Paideuma.TV Internacional

Host: The first topic—and of course the most important and most widely discussed right now—is the renewed confrontation between the United States and Iran. The intense phase has already lasted about seven or eight days. The temporary ceasefire that was signed is no longer in effect. Right now we see the two countries exchanging strikes, but still rather restrainedly, it seems to me—though I could be wrong. I’d like to know what we should expect next, because two main assumptions are circulating: either they will trade some fire and then restore a ceasefire, or, on the contrary, this will lead to much greater escalation, and for now both sides are simply waiting each other out. There is also a report from The Washington Post that, after the losses the United States has suffered in this confrontation with Iran, they are preparing a very powerful operation and are trying somehow to secure the Strait of Hormuz so that shipping can pass through it unhindered. What should we expect? Alexander Dugin: I believe we have now reached the point where the entire public-relations campaign—Trump’s marketing-style posts aimed at calming the markets (the stock exchanges, the Dow Jones and other indices)—and the speculation, including economic speculation, around the war has hit its limit. The war between America and Iran has moved from the realm of declarations into the realm of reality. Only now, and in earnest. Iran has long been feeling this on its own skin: it has suffered enormous losses among its leadership. For Iran this has been serious for a long time; for the United States it was still just a game. Now they have announced seventeen American soldiers killed—I think the real figure has already passed a hundred over this whole period; they have simply begun to admit it. The point is not that the soldiers died—they died earlier, and American soldiers have been dying steadily in this clash with the Iranians—but that far more have been killed than is acknowledged. The very fact that they have started admitting it means they have crossed some kind of internal prohibition. Originally everything was treated like a computer game: press a few buttons and instantly the leadership in Iran changes, the nuclear weapons disappear, they go and kiss the boot of Ben-Gvir and other radical racists from Israel, everything falls into place, the platforms open for explosive growth of the American and global economies, and Trump is the “king of the world.” Up to a certain point America tried to maintain that appearance. It is no longer possible. When the Iranians showed that they are a tough nut to crack, that they are a civilization-state, that they are a subject in world politics rather than an object, that they are a pole of the multipolar world—and this is no reproach to the other Islamic states and societies that make a great show of themselves, work themselves into a frenzy, beat their chests and shout “Allahu Akbar,” yet in practice turn out to be little more than obedient puppets of the West and Israel. Despite all their loud pathos and cruelty, they prove to be obedient little rodents. Against the background of these Islamic “rodents,” genuine Shiite Iran demonstrates what it means to be a Muslim, to be a believer, to be independent, to be free, to wage a real holy war—jihad. Not by attacking the weak, the poor and the helpless who cannot defend themselves, but by throwing down a challenge to the real, absolute evil in the world: the United States and Israel. [1] [2]

Host: Yes, I was just reading foreign media. There are already German officials commenting that Iran has a “revenge list” that includes both Merz and Macron, so security needs to be increased. This also seems to be part of the same conveyor belt. Alexander Dugin: Exactly. Merz, Macron, and the rest can quite legitimately be targeted by the Iranians. It would be reasonable. But after the West carried out this unprecedented and completely unjustified act of aggression against a sovereign state — destroying its leaders without any condemnation from the Americans — Iran’s hands are now untied. I think Iran now has a free hand for any form of revenge. This is often said at conferences, in statements by Iranian leaders, and at rallies. The question is one of capability and expediency. Here, I believe Iran is acting very rationally. It can strike American military bases in the Middle East and energy hubs in U.S. allied countries — the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and to a lesser extent Qatar. Saudi Arabia is also being hit hard, and some rockets reach Israel. So Iran could, with full justification, eliminate Trump or reach some European leaders, and the world would say little. They always accuse the victim anyway. But Iran is doing what it can: inflicting maximum unacceptable damage, closing the Strait of Hormuz, mining it. We will likely witness fiber-optic cables being cut at the bottom of the strait. Iran is achieving results with what it is capable of. Nevertheless, for morale it says, “We will kill Trump.” And then Israel comes along with its usual chutzpah, saying yes, the Iranians want to kill Trump, beware — they’ve already tried, they’re getting closer. Especially since Lindsey Graham is already dead — a radical enemy of Iran himself. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the Iranians later claimed credit, even though it’s almost certainly not true. Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/lindsey-grahams-liquidation-and-the-war-of-symbols

He’s an old man with little time left. His closest circle is already dying off — like the terrorist and extremist Lindsey Graham, who yesterday went straight to hell, and good riddance, or Mitch McConnell, who is barely hanging on. Both were staunch supporters of Israel and opponents of Russia. Soon Trump himself… That whole generation of hawks is physically dying off before our eyes. He also doesn’t have long until the midterm elections, which he will clearly lose. Israel’s position will only get worse. Against this backdrop, eliminating Trump and pinning it on the Iranians would actually be a very smart move for Israel. Because Israel would immediately solve at least some of Netanyahu’s problems: Trump would be gone, but his letter — his will — would remain and be put into action. A massive operation to destroy Iran would begin, and that is exactly what Israel wants. And now Israel is claiming that the Iranians tried to assassinate Trump in Ankara. They are planting the narrative and creating a symbolic situation in which everyone is talking and writing about how the Iranians are after Trump, meaning they can do it and have real capabilities. In reality, the Iranians have no such capabilities — but Mossad certainly does. We can see that Israel essentially controls American politics and can manipulate even the president — perhaps not 100%, but 95%. This is where a real danger emerges, because Trump recklessly revealed the existence of this document. I think that if Israeli intelligence obtains confirmation that such a will exists — that Trump left orders to destroy Iran if the Iranians kill him — then a frightened Trump, thinking he was deterring Iran, has instead signed his own death warrant from Israel. For them, Trump is expendable: he’s elderly, a lame duck, and not fully in his right mind. Sacrificing him — especially as he begins to diverge from Netanyahu — in order to provoke America into a full-scale war with Iran would be a very tempting prize. Therefore, in this situation we must consider that the elimination of Trump would first and foremost be in Israel’s interest. And most importantly, Israel actually has the capability to do it — and to shape the information space afterward, since it controls many global information flows. Pinning it on Iran would be easy by creating a suitable pretext. This has happened many times before in American and Israeli history. So I believe we are on the verge of a high probability of exactly this scenario. Of course, no one knows for sure. Even many intelligence services don’t know the full picture, and those who do will never tell. We won’t find out the truth, and it is pointless to discuss it empirically. What matters is the geopolitical context of the statements, not whether something is literally true or not. Whether an assassination attempt was really being prepared, whether the Iranians could have carried it out — all that is secondary. What matters is the image created in the global media. If the narrative sticks, everyone will believe it. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/lindsey-grahams-liquidation-and-the-war-of-symbols

Host: The day before yesterday, on July 12, Israel’s Channel 12 — quite a curious numerical coincidence — reported that Iran had allegedly tried to organize an assassination attempt on Donald Trump while he was attending the NATO summit in Ankara. There have already been previous attempts on Trump, as we know. Alexander Gelievich [Dugin], from your point of view, can we trust the information from Israeli intelligence that Iran’s current priority is to eliminate the American president Alexander Dugin: First of all, I think that after the American president eliminated Iran’s spiritual, political, and military leadership, there is no reason left why the Iranians should leave Trump alive. If one side crosses the line, why shouldn’t the other side do the same? The Iranians have repeatedly threatened to kill Trump, and I believe they could well have tried. That said, in this particular case, it is highly doubtful that Iranian intelligence and the Iranian state have the tools necessary to carry out such a threat. In principle, if they had killed Trump, it would have been perfectly logical: a pawn for a pawn, a rook for a rook, a queen for a queen. The whole world would simply have nodded: clear, understood. After what the Americans and Israelis did to Iran, Iran now has every right to do anything it wants to the Americans — including their top officials. They themselves erased those red lines. So I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest. However, when it comes to actual capabilities (not desire, but real capabilities), I would be much more cautious. It seems to me that Iran simply does not have the means to pull this off — neither in Ankara, nor on U.S. soil, nor anywhere else. Therefore, I consider it highly unlikely. But let’s look at the situation more objectively. Trump undoubtedly takes a more moderate position on the Iranian conflict. For all the radicalism, aggressiveness, and bloody nature of U.S. policy in this war, Trump and the United States are acting somewhat more restrained than Israel. There has been a lot of talk about this over the past week: that relations between Trump and Netanyahu have soured, that U.S.-Israeli relations are visibly deteriorating. And here Trump does something rather reckless, in my opinion: he publicly announces that, facing the threat of elimination by the Iranians, he is leaving formal instructions for the U.S. leadership — that if anything happens to him, there is an order to bomb Iran into oblivion, to raze it to the ground, and bomb it back to the Stone Age. He is repeating word for word what Hillary Clinton once said about Libya and Gaddafi. It feels like they share the same speechwriter — whether Democrats, Clinton, or Trump: the same images, the same formulas. Trump used to mock and express outrage at Clinton’s words, and now he is repeating them verbatim. But here’s why this move is reckless. Imagine: relations between Israel and Trump are worsening, while Israel needs to continue the war with Iran at all costs, since it was the main initiator. And suddenly Trump says that if the Iranians kill him, he has ordered Iran’s complete destruction. The most obvious thought for Israeli leadership would be: why not eliminate Trump ourselves?

📚 Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism — Alexander Dugin Description 👇

In this landmark volume, Alexander Dugin presents a far-ranging panorama of the life, works, and contested legacy of the Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola. The fruit of nearly half a century of engagement with Evola’s works, Dugin’s essays weave together philosophical, esoteric, and biographical perspectives to illuminate key dimensions of the Evolian project. From Evola’s early Dadaist experiments and philosophical writings to his explorations of Tantra, alchemy, and the Holy Grail; from his engagements with the Conservative Revolution and Fascism to his reflections on the “differentiated man” and “riding the tiger” — Dugin re-reads Evola as a phenomenologist of initiation and as a revolutionary forerunner of Traditionalist politics. Situating Evola’s relevance within Russian Traditionalism, the Fourth Political Theory, and the crisis of Postmodernity, Dugin argues that Evola is by no means a figure of the past, but a vital force in the present. Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism is essential reading as an introduction to Evola’s oeuvre, a unique showcase of Dugin’s thought, and a summons to reawaken Traditionalist thinking and action today.

📚 Available now: 📖 Paperback — 💵 $19.96 📱 eBook — ⚡️ $5.59

The West's Death Sentence: Nominalism, Progress, and Atomism Alexander Dugin argues that nominalism, together with the ideas of progress and atomism, laid the philosophical foundations of modernity, leading the West toward liberalism, capitalism. 👉 Read the full article here: https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-wests-death-sentence-nominalism

📜 Philosophy and Traditionalism In this excerpt from the book Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism, Alexander Dugin examines Evola’s early philosophical work, arguing that the concept of the “Absolute Individual” foreshadows the Traditionalist metaphysics that would define his later writings. 👉 Read the full text here: https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/philosophy-and-traditionalism Description 👇

In this landmark volume, Alexander Dugin presents a far-ranging panorama of the life, works, and contested legacy of the Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola. The fruit of nearly half a century of engagement with Evola’s works, Dugin’s essays weave together philosophical, esoteric, and biographical perspectives to illuminate key dimensions of the Evolian project. From Evola’s early Dadaist experiments and philosophical writings to his explorations of Tantra, alchemy, and the Holy Grail; from his engagements with the Conservative Revolution and Fascism to his reflections on the “differentiated man” and “riding the tiger” — Dugin re-reads Evola as a phenomenologist of initiation and as a revolutionary forerunner of Traditionalist politics. Situating Evola’s relevance within Russian Traditionalism, the Fourth Political Theory, and the crisis of Postmodernity, Dugin argues that Evola is by no means a figure of the past, but a vital force in the present. Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism is essential reading as an introduction to Evola’s oeuvre, a unique showcase of Dugin’s thought, and a summons to reawaken Traditionalist thinking and action today.

📚 Available now: 📖 Paperback — 💵 $19.96 📱 eBook — ⚡️ $5.59

📜 Philosophy and Traditionalism In this excerpt from the book Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism, Alexander Dugin examines Evola’s early philosophical work, arguing that the concept of the “Absolute Individual” foreshadows the Traditionalist metaphysics that would define his later writings. 👉 Read the full text here: https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/philosophy-and-traditionalism Description 👇

In this landmark volume, Alexander Dugin presents a far-ranging panorama of the life, works, and contested legacy of the Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola. The fruit of nearly half a century of engagement with Evola’s works, Dugin’s essays weave together philosophical, esoteric, and biographical perspectives to illuminate key dimensions of the Evolian project. From Evola’s early Dadaist experiments and philosophical writings to his explorations of Tantra, alchemy, and the Holy Grail; from his engagements with the Conservative Revolution and Fascism to his reflections on the “differentiated man” and “riding the tiger” — Dugin re-reads Evola as a phenomenologist of initiation and as a revolutionary forerunner of Traditionalist politics. Situating Evola’s relevance within Russian Traditionalism, the Fourth Political Theory, and the crisis of Postmodernity, Dugin argues that Evola is by no means a figure of the past, but a vital force in the present. Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism is essential reading as an introduction to Evola’s oeuvre, a unique showcase of Dugin’s thought, and a summons to reawaken Traditionalist thinking and action today.

📚 Available now: 📖 Paperback — 💵 $19.96 📱 eBook — ⚡️ $5.59

As expected, no peace between Iran and the United States ever materialized. The US resumed bombing Iranian territory. Tehran struck American military bases in Bahrain and once again closed the Strait of Hormuz. It didn’t work, and it could never have worked. You don’t make deals with Dajjal. That is a basic tenet of Shia metaphysics. Delaying the war and maintaining the mere appearance of negotiations always and in every circumstance plays into the hands of the West. In Iran, just as in our own war with the West, there is an ironclad rule: escalation must be mutual. The enemy escalates, we escalate. Only then can we influence the process. Otherwise, the enemy escalates unilaterally, entirely in its own interests, while we are left merely reacting in a passive, follow-the-leader mode. In essence, this kind of one-sided escalation during wartime creates a system of external control. — Alexander Dugin Read the full article here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/you-dont-negotiate-with-dajjal

And of course they are planning to fight. If we move to positive recommendations: we need to prepare and show the West that we are ready for a frontal war with them. That our society is ready, our economy is ready, our information system is ready, our industry is ready, our people are ready, our political parties are ready. We have elections right now. Why not rename the party? Not necessarily rename “United Russia,” but declare it the “Party of Victory.” Not the party of war, but the party of victory. And conclude a consensus pact among all political parties that they sign on to this strategy of victory. Society must be reoriented onto a wartime footing. The information space must shift from entertainment to mobilization. We should simply ban the use of words like “ceasefire,” “end of the war,” “agreement,” and “Western partners.” Our President and the relevant services should, of course, do their work. But society doesn’t need to know the details. The West monitors our society very closely. We need to launch a real, large-scale anti-Western campaign in our universities and education system. All of this exists. National idea, our own textbooks, sovereign education, sovereign history, traditional values — all of this is declared, but it is not concentrated. It is done as a secondary matter and has not been given the status of a priority. This is exactly what dilutes the efforts the President himself is making. He is giving all the right instructions in the right direction. But it feels as though all of this then settles somewhere: someone has their own point of view, someone has money in the West or family in the West. And gradually, the image of a society ready for the final confrontation — mobilized, awakened, aware of its place, its country’s destiny, its people and state — becomes blurred. Instead, we get a picture of something undefined: one life on the Patriki, and a completely different life on the front lines. These sectors are divided. People in Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod (and now also in Rostov, Crimea, and many other territories) feel one way, while somewhere else people continue to live in a vacation mood. [1] [2] [3]

But our people don’t need to know about it, because it demobilizes them and creates a false impression of indecision on the part of our leadership. That is unacceptable in wartime. We must have confidence in our leadership, we must be united and consolidated around the President, the state, and our army. There must be no room for doubt. Any talk that we’ll soon make a deal, that the war will end soon, or that a ceasefire is coming has an extremely negative effect on us. That’s one thing — we are our own people, we might understand and sort it out. But it has a completely different effect on the West. They understand that they control the escalation process. By talking this way, we signal to them that they are in control — and they act accordingly. They raise the temperature exactly to the degree that is convenient and safe for them. Today they attack tankers, tomorrow they direct their missiles, the day after they supply certain equipment — and we merely respond. We must put an end to this reactive, responding-only strategy in the escalation game. We need to fully enter the escalation process ourselves. That means we must (acting roughly as Iran does, in my view) carry out several pinpoint actions that are extremely painful for the entire West — even for the United States — actions that break their illusion that they control everything. I have said many times that when I met the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, I asked him: “Are geopolitical chess games played by two players?” He replied, “No, by one.” Right now the West is playing chess against us with only one player: they raise escalation a bit, we respond. They adjust it, and we follow. We are only reacting. That is chess for one. We need to play chess for two. Even Iran shows how. If we can’t reach decision-making centers, then let’s strike some proxy target. And not necessarily crudely — intelligently. There are many ways to inflict enormous damage on the enemy on their territory, in their waters, in their airspace, and in their social systems. Instead, we are simply running from the fire. We don’t have network operations to destabilize the social situation in Germany, France, Italy, or Britain. But the tools exist. We just say “we’re not like that.” Well, if we’re not like that, then it will end very badly. What are they doing? When they fully control the escalation process, they deliberately arrange things so they suffer no damage, endure no losses, while inflicting maximum painful losses on us — and then amplify it informationally. We need to do the same. I’m not even saying what Sergei Karaganov says — take strategic nuclear weapons, take tactical nuclear weapons and start using them. Maybe that too. I’m not an expert there — let the specialists give their recommendations. But the fact that in information warfare, social engineering, and the symbolic conduct of war (from the philosophical point of view), there are still many unused methods and directions is obvious. Why? Because the West, understanding that these are our painful areas, does not attack us in those directions. They do everything so that we respond strictly symmetrically. They are conducting this war of attrition against us in a very calculated way. [1] [2] [3]

Host: Continuing our conversation about Anchorage and Vladimir Putin’s recent statements in his interview with Pavel Zarubin, I’d like to ask, Alexander Gelyevich: how can trust be built at the diplomatic level if Europe is planning to fight Russia almost according to specific dates and timelines, and previous agreements have ended in betrayal? Alexander Dugin: I think that while maintaining communication channels, Russia currently has no other choice. None at all. We have already used every possibility except one: to truly fully engage in this war. Our President has repeatedly said that we haven’t even started yet. He is sending signals. This means we do not want escalation. It’s not that we aren’t fighting — of course we are fighting, and we have both successes and difficulties. But any statement that “we haven’t started,” that we are ready for negotiations, that we remain open — all of this is now perceived as an invitation for the next strike. In other words, they are beginning to understand (if we put ourselves in the West’s place) that they are the only ones playing the escalation game. They have the lever, they have the rheostat with which they set the level of escalation. We either respond or don’t, but in any case, they are playing the game called “escalation” alone. They can make promises, send dubious negotiators, or give signals, but in reality (as the President and Ushakov have said), they don’t value us at all, they don’t take us into account, they treat us as an object. They wear us down, target our facilities with their missiles, press the buttons themselves, and are essentially waging direct war against us indirectly, through the so-called Ukrainians. And to us they say:

“No, no, everything’s fine, we’re waiting, we’ll open Nord Stream or something else, we’ll make a deal about a tunnel.”

We can no longer allow ourselves to be deceived. Continuing to say “you’re hitting us and it doesn’t hurt, and we’re still so kind” simply doesn’t work. Most importantly, I think discontent is already beginning to grow among the population. Our society wants determination, clarity, an image of victory, and unambiguousness. This “Spirit of Anchorage” should simply be banned as a term. I’m not saying we shouldn’t negotiate with them — I’ve already said we should. But we shouldn’t announce it to our own population. Just do it quietly. Someone flew somewhere, someone came — fine. That’s normal in any war. [1] [2] [3]

Host: Anti-humanism, the attempt to blur individuality, the destruction of the nation-state — all of this creates a chasm when it comes to diplomacy and any possibility of dialogue with the West, at least because of the radically different interpretations of concepts, as seen with the “Spirit of Anchorage.” Alexander Dugin: Of course, the “Spirit of Anchorage” is ultimately just a figure of speech, as the President himself recently said. There were no actual agreements in that interview. They simply talked about the need to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine so it doesn’t turn into a nuclear war. There was agreement on that point. Both sides expressed a desire not to strike each other with strategic nuclear weapons and not to use tactical nuclear weapons for the time being. But it’s “for the time being.” And we’ve already seen what Western promises are worth with the example of Iran. So the “Spirit of Anchorage” is really just a euphemism. In reality, nothing was achieved, and there is no reason to expect anything. Moreover, if we look seriously, this euphemism wasn’t even necessary. The West perfectly understands our real position, but it interprets our desire for de-escalation as a sign of weakness. That’s all there is to it. The “Spirit of Anchorage” undermined the determination of our society to fight to the end, to complete victory. That was harmful. And in the end, there was nothing substantial in those talks. I think it was a mistake. Of course we should talk and work toward de-escalation. High-level meetings and contacts are necessary, but we shouldn’t trumpet them publicly. It confuses people. I think all the i’s have now been dotted. Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-splitting-of-time-and-the-end-of-anchorage

It turns out that both the globalist West and the openly hegemonic, America-centric West leave humanity no chance. We have no choice but to pull ourselves together and defend our right to exist — which means we must inflict a strategic defeat on them. Not wipe the West off the face of the Earth (we have no such plans), but curb their will to global domination and cut short their globalist ambitions. That we must do. The West is ending in Ukraine. It must be stopped at Ukraine’s western borders — or better yet, even further back. This is precisely what is being decided right now. The fundamental question being resolved is this: do peoples have the right to their own philosophy (not just our people, but peoples of the world in general), or will the West succeed in imposing its own, already perverted version? Because this too is a philosophy. It is not just technology — it is the philosophy of post-humanism, the philosophy of replacing man as such with artificial intelligence. An anti-humanistic, nihilistic philosophy in the spirit of object-oriented ontology, which they want to make the only one in the global context. This is what the war is being fought over. These philosophical meanings of the war are now coming to the forefront. And the more deeply we study the West — how it thinks, what it writes, what its philosophers discuss at their congresses — the more horrified we become. We simply don’t know this side of them. If we truly knew it, I believe we would be acting far more decisively in this war. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-splitting-of-time-and-the-end-of-anchorage

Host: Without a doubt, we will devote most of today’s airtime to discussing our path, but with your permission, I will ask one more question about the West. Honestly, it is interesting to observe the following. In your view, does globalism — which unified Europe dreamed about for so long — imply the destruction of the philosophy of identity at the level of nation-states? I would like to trace this moment of decline, from which it seems very difficult to find a way out right now. Alexander Dugin: Globalism implies the destruction of nation-states themselves, of sovereign civilizations themselves, and the imposition on humanity of a certain model — a model that emerged in the postmodern West. Where the issue is already the decomposition of man. Individualism reaches a point where the individual begins to disintegrate into parts. Time turns into a rhizomatic mass, as the postmodernists say. And in fact, this new postmodern philosophy and object-oriented ontology, which proposes to finish with man altogether, becomes a necessary surrogate for all forms of national sovereign thinking. In other words, what’s happening is the destruction of our philosophy — and, by the way, of traditional Western philosophy as well, which was genuinely very rich and interesting. Until recently, it was diverse, free, and dialectical. But all of this is now being subjected to total destruction through cancel culture and globalism. Even traditional Western thought itself is being revised and recut to fit the new pattern. And what can we say about other countries that are supposed to be conquered in the course of this globalization? They’ll be left with nothing but exoticism. They’ll be put on display: we’ll be given the balalaika, the bear, the matryoshka, and the kokoshnik, and told, “This is all Russian culture has to offer.” Everything else will simply be destroyed, wiped off the face of the earth — including the Church, the state, and society. This is a plan. It’s not accidental. They dream about it, and they are actively implementing it. Inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia in Ukraine is the direct path to establishing globalization. We are the main obstacle on this path. We are creating the preconditions for a genuinely multipolar world instead of a unipolar one. That is why we are the enemy and why we are marked for destruction. And after us, everyone else: China won’t survive, India won’t survive, the Islamic world won’t survive. It will be the end. Everyone understands this. That is why the main — and most negative — effort of the globalists is concentrated against Russia. Interestingly, the colleagues who spoke at the congress also noted that globalism has slightly shifted. What we’re seeing now is simply direct Western hegemony. No one is even trying to hide the idea of conquering and subordinating all of humanity. This Trumpist West, this neoconservative West, no longer bothers to dress up its will to raw, harsh domination in pseudo-humanitarian language. And that is no less frightening. [1] [2]

🇷🇺 The Future of Time: Key Lessons from Russia's International Philosophy Congress At Russia’s International Philosophy Congress, scholars argued that the modern West has abandoned humanism and embraced a nihilistic vision of the future, calling instead for the development of sovereign Russian philosophical thought rooted in tradition, history, and a multipolar civilizational perspective. The congress concluded that Russia, alongside other civilizations such as China, India, and the Islamic world, must chart its own historical path rather than follow what participants described as the West's accelerating trajectory toward civilizational and moral decline. Read the full text here: https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-future-of-time-key-lessons-from

But every Russian thinker, every Russian humanities scholar, every honest Russian person, every thinking person with a soul, heart, and mind — of course, they must in one way or another pass through this war and internalize it, make it an event of their inner life. Then we will understand where history is moving, we will see with what difficulty it advances toward its own goal. We will see its goal, we will see the image of victory ahead. Without this, nothing will happen. Therefore, I think this is necessary not only for the state but for any thinking person with intellect, conscience, and soul. For any normal Russian citizen, any normal Russian person. And this is not aggression, not militarism, not love of blood. It is rather an understanding of the tragic nature of human existence as such. And right now we are at the center of it — we cannot brush it aside. That is why, it seems to me, one of the main themes at this congress was the comprehension and lived experience of the war, and the advancement to the forefront of a hard-won, profound, mobilizing, and attractive image of Victory, the thought of Victory, and the philosophy of Victory. That is what we need. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-splitting-of-time-and-the-end-of-anchorage

Host: From my personal experience, I’ve met many guys in the zone of the special military operation of different ages and from different backgrounds, and without a doubt, such clarity of thought is truly surprising. In your opinion, Alexander Gelyevich, how important is it for a Russian philosopher to physically experience what is happening, as they say, on the ground? You said, of course, that it is primarily important for the state, but still, if we are talking about philosophers… Alexander Dugin: The thing is, we often think that history is about the past. But history is about the past, the present, and the future. All three times together (our past, present, and future) constitute the map of a people’s path, the destiny of a people in history. History is all three times, and accordingly, if a philosopher lives outside history, then perhaps he doesn’t care about anything — but such philosophers have never existed. All philosophers lived the fates of their civilizations and societies through themselves, passing them through their mind, heart, and soul. Therefore, of course, the war we are waging now must touch every thinking person. Some help the front, some fight, some lose loved ones, some die, some wage the struggle on the level of spirit. But it is one and the same war — in the rear and at the front, in civilian professions, in the economy, in governance, and directly in combat operations. Alexey Chadayev also participated with us. He is both a thinker and a philosopher, and at the same time the developer of a very powerful drone system. He is right on the front line. And there are many such people. Everyone must get involved in the war. This is destiny, this is a serious matter, this is not a technical glitch. We have been waging it for more than four years. In essence, this is a challenge to our entire civilization and our entire people. We will not win until we incorporate this victory into our very being, until we begin to live and breathe it. This victory, of course, changes one’s attitude toward thought. And this does exist. There are enclaves in our society, including in the philosophical community, that believe the war is not about them — it’s about someone else. It’s either about the authorities or about some alienated common folk, whom they apparently imagine themselves above. There is even a formula — “philosophical monkeys.” One philosopher said that there are philosophical monkeys who look like real philosophers. And those people who do not pass the war, the fate of their people, their state, the suffering, the prospects, and the efforts through their own soul cannot be called philosophers. They are philosophical monkeys. Or even worse, if they side with the enemy. [1] [2]

And, of course, every section discussed the question of our Russian time and Russian future: where we should move. It is completely obvious that it is not in the direction the West is pushing us. This was the unanimous opinion of hundreds of people — more than a thousand participated in the congress. We need to go in a different direction: immediately switch the points, immediately get off this train, otherwise catastrophe cannot be avoided. It was a very serious congress. It is rare for two days to be filled with such dense discussions, arguments, and debates. But already now, as you know, liberals and Westernizers are almost gone — they are rare specimens. The overwhelming majority understand that something needs to be done, that we need to substantiate our own philosophical sovereignty and philosophical independence. We need to build Russian history, Russian Enlightenment (there is, by the way, a presidential decree on historical enlightenment), we need to rely on traditional values, and we need to look not only for tactics but also for strategy. We must determine this path: where we are going, what we Russians consider to be the goal toward which our history is moving as it increasingly obviously diverges from the West. And it was very important that we had representatives of our servicemen from the zone of the special military operation. Russian philosophers are also participating in the SVO on the line of contact. This is striking, and they were with us. They spoke about how hundreds of thousands of our fighters perceive and make sense of this war we are waging with the West. And this understanding is much deeper than it seems. We tend to think they are heroes who fight purely technically, carrying out orders, but it turns out they think deeply as well. These hundreds of thousands of people may be the most awakened, most active, and sharpest-thinking representatives of our people. Both ordinary and extraordinary — there are professional philosophers, scientists, humanities scholars, and physicists fighting for us on the front lines. While fighting, they think, and they shared their thoughts at the congress. It was priceless, simply priceless. It is a rare case when an event received enormous support from the authorities, but perhaps the most important thing is that the authorities genuinely need this. It is needed not only by the philosophers or specialists themselves. It is needed by the President, by his administration, by the government (Vice Prime Minister Chernyshenko spoke), by the Federation Council (the deputy chairman of the Federation Council spoke). Essentially, state power is beginning to realize what should have been realized long ago. Thank God the time has come: without a deep philosophical analysis of the processes we are dealing with — both in the complex multipolar world and in our own country — it is simply impossible to move forward. [1] [2] [3]