Paideuma.TV Internacional

Counter-Initiation: Critical Remarks on Some Aspects of the Doctrine of René Guénon by Alexander Dugin The question of “counter-initiation” is the most shrouded and ambiguous in all of Traditionalist thought. Perhaps this is a consequence of the very reality which Traditionalists, following Guénon, usually denote with the term “counter-initiation.”The meaning of counter-initiation is set out by René Guénon in his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. In brief, we can say that Guénon understands counter-initiation to be a whole set of secret organizations which, although in possession of initiatic and esoteric data, nonetheless direct their activities and efforts towards a goal which is the direct opposite of normal initiation, i.e., not towards attaining the absolute, but towards fatal disappearance and dissolution amidst the “reign of quantity” in its external twilight. In line with Islamic esotericism, Guénon called the hierarchs of counter-initiation Awliya es-Shaytan, that is to say the “saints of Satan.” From Guénon’s point of view, representatives of counter-initiation stand behind all the negative tendencies of modern civilization and are secretly steering the course of affairs down the path of degradation, materialization, and spiritual degeneration. Since, according to Tradition, the logic of the cyclical process inevitably boils down to a path of degradation, from the Golden Age to the Iron Age. it follows that there should be certain conscious forces contributing to this process just as, conversely, the forces of true initiation and genuine esotericism try to impede this fatal decline by all means. This historical dualism of Guénon’s in no way affects the metaphysical unity of the Principle, insofar as it belongs to the sphere of manifestation, where the main law is that of duality. This duality at the very heart of manifestation is overcome only upon going beyond the manifest into the sphere of the transcendental. Within the world, dualism is indelible. Thus, the role of counter-initiation is partly justified, since it is rooted not in arbitrariness, but in the very providential necessity tied to the laws of the cosmos. Read the full article here: https://pravpublishing.substack.com/p/counter-initiation-critical-remarks @PRAVPublishing

Medvedev speaks from the point of view of the Security Council, from the point of view of the real self-awareness of our state. We are in a state of war with the West. I already explained at the beginning why: because we have now risen up against its hegemony. The West treats us as rebels who have carried out a geopolitical revolution and declared: “We no longer submit to you.” They say: “How so? You are part of us, your elite lives in the West, you are our branch, and here you are raising a rebellion.” From our point of view, we are rebels against Western hegemony. We are at war with them, and they do not reckon with us and want to inflict a strategic defeat on us. This war affects the entire country, because enemy drones reach any strategic depth, and no one can distance himself from it. And how are we to name our enemies? If we stand on ceremony, then imagine the Great Patriotic War: “Respected Goebbels, deeply respected Hitler, our partner Göring, our negotiator Himmler.” We did not speak that way! Medvedev says that Kaja Kallas, the British leadership, NATO and Ukraine must be called by their proper names. During the war the Germans were called the fascist vermin, and after the victory we became more cautious and began speaking of “respected German comrades.” When we win in Ukraine, then we will transfer our vocabulary into a decent form. But for now we behave as if we are addressing “comrades Himmler and Hitler” — this is absurd. To our great regret, part of our diplomacy and political elite — especially those who still have serious assets in the West — continues to speak with the enemy in the language of frightened vassals. Medvedev, however, speaks the language of reality. He is crude, but that is probably how people think and feel who head ministries and agencies that have been restructured on a wartime footing. I will not repeat Medvedev’s formulas, but he certainly does not use phrases like “respected partners,” “wonderful Kallas” or “the splendid prime minister of Britain.” He calls them by harsh names. I think a Russian person himself understands perfectly well or can look at his publications, because this is a direct description of reality. And against the background of this description, what our diplomacy is engaged in sometimes looks ambiguous. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-genie-of-unipolarity

Host: If one looks at the contemporary geopolitical situation, it is difficult to imagine it without such a phenomenon as the social networks of Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev. People treat them differently, but to a certain extent this is both a release of steam and an extremely clear, precise signal that sounds like an extreme. A signal that on the territory of Russia a great state still exists and is developing — not the weakest, with nuclear weapons and a powerful economy. Medvedev, pardon the colloquialism, “in a lad’s way” reminds of the consequences that will inevitably come, and that one should not joke with the great Russian world. There exists an official diplomatic line of the top officials, where everything is expressed quite diplomatically, and there is also such an approach. Where am I leading with all this: are there even now in the Western world those with whom one can negotiate? We see who heads European diplomacy — for example, Kaja Kallas, toward whom one can have different attitudes, although her level of education and competence is noted critically even within the EU itself. Against the background of other Russophobic statements one cannot help but admire the work of our domestic diplomats, who are forced to choose their words carefully, while Dmitry Anatolyevich can say everything directly and without cuts. Alexander Dugin: You know, one must not forget that Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev is not simply a former president of the Russian Federation, although that is also very important, but he is also the deputy head of the Security Council. And many think that he is the deputy of Shoigu, who is the secretary. No! This position was specially introduced for him as the authorized representative of the president in the Security Council. He is effectively the alter ego of the president in the Security Council. This is a most important, key position in the country. And when such a person… At first I myself was a little shocked by the vocabulary in which he describes what is happening. But — it must be said that when you speak about respect, about the work of our diplomats, here everything is directly the opposite. He pours abuse — if one may put it that way — not only on Ukraine, but also on Western diplomacy, threatens England with completely terrible punishments. And in fact this man, for all the harshness of the polemic, describes things as they really are. While the diplomats describe what is not. The diplomats proceed from the premise that we must live in friendship, but in reality a war is going on. Medvedev reminds us that we are at war with the European Union, with Britain, with a Nazi state that has no right to call itself that, but is a terrorist formation like ISIS (an organization banned in the RF). For him Ukraine is exactly the same terrorist formation which, as Dmitry Anatolyevich says, metaphorically has no right to exist. And that is how it is. [1] [2]

In parallel with this, China went by a completely different model. It almost fitted itself into this West, pretending that it fully recognized its rules: in the economy it submitted, in politics it preserved its positions a little, but on the whole it was ready to become part of the global world. And suddenly it turned out that China had its own cunning plan — unlike us. It consisted in making use of the methodologies of the West’s unipolar world, copying them (in essence, simply stealing everything) and building power on the basis of its own advantages: demography, industriousness, perseverance and the working capacity of the gigantic Chinese population. All of this was successfully transferred inside the country, and when the West woke up, an enormous competing civilization already stood before it. Once again unipolarity was called into question. It turned out that thanks to Putin’s uprising against the status of a province — and in the 1990s we had practically become a province of the West, and we were being offered the chance to enjoy that status — the uprising of the Russian province began, and it continues to this day. And China went a different way and thereby found its own distance in relation to the West. Let us add to this two other vigorous fundamental forces — Shiite Iran and the DPRK, which did not bow their heads. Thus the first sketches of a multipolar world appeared, with which we are working now. And suddenly we discovered that with the existence of these four poles, which are no longer provinces (or at least do not recognize themselves as such) and are fighting unipolarity, there still exists the organization of the UN. It was never reformed under the unipolar world. I do not think that anyone seriously believes that this phantom pain of the bipolar world left after Yalta can really be saved. But at least it is a kind of diplomatic cover for building an entirely new system on the basis of BRICS. However, that former UN system still exists and already has no previous meaning. The West continues to push toward unipolarity, and Trump — despite hopes that he would behave differently — did not become an alternative, fully continuing the course toward unipolar hegemony. BRICS is still finding it hard to create its own system, although work on this is being conducted. Therefore I think that the UN is simply an intermediate moment. Before transitioning to a new multipolar system of international law, we preserve the remnants, the rudiments, the phantom images of this already non-existent bipolarity in order to continue resisting the unipolar model. But the genie has been released. And the most unpleasant thing is that it was released not only by enemies — the West — but by us as well. We liquidated ourselves. You understand, when a person commits an act of suicide, he sins twice: before himself, because he has no right to surrender so easily, and before God. Suicide is a terrible sin. This is the terrible sin that the Soviet Union, its political leadership, committed when it abolished itself and handed power over to a pure colonial administration of liberal Westernizers. Herein lies the main problem. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-genie-of-unipolarity

Host: We planned to start today with the words of Vladimir Putin, with his remarks and the set of theses that were voiced at the meeting with sailors of the Navy in St. Petersburg. In principle, Vladimir Putin did not reveal anything new. Probably no one’s eyes were opened; nothing new or breakthrough was discovered. But once again he reminded us that in certain, rather frequent cases, the behavior of Western countries by their actions postpones, sidelines, so to speak, relegates to the background the Charter of the United Nations, trying to bring the world to some order of their own, to their own vision. Well, to put it mildly, this is wrong. In this case, Vladimir Putin compared such behavior to letting the genie out of the bottle — saying that afterwards it cannot be stopped. It turns out to be a very multilayered thesis. And in principle, a great deal was said at the meeting with the sailors. What will you pay attention to? How should this be commented on or perceived in general? Alexander Dugin: There is a declarative side here: we emphasize our commitment to the UN system, to the Yalta model that took shape as a result of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War, and we are guided by it. The Yalta world, whose structure is embedded in the UN, was bipolar. In it there existed a parity of only two truly sovereign powers — the USA and the USSR. All the rest aligned themselves: some joined the USA, some the USSR. Everything rested on this dual balance of power, plus there was the Non-Aligned Movement (India, Yugoslavia and other countries), which, although numerous, had no independent political position of its own, merely maneuvering between the two poles. This UN model suited both us and America at the time. And now the president emphasizes that dismantling it — which the West has been doing for almost the last 40 years — is very dangerous. The West began dismantling this bipolar model as early as the end of the 1980s, and we, to our great regret, helped it in this. We ourselves, with our own hands, dissolved the Warsaw Pact and destroyed the USSR, effectively agreeing to the unipolar moment that arose as a result of the collapse of the Union. We threw out the white flag and surrendered. And although we still mumbled something vague about the UN and the Yalta world, no one took it seriously any longer. The West set about rebuilding the world model under its unipolar system — under a “league of democracies” and other institutions. To our great regret, until Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin came to power we participated in this, effectively releasing this genie from the bottle. We ourselves committed geopolitical suicide, allowing the genie of unipolarity to break free. From that moment — almost 40 years ago — the UN as a real system of international relations no longer exists. We defend it as phantom pain, as something in which we were at least second, if not first. After our self-liquidation — the geopolitical suicide committed by Gorbachev, Yeltsin, the liberals and the entire state as a whole — what was left for the West to do? The bipolar world disappeared, one of the poles self-destructed, and only unipolarity remained. The West began fitting the system of international law to the so-called “rules-based order.” But then something went wrong for the West. This transformation of international law met with resistance. And that resistance became Russia — precisely Putin’s Russia, and not that Russian Federation which had originally capitulated. After all, the RF was built around the white flag of capitulation in all its institutions, having accepted the ideology, politics, values, education and worldview of its geopolitical enemy. We simply surrendered into captivity. And it is unsurprising that they treated us that way. But Putin said: “I do not want to be a slave and a province of the West” despite everything — despite the fact that it seemed as if we had lost, but we had not lost. And he began to strengthen our sovereignty. [1] [2]

Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism is essential reading as an introduction to Evola’s oeuvre, a unique showcase of Alexander Dugin’s thought, and a summons to reawaken Traditionalist thinking and action today. https://arktos.com/product/julius-evola-political-traditionalism/

Moscow, Third Rome, Russia as catacomb and the symphony of powers as a political system, is that also the Russian World? Alexander Dugin: Yes, unquestionably. That is what gave the Russian world the idea of universal scope. That is, thanks to the Byzantine heritage, the idea of a symphony of powers, the idea of Katehon, the Tsar, as the executor of the religious, global and universal mission, aimed at preventing the coming of the antichrist.... 📹 https://paideuma.tv/en/video/russian-geopolitics-eschatological-perspective-aleksandr-dugin

Russian Geopolitics : An eschatological perspective - Alexander Dugin In this unique interview with Professor Alexander Dugin, we discuss the fundamental concepts underlying the 'Russian World' and Russian geopolitics: Moscow as the Third Rome, the Katechon, the symphony of powers... https://paideuma.tv/en/video/russian-geopolitics-eschatological-perspective-aleksandr-dugin

A Conversation with Alexander Dugin in Moscow | Interview by Dr. Ankit Shah https://paideuma.tv/en/video/conversation-alexander-dugin-moscow-interview-dr-ankit-shah

Host: That raises the next question. Will Russia, China, Iran and North Korea begin a more rapid unification and abandon the reasons you mentioned, trying to eliminate them? Under what conditions? What must happen? Could something truly serious — for example a nuclear strike on Iran — serve as a catalyst? We have already discussed the possibility that the United States may find itself in a position where it has no choice but to use nuclear weapons. By the way, the possible appearance of nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia is also extremely interesting here, because it could affect the entire region. Do you think the Eurasian axis will begin to function only under such catastrophic scenarios, or could the catalyst be less extreme? Alexander Dugin: To be honest, I find it difficult to answer. I see only one thing: we do not learn from our own mistakes or from reflection; we learn only from reaction. At what moment we will move from irresponsible dreams of reaching an agreement with the West to direct action is hard to say. We wake up only when it becomes impossible to go on sleeping. As long as we can ignore reality, as long as we can lull ourselves with stories that we too are part of Western civilisation, that the West is not so bad and that we share common roots, this will continue indefinitely. Any appeals to science, logic, history, geopolitics or strategy coming from within have no effect whatsoever. These stories are accompanied by very serious material and economic processes, yet by our own free will, actively and on our own initiative, we are incapable of acting in a Eurasian key. We begin to build this axis, we begin to behave as a truly sovereign state — and this applies equally to Iran, to us and to China — only when something hits us. Whether it is a nuclear strike, a missile that kills the entire Iranian leadership, or conspiracies: recall China, where six out of seven senior military leaders were executed. That did not happen for no reason. China does not like drastic measures, which means the recruitment of its military leadership by the Americans had reached a critical point that required their elimination. When we react — when it is no longer possible not to react — what exactly must occur for us to recognise the necessity of actively, immediately and offensively creating this Eurasian axis with joint military exercises and mutual assistance? We need to build a military bloc. The West does everything it can to deter us from it: they say they will reach agreements with the Russians in Anchorage, with the Chinese in Beijing, with the Iranians in Switzerland — with each of us separately, anything rather than allow a military bloc to form. That means they fear it, and therefore we are obliged to create it. Simply a military bloc of Russia, Iran and China: “your enemies are our enemies,” mutual assistance begins. Iran would gain access to the Arctic via the Caspian, and we would gain access to the warm seas. We could solve a great many strategic problems. What stops us? Those for whom this is mortal danger — our enemies. Yet we often refuse to regard them as enemies, thinking: “Well, it is important for China to confront America because they are neck-and-neck in GDP and technology,” or “That is necessary for radical Iran, but why do we need such confrontation?” Nevertheless, all of us who wish to preserve sovereignty, dignity, culture, pride, independence and freedom will be forced to join this aggressive — I would even say offensive — Eurasian axis. Because if we do not attack, we are attacked. The enemy understands no other language. Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/eurasian-axis

Host: So it is clear that there is no point in trying to reach agreements with the Americans or with the West as a whole. What, then, about internal cooperation among the countries of this Eurasian axis itself? Why are we not deepening our military interaction if all of us — Russia, China, North Korea and Iran — understand perfectly well that we are confronting the West? Alexander Dugin: For two reasons. The first is that each of us — with the possible exception of North Korea, which is more clear-sighted in geopolitical terms — still believes it is easier to strike a separate deal with the West. In other words: we will reach an agreement, and let the Iranians and the Chinese sort themselves out. China thinks: let the Iranians and the Russians fight, and we will somehow manage later. The Iranians, until recently, also said that they have their own track, their own relations with the West, while the Russians can conduct their special military operation in Ukraine. Yes, we help one another — we help them, they help us, and China helps as well — but each still acts for himself. This is a kind of narrow nationalism: people ignore geopolitics and the laws of history, focusing only on immediate national interests in the spirit of pragmatic realism, sometimes even sacrificing allies for their own short-term gain. This is classic Machiavellian politics, characteristic of every country to one degree or another. And it is precisely what prevents the full formation of the Eurasian axis that follows logically from geopolitics applied to present conditions and from the necessity of opposing a multipolar world to a unipolar one. The second reason is that the West maintains extensive and highly influential agent networks inside the leadership of all these countries — except, probably, North Korea. In China and in Iran right up to the most recent period. And in our own country, of course, there is the “sixth column”: since the 1990s it has operated quite openly, and today it calls itself the “party of ceasefire” and so on. These networks say: “What does this have to do with us? We are part of the West; we can reach excellent agreements with the West. We suffer only because of our own radicals and because of the other radical members of this Eurasian axis.” In Russia they say: “Let us sacrifice China for the sake of the West, not to mention Iran with its radicalism; let us draw closer to the West.” The Iranians say the same: “Let us sacrifice the Russians — they do not really help us, they only make promises. Why do we need them? Let us settle the matter with the West.” And the Chinese say: “Look, we have not yet been seriously burned; there is no war over Taiwan yet. We are preparing intensively for it, learning from other people’s mistakes, studying the experience of a new type of warfare in Ukraine and in the Middle East. When it comes to us, then we will see. For now we will not make a complete break with the West.” The result is that both limited sovereignists — a kind of narrow realism — and pure agents of Western influence act in unison. They try to relativise and diminish the necessity of creating this multipolar geopolitical bloc — the Eurasian axis. They slow the process from within. And of course the West does everything possible to prevent the axis from taking shape. Yet it is necessary to create it. In fact it is forming by itself, but not because we are actively advancing it. The Eurasian axis is currently taking shape as a reaction, as a response to the attacks of the globalists. It seems our elites are incapable of absorbing the real lessons of geopolitics on their own. After forty years of promoting geopolitics in our society I have the impression that people take note of it, but since “no prophet is accepted in his own country,” it is treated as optional reading — interesting, curious, but nothing more. The real lessons of geopolitics we receive only from the West. Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/eurasian-axis

That is why, in my view, we must conclude that negotiations with this overreaching Western power no longer work. They are worthless; we have learned that from our own experience. One can talk about anything, but nothing changes: Washington’s support for Kiev continues, everything goes on as before. I believe the Iranians are showing an example—to us and to the whole of humanity. And to China, which is next. And to North Korea—a proud and strong country, but one that cannot resist alone. We need to build the Eurasian axis that Trump himself recently mentioned. Trump is apparently receiving his first lessons in geopolitics from his neoconservative tutors: he has suddenly discovered the existence of a Eurasian axis consisting of Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. Some claim Zionist agents misled him and that we are the good guys who will not play along—but that leads nowhere. It is far more realistic, thoughtful and responsible for Russia to prepare to defend this Eurasian axis. It exists because any state that claims sovereign politics, a multipolar world and independence from the Hegemon is automatically the Hegemon’s enemy. Trump came to power promising to roll back global hegemony. He did not roll it back—he expanded it. He has pursued aggressive unipolar policies with methods and on a scale that even his globalist predecessors did not dare. He arrived on a wave of anti-globalism and became an even more aggressive, bloodier globalist. Host: An important point about what this preparation actually means. You said Russia needs to prepare for this confrontation. How exactly? What needs to be done? Alexander Dugin: In our strategic thinking at present there are two components. The first is the belief that we can still reach some kind of deal with Trump and freeze the conflict, at least temporarily, so as to gain a breathing space. But we never use such peaceful pauses productively. Only in war, only under extreme conditions, are we truly capable of renewing ourselves. The time we are now desperately trying to bargain for at the negotiating table is, in essence, even harmful to us. The second position is more responsible, more realistic, and in my view the only adequate one: escalation with the West—with America and the European Union—will only intensify. We must expect new players to enter the war against us: for example, an attack on Kaliningrad, the complete blockade of shipping in the Baltic, and a growing number of other strikes, including with the most effective and hardest-to-intercept missiles, against Russian territory. This is already happening; these strikes in various forms are becoming more frequent and more painful. We must prepare for the escalation that is being forced upon us and abandon the subject of negotiations. Then we will have only one plan, not “Plan A” and “Plan B.” Plan A is to negotiate; Plan B is to do something if negotiation fails. Negotiation will fail not because of any particular mistakes on our side or the West’s, but precisely because the West interprets our attachment to Plan A—our orientation toward agreement—as weakness. That is all. Agreement will become possible only when we truly mobilize and begin to behave differently. At present we say: “This is retaliation for that, this is retaliation for this.” The moment we frame our actions as responses, we neutralize them. Now we must say: “This is an advance payment, and this is another advance payment—not only regarding Ukraine, but regarding all the surrounding supporters of the war—and all of it is paid in advance. Help yourselves.” As soon as we start operating according to Plan B and forget Plan A entirely, then, in my view, they will finally be able to negotiate with us. That is the problem: the moment they see our desire for a peaceful settlement, they only escalate further. Only when they see escalation coming from our side will it become possible to begin talking about anything at all. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/eurasian-axis

Host: You mentioned tens or even hundreds of thousands of American corpses being sent back to the United States. So are we already looking at the real possibility of a full-scale ground operation? Alexander Dugin: They talk about it every day. Host: Talk is one thing. What will the actual actions be? Alexander Dugin: Of course we cannot know for certain what will happen. I am not claiming to see the future; I am describing how the Iranians themselves see the situation: if the escalation continues, they will fight to the death. They will defend every inch of Iranian soil. Thirty million people have volunteered—one in three Iranians—to defend their country. That includes supporters of the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) and, interestingly, the political opposition as well. In the face of American-Israeli aggression they are united. Iranian society is completely united and filled with absolute determination to defend the homeland. Neither drones nor pure economic pressure will decide this. Look at Iran’s geography, at the Zagros Mountains—they are virtually impassable. If a ground operation begins, it can drag on for decades, and that will be fatal for the United States. The Iranians will stand to the last. There will of course be enormous losses on the Iranian side, but no one can stop this war now. Trump cannot end it on his own terms, because the Iranians are dictating very hard conditions. He twists, he lies, he threatens, he insults. He behaves—there are no polite words for it—like a terrorist, like Zelensky. Wherever you look, it is the same model: like something out of Zelensky’s old Kvartal 95 comedy troupe, only soaked in blood. Whether in the United States or in Ukraine—the pattern is identical: lies, deception, cruelty, sadism. No agreements, no reality—just the unhinged policy of global maniacs. Who learned from whom is already impossible to say—whether the Americans from the Ukrainians or the Ukrainians from the Americans—but right now they behave in a strikingly similar way on the world stage. The Iranians have understood this the hard way: their political, religious, spiritual and military leaders were treacherously murdered without any justification, under false pretexts—exactly as the Americans occupied Iraq and later overthrew Gaddafi in Libya. Pure lies in the service of the most brutal hegemonic plans. [1] [2]

He betrayed everything and everyone. Why? Many say, as you correctly noted, that he is under Israeli influence, that he has been taken hostage, blackmailed with compromising material—his own participation in those filthy, satanic orgies at Epstein’s—or by some other means. It no longer matters. He has completely lost face everywhere: before European partners, before the American public, among his own supporters, and in the eyes of the world. The Iranians were prepared to reach a reasonable agreement even with this maniac, but it is impossible. One cannot negotiate with such creatures. When the Iranians now speak of readiness to return to the negotiating table, it is largely for form’s sake—they are ready for nothing of substance. They understand perfectly well what they are dealing with. The next round of talks will be possible only when Iran has an even stronger negotiating position. That means tens or even hundreds of thousands of American dead returned home; the closing of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait by the Houthis; fierce fighting for the coastal zones; the cutting of the undersea fiber-optic cables that run through the Strait of Hormuz; strikes on the critical economic infrastructure of America’s Arab allies within range of Iranian missiles. We shall see what the next turn of events brings. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/eurasian-axis

Host: Could we discuss the question of compromise and agreement for a moment? Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that his country can end the military confrontation with the United States and move to a negotiated settlement once it gains the advantage on the battlefield. He sees two possibilities: ending the war through capitulation, or gaining the upper hand and only then entering talks on a new agreement. Looking at it this way, a similar situation has already occurred before, but it was achieved not through military success, but through the effective economic tactic of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which caused intense global discontent and forced the United States to seek a compromise in order to restore a ceasefire and ease pressure on the oil market. Why shouldn’t Iran now, in addition to the Strait of Hormuz, also close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—or ask the Yemenis to do so—in order to secure and even strengthen the same economic leverage? Alexander Dugin: I think that is about to happen—the closing of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The Iranians will fight to the end; they are extremely consistent. Even when they agreed to negotiations with the United States on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, they set very serious conditions. Trump assumed he could outsmart everyone—but he is a con man, a pure swindler. Trump is simply a dirty, aggressive killer and fraud who never stands by his word. The Iranians understand this better than anyone. Host: But is he like that only toward Iran? Is he exactly the same toward everyone else? Alexander Dugin: If he behaves that way toward some, he behaves exactly the same toward others. Make no mistake: we are dealing with an unhinged maniac who keeps no promises, who constantly changes his position on every issue according to the momentary situation—market, political, whatever. He is a genuine fraud. His own America is cursing him; his own voters are turning away. Everything about him is clear: he came to power under the noble slogans of fighting the “deep state,” yet he betrayed everyone he possibly could. He has zero authority in any sphere. The Democrats hated him before and still hate him; now even his own electoral base deeply despises him. As for how the rest of the world views America—there is nothing left to say. It is finished. But that is less important than his internal motivation. He came with certain ideological principles that were genuinely attractive: traditional values, a return to religion, focus on domestic problems, publication of the Epstein files, the arrest of everyone involved in pedophilia, cannibalism and the other atrocities committed by members of the American and European elites. He promised all of that. He promised to end wars, including the war in Ukraine. American sociology has the concept of the “Fourth Turning”: Trump’s supporters identified the fourth stage of the cycle with the era of Biden and the globalists, and after his election many sincerely believed a “golden age” was about to begin. They believed he would fight for “America First” and dismantle the deep state. [1] [2]

Iran has shown what it means to be independent, sovereign and truly believing. This is also the awakening of Iran itself, which, without war and without any radical change in policy over recent decades, had begun to stagnate. People there too had started saying: “We keep waiting for the final battle, we talk about it constantly, and it never comes.” Like in the film The Desert of the Tartars: they wait for Gog and Magog, and they never arrive, and people begin to despair of their own faith. Suddenly that faith was completely renewed by the American-Israeli aggression—and now Iran is real. This war will be real, because Iran has already lost everything it could lose; from this point on it can only gain, defending its sovereignty, independence, dignity and true faith to the last Iranian. Within Islam this is an example of extraordinary, genuine resistance that the Americans never counted on. They assumed everything would be theatrical, that they would buy off the Iranian elite, remove the dissenters, install fully compliant figures, and that the entire pathos of preparation for the final battle that had been cultivated in Iran for half a century since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution would simply collapse. It did not collapse. Now it is the turn of the system that proclaimed itself absolutely invincible to begin collapsing. And here everything is only just beginning. They have started admitting losses among their own armed forces. One of the senior officers of the U.S. Navy has died—they claim it was in some non-combat incident, a helicopter crash, but he is dead; this is the “fog of war,” no one knows the full story. In short, the Americans are beginning to acknowledge that they are taking casualties. Strikes on American bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan, constant attacks on Israel, and the targeting of the economic and technological infrastructure of U.S. allies in the Middle East (including the desalination plants Iran hit)—all of this shows that the Iranians understand the situation correctly: either they win, or they cease to exist. There is no middle ground. [1] [2] Read the full interview here: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/eurasian-axis

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