit to greed and to the appetite for wealth. This was different in America because of the protestant Calvinist idea of the elect—God shows his approval by giving wealth. You know Max Weber’s theory of the link between Protestantism and the rise of capitalism. I think these things make a big difference.

In Catholic countries money is always suspect—even though everyone wants more of it rather than less. You can see that in the fact that in France it would be impossible for a wealthy man to be elected head of state. No one would vote for a millionaire. The idea would be repulsive. But in America if a candidate is a millionaire it shows he is a success and has ability.

So in Europe people hide what they have. They don’t say how much they earn. In America there is a passion for numbers, and everything is a calculable quantity. Americans know how much they paid for everything. When American tourists go to the Eiffel Tower they ask, “How many steps to the top?” They do not understand the difference between quantity and quality.

Dugin: We have to see the struggle for geopolitical power as the old conflict of land power represented by Russia and sea power represented by the USA and its NATO partners. This is not a new phenomenon; it is the continuation of the old geopolitical and geostrategic struggle. The 1990s was the time of the great defeat of the land power represented by the USSR. Michail Gorbatchev refused the continuation of this struggle. This was a kind of treason and resignation in front of the unipolar world. But with President Vladimir Putin in the early years of 2000, came a reactivation of the geopolitical identity of Russia as a land power. This was the beginning of a new kind of competition between sea power and land power.

How did this reactivation start?

Dugin: It started with the second Chechen war (1999-2009). Russia by that time was under pressure by Chechen terrorist attacks and the possible separatism of the northern Caucasus. Putin had to realize all the west, the USA and the European Union took side for the Chechen separatists and Islamic terrorists fighting against the Russian army. This is the same plot we witness today in Syria or yesterday in Libya. The West gave the Chechen guerrilla support, and this was the moment of revelation of the new conflict between land power and sea power. With Putin, land power reaffirmed itself. The second moment of revelation was in August 2008, when the Georgian pro-western Sakashwili regime attacked Zchinwali in South Ossetia. The war between the Russia and Georgia was the second moment of revelation.

- Jobbik is a national conservative party which does not refrain from using radical means. So when they label us as radicals, they are wrong.  Radicalism is not a principle, it is a method. The reason why we are radicals is because the situation is radical as well. At the moment, we Hungarians are sick passengers on a sinking European ship that has lost its values. This is unbearable. First we must get off the ship, then cure our diseases. Hungary was not admitted to the EU so that we could develop. The goal was to colonize us, to exploit our cheap labour and acquire our markets. Western companies and banks now try to maintain their systems by using the profit they pump out of our country in the East. And this is just the economic side of the problem. The EU did not bring any good in terms of the spiritual, mental side, either. After the anti-value approach of Communism, we are now living in the valuelessness of capitalism. I personally follow traditionalist principles, in other words, I believe that Europe should get back to its own roots and rearrange its relationship with other traditional cultures that only exist in the East now.

Being involved in geopolitical studies for decades and being founder of the modern Russian school of geopolitics I have made much historical research on the geopolitical identity of Greece, ancient and modern. In the first place, according to the core texts of geopolitics (starting from Halford Mackinder), it’s regarded as essentially double: Athenian thalassocracy vs. tellurocracy of Sparta. So both principles, Sea and Land, defined the dialectic nature of Greek history. That was precisely what Thucydides who in his history of Peloponnesian war, developed in his dialectic: Fleet/Sea as the main weapon of Athenian Empire, and Infantry/Land as of Sparta. In this way thalassocracy was linked to democracy, and tellurocracy to aristocracy. Therefore all depends on the point of view: if we consider (against Plato and Aristotle) democracy as the absolute form of polity then Greece is seen from thalassocratic angle, but if we prefer nobility, spiritual tradition and hierarchy then Land power and Sparta are taken as ideal.

While the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers in being responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings may seem self-evident to most people from the narrative of events that the government and mainstream media have put forth, the US like most countries, operates on the legal principle of guilty until proven innocent. Until proven guilty of these crimes in a court of law (hopefully a civilian court of law and not a military show trial) with the presentation of sufficient evidence, they are presumed innocent. Personally, I think there are many holes and inconsistencies in the narrative of events put forth by the authorities and the mainstream media that must be addressed and answered.

As of writing, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, a naturalized American citizen, has not yet been read his Miranda rights or been charged with any crime under a legally dubious ‘public safety’ exemption that has been expanded and abused by the Obama administration under the rationale of interrogating suspects for ‘critical intelligence’. Some neoconservative politicians are calling for Dzhokar Tsarnaev to de declared an ‘enemy combatant’ so that he receives no legal due process, and others have even openly called for him to be tortured. This is all extremely disturbing for anyone concerned with the rule of law in the United States.

First of all we should remember the immense role of Greece in Russian identity. Greece has given us almost all – faith, alphabet (prepared for us by two Greek Saints - Saint Cyril and Saint Matthew), culture,cosmic vision, political concept of Orthodox Empire (the Byzantine as an example), social ideal (κοινωνία), philosophy, law… The same could be said about all Europeans, but our ties are deeper and more organic and direct. So we Russians are absolutely indebted to the Greeks.

But in the course of history Greeks and Russians have seen different dramatic turns. Sometimes we were together (in faith we were and are brothers), sometimes separately… It is difficult in the course of an interview to make the sufficient survey of all these turns – let’s concentrate on the most important ones…

In my opinion, a multipolar world is the order with 5 or more centers of power in the world and this reality will keep our planet more safe and balanced with shared responsibility between the regions. But it is not just interdependence by the logic of liberalism: some regions might well exist in relative political and economic autarky. Beside that, there might exist a double core in one center (for example Arabs and Turks in a large Muslim zone or Russia and Central Asian states for Eurasia) and shifted and inter-imposed zones, because, historically, centers of power can be moved. Of course at the moment the most significant centers of power are described in terms of nuclear arms, GDP, economic weight/growth and diplomatic influence. First of all we already have more poles than during the Soviet-US opposition. Secondly, everybody understands the role of China as a ‘Bretton Woods-2’, as well as emerging countries under acronyms as BRICS or VISTA, “anchor countries” and so on. And, thirdly, we see the rise of popular and unconventional diplomacy and the desire of many countries (many of them are strong regional actors such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil) to not follow the U.S. as satellites or minor partners.

I would have to say I rediscovered the Forth Political Theroy over the past few years with my return to Political Activism. For those who do not know me before the inception of New Resistance, in the 1990’s I was a highly active member of the American Front. Our brand of Third Position was unlike any Third Position at the time or any currently being espoused today. We truly were looking for an alternative beyond facisim, communism, and liberalism. We had early influences from Christian Bouchet and Alexander Dugin so it was natural that we looked to Europe and Russia for inspiration. The promotion of such ideologies breaking away from reationary norms along with symbolism and tactics from the classical Left  sped up the progress of us fighting a war on “two fronts” here at home, being called “commies” from the racial right and “nazi” from the liberalized left. So with that being said what I have seen happen since my departure in 2001 is beyond encouraging. What I have found in Professor Dugin’s work on the Forth Political Theroy, being optimistic, can see it taking foothold as an ideology to be taken seriously. As far as the U.S. is concerned nothing short of complete disaster would shake the foundation of liberal democracy.  

I personally consider Russia as a European country, of course with diverse ethnic groups. And of course it has its own culture, traditions, and identity. But every European country has its own culture and traditions. The only difference is, we Europeans are told nonstop by the Brussels propaganda that we are all somehow “the same”. The Russians have the benefit not being bombarded by that ridiculous nonsense. For me as a German, Russia should be our close friend and ally. We share a lot of interests, we share a common history of course with ups and downs – at least Moscow is closer to us than Washington. A close relationship to Russia would be in the national interest of Berlin and Moscow.

there is two Europe’s. Now the politics are not allowed except those who serve the NWO but each conservative organization considered as terrorist or neo-Nazi even its not. You know communist fear fascist or the fascist side of conservatism but who calls these organizations as terrorist one THE Government which serves the liberation of each community so 50% for each side.
“There is nothing more tragic than a failure to understand the historical moment we are currently going through; - notes Alain de Benoist – this is the moment of postmodern globalization”. The French philosopher emphasizes the significance of the issue of a new Nomos of the Earth or a way of establishing international relations. What do you think the fourth Nomos will be like? Would you agree that the new Nomos is going to be Eurasian and multipolar (transition from universum to pluriversum)? I believe in case the globalizations won you know it’s too easy to control 5 people more than 10 its real slavery anyway. The answer yes I believe in Eurasia will bring the world to multipolarity also you can add after that I believe in triple -world which atlantist west as first and Eurasia also china as third so the second and the third against first and the second united with the third in one side.

The struggle between the "two Europes" - I would say: between Europe and West - is a struggle for life or death, because the final instauration of liberal totalitarism, with the monsters created by its atheistic anthropology, by its cult of profit, by its technological prometheism, would mean to sink to the bottom of a subhuman barbarity which never existed in the world history. I don't know if Europe will find in itself the necessary energies to invert the liberal trend, nor we can see the "help from East” hypothized by René Guénon, so that I am tempted to repeat that "only a god can save us". In every case, "good Europeans" must do their duty and continue to struggle, never mind the chances of victory.

I discovered the Fourth Political Theory through a dear companion of many years whom we have discussed philosophical and political matters.  This person has remained with me for many years even through dark or desperate times.

Some books change our life:  The fourth political theory is one such example.

 In my humble opinion upon evaluation I already see this major ideology taking root and precedent in the hearts and minds of our spiritual warriors who are standing against oppression.  We do not want to be slaves in western and eastern spheres from the negatively defined liberal hegemony stemming regarding such countries which support terrorism.  This has been a problem for decades. 

The current situation has been made clear by the fourth political theory and many of us are reaching out for the historic future in the spirit of Dugin and Eurasia.

So, I discovered Third-positionism, and became a supporter of national-revolutionary movements in a multipolar geopolitical order (In the Arab countries they have Baathism, Nasserism; in Latinamerica they have Peronism, Bolivarianism; and in our countries we have Eurasianism). This is also known as "international nationalism"; against chauvinism and racism but for the preservation of all identities and of all cultures. I see Eurasianism, or the Fourth Political Theory, as a contemporary way of resistance  for those of us who live “from the Canary Islands to Vladivostok”. For resistance against the plutocratic, materialistic, economicist sytem disguised as "democracy", and against american cultural imperialism.
 
The chances to become a major ideological force are now still low in my opinion (at least for westerners), because of the constant brainwashing that our society is exposed to. Consumerism, individualism, mammonism, and all kind of filth is being pumped in the brains of our people by the media on a daily basis. But the first step should be to spread the idea, to open the eyes of the people, letting them know that other ways of social organization are possible. Then, we need good leaders able to organize the people and who can stand strong and defiantly against the NWO, always defending national soveraignity, at all costs. 
 

Liberalism is, undoubtedly, a totalitarian ideology. It strives for global domination, and its rise is associated with the American planetary hegemony. Liberalism has not issued any "liberation" but a new enslavement of man, reducing the individual to an uprooted, atomized individual – to the "consumeristic", "economic animal". It is a totalitarian structure, the Society of planetary nomads with no identity, the most complete embodiment of the contemporary United States or the EU, and in the perspective of a single "world market". This is Hobbes' Leviathan, where everyone fights against everyone. The consequences of its triumph were just a disaster: the ecological destruction of the Earth, an unsustainable economy, depletion of resources, the growing poverty of a large part of humanity, brutal wars around the globe, the new slavery, the new colonialism, economic inequality so far unrecorded in history...

The Eurasianism regards Russia not as country but as civilization. So it should be compared not with European or Asiatic countries but with Europe or Islam or Hindu civilizations. The Russia-Eurasia consist of modern and pre-modern features, of European and Eastern cultures and ethnies. This particular identity should be recognized and reaffirmed in the context of the new integration project. The eurasianism deny the universality of Western civilization and the unidemensionality of the historic process (directed to the liberalism, democracy, human right, marker economy and so on). There are different cultures with different anthropologies, ontologies, values, times and spaces. The West is nothing else as hypertrophied and insolent world province with megalomania. It is abject case of the hybris. The humanity should struggle against the West in order to put its pretensions in the legitimate limits. The world province should be become what it is – the province, the historic isolated case, the choice – not universal fate, normative or the common goal.