Multipolarism, in comparison with unipolarity and globalism, is not just an appeal to the old or a call for preserving everything as it is. Multipolarism does not insist either on preserving national states (the Westphalian world) or on restoring the bipolar model (the Yalta world), nor on freezing that transitional state where international life is currently positioned. Multipolarism is a look into the future (that which has not yet been), a project of organization of the world order on absolutely new principles and elements, and thus, a serious revision of the ideological, philosophical, and sociological axioms that modernity rests upon.
In this sense, we come to the most logical conclusion: the economic model of the multipolar world must be based on the rejection of economic-centrism and the reduction of economic factors to a lower level than social, cultural, religious and political factors. Destiny is not matter, but the ideal , therefore, is not the economy that must dictate the political sphere, but the political sphere is the one that must dominate about the economic motivations and structuring. Without the relativization of the economy, without the subordination of the material to the spiritual, without the transformation of the economic sphere into subordinate and secondary to the dimension of civilization in general, multipolarism is impossible.
Although in the core of Eurasianism historically there are Russians, Eurasianism is a very open, polycentric model. The presentation on Vidovdan in Serbia is associated with very deep, strong organic ties that exist between Serbia and Russia. For us, Serbia is the western vanguard of our civilization. Civilization is Eurasian, and Serbia is in some ways Eurasian. Although this is a European state, it is an Orthodox country, it is closely connected historically with the Russian state. It is connected with a completely unique identity, Balkan, in a sense Turanian, because many people came here to the Balkans from the territory of Turan in ancient times.
Being a thinker of the West, Heidegger thinks at dusk; even more than at dusk – nocturnally. He sees his mission in summarizing the whole Western philosophical tradition. In some sense his books are the last thing that can be said in the “evening language”. Heidegger’s language is not the language of Heidegger as an individual; it is the final chord of the Western European language. Heidegger is the last point of Western European thinking. He and his philosophy are not a particular case; they are destiny, fate (in the sense of the fulfillment of the afore-spoken). “At the beginning of language lies a poem”, Heidegger says. At the end of language lies the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. And it wants to become the beginning of a new language, a presage of the language of the morning.
Adherents of the Bosnian church was not only a simple people, but also many notable secular feudal lords and even some bans. The example of Bosnia during this period suggests that historically there was a State with a predominantly frankly Gnostic religion, and that this State was Slavic (Serbian), and its ideological origins should be sought in post-Byzantine Bulgaria, and then to the Paulicians, Manichaeans, and, perhaps, , And to the early Christian Gnostics.
“The July 15 coup was a U.S. scenario. It was prepared also in advance and the information was given to the PKK. FETO and the PKK and will attack and Turkey was to crumble”
Looks like a new 4PT social media platform. Some videos from the pages.
Together we are the demiurges. We are changing the course of history in the direction that we think is necessary, and nothing compares to that taste. Neither wealth nor success, nor power. All this intoxicating stuff, of course. But the taste of the creation story is much stronger.
One mustn’t forget, moreover, that a European sovereignty could very well exist, even if today it’s only a dream. The tragedy, from this point of view, is not that nation-states have lost whole segments of their sovereignty (political, economic, budgetary, financial, and military), but that it has been lost itself in the black hole of Brussels based institutions without ever having reached a higher level.
A society in which money rules, indeed. This fateful society. Only in a society in which death rules is the Great Return is possible. But as long as there are people, there is a choice. Revolt against the modern world is the gesture of Return. Death is not the price, but the reward.
In Berdyaev’s philosophy of freedom, the most important thing is the fundamental idea of a person. A person realizes his own, human dignity, making a choice, absolutely dependent on his will. After a person makes a choice, he is no longer free from his own choice. His freedom ends where the moment of making a choice comes.
Dugin advocates the ideal of Empire for the Russian political organization, not to be simply compared to the Tsarist or to the Stalinist regimes, both lacking the deepest conceptual understanding of people. Although in terms of territory the Russian Empire could more or less equal those of the former political formations, what is involved here is the congregation of the same civilizational spirit, as it is clearly stated in many of his books (“The Fourth Political Theory”, “Geopolitics of the Multipolar World”, “International Relations”, “The Geopolitics of Contemporary Russia”).
In modern times, the greatest ideologue of this thinking current is Alexander Dugin. His declination shifted the focus from the “third way” to transforming the ideological background into a metaphorical cauldron-shaped cauldron in which it ripples a bit of everything: esotericism, theories of the new right, realistic socialism, aesthetic elements of economic discourse Marxist. The resulting chaos has drawn political forces from every corner of the spectrum, right and left, identifying a common enemy in the United States – as a country and as a civilization – and in liberalism as an ideological, moral and (only sometimes) economic.
A well-known Russian philosopher and political scientist Alexander Dugin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is separated from the Russian people by a “concreted bunker”, which consists of representatives of the Russian elite. The Russian elite Dugin divided into three conditional parties: corrupt officials, spies and morons.
The second humanism draws attention to the fact that the subject (cogito of Descartes) is not an immanent given, but a concept associated with a certain culture and, accordingly, with παιδεια, that is, educational and scientific practices. Here science comes to the understanding that the dismantling of medieval dogmas has led to the emergence of a new dogmatism – the dogmas of the Enlightenment – the subject, object, reality, matter, cognition, rationality, progress, history, etc. So the prerequisites are laid for what later turned into Postmodern, which, as we shall see later, was, in fact, a false start.
What is unconditional in monitoring the state of the present unipolarity is its subjective assessment. It is unanimously pessimistic. Even if the view that liberal democracy is the lesser of evils still prevails, today, in the absence of a formal opposition, the emphasis shifts from the word “less” to the word “evil.” A unipolar status quo is recognized by the majority of humanity, but the same majority sees the situation in alarming tones. Important: what is, no longer causes enthusiasm and, on the contrary, awakens more fears, fears and unpleasant surprises. Yes, the world is as it is, but it is some kind of a wrong world, standing on the verge of something terrible. The subjective factor has in society, in civilization a huge (if not decisive) value. If we treat an event as a success, it will be a success. If as a failure, it will be a failure. The unipolar moment today is almost unanimously qualified as a failure, as an end, as the threshold of a catastrophe, although – if we ignore the subjective assessment – everything in the world is built in the way or almost as planned by the liberals and supporters of the global victory of the West. The victory was achieved, but it turned out to be quite different than expected.
Human Society after the Crisis: Hell on Earth Through the Lens of Deep Sociology
In 2012, Vladimir Putin again became the President of the Russian Federation. This was accompanied by a number of internal and external events that have a direct bearing on geopolitics. Putin’s return dramatically changed Russia’s geopolitical course, which began to tilt toward Atlanticism during Dmitry Medvedev’s presidential term.
Lecture of Leonid Savin in the Institute of Caucasian Studies of Tehran University.
May 21, 2017 was held lecture of chief editor of Geopolitica.ru Leonid Savin in the Institute of Caucasian Studies of Tehran University (Islamic Republic of Iran).