The book The United States in the New World Order (from “Os Estados Unidos na Nova Ordem Mundial”) is essential for the understanding of International Relations, as it contrasts two theoretical perspectives on the subject. Alexander Dugin, as a political agent of Russia, and Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. The purpose of this short essay was to invite the reader to one of the most important works of International Relations. Without it, contemporary movements in international politics will not be understood.
Article originally published in Medium. Translated by Tiago Barreira
Author: Rodrigo Valle
The book The United States in the New World Order (from “Os Estados Unidos na Nova Ordem Mundial”) is essential for the understanding of International Relations, as it contrasts two theoretical perspectives on the subject. Alexander Dugin, as a political agent of Russia, bases his analyses on the function of nation-states. Olavo de Carvalho is one of the staunch critics of the book “Politics Among Nations” by Hans Morghentau. According to the Brazilian philosopher, the States are equipped to act in favor of social groups and, in this sense, it is essential to distinguish the objectives of the various groups.
The book begins with a simple but complex question: “What is the current framework of International Relations and how is the world’s greatest power, the United States, inserted?” Alexander Dugin begins the debate by stating that there is no international order after the Cold War. For him, the international system of the Cold War, characterized by bipolarity, has not been overcome. In this sense, he notes that the United States of America had three possibilities for action. The consolidation of a hegemonic pattern in International Relations, unilateral multipolarity and the project of the Council of Foreign Relations (based on the Bildeberg Club). It is necessary to develop what these projects are in order to understand how the U.S. has sought to act.
The consolidation of a one-sided world is the project supported by the American neoconservatives. For this group, the United States had an obligation to intervene in countries to bring about democracy. Among the biggest names in American neoconservatism are Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. For this segment of the Republican Party, national interests will only be guaranteed if there are democracies around the world, because it is more complex that this political system favors the development of totalitarian raptures or serves as a mechanism for financing terrorist cells.
The unilateral multipolarity project aims to build global governance through the partners of the United States of America. In this sense, Western Europe and Japan would be key players in the success of the task. It is necessary, however, to note that this project has rivals which are, according to the Democratic Party, the states opposed to multilateralism and a liberal international order. In this sense, one can cite countries such as Libya, Syria, Iran. On China and Russia, the traditional Democrats are hesitant.
The idea of the Council on Foreign Relations is the embodiment of the globalist project. In this sense, the CFR wants the implementation of a world government, dissolving national sovereignties. It is a project propagated by the world’s financial elite and names like George Soros and names of the Rockefeller Family are stamped figures within the CFR. The color revolutions in Ukraine (orange) and Georgia (pink) were financed with the resources of the big bankers, since they aimed to implement political regimes favorable to the establishment of a world government.
For Dugin, U.S. foreign policy actions throughout the 1990s and early 2000s were aimed at propagating American values and principles. For this reason, he calls on countries and peoples that do not agree with American policy to take anti-imperialist action. In this sense, the author lists the actors who do not agree with an international order established by the USA. According to Dugin, there are three major groups that confront Yankee imperialism. The first of these is composed of the middle powers of the international system: China, Iran, Russia, India and Brazil. These countries do not want to lose their autonomy in International Relations, although they may contribute to and cooperate with the United States at times. The second group is made up of the groups antagonistic to Western ideology: Islamic Caliphate and Communists. And the third group is made up of the propagators of the Eurasian Project of power.
Professor Olavo de Carvalho’s initial considerations are focused on the three existing projects of global domination: the Eurasian Project, the Western Globalist Project, and the Islamic Caliphate. The first is formed by the Sino-Russian alliance; the second is propagated by the CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bildeberg Club and the third is an amalgam of all Islamists who wish to implement the world Oumma. These projects, according to the author, are antagonistic, because the philosophical, theological and moral bases are heterogeneous. Despite this, Olavo de Carvalho says that these projects can be allied if there is any common interest. The next step is to look at the sociological composition of each of them.
The Eurasian Project is military. In China and Russia, the state bureaucracy is largely controlled by military forces or members of the armed forces. This can be proven with Vladimir Putin, a member of the KGB, who occupies the Presidency of the Republic. In China, Xi Jinping has great relations with the People’s Liberation Army. The Eurasian bloc’s reading of the Western Bloc is that it is about the extension of American power, because where the West arrives, liberal principles are also present. For the Eurasian project of domination, these principles represent the apex of Enlightenment materiality, which must be fought, because it does not strengthen nations.
The Globalist Project is economic, since it is sponsored by Western bankers and the Establishment. According to this project, the greatest enemy is religion. Islamic fundamentalism and the Western Christian Right are the biggest obstacles to the implementation of world government. In this sense, China and Russia are seen as allies, as they can combat religious radicalism, as well as contribute to the development of a global economy. By choosing religion as the main enemy, one sees that materialism becomes religion. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are two powerful instruments in propagating ideas contrary to nationalism.
The Islamic Project is strictly religious, as it is controlled by a theocracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in 1928, was thought to be the great intellectual organization that would organize Muslims around the world. The book “The Conquest of the West” shows what are the plans and channels of action for Islam to conquer all of Europe and achieve the implementation of a global Oumma. The greatest enemy of this project is the West, since it considers the root of all the weakening of the Middle East, and for this reason an alliance with the Eurasian project is possible. Therefore, one of the strategies of the Islamists is to use the Eurasian (atheist) project and give it an Islamic “soul”.
Once the plans of global domination have been exposed, Professor Olavo de Carvalho begins an exposition on the strategies of action that each one has. The Eurasian project camouflages itself in the fight against terrorism, but at the same time it finances terrorist cells. In addition, he claims that Boris Yeltsin’s liberalism was responsible for Russia’s economic collapse, but hides the country’s major corruption cases. To protect themselves, KGB informants infiltrated various Western media, trying to avoid prosecution. In the case of China, the West was led to believe that Beijing was undergoing modernization, but in fact there was only economic opening.
The globalist project hides, according to Olavo de Carvalho, in the idea of propagating an “open society” proposed by Karl Popper. Following the ideals of Immanuel Kant, the globalists wish to destroy national sovereignties and weaken religion, preventing the moral counterattack of the West. Since the globalists are positivists, there is no way to make an alliance with the Eurasians, since the Eurasians have a great deal of national feeling. In this sense, the United States of America is the biggest victim of the project, since the sources of funding are American. The globalist elite therefore supports Russia to weaken U.S. national sovereignty. American resistance comes through non-traditional media outlets that propagate Christian and conservative thought. For this reason, many traditional outlets want to stick the label of “Fake News” on channels such as InfoWars, Paul Joseph Watson, etc.
Alexander Dugin begins his challenges to Professor Olavo de Carvalho based on three points: holism vs. individualism; questioning of the three global power projects; classical perspective of geopolitics and the propagation of Western values. In order to understand these questions, it is necessary to broaden the discussion in a theoretical perspective, working on the concepts defended by Dugin and, as far as possible, formulating brief comments. Only in this way will we have the necessary conditions for an assertive reading of the positions of Vladimir Putin’s strategist.
The first point made by Dugin is the contrast between Eurasian holism and Western individualism. For the author, the West does not defend national interests, since materialist individualism is concerned with capitalist gains. For this reason, individuals are not concerned with the history of national formation. By contrast, the Eurasian bloc, based on Sobornost, aims to recover and maintain national sentiment by mobilizing the whole of society for a certain common good. In addition, he makes a severe criticism of Professor Olavo, stating that he is not a true Brazilian, since he lives in the USA.
On the subject of projects of global domination, Dugin argues that the globalist project is the most advanced and, for this reason, motivates traditionalisms against the globalist offensive. In this sense, the power play is on one side with the globalists and, on the other, the Eurasians and Islamists. It concedes to Professor Olavo de Carvalho the point of being opposed to all projects of domination and, for this reason, does not make any criticism of the professor’s position. It is the least problematic point of the author’s entire argument, because he recognizes the existence of the projects.
The classical geopolitical perspective is used, by Alexander Duguin, to contrast Sea Power and Land Power. In this regard, he cites Alfred Mahan, an important American geographer, to show how American imperialism has developed over time. The rise of the U.S. is based, according to the American author, on the dominance of trade routes and the consolidation of a large military navy. In contrast to the U.S., the USSR was a land power, as it did not possess maritime dominance capabilities. Therefore, according to Halford Mackinder, it was necessary to dominate the World Island and, consequently, to rival the USA.
The last topic addressed by Alexander Duguin, in response to Professor Olavo de Carvalho, is related to the perspective of the open society. The Russian agent criticizes Olavo de Carvalho, as there is no distinction between the “Real West” and the “Manufactured West”. Thus, the position of the Brazilian philosopher is mistaken, since the West has become a support machine for the project of global domination and, consequently, there is no distinction between the globalists and Western society. For this reason, Russia must have all the appropriate means at its disposal to stop the advance of Western capitalism, since it is harmful to Eurasian interests.
Olavo de Carvalho begins his reply with a concept of political science: the interpretation of discourses. According to this Greek tradition, political agents, in their personal goals, seek to deceive opponents through disinformation. It should be noted, however, that a good observer is able to distinguish praxis from discourse and, consequently, extract the real intentions of the actors. Once the controversy is conceptualized, Olavo de Carvalho states that the Eurasian Project is the worst of all, since it uses all possible means to achieve its goals. It is the instrumentalization of Machiavelli, since the project appears to have virtue, but in reality it does not.
Subsequently, Olavo criticizes Dugin for not knowing the Brazilian reality. For the philosopher, the Russian agent does not understand the depth of the globalist project in Brazil. Ignoring the actions of major media outlets, universities and the artistic class is not prepared to analyze the reality of the facts in the country. From that moment on, it is possible to deconstruct the image that the professor would not be a true Brazilian, since, even at a distance, he is capable of understanding the Brazilian political framework, while Alexander Dugin is not. After that, Olavo de Carvalho begins an exhibition on the constitution of the Globalist Project.
The “Syndicate” is a project of power that began to be articulated at the end of the nineteenth century in Great Britain. The Rotschild family, the richest in the country, aimed to conquer prestigious positions around the globe and, to do so, began a long-term project. In this sense, it was essential to coordinate with large Western families and, for this, it was necessary to contact the Rockefeller family, Betencourt and other dynasties. The consolidation of this great project took place with the creation of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Bildeberg Club. Once the strategy was outlined, the next step was to take advantage of the U.S. to, while using economic power, weaken the nation, enabling the formation of a world government.
The Globalist Project is socialist since its main goal is to secure monopolies, stimulate socialist movements, and pervert Western Christian culture. Right at the beginning of the implementation of the project, the Fabian Society received instructions from the PSDOR (Russian Communist Party), with the intention of destroying Western culture. Since there is no culture and tradition in the West, resistance becomes nil and, consequently, national sovereignties are subject to obliteration. In this sense, it is important to commemorate the nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Great Britain and the USA. These moves are instrumental in preventing the globalists from succeeding.
In response to Professor Olavo de Carvalho, Alexander Dugin argues that globalism cannot be separated from the West, since the project is the result of a materialist philosophy that, unable to understand ancient metaphysics, arrogates to itself the only possible moral parameter in material gains. It is necessary, at this moment, to return to the teachings of René Guenon, because, according to the author, what keeps the West alive is the tradition of Holy Mother Church which, even with all the problems, is a historical ballast that enables all Western civilization to know the past and understand where it came from. It is therefore logical that the greatest obstacle to the globalist project is the destruction of Catholicism.
The Brazilian philosopher counters with the contrast between the struggle of the Globalist Project against the millennial tradition of the West. In this sense, since the nineteenth century, nation states have been used as a tool for the destruction of culture, values, and the foundations that sustain civilization. As an Augustinian comparison, he cites the City of God and the City of Men. In a recent book, Professor Sidney Silveira argued that revolutionary thinking left City of God under siege. An example of this clash is the liberal ideologies (Freemasonry, libertarianism and anarchism) that, based on subjectivism, morality is a private matter and, therefore, is not subject to criticism. Now, therefore, there is no way for a society to develop, since what keeps a society solid are the principles it defends.
This short review is not a substitute for reading the book, since there are other concepts that should be studied. The purpose of this short essay was to invite the reader to one of the most important works of International Relations. Without it, contemporary movements in international politics will not be understood.