Quote from Timothy Fitzpatrick on October 12, 2026, 23:42

Avraham Shmulevich's interview with Alexander Dugin. Published in the Israeli newspaper Vesti (Magazine supplement) on January 11, 2001

ALEXANDER DUGIN: "WE RUSSIANS ARE THE NEW ISRAEL." Recently, centrifugal tendencies in the development of the Russian state have begun to give way to centripetal ones. "The Russian Bear Has Stirred Again" is the title of an article in the London Financial Times about one of the most influential and original contemporary Russian philosophers, a theorist of Russian nationalism, Alexander Dugin. This newspaper, an organ of Western financial circles, is among the best informed, and the author of the article, the newspaper's Kiev correspondent, Charles Clover, is a leading expert on developments in the post-Soviet space. The fact that this article was published testifies to the importance attached to Dugin's figure. Indeed, he is among those currently determining the ideological vector of the Russian state. I think it would also be useful and interesting for us in Israel to learn about his position firsthand. Dugin is the author of more than a dozen books on philosophy, theology, and current politics. His first book was published in 1989 in Italy, his second in 1990 in Spain, and since 1991, they have also been published in Russia. His articles are regularly published in a variety of publications, including Zavtra, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Krasnaya Zvezda, and others. He regularly appears on radio and television. His textbook, "Fundamentals of Geopolitics," published in 1997, has already gone through three editions, and a fourth is currently in preparation. The book has served as the impetus for a revival of interest in this school of political thought in Russia. "In the US, England, and France," Dugin laments, "unlike the USSR, research in geopolitics, i.e., the theoretical foundations of foreign policy, has never ceased. The greatest exponents of this field—Kissinger and Brzezinski—are also the architects of American policy." Dugin attributes this to the US's successes and Russia's failures in foreign policy. The situation in Israel is reminiscent of the Soviet Union in this regard—we also neglect the theoretical basis for our state's strategy. Dugin currently serves as an advisor to State Duma Chairman Seleznev and chairman of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise section of the State Duma's Expert Advisory Council on National Security. Dugin maintains close relationships with representatives of the security forces. For three years, he taught at the Russian Army General Staff Academy, teaching senior command staff, generals, and senior officers. The influence of Dugin's concepts on Russia's political course continues to grow.In several of his recent speeches, Putin simply repeated verbatim some of the provisions from Dugin’s articles. You taught at the General Staff Academy. How did you end up there? I was teaching geopolitics. I was invited by generals I'd met through patriotic activities, particularly through the newspaper Den, which had been the flagship of the anti-capitalist opposition since 1990. It was a very interesting time, when the collapse of the Soviet system brought together individuals who would never have come together under any other circumstances. Everyone was confused and looking for a new basis for the struggle against what was perceived as the ultimate evil – Westernizing reforms. It was then that I established contacts with the highest levels of the military. Geopolitics was of interest to everyone – as a new model for Russia's historical self-identification. Is it true you were a member of the leadership of Pamyat? I was. In 1987-88. I was attracted to Pamyat by the idea of ​​returning to one's roots. At one time, the overt traditionalism of "Memory" contrasted favorably with the bashful and understated "nationalism" of the conservative wing of the CPSU. I saw this as the germ of a "third way." I quickly became disillusioned with this approach, realizing its futility and artificiality. Incidentally, its demonization in the media had nothing to do with reality, which was grotesque and generally pathetic. - What is a "third way"? The "Third Way" is an effort to find a fundamentally new solution to socio-political problems outside of socialism and capitalism. It is not a compromise between one and the other, but a desire to go beyond an economically centric view of the world. In the "Third Way," non-economic aspects dominate—national, spiritual, cultural, social—and a specific economic model must be adapted to them. - Isn't this a utopia? Humanity is driven by an ideal, to which it adapts practice. Huxley wrote that one of the characteristics of utopia is that it comes true. The fact that this didn't happen in its purest form doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't happen. If a person didn't set goals for themselves, they wouldn't change anything in reality. Hasn't 20th-century history taught us that an ideological bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? The history of the 20th century has taught us one thing: humanity, while advancing technologically, remains exactly the same as ever. It's hard to imagine a more archaic century than the 20th. It was a colossal, mass outburst of the collective unconscious—with a pent-up fountain of eroticism, aggression, and absurdity. It was a century of oceans of blood, violence, savagery, madness, irrational projects on a planetary scale, the colossal naivety of the masses, believing in the most absurd myths, blindly following the strangest ideas and leaders. It was a century of communism, fascism, liberalism, race wars, human sacrifice, genocide, serial murder, perversion, pathology, and madness. A very human century, overall. And there were no titmice in sight. It was the age of cranes—bloody, nuclear, slaughtered, and soaring in a leaden sky polluted with industrial fumes. It was the medieval 20th century. A true New Middle Ages. It demonstrated that man cannot be taught anything at all. That man is his own teaching. And he will use any technological advancement at the call of his heart. This is the age of the total collapse of positivist thinking. What tit? Where have you seen it? - What is traditionalism? Traditionalism insists that, despite everything, man must defend his loyalty to his roots. This is a philosophy founded by the French author René Guénon. Its meaning is that humanity is not progressing spiritually, but regressing. Having rejected religion, tradition, and metaphysics, humanity has fallen into the sin of God-fighting. The modern world, the New Age, in this perspective is seen as the ultimate case of decline, a sign of the approaching final era, a sign of the Apocalypse. At the same time, every nation has its own tradition. A direct return to the past, of course, is impossible, but the effort must be made. The result will ultimately be something third—neither old nor new. A Conservative Revolution, in a word. You call yourself a National Bolshevik, a red-brown. Doesn't that sound like a swear word to you? "Red-brown" is socialism plus soil, left-wing economics plus right-wing politics, a socially oriented economy plus patriotism and traditionalism in culture. In this sense, I am red-brown. National Bolshevism is another name. We are accustomed to thinking in categories: the economically and politically left are typical social democrats, and the economically and politically right are typical liberal conservatives. Moreover, there is a tendency toward convergence between the political left and the economic right, which produces liberalism in its most complete, Popperian-Hayekian form. But there is another pole, and it is characteristic of Eastern societies, where collective forms of economic management and communalism are combined with a national idea and a traditional way of life. This is National Bolshevism. Among the parties closest to this, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Social Zionists are also close. One could say that Zionism is also a variety of "red-brown" ideology or a Jewish version of National Bolshevism. What is your attitude toward the October Revolution? For Russians, the moment of departure from Tradition falls in the second half of the 17th century, during the Schism. Peter and the subsequent Romanovs merely completed the process. Nicholas I was the peak of Westernization in Russia. He hated everything Russian and indigenous. During his reign, not only Jews but also Old Believers, bearers of the purest form of the Russian idea, were persecuted—even massacred. Along with books on Kabbalah, ancient icons and ancient Orthodox liturgical books were banned and burned. Old Believer monasteries and hermitages were destroyed. Today's canonization of Nicholas II is not traditionalism, it's a parody. It would have been better to canonize Lenin. Subsequently, tradition in Russia existed in parallel—among the Old Believers, among the people, at the level of the collective unconscious. On the yeast of this popular alternative arose the revolution, which I regard as a deeply national and deeply Russian phenomenon. Initially, many Old Believers joined the revolution, seeking to imbue it with national, spiritual content. But the synthesis between people's Rus' and Bolshevism that Klyuev and Blok dreamed of never materialized. And the late USSR almost completely lost the early Soviet spiritual charge. - You are an opponent of Western liberal capitalism. Why? Liberalism is, in the view of many, something like absolute good. Liberalism is the doctrine that "man is a wolf to man." The first metaphysical freedom is "freedom for." This is precisely what liberals deny. The second "freedom" is "freedom from" - from society, ethics, the state, the nation, religion, a sense of justice, hierarchy, etc. - this, on the contrary, is glorified. The critique of liberalism is so commonplace that I don't want to repeat it all. In this regard, I will cite French social philosophy – J. Bataille, M. Foucault, G. Debord, J. Deleuze, J. Baudrillard, etc. – What is your attitude toward democracy? I have a positive attitude toward organic democracy, but a negative one toward liberal democracy. Peoples are the thoughts of God (Herder). And as an integral entity, the people should indeed govern themselves. But parliamentary or party democracy often does not contribute to this. On the contrary, it simply imitates self-government. A fundamental revision of democracy as a concept is brewing. – You use the words: New World Order, Atlanticism – what do these mean? Atlanticism (or mondialism) is a strategic line of the West (the USA) to impose its system of values ​​on the entire world by force – through political, economic, and military pressure. The New World Order (NWO) is a concept of a unipolar world, where nations and states wither away, races and peoples intermingle, religions merge into a general, inarticulate, carnival-like frenzy, and the dollar and a global government rule everything. In the Jewish mystical tradition, if I'm not mistaken, this is called "erev rav"—"the great confusion." Everyone is transformed into nomads, sent into an endless spiritual galut, but now on a global scale. Dispersion now threatens not only Jews, but all the peoples of the earth. And this is a monstrous prospect. The Temple of Tradition is collapsing... Significantly, the NWO project is directly opposed to the very idea of ​​Zionism and spells the end of Israel as a state. Apparently, the Jews didn't wait two millennia to scatter across the world again, earring in hand and treif hamburger in hand, in search of material comfort and quick profits. The same disaster threatens Russia. Today, the question is whether to be or not to be. And if Moscow falls, the world falls. An Orthodox Jewish friend of mine said the same thing about Hebron, applying it to the current situation: if Hebron falls, the world falls. I understand him perfectly. We Russians were created to confront the Antichrist at the decisive hour, whose features are clearly discernible in the New World Order. But – as far as I know – Israeli fundamentalists think very similarly, only with regard to Israel. The important thing is not to figure out who is right, but to unite in confronting a common cause. Orthodox Jews see eschatological evil in the same thing. But since you don't have an "antichrist," you call it the "great confusion," "erev rav." According to the Vilna Gaon, it is precisely against this "great confusion" that the Jewish righteous will fight at the end of time. There's also a parable, I believe, in the Talmud that at the end of time, the Jewish tzaddikim will catch Leviathan and eat it. Leviathan in geopolitics signifies the Sea, Atlanticism, and a modern, commercial, technocratic, liberal-capitalist civilization. So it all fits together. The logic of fate has predestined us to be together at the decisive moment. - You belong to the so-called "patriotic part" of the Russian spectrum. "Patriots" are usually associated with anti-Semites. Is this true in your case? Are you an anti-Semite? My relationship with both Jews and Israel is complex. I am an Orthodox fundamentalist. To the extent that there is a metaphysical distance between my faith and other theological models, I acknowledge this distance. Jewish traditionalism also has nothing positive to say about Christ, and Orthodox Christians have their own theological concerns about the Jews. On the other hand, I am an utter opponent of Western liberal-capitalist civilization. It is common to discern Jewish traits at the core of this civilization. And the unequivocal Westernization of most Jews in the recent era of reform in Russia seems to confirm this identification. I have a frankly negative attitude toward this entire complex. It is not for me to judge whether this is sufficient grounds for classifying me as an anti-Semite or not. I myself in no way acknowledge such a self-designation. Jabotinsky once expressed himself along the lines of, "There are many people in the world who readily admit to being anti-Semites, so why forcefully label those who categorically refuse to be called so?" I "categorically refuse to be called so," and the rest is as you wish. On the other hand, when it comes to Jewish traditionalism and fundamentalism, I can only agree with this. I have a positive attitude toward religious Zionism and Jewish socialist tendencies. I greatly admire figures like Trumpeldor and Jabotinsky. Furthermore, I have studied with great interest materials on the spiritual and mystical traditions of Judaism. I have works dedicated to the Zohar and the founder of one of its movements, Isaac Luria. If you like, I'm completely devoid of racist prejudices. You won't find worse racial idiots than narcissists, no matter what culture or ethnicity they belong to... Authors like Yakov Bromberg, Mikhail Agursky, G. Scholem, O. Weininger, Z. Sternell, and A. Etkind are among my favorites. Not to mention my Jewish friends. But I know that it's said that only "anti-Semites boast about their Jewish friends," so I won't insist. The very re-creation of Israel is linked to an eschatological miracle, to the messianic era, and as such, it undoubtedly has a sacred character. The quality of this sacredness can be assessed in different ways, but its presence is undeniable. I readily admit that Jews are a truly extraordinary people. Refusing to speak of a sign or a moral judgment, I assert that Jews are unlike everyone else and have their own unique history. I see many similarities between the sacredness of Jews and their enigmatic, mysterious destiny, their connection to the deep foundations of the universe, and the equally secret and sacred—but entirely different—destiny of the Russian people. We, Russians, the New Israel, are convinced that the Old Testament prophecies apply to us. It's not that we agree with Judaism and its messianic vision. Everything is different for us—metaphysically, theologically, and historically—but there are certainly very complex and deeply meaningful parallels. What can I say, Jews are a people unlike everyone else. Where do we see, after two millennia of persecution, suffering, and dispersion, a people preserving its culture, its faith, its tradition, not collapsing, disappearing, or dispersing, but rather reuniting and declaring its presence for all to hear? A simple "conspiracy" is insufficient here. A deep and terrible mystery permeates everything. I also notice that the psychology of the Jews who returned to Eretz Israel differs from that of the Jews of Galut. Israelis see themselves not as citizens of the world, but as citizens of their own country. Their patriotism—remaining mystical and religious, messianic, eschatological—acquires a concrete embodiment, connected to the soil. This profoundly alters the structure of the soul, the socio-cultural archetype. Russian patriots share many points of contact with the Israelis. And most importantly, a common enemy: the new world order, a utilitarian planetary melting pot. We share a common Eurasian platform. Explain the concept of "Eurasianism." At its most basic, it signifies an alternative to Atlanticism, its rejection. Everything that opposes Atlanticism and the West is encompassed by the concept of "Eurasianism." In culture, Eurasianism is the preservation of distinctiveness and identity; in the social sphere, it is fair distribution and a collective, communal approach. In the military sphere, it is a strategic partnership between those powers (Eurasian in the geographical sense) that wish to defend their distinctiveness. Eurasianism breaks with colonial tendencies. We insist on creating vast strategic and economic entities that unite peoples as constituent entities of the Eurasian bloc. Does Russian nationalism necessarily have to be anti-Jewish? Absolutely not. Anti-Jewish sentiments are partly present in Russian nationalism. But it must be acknowledged that the pro-American line, pursued – crudely and aggressively – by a number of Russian Jewish oligarchs (primarily Gusinsky and his media empire) does nothing to improve relations between our peoples. This is not a racial factor, but a socio-cultural and geopolitical one. Those Jews who hold even a partially patriotic position in Russia are not associated with "Jews" at all in the distorted, Judeophobic lens. Israeli fundamentalists and patriots, Jews critical of the West, and even Jews generally loyal to Russia (if they live there) are not assigned any special negative function within the Russian national movement. This is especially true within the Eurasian version of the national idea, which emphatically rejects any form of xenophobia, be it anti-Islamic, anti-Caucasian, or anti-Semitic. Cooperation between Russia and Israel is entirely possible at various levels. We must learn to understand each other. Israel should remember how much Russian culture gave to the first Zionists and immigrants. Russians should remember how significantly Jews from our country and around the world helped the USSR in the 20th century by supporting Soviet geopolitics and providing us with the secret of thermonuclear technology. Jews are a kind of "software" on a global scale; much depends on Jews, including in Russia. Our common appeal to Eurasian logic could yield colossal results. - You are an idealist. But isn't it better to be like everyone else, to keep a low profile and not try to remake the era? Isn't it sometimes too high a price to pay: for a nation to defend its identity, for an individual to try to live in accordance with their ideals and conscience? Humanity must pay for everything. There can never be too much. Man is the riskiest of creations; subjectively, he is God, objectively, a beast. This combination alone presupposes a very serious retribution. Man pays for all his paths. With himself and with others. For the very fact of his life, he pays with the fact of his death. Everything that is worthwhile is based on blood, sacrifice, and war. War is the mother of all things. We must fight the Antichrist ("erev rav") to the last, and not wait for things to work out on their own. They won't. If you don't want to be a victim, become an aggressor. If you don't like tolerating injustice, stand up to fight.

Source: https://arctogaia.org.ru/FORUMS/messages/47/422.html?979511889