All those who are sanctioned and banned today, all those who are blamed as rogue countries or “Putinists”, all those who are marginalized and criminalized — whites, populists, males, religious, social justice defenders, traditionalists, conservatives and so on — will most likely be the first to come up in the post-liberal period. But that is not sure and there is no plan or strategy for the future. It can be a Pyrrhic victory.
It may be that our instinctive rejection of liberalism is quite sane and logical but it is a kind of the reaction against pure evil that becomes too evident. When their rule ends nobody will be prepared for the next step. They have no future. But it may be that we also don’t have one as well.
We are too engaged in the struggle with the draining of the liberal global Swamp which is still huge and powerful, and we can discern nothing beyond that.
Putin is the compromise. If he is gone, there will be no compromise. It is clear that the elite is so resourceful and mean that it will try to adapt to another system, but this does not fundamentally cancel the fact that Putin cannot decisively influence the future. In a sense, he has already influenced it. And this influence is very positive: he showed that the 90s have an alternative, that it lies somewhere in the plane of patriotism (Second Chechen, Munich speech, “Our Crimea”, etc.), and this, in fact, is a grandiose accomplishment. But at the same time, Putin did not give the form and institutionalization of this patriotism, did not change the foundations of the state laid just in the 90s, did not carry out the rotation of the elites, ignored the popular demand for social justice. The established regime in the eyes of the people as a whole is much better than it was in the 90s (hence its legitimacy), but definitely worse than what is required. While Putin is in place, his merits cover the shortcomings. Once he leaves, a delicate and rather unnatural balance will collapse. By the way, Surkov is not right about de Gaulle: his legitimacy, relying on his role in World War II and the Resistance, lasted only until the early 70s, when he remained in power, and collapsed during the events of 1968, which abolished Gollist conservatism and established new socialist paradigm. Later, de Gaulle remained only nostalgia and simulacra.
B.N.:You're working on your own, in my opinion, capital work, under the heading "Noomahiа". In it you paid attention to Slavic and Serbian Logos? Can you say something more about this?
A.D.:I have already published two volumes on East European civilization and the part is dedicated to Serbian Logos. I have discovered that Serbs are essentially warriors. That is the heritage of White Serbia and the ancient history – it seems that Sarmatian factor played here important role. But Serbs have settled in the Balkan region where long before first indo-europeans prevailed ancient matriarchy – the civilization of the Great Mother – its rests we see in Lepenski Vir, Vincia and so on. So there is hidden influence of Logos of Cybele in Serbian tradition as well. I think that Kosovo battle and the epic choice of king Lazar is key to Serbian identity: Serb is that who prefers the glorious death for Orthodox faith and Serbian motherland to any richness and gifts from the enemy. So I think Serbs are not only people… You Serbs are a kind of mystical community, a Church of king Lazar devoted to the Kosovo as eternal example of loyalty, will, dignity and special kind of purely Serbian sanctity… All that I tried to explore in Noomakhia dedicated to Slavs and to Balkan civilization as such. By the way I have discover that it is wrong to represent Balkans as periphery of Europe. In some sense it is cradle of European peasantry and it is European peasantry that is responsible for many crucial elements of European identity… So I would be happy if my new books would be translated in Serbian as the other that are already translated and published in my beloved country.
The escalation of tension in Russian-Ukrainian relations after the conflict in the Sea of Azov demands analysis.
The formal side of the conflict is obvious: Poroshenko is not capable of winning the upcoming elections, so he arranged a provocation to impose state of emergency and disrupt them. That`s how Russian experts have commented on the situation, with a smile. This analysis is correct to a certain degree, but the decision is not spontaneous: Poroshenko has a plan, and it is more serious than some momentary trick.
If the current escalation gradually calms down, then martial law will eventually be repealed, and elections will be held. Poroshenko will look like an idiot because the “Russian threat” will not be enough to improve his popularity. He must have another plan in mind. The only thing that would make Poroshenko's action logical, is a deeper orientation toward war with Russia. If such a war does not occur, Poroshenko will only have worsened his situation. Poroshenko needs more than escalation, he needs war.
First of all, the fact that populist movements are directed against the political elite as a whole, without making a distinction, whether it is right or left-wing, is striking. This is the 'uprise of the periphery of society against its center'. In his famous work, the American sociologist Christopher Lasch (1932–1994) designated the form of government that prevails in modern Western society as the “elite revolution”.
At the beginning of the XXth century, it was customary to follow José Ortega y Gasset's discourse about the “revolt of the masses”, whose increasing influence on politics threatened, it seemed, to destroy Western culture - the European Logos.
But Christopher Lasch noted a new political trend: it is the elites that are destroying culture and European Logos today. These new western elites, who have reached the pinnacle of power only by their resourcefulness and immense will to power, are much worse and more destructive than the masses.
Cold war was the confrontation between two ideological camps. Now there is no more clear distinction in the field of ideology, rather between two versions of the same liberal-democracy – advanced in the case of USA and EU and delayed in the case of Russia. So we would presume that should reduce considerably the tension. But it is not the case. So we have to search the reason of growing tensions in other field than ideology. The most likely the reasons of the “new cold war” are this time geopolitical. But it is legitimate to ask the question: That it was not in reality an ideological cold war between capitalism and socialism the moment of much more broader historically context the moment of Great War of Continents.
This GWoC is the very basis of geopolitical understanding of history – Sea Power against Land Power, Eurasia against Atlantica. If we can agree on that everything becomes logical and clear. There is the everlasting battle between two types of civilizations – dynamic (progressive, merchant) Sea civilization and static (conservative, heroic) Land civilization: Carthage against Rome, Athens against Sparta.
The US, UK, and France’s first missile airstrikes were rather improvisational and symbolic in nature.
Iranian, Russian, and Hezbollah forces were not attacked. Assad did not suffer strategically. The Syrian opposition, which expected much more, did not gain any serious advantages. Mass demonstrations in support of Assad are being held in Damascus.
Russian commentators have pointed out that France itself did not launch any missiles - all those launched were by British and American military forces.
Judging by the fact that all the missiles were launched at targets at a careful distance from the location of Russian soldiers, it seems that Mattis’ line won out in the US, as opposed to that of Bolton, who has insisted on directly attacking Iranians and Russians.
What happened on April 7th, 2017 could be the beginning of a Third World War. As a rule, nobody wants war but, alas, wars happen, and sometimes world ones. Therefore, I posit that first and foremost, as in the case of any disaster, it is necessary to remain calm and gather one’s thoughts.
On April 7th, 2017, for the first time in the years since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, the US Air Force launched a massive Tomahawk missile attack at a Syrian airbase, i.e., at us. Why did we not use a missile defense complex? According to one theory, we we lack a sufficient number of them to repulse a full-fledged attack by US troops, as they are designed primarily against the missile attacks of other potential enemies. The second theory is that Moscow did not dare give the order since such would mean the irreversible beginning of war with the US. Washington dared to, and knew what it was doing. We didn’t. Before proceeding to forecasts, it is worth once again examining the context, the starting conditions of what might become (though still might not) the Third World War.
“The Swamp” is to become the new name for the globalist sect, the open society adepts, LGBT maniacs, Soros’ army, the post-humanists, and so on. Draining the Swamp is not only categorically imperative for America. It is a global challenge for all of us. Today, every people is under the rule of its own Swamp. We, all together, should start the fight against the Russian Swamp, the French Swamp, the German Swamp, and so on. We need to purge our societies of the Swamp’s influence. Instead of fighting between ourselves, let us drain it together. Swamp-drainers of the whole world unite!
The other point is that anti-Americanism is over. Not because it was wrong, but exactly the opposite: because the American people themselves have started the revolution against precisely this aspect of the US that we all hated. Now the European ruling elite, as well as part of the Russian elite (that is still liberal), cannot be blamed as before for being too pro-American. They should now be blamed for being what they are: a corrupt, perverted, greedy gang of banksters and destroyers of cultures, traditions, and identities. So let us drain the European Swamp. Enough with Hollande, Merkel, and Brussels. Europe for Europeans. Soros and his sect should be publicly condemned.
These days it is hardly possible to discusses anything serious other than the astonishing victory of Donald Trump and the crushing defeat of the protege of globalism, Hillary Clinton, in the American elections. This event is so important for the entire world order, than it can be analyzed from different sides. Everything is so saturated with different meanings that you don’t know what to start with…
Trump’s ascent first and foremost puts a decisive end to the unipolar world. Trump has directly rejected US hegemony in both its mild form, which the CFR insists on, and in its harsh form, as the neocons call for. In these elections, the two main American globalist think thanks rallied around the candidacy of Clinton and collapsed. This means that the unipolar world is liquidated not only under the pressure of other countries, but from within America itself. The peoples and states of the world can finally take a deep breath. The expansion of globalism has been stopped at its very center. The new multipolar world means that the US will henceforth become one of several poles of world order, a powerful and important one, but not the only one, and more importantly one that has no claims to being exceptional.
No religion resisted against the extensive hegemony of the modern culture as Islam did. In other words, Islam is the only religion that didn’t melt into the modern culture. Other religions like Christianity reacted against the modern culture and civilization, but soon they gave it up and came to recognize it. The internal structure of Islam is in a way that calls its followers to a permanent struggle against anything strange other than itself. this is a religious obligation that one’s success in this world and hid salvation in the next world is bound to this. If Muslims give up this duty for a while it isn’t going to cease forever. From the time that the third world came to know the modern civilization a process began to grow; the enlightened class of these societies were influenced by the new civilization and it went on to the level of being bewitched and crazy with it. They rejected their ethnic and local cultures in all aspects. There was an unquestionable sovereignty for the modern civilization and its values in the decisions made for these societies. On the other side there was an implicit confession from the lay people who in spite of living in their traditional atmosphere, submitted the priority of the modern culture or at least didn’t express their disagreement.
But Trump… He is a sensation. In fact, it is a real change from the usual display. The Republicans, as well as the Democrats, are the representatives of the US ruling elites. It is a special part of society, being quite far from the ordinary Americans. This elite considers not America, but the world, not society, but unbelievable sums of money serves not people, an abstract utopia of the world government and global financial oligarchy. The American elite is not even American. Thus, there is Donald Trump, who is tough, rough, says what he thinks, rude, emotional and, apparently, candid. The fact that he is a billionaire doesn’t matter. He is different. He is an extremely successful ordinary American. He is crude America, without gloss and the globalist elite. He is sometimes disgusting and violent, but he is what he is. It is true America.
Most likely, Donald Trump is another designed product, a virtual figure. However, it is him who makes people feel fresh and hopeful. He is trustworthy: the black peacekeeper promised to change everything, but was unable to change anything, nothing at all, and Hilary Clinton, with a quickly aging poker face, doesn’t promise to change anything, maybe Trump will be able to get America’s natural borders back.
Maybe, that redhead rude Yankee from the saloon will get back to the problems inside the country and will leave humanity alone, which is tired of American hegemony and its destructive policy of chaos, bloody rivers and color revolutions?
Outside of enantiodromia, bureaucrats become (anti-liberal and anti-American) patriots, ideological patriots (Russia above all), and liberal supporters of the regime and its elite become opponents of the regime, and an implacable opposition to it (there should be no Russia at all). Liberals in irreconcilable opposition represent a Fifth Column, while the liberals in the government — the Sixth Column. Symmetrically, a distinction exists between security officials and bureaucrats (within the elite), and the independent ideological core of patriotism (great power nationalists, supporters of the Orthodox Empire, traditionalists, conservatives and conservative revolutionaries, Eurasianists and followers of the 4PT). But in modern Russia, as in almost all modern powers of the second degree, the enantiodromia practically dominates everywhere. This is the alliance of military men for peace with the liberals for sovereignty.
We are living in the decisive moment when Western civilization is approaching its end. Such terroristic acts as that of Paris 13.11 show it clearly and unmistakably. The West we knew doesn’t exist any longer. Can’t exist any longer. One upon a time there was a certain West. With patriarchic heroic values, Christian identity, deep and exquisite culture with Greek-Roman roots. The West of God, man and nature. There is nothing like that in sight. The ruins. The weak and poisonous liberal civilization based on self-indulgence and at the same time on self-hatred. With no identity but purely negative one. Peopled by humans egoistic and ashamed of themselves. It can have the future. In front of brutal post-modern ISIS-fighters it can’t affirm anything, can’t oppose anything, can’t suggest anything. The West can’t be any longer Western. It is loosing itself. It is drowning.
But why does Russia provide military aid to Syria? First, this is a geopolitical conflict. The front between Atlanticists and Eurasians runs in Syria. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a political vacuum was created in the East and in the Middle East as well. There, the U.S. pursued a project focused on destroying nation-states—dubbed the "Greater Middle East Project." It even destroyed states that had behaved more or less loyal to Washington. The U.S. creates chaos to project itself as a hegemonic power. In the 1990s, Russia was weak and did not react, but in the early 2000s, it began to recover slowly. Today, Vladimir Putin has decided to actively oppose the U.S. policy of chaos in the Middle East. Russia’s military help against terrorism in Syria can be seen as an act of Eurasian geopolitics. Syria is located at the center of the battle between the representatives of a unipolar (U.S.) and a multipolar (Russia) world order.
Russia is at war, but we are soothed with vague, halfhearted illusions and unconvincing, diluted propaganda which don’t lead to mobilization. It might appear to someone that we have problems with the economy and standards of living, as well as social injustice. This is all true, but it's not the main problem. The main problem is that the public is unaware of the situation in which it is in. Maybe it is easier to manage thoughtlessness, not asking any existing questions, and being mesmerized by minor problems in the “lifeworld.” But this can’t be done with history. There might be still some time to stretch, but not very much. It seems to me that it is worth focusing our attention and efforts on at least properly describing the existing situation without rushing into making accusations or suggesting a salvational plan.
It’s possible to try and run away, but history catches up to us no matter what and there are signs that she’s catching up with us. We at least cannot leave Syria without victory. And if they challenge us and rip up the Minsk Agreements in Donbass, then we will need not one victory but two. And I am sure that we are quite ready for this and we can do it. But we need to give up the politics of half a glass.
Our great people and valiant army have enough strength, fortitude, and courage for great victories. Another thing is whether the political leadership of the country has enough brains, courage, and will. Now all the questions put before them, and we will see how these people respond to their call by history. They think all the rest should bear the responsibility for what is in front of them. This is so. But they will be judged before the court of history. And the court of history is a scary thing. It is like God’s judgement, and it is impossible to bribe or use an administrative resource.
Geopolitically Europe is today atlanticist entity. The geopolitics imagined by Englishman Sir H. Mackinder declares that there are two type of civilizations – the civilization of the Sea (Seapower) and the civilization of the Land (Landpower). They are constructed on the opposite systems of values. Seapower is purely merchant, modernist and materialist. The Landpower is traditionalists, spiritual and heroic. That dualism corresponds to the pair of Werner Sombart concept – Händlres and Helden. Modern European society is fully integrated in the civilization of Sea. That is manifested in the North-American strategic hegemony and in the NATO.This situation prevents Europe from becoming independent geopolitical entity. More profoundly it perverts the geopolitical nature of Europe as continental entity – Landpower. So there is a need to change the situation and to restore the Landpower strategy based on the real European sovereignty. Instead of atlanticism Europe need to become continental strategic power.
Though he prefers not to dwell on it, Dugin alludes to the possibility that the attractions of the West will win out, that Putin lacks the resources or even the will to thwart liberalism. In this regard, other Russia observers have even raised Thomas Molnar’s concept of the “counterrevolutionary hero”—an archetypal figure who is not really counterrevolutionary, and who will inevitably disappoint right-wing followers drawn to his personality and mystique. The anxious handwringing of liberals notwithstanding, it’s conceivable that Putin may in the long run prove their best friend by letting down the very patriotic base that elevated him to power. The legacy of Charles de Gaulle comes to mind, as does Reagan’s. Then again, liberals have put their cards on the table awfully soon, and may have backed Russia into a corner. It would be foolish to continue appeasing Western elites who have time and again demonstrated an insatiable appetite for regime change—and whatever else one may say of Putin, he is no fool. Hawkish rhetoric and overtly perverse policies on behalf of queer power may backfire, pushing the Russian state toward the pursuit of consciously and assertively antiliberal empire.
never getting to the core of things – "We [USA] are not good at democratizing countries". But then again, who in the world asked you to do that "for us"? This question has to be answered honestly—as a matter of fact, it is Paikin not asking this that proves the show to be sold in advance;
replacing truth for political correctness – "Liberal democracies don't fight each other". The idea is mischievous at least for three reasons:
the problem with this assumption relies not only in the accuracy of the claim itself (there has been wars between democracies), but also in the fact that its credo is precisely what leads to war against other kinds of regime, who are considered intrinsically a crime punishable by war; therefore, the claim recognizes its prejudicial vision of the Other as a phenomenon and legitimizes the necessity of their killing.
According to Prof Alexander Dugin, Vladimir Putin stands at a crossroads. Throughout his career as the President of Russia, Putin has attempted to balance two opposing sides of his political nature: one side is a liberal democrat who seeks to adopt Western-style reforms in Russia and maintain good relations with the United States and Europe, and the other is a Russian patriot who wishes to preserve Russia's traditions and reassert her role as one of the great powers of the world. According to Dugin, this balancing act cannot go on if Putin wishes to enjoy continuing popular support among the Russian people. Putin must act to preserve Russia's unique identity and sovereignty in the face of increasing challenges, both from Russian liberals at home and from foreign powers. Russia is no longer strong enough to stand on her own, he writes. In order to do this, Russia must cooperate with other dissenting powers who oppose the new globalist order of liberalism to bring about a multipolar world, in which no single nation wields supreme power, but rather several major powers keep each other in balance. Russia is crucial to this effort, in Dugin's view, and indeed, its own survival as a unique and independent civilisation is dependent on a geopolitical shift away from the unipolar world represented by America's unchecked supremacy. This fascinating book, written by an informal advisor to Putin and a Kremlin insider, is the first of its kind in English.
History never repeats itself, but there are historical constants. The tension between Land Power, represented by the Eurasian continent, and the Sea Power, represented by the USA, is one of those constants. A return of the Cold War? I would rather say it has never ended. The proof is that NATO, who should have disappeared at the same time as the Warsaw Pact, has, on the contrary, become an american-centered war machine with planetary vocation. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall it never ceased to deploy itself in the East, in a blatant violation of the assurances given to Gorbachev at the moment of the German reunification. The Ukrainian crisis is inscribed in this very context. To the Americans, it is about being present as far as the Russian borders - something Russia cannot, obviously, accept. Could you imagine the USA accepting the installation of Russian bases in Mexico?
What is news is that Europe doesn't even have the excuse of the "soviet threat" to justify its atlantism. The way with which the public opinion is systematically uninformed regarding Ukraine confirms the servilism in which the European Union has fallen. The government issued from the coup in Maidan make their bombers and tanks shoot the Russian "separatists", the civil war has already made 2.500 casualties, and those who yesterday have accused Bashar Al-Asad of "massacre of his own people" are the ones applauding this today (or they don't care absolutely).
The hatred of Strelkov is that by an enemy race, not in the biological, but in the spiritual sense. The race of technologists, con artists, bureaucrats, manipulators, and merchants. Werner Sombart used to say that there are two types of people: the race of merchants and that of heroes. Europe of Modernity is the result of triumphant merchants (capitalism) over the race of heroes (Middle Ages). Strelkov is the Russian Middle Ages. After all, Orthodoxy itself cannot be “modern”: this would be a parody, a simulacrum. It could either be Ancient or Medieval. “Modernity” is the patrimony of the Antichrist. Thus, Strelkov is from that which once passed. But not that which once passed, and is no more, but rather that which truly was, and still is, as the core of our souls, as an arcane center of the Russian identity.
The Ukrainian affaire is a complex and grave affaire (in another time and in different circumstances it could have triggered a regional war, and why not a world war). It is complex because with the information we have, we can end up having contradictory judgements on it. In these circumstances, it is necessary to determine what is essential and what is secondary. What I consider essential is the power struggle that exists on the world scene, between the supporters of a multipolar world, of which I am part, and those who accept or wish a unipolar world submitted to the dominant ideology of liberal capitalism. In this perspective, everything that diminishes the grip of American-western influence on the world is a good thing, everything that tends to increase it a bad one.
Western Ukrainians are a sub-ethnos, which historically separated itself from the Western Russian population, formed in Volhynia and Galicia, having experienced significant Polonization and the influence of Catholicism (in the form of the Uniate—Eastern Catholic—Church). Western Ukrainians consider themselves an autonomous group, opposing themselves to other Eastern Slavs (first and foremost, these areVelikorossy, “moskali” (a derogatory term that means “Russians”)), Orthodox peoples, but also Poles and Austrians. Therefore, they have never had (and will never have) statehood, since it is impossible to build a State on the basis of hatred toward all surrounding peoples.