Alexander Dugin

[IMPERIUM]

IMPERIUM EUROPA, THE EURASIAN ALTERNATIVE, GEOPOLITICS

Geopolitics
Geopolitics actually is an ancient concept. It is a method of political analysis, emphasizing the role played by geography in international relations. Theoretically geopolitics aim at establishing a political grammar of world politics, through a scientific discipline based on the objective reality of geography. Hence, geopolitics is often seen as a "realistic" attempt to establish world policy as an objective science based of some kind of "physico-spacial reference". Geopolitical theorists stress that natural political boundaries and access to important waterways are vital to a nation's survival.
The term geopolitics (Geopolitik in German) was developed by Rudolf Kjéllen, a Swedish political scientist in 1905. As a subbranch of political geography, geopolitics focused on the spatial development and needs of the State. It combined Friedrich Ratzel's theory on the organic nature of the State along with Sir Halford J. Mackinder's Heartland Theory. The term was later borrowed by Karl Haushofer, a German geographer and follower of Friedrich Ratzel.
As a modern concept geopolitics received its classical form in the work of Friedrich Ratzel, Rudolf Kjéllen, Harold J. Mackinder, Alfred T. Mahan and Karl Haushofer. The idea behind geopolitics is based on the assessment that geography is a crucial factor in the system of causes, forming the parameters of politics.
Friedrich Ratzel's influence on modern geography is legendary. Robert E. Dickinson writes about Ratzel: "There is no doubt that Friedrich Ratzel has been the greatest single contributor to the development of the Geography of Man." (Robert E. Dickinson, The Makers of Modern Geography. New York: Friederich A. Praeger, 1969. p.64)
In his analysis from 1890 (Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783. New York: Dover, 1987) Alfred Thayer Mahan argued that the rise of British Power in the 18th and 19th century was attributed to the country's island position, which gave it advances in regard to world trade. Mahan argued that the basis of British world power was its capacity through its navy to control the waterways, which at that time was the main communication structures in the world. Mahan explained Britian's victory in the Napoleon war on the ground control of the main communication network of the world is the main advantage in the great struggle regarding European power hegemony that lied behind the Napoleon wars. Mahan's writing encouraged President Theodore Roosevelt to develop U.S. Naval power in the first decade of the twentieth century.
Sir Halford Mackinder, argued in 1904 that the new trend in the modern industry and particularly the development of the railroad as the main infrastructure and communicative meant a change in the balance between land and sea power and favor the dominance of land powers in the twentieth century. In a famous article titled "the Geographical Pivot of History" (Halford J. Mackinder, "The Geographical Pivot of History." Geographical Journal, vol.23. 1904. pp.421-444), Mackinder also identified East Europe and Central Russia as the heartland of the world and claimed that the power that controlled Russia would rule the world. This claim however was contested my other scholars and geopolitical theorists.
In the 1920s, the German General and geographer Karl Haushofer developed Geopolitik as a policy for Germany and Europe. Haushofer developed his idea of geopolitics through a study of the emergence of the modern Japanese state. His concept of Lebensraum (living space) was actually developed by Ratzel, who is often called the founder of political geography. In 1924 Gerneral Haushofer founded and edited the journal "Zeitschrift für Geopolitik" and then became a professor of geopolitics. The journal, and Haushofer's career, only lasted until 1944. Haushofers ideas were were only of limited influence on the National Socialist regime for it had his own concept of geography and the expansion of the state. Haushofer's son Albrecht was indicted in the July 20, 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler so the elder Haushofer was imprisoned in a concentration camp. Following the war, Haushofer was interrogated by the allies and in 1946, distraught over the death of this son, Haushofer committed suicide. Nevertheless Haushofer is still accused of providing the academic and scientific support for the expansion of the Third Reich.
The concept of geopolitics is of theoretical interest today due to two reasons:
a) The physical, spacial parameters of the world, as an object of social science analysis might still provide us with a special pathway into the scientific study of international policy.
b) Because it is important to identify a pattern of "objective" correlation within the international order, which can save modern social analysis from the pitfall of relativism.

Eurasia
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World." Sir Halford Mackinder, the English geographer who wrote "Democratic Ideals and reality" , put this lapidary motto at the basis of his own global geopolitical concept.
Geopolitics – as it is studied in the American and European (and since recently also Russian) military and diplomatic academies and institutes – is based on the fact that between Russia (Eurasia) and the West (atlantism, the US) there is an irremovable contradiction, such as existed between Rome and Carthage, Athenes and Sparta in the ancient times, or between Great Britain and Continental Europe (including Russia) in the modern epoch. Geopolitics states that the kind of a civilization is to a very great extent predetermined by its geography, landscape, climate, structure of space. The insular and coastal peoples, the seafarers' races create commercial societies - dynamical, technologically developed, innovative, but gravitating around plutocracy, egoism and individualism. The peoples dwelling in the depth of continents, in the steppes, forests, plains and wildernesses, on the contrary, are static, conservative, contemplative, yet valiant and inclined to communitarian-counciliary principles. "Leviathan" in the terminology of geopolitical science symbolizes a maritime, "mobile", commercial civilization, e.g. Athenes, Carthago, England, the US, in contraposition to "Behemoth" - symbol of a continental, "static", non-commercial civilization, e.g. Sparta, Rome, the Holy Empire, the Golden Horde, Russia. This polarity of West and East, sea and land, island and continent, atlantism and eurasism predetermines the dynamics of the fundamental lines of world politics. Eurasists and atlantists are opposed to each other defending two different, alternative, mutually excluding images of the world and its future. It is this opposition which defines the historical outline of the XXI century. Not always these lines are evident, and sometimes, in the most complex cases, one has to apply some smart enough methodology to find out where the hidden concerns of eurasism lay, and where those of atlantism. Thus the great opposition of civilizations (maritime and overland) is as old as history. And only the final ruin of one of the poles marks by itself the end of this history – that end which was hurriedly declared by the American liberals (F.Fukuyama) after the demolition of the bipolar world of Yalta.
The US with very clearly acknowledge itself as the contemporary and historically most successful by the issuing of "sea power", apogee of the commercial civilization of liberal ploting. After the second world war it replaced England, queen of the seas, having bought from her the main strategic spots of check over maritime, insular and coastal spaces of the planet. The whole tradition of Anglo-Saxon and American geopolitics (from Mahan and Mackinder to Spykman, Brzeszinski and Wolfowitz) sees foreign policy through the eyes of atlantism, moving step by step towards the final triumph of the "sea power", towards the globalization of their civilization kind.
The Anglo-Saxon World surrounding the Atlantic, including Grat Britain and America, lead by a capitalist elite has been leading a war against Europe since the beginning of the 20th century. According to the classic Geopolitical doctine Eurasia ist the Key to World Power and the Atlantist powers are trying to gain it. With the end of Second World War Europe has become (trans-) atlantic under the hegemony of the US-led Leviathan NATO. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has achieved an unprecedented position of global supremacy. To regain its souvereignity Europe has to end its status of a protectorate of the United States by turning away from the Atlantic towards the Russian and Muslim East and to get rid of American supremacy. By creating a global police force operating beneath the auspices of NATO and the United Nations, it is possible to defend and thus facilitate the interests of Americanisation throughout the world. It is only right, therefore, that we emulate their example by both defending and advancing our own interests in a similar manner. Internationalism must be met with an inter-national force of Eurasian solidarity, an explosion of non-sectarian militancy in which dogmatism and reaction will have no place. In other words, opponents of globalisation - regardless of their various political affiliations - must stand shoulder to shoulder in the struggle against Americanisation at all levels of society. Europe must find emancipation from the New American International Law. How right was Carl Schmitt in the past when he wrote: "Behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in reality , the system of Anglo-Saxon imperialism". More than ever before, in the New World Order, behind the facade of international law lies in reality the system of American imperialism. What Europe needs is a "Monroe Doctrine for Europe" as an answer to the New World Order and American totalitarian ambitions for Weltherrschaft. Or as General de Gaulle once said : "A truly free Europe, is Europe free from American hegemony".
This inevitably leads to the question of the role of Russia for Europes future. Straddling the Eurasian continent, deprived of nearly all its former superpower glory, economically devastated, politically adrift Russia today poses a unique challenge to geostrategy. Eurasism (in its strict historical meaning) is a philosophical current arisen in the 1920s among the Russian emigrates. Eurasianism is a clear answer to the Atlantic strategy. Against the establishing of the atlantist world order and globalisation stand the supporters of the multi-polar world – the eurasists. The eurasists defend on principle the necessity to preserve the existence of every people on earth, the blossoming variety of cultures and religious traditions, the unquestionable right of the peoples to independently choose their path of historical development. The eurasists greet the generality of cultures and systems of values, the open dialogue among peoples and civilizations, the organic combination between the devotion to traditions and the creative impulse.
"At a planetary level Eurasianism means active and universal opposition to globalisation, and is equal to the 'anti-globalist movement'. Eurasianism defends the blossoming complexity of peoples, religions and nations. All anti-globalist tendencies are intrinsically ‘Eurasianist’. We are consequent supporters of ‘Eurasianist federalism’. This means a combination of strategic unity and ethno-cultural autonomies." (Alexander Dugin)
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/geopol.html

Alexander Dugin - The greatest geo-politician alive.
Advisor to Putin.
Lecturer to the Russian General Staff.

The IDEA!
It is capturing the imagination of the best minds.
It WILL unite Europe into the greatest Imperium in history.

An Imperium Europa!
A planetary Imperium!
A galactic Imperium!

Malta - the spark!
That will set Europe ablaze.
Melitae - the Spiritual Centre, the Focal Point, the Pyrammical Peak!

Imperium
04

[praefectus]

Dugin may not be 100% with us, but he's 99% of the way there ... speaking at his conference 2 weeks ago was our very own Constantin von Hoffmeister (Ogenoct):

http://images.evrazia.org/images1/esm/21.jpg

And NA member and former editor of Pravda Online, Justin Cowgill:

http://images.evrazia.org/images1/esm/19.jpg

As both Constantin and Justin are basically my best friends, I can vouch that things are slowly heading in the direction they need to be going ...

See it all (in Russian): http://www.evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2255

We will be asking Dugin to play "Ave Europa" on his radio show -- I see no reason why it won't happen (I'll keep all informed) ...

[IMPERIUM]

Channel to Vladivostock

Well done ogenoct!
A respected Voice at the:
EURASIAN UNION OF YOUTH.

Never again a war amongst Europids:
Never again Teuton versus Slav.
Never again!

We must not allow Jewish America:
to suffocate the World Island.
We must liberate the Heartland.

Set Germany free!
Liberate England.
Tellurics and Thalassocrasies Unite!

Eurasia to become Imperium.
Imperium Europa!
Magna Europa est Patria Nostra!

Imperium
0503

[praefectus]

Channel to Vladivostock

Well done ogenoct!
A respected Voice at the:
EURASIAN UNION OF YOUTH.

Never again a war amongst Europids:
Never again Teuton versus Slav.
Never again!

We must not allow Jewish America:
to suffocate the World Island.
We must liberate the Heartland.

Set Germany free!
Liberate England.
Tellurics and Thalassocrasies Unite!

Eurasia to become Imperium.
Imperium Europa!
Magna Europa est Patria Nostra!

Imperium
0503

Don't forget Magna Europa composes of the USA, Australia, and S. Africa (with the situation there not yet solved) ... gotta remove one yoke at a time, that's for sure ...

[Highlander]

to be honest here i have my doubts. if we are so eager not to allow non-whites in our land, how can morally take south africa which is their land? it seems a contradiction to me.

[praefectus]

to be honest here i have my doubts. if we are so eager not to allow non-whites in our land, how can morally take south africa which is their land? it seems a contradiction to me.

It's not necessarily a contridiction -- not much was there before whites carved out a niche ... ditto with the USA .... even pre Indo-Europeans were pushed aside by the Aryan invasions (the Basque for example -- and maybe old Maltese) ... the point is, we control our own destiny ... I am personally not for fighting with other groups -- we have already won long ago, and it'd just be boring to take their lands again -- what is done is done, but the situation in S. Africa isn't resolved yet ... however, if you can make a deal ot REMOVE all blacks from the USA and Europe, I'd happily signed a document forcing all whites to leave Africa ... ;-)

[ogenoct]

THE SACRAL AUTHORITY OF EURASIA

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


On February 26, 2005, the EURASIAN UNION OF YOUTH met in Alexandrov (Russia) for a congress that concerned itself with the destiny and greatness of Eurasia. About 400 people attended. Its host, Alexander Dugin (head of the MOVEMENT EURASIA), chose the monastery of Ivan Grosny ("the Terrible") as the ideal place from where to send the message of Eurasia's sacred mission into the world. This particular monastery symbolizes a stage: henceforth, reprisals will be dished out after all wrongs committed against Russia today will be undone after the new (final) age has unfolded itself. Dog heads represent the devouring of the rotten system that is about to collapse.

Alexandrov is located about 70 miles from Moscow (the Third Rome). Several people spoke at the event, including yours truly. In the background, the images of Sergei Eisenstein's classic film IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1945) were reflected off the old white stone walls.

In one of his speeches, Alexander Dugin said, "Eurasians always viewed authority as sacral. We recognize that authority is sacred, that it is the maximum form of service, the maximum degree of spiritual pressure - to dominate. This kind of authority is a spiritual experience. But we do not love authority for authority's sake. What calls itself 'authority' today simply does not correspond to the term. Today's political elites in Russia simply do not understand the historical pressure which weighs on them. Nowadays, authority is merely at a feeding trough and a warm place. ... Our native land is threatened. ... We have been sentenced. There is a unipolar world which is building a global model in which the Russian space is considered an object that can be directly influenced. ... It is necessary that we oppose this process. And if it is not us Eurasians that will do this, then nobody will."

A young Orthodox priest, Father Igor Shestakov, said, "In this hall in Alexandrov, the steps of the Terrible Tsar are still audible. He ruled with an iron fist and unified Russia. He acted in the interests of the Russian state and all of Europe and all the then-known world. In the name of this great figure, we can now see the beginning of a new Russian state which is embodied in this youth movement. All the servants that surrounded Ivan the Terrible were young, and they wished to serve the state with their blood (an evangelical concept), not sparing their stomachs."

The press-secretary of the MOVEMENT EURASIA, Valery Korovin, said, "The center of the sea civilization was England, and then her successor, the USA. A land civilization is something completely different. It is a reasonable, contemplative and spiritual set of various peoples that originated in the great open spaces of the Eurasian continent. Today, the sea civilization considers itself universal and tries to impose its model of civilization everywhere, unifying peoples and cultures, erasing any distinctions. Eurasians support the preservation of all sets of peoples and cultures in their original form and oppose the unipolar process of globalization under the direction of the USA."

Justin Cowgill, from the NATIONAL ALLIANCE (USA), said, "Although I live in Russia, I consider myself an American patriot. I love America. I spent six years in the United States Marine Corps of which I am very proud. However, I am opposed to America's policy of the last 50 years. As traditionalists and conservatives say, America has become post-American America. Our foreign policy has nothing to do with the general interests of Americans and American security. Traditional American culture has nothing to do with globalization. And it hurts to me to realize that people associate international corporations with America. American culture is traditionally isolationist. It is necessary to remember that the strongest antiglobalist movements are in America. I, as well as many others, know that Europe has high hopes for Russia for the construction of a continental block to balance powers with America. This would be good for the whole world. I ask myself: Why do our leaders try to destroy the concept of America in the name of the post-American empire? America more and more resembles a police state. I hope that, within the framework of our union, we can all work together at the construction of a multipolar world where all cultures and people can live freely."

Please read my speech below. I held it in front of Ivan Grosny's richly adorned throne.

Dear Comrades,

I want to send you greetings from Germany. As a member of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), I have been active in the fight for a free Europe for quite a while. Like in Russia, more and more young people are waking up in Germany. These young revolutionaries are sick of the liberal-capitalist system and want to create a new socialist order.

On 13 February of this year, 8,000 nationalists marched in Dresden to commemorate the innocent victims of the Anglo-American terrorist attack in 1945. This cowardly and vicious bombing raid was not only meant to wound Germany, but also to send a signal to Russia. Since the German Reich was technically already defeated, this unnecessary attack of the Western Allies was meant to weaken the morale of the Soviet Union. After all, Dresden was situated in the future sphere of influence of Russia. Yesterday (as today, like in Afghanistan and Iraq), the Anglo-American warmongers wanted to display their military might, with total disregard to the dreadful suffering of the civilian population.

Russia and Germany were fighting against each other in World War II. This was partly the fault of the Western warmongers Churchill and Roosevelt who wanted the German and Russian armies to bleed each other to death. To honor the memory of the fallen heroes of both sides, this tragedy must always be a reminder that only together will Russia and Germany be able to withstand the forces of disintegration within and without their respective borders.

The eternal Teutonic-Slavic Alliance must be solidified with a new Rapallo Treaty. This treaty, signed in 1922, marked a glorious partnership between our two nations. Both Germany and Russia benefited from this agreement, with economic aid and exchange of technologies crossing the borders regularly.

As General Otto Ernst Remer, veteran of World War II and a long-time advocate of German-Russian cooperation, said in 1992, "The principle of Western politics has been for a hundred years: Germans and Russians must be enemies and exterminate each other. In order to achieve this lucrative goal, the Anglo-American capitalists triggered the First and Second World War and are now preparing for the third. ... We want a new Rapallo. Rapallo means today: Europe from the English Channel to the Ural, the resurrection of Europe, the end of Anglo-American imperialism in Europe and the end of Zionist blackmail of Germany."

Whenever, in the history of our peoples, Germans and Russians worked together, it was for the benefit of both our nations, for the benefit of Europe's freedom, against imperialist exploiters (like Napoleon yesterday) or alien occupants (like the US and its lackeys today). This is why Germany and Russia must again strive to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, to work hand in hand to defend Europe's integrity against the lecherous Judeo-American enemy.

In the spirit of wise Lenin who, as the only statesman of the time, condemned the oppression of the German people through the injustice of the Versailles mandate, I say, "Glory and honor to the Russian people!"

[IMPERIUM]

Constantin von Hoffmeister

Your speech encapsulates all we wish for.
Peace amongst the four cousin Europids.
Peace especially, amongst Teutons and Slavs.

Bismarck used to say:
"Russia and Germany must never go to war."
Rapallo sealed those words.

Two World Wars: fratricides.
Anglo Saxon against Teuton against Slav against Latin.
Them! Always Them! The mischief-makers.

In 1951 Stalin agreed to retreat from Germany.
America and Britain refused.
Germany eternally divided - so decreed the masters.

Even after the Wall collapsed.
Thatcher and Kissinger worked tirelessly:
for six months to keep Germany "Finlandized".

The World Enemy.
Our only enemy.
Them!

Imperium
0503

[umberto]

There does not seem to be much pan-Slavic love neither.

[praefectus]

There does not seem to be much pan-Slavic love neither.

Well, a lot of Slavs have a bitter taste in their mouths still from Russian-Bolshevic domination ...

Slavic countries are divided like this (IMO):

Western Catholic Slavs (Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and maybe Czechs who aren't very religious)

- and -

Eastern Orthodox Slavs (Serbs, Ukrainians, Russians, and Belorussians ... with Western Ukrainians pulling more toward POland, because of early Polish domination and influence)

That division has been there for a while, but the cold war has:

Czechs, Poles, Slovaks generally against Ukrainians and Russians; Croatians, Serbs, and Slovenes generally didn't have such a problem (since Yugoslavia was independant of Moscow) .... just Serbs and Croats (petty Nationalism) still have issues, while Slovenes generally are in the clear.

pan-Slavism came into play during the early 20th century in response to an increasing aggressive German-Germanic Nationalism ....

Petty Nationalists ... always screwing things up .... it was nationalists who broke up the empires of Mozart, Beethoven, etc... what have Nationalists produced since then? Not a whole lot, since it's reactionary in nature ... and mainly just a power grab by amatures ...

[ogenoct]

Well, a lot of Slavs have a bitter taste in their mouths still from Russian-Bolshevic domination ...

A lot of Slavs vomit out the half-digested results of Liberal Capitalism that destroyed Communist rule by replacing a Eurasian empire with nationalist-minded countries that have no aspiration besides wishing to be able to clean their own urinals, all backed by Mickey Mouse and his midget minions. The Soviet Union, by its benevolent nature, was always geared towards preserving the collective geniuses of the various folk cultures and ethnicities that it administered. Capitalism, on the other hand, is internationalist by definition (High Finance being nothing more than the abstract depersonification of a gypsie in a stolen BOSS suit).

Constantin

[praefectus]

A lot of Slavs vomit out the half-digested results of Liberal Capitalism that destroyed Communist rule by replacing a Eurasian empire with nationalist-minded countries that have no aspiration besides wishing to be able to clean their own urinals, all backed by Mickey Mouse and his midget minions. The Soviet Union, by its benevolent nature, was always geared towards preserving the collective geniuses of the various folk cultures and ethnicities that it administered. Capitalism, on the other hand, is internationalist by definition (High Finance being nothing more than the abstract depersonification of a gypsie in a stolen BOSS suit).

Constantin

Maybe, but your Slavic experience comes from Russia, who themselves are bitter because they no longer dominate -- living among Czechs, they despise the Russians, as Russians 1. made them learn Russian (not very presevationist in nature IMO), and 2. they were ass backwards in many things (Czechs, being very Germanized, didn't like the Russian-Slavic dis-organization ... although Czechs are not organized themselves) ... discussing things with older Czechs who lived under the protektorat, they would say, "During the war, the Germans demanded organization -- curfew, etc... if you never broke the rules, the Germans never bothered you. When the Russians "liberated" us ... they came in, stole all of our stuff, watches, etc... the Germans never took a thing from us." That, in essence, was the Bolshevic mentality ... communism was a Utopia everybody talk about, but nobody believed in ...

Although, your critique of modern Finance-Capitalism hits right on the money ... "We're all living in America...." ;-)

[ogenoct]

discussing things with older Czechs who lived under the protektorat, they would say, "During the war, the Germans demanded organization -- curfew, etc... if you never broke the rules, the Germans never bothered you. When the Russians "liberated" us ... they came in, stole all of our stuff, watches, etc... the Germans never took a thing from us." That, in essence, was the Bolshevic mentality ...

At least the Russians did not have any extermination and/or displacement policies concerning fellow Aryans. Simply because some Red Army soldiers stole some watches does not mean that Bolshevism, as a guiding philosophy, is a trigger for any kind of moral transgressions. I suspect that the Soviet Army lacked a certain amount of discipline due to the intoxication that follows battle-weary soldiers in the wake of victory. Also, one should take into account that it was hardened and demoralized from years of struggle defending their motherland from the Fascist beasts.

Constantin

[Marco Polo]

come on now children, let's not fight. :D

[praefectus]

At least the Russians did not have any extermination and/or displacement policies concerning fellow Aryans. Simply because some Red Army soldiers stole some watches does not mean that Bolshevism, as a guiding philosophy, is a trigger for any kind of moral transgressions. I suspect that the Soviet Army lacked a certain amount of discipline due to the intoxication that follows battle-weary soldiers in the wake of victory. Also, one should take into account that it was hardened and demoralized from years of struggle defending their motherland from the Fascist beasts.

Constantin

Surely you jest about displacement and/or extermination -- you can ask the Latvians, Estonians, Polish (Katyn for example) and Lithuanians about that ... not to mention those who had one-way tickets to the Gulag, especially those fighting FOR their motherland (ie... Russian patriots fighting for the Fascist Beast). :-) I agree about the pressure and euphoria about the end of the war, point well made ...

I do, however, find it "odd" that Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Romanians, and Finns HATE Russians generally -- spanning from the general policies of Russia (the most evil of policies being enacted by Bolshevic Jews) between 1917 - 1990 or so ... not to mention people risked getting machine gunned to ESCAPE paradise -- I don't recall so many high-case defections from the West to the USSR, but then again, you could always freely defect if you wanted ... nobody tried to stop you. ;-)

As for fighthing -- Ogenoct and me always argue -- it's what best friends do ;-)

Anyway, Ogenoct -- what is your opinion of Dugin's movement itself?

[Marco Polo]

I think you are both right. I am pretty sure that in all the nations mentioned people will have conflicting opinions on either side. Both sides had their good and bad. For the people of the nations in question i suppose its a matter of what personal experience they had. A family that had things stolen by germans will have a different view to those who had their things taken by russians.

Time to look towards a common bond and not to what divides us.

[ogenoct]

Time to look towards a common bond and not to what divides us.

Well said, comrade! It is high time to quit playing the "blame game" and move FORWARDS! We, including me, spend too much time discussing various blunders that our race committed in the past. This is counterproductive. As I said in my speech in Alexandrov, we should honor the fallen but remember that we, as Europeans, are ONE and need to act in accordance to the PRINCIPLES that bind us, not divide us.

Constantin

[praefectus]

Well said, comrade! It is high time to quit playing the "blame game" and move FORWARDS! We, including me, spend too much time discussing various blunders that our race committed in the past. This is counterproductive. As I said in my speech in Alexandrov, we should honor the fallen but remember that we, as Europeans, are ONE and need to act in accordance to the PRINCIPLES that bind us, not divide us.

Constantin

I don't think with a day's worth of pondering, could I have said it better than that! Hail Ogenoct! ;-) Exile for those who pick at the scabs of old wounds! After all, Ogenoct and me wanna open a pub on Mars before we die [Norman will given the opening day speech!] -- and we can't do that if Euros are bickering about meaningless items ... :D

[Highlander]

i never understood eurasian. would it be like the eu on an euro-asian scale? how would it work? the americans practically control most of the "stans" in the south (uzbekistan/krygistan/afghanistan), they got important allies (pakistan/south korea), they got unlimited oil supplies (iraq).

until we continue to play the american game (capitalism) we will not beat them. they created a game in which they are the best. we need to create our own game.

[umberto]

America is not just capitalism.
It is advancing its interest, as the USSR would have done if it won the cold war, which it didnt as we know.

Apart from afghanistan more or less, all the countries you mentioned are independent sovereign states. So the US control on them seems to be 'willing' from both sides.

[ogenoct]

Anyway, Ogenoct -- what is your opinion of Dugin's movement itself?

I am fascinated with Dugin's Movement EURASIA. Dugin is a National Bolshevik. He identifies Putin's government as the new embodiment of National Bolshevism in Russia. While many people criticize Putin for his liberalism and pandering to the West, he is nevertheless an Orthodox Russian patriot and tries to implement policies that underline this position. Dugin is opposed to petty nationalism as he is the leading advocate of geopolitical strategies today. He wants to create a new Eurasian empire that, as some of his critics claim to the contrary, is not about merging Europe and Asia into a mixed whole. Rather, Dugin espouses ethnopluralistic affinities. While he stresses cooperation and strong bonds between the various Eurasian states, he by no means wants to see racial mixing or a merging of cultures. Dugin wants all etnicities and traditions preserved in a strong federation that is able to withstand the process of liberal and capitalist destruction that America and its allies are conducting. As a staunch Socialist, Dugin is opposed to any kind of Fascist ideologies. He calls himself an "anti-Fascist" in the line of Ernst Niekisch and other leading National Bolsheviks of the early 20th century. While Hitlerism was essentially an offshoot of the Conservative Revolution, it was at the same time its perversion. I agree with Dugin on this point. Dugin views the Soviet Union as the legitimate expression of Russian imperial interests, not in an aggressive but in messianic sense - Moscow as the Third Rome, healing Europe and the world. Also, Dugin supports Zionism as he sees Israel as a potential ally. I suspect that he would rather see the Jews having their own country than meddling in the affairs of others (as parasites). In this sense, Dugin is in total ideological agreement with the likes of Adolf Eichmann (who called himself a Zionist rather than a Nazi). I am not so sure about this dubious aspect of Dugin's political ideology.

Constantin

[umberto]

Interesting.

So being as close to Putin, advising, he is the most person close to decision making the pan-euro imperialist movement has.
Any equivalent in the west?

Sometimes i wonder whether instead of playing the direct democratic game, those who beleive in IE should infiltrate all political parties, and do a gradual subtle changeover. A previous Putin job, though with different aims. The same was done on Willy Brandt's party.

[IMPERIUM]

[QUOTE=ogenoct]I am fascinated with Dugin's Movement EURASIA. Dugin is a National Bolshevik. He identifies Putin's government as the new embodiment of National Bolshevism in Russia. While many people criticize Putin for his liberalism and pandering to the West, he is nevertheless an Orthodox Russian patriot and tries to implement policies that underline this position.

True. Putin is a true patriot. The fact that he has been rounding up the usual parasites - (those who bought Russian assets worth billions for a few dollars borrowed from their cousins in Wall Str) - have cast Putin and Russia increasingly in bad light with the world's controlled media. Russia is being portrayed as increasingly illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-free speech and free-enterprise and all those Jewish catchwords, preparing the ground for more future strive.

Incidentally, that is why Russia is cuddling up to China, with joint military manouvres - in order to counteract the rodents' media onslaught. This is all for the good for us Europeans. Anything that weakens the Jewish hold in America is to the benefit of all Europids.

Dugin is opposed to petty nationalism as he is the leading advocate of geopolitical strategies today.

True. One only has to visit his sites and read him. The man is undoubtedly the leading geopolician alive, today.

He wants to create a new Eurasian Empire that, as some of his critics claim to the contrary, is not about merging Europe and Asia into a mixed whole. Rather, Dugin espouses ethnopluralistic affinities. While he stresses cooperation and strong bonds between the various Eurasian states, he by no means wants to see racial mixing or a merging of cultures. Dugin wants all etnicities and traditions preserved in a strong federation that is able to withstand the process of liberal and capitalist destruction that America and its allies are conducting.

Exactly as we of IE see the situation. The only difference between us and Dugin is that we abhore the "federated" concept. As Praefectus rightly pointed out "Within a Federation, the states can go to war with each other".

In an Imperium consisting of Regions and cousin Peoples, that just does not happen - it is impossible for that to happen!

As a staunch Socialist, Dugin is opposed to any kind of Fascist ideologies. He calls himself an "anti-Fascist" in the line of Ernst Niekisch and other leading National Bolsheviks of the early 20th century. While Hitlerism was essentially an offshoot of the Conservative Revolution, it was at the same time its perversion.

We of IE are likewise not Fascists or Nazis. We are beyond that. We call ourselves the RRRRR in order to project the Revolutionary Conservatism that, we believe, encapsulates and Transcends all the various Fascisms and National Socialisms (Hungary had the strongest version of Nazi ideology).

As to whether Hitler was an abherration or perversion of RC that is debateable. He never completed his opera. He had merely 12 years of power. He made colossal mistakes, antagonising the Slavs when they greeted German troops as liberators. He was crude and in fondo, un piccolo borgese. But he took on, single-handedly, those international rodents and almost put them in their place!

Of course, now they are more powerful than ever. But, they have had their innings and they are rapidly coming to an end. This time, we'll give them something to really moan about!

Also, Dugin supports Zionism as he sees Israel as a potential ally. I suspect that he would rather see the Jews having their own country than meddling in the affairs of others (as parasites). In this sense, Dugin is in total ideological agreement with the likes of Adolf Eichmann (who called himself a Zionist rather than a Nazi). I am not so sure about this dubious aspect of Dugin's political ideology.

Of course, this is my bone of contention with Dugin. He invites Zionists, Rabbis and what not, to lecture at his institute. I have to put this in Italian: non so non voglio so, ma quache cosa deve ce'! - In basic English: It stinks!

When the new RRRRR group: NOVA EUROPA is formed in Brussels, it will no doubt collaborate at all levels with Dugin. As the EU moves Eastwards, this new group can only increase in strength. Eventually, it will have the deciding, casting vote in the EU Parliament. From there, the takeover becomes possible, indeed probable, in fact: a certainty!

Imperium
0503

[umberto]

i never understood eurasian. would it be like the eu on an euro-asian scale? how would it work? the americans practically control most of the "stans" in the south (uzbekistan/krygistan/afghanistan), they got important allies (pakistan/south korea), they got unlimited oil supplies (iraq).

until we continue to play the american game (capitalism) we will not beat them. they created a game in which they are the best. we need to create our own game.

Seem that eurasia does not refer to Europe+Asia, but eu + rasia (europe + russia)

[Marco Polo]

eurasia refers to the european-russian sphere. Well at least when we talk about it. Or as Thiriart says: 'Europe as Far as Vladivostock'.

See here (http://www.vivamalta.org/showthread.php?p=1106#post1106)

[ogenoct]

eurasia refers to the european-russian sphere.

When Dugin talks about Eurasia, he means both Europe AND Asia.

Constantin

[Neverwinter]

Supporters of Jailed Yukos Founder Mark Khodorkovsky’s 42nd Birthday
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/teaser/khodorkovskydemo.jpg
News; Posted on: 2005-06-27 09:47:07

Pro-Khodorkovsky Jews, Russians fight it out

On Sunday, there was a physical altercation in Moscow between a largely Jewish crowd of supporters of jailed Oligarch Mikhael Khodorkovsky and members of the Eurasian (http://www.rossia3.ru/)Youth Movement, a group calling to fight against the “fifth column” in Russia planning for an orange revolution.

A group of pro-Khodorkovsky supporters met in front of the Mayakovsky Statue in central Moscow to celebrate the jailed oligarch’s 42nd birthday. They planned a day of praising the ‘freedom fighter,’ reading poems, eating sweets, and drinking champagne in his honor, all with plenty of 'Western' journalists taking photos to describe their heroic efforts 'not to be silenced.'

However, a few minutes after the event began, several young men wearing black clothing and armbands approached the largely Jewish crowd. The young men held signs reading “Khodorkovsky: Sit Where You Sit!”. Well, the pro-Khodorkovsky crowd didn’t like this, and some elderly women (you know the type) began to scream and try to take away the banners of the young men. A physical confrontation occurred and several Khodorkovsky posters were torn in the process.

Because the pro-Oligarch forces legally had a permit for their demonstration, they were able to force the neutral police to detain four of the young men for breaching the order.

They were questioned for a few hours and released.


Source: National Vanguard Moscow Correspondent • Printed from National Vanguard
( http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5374 (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5374) )
National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 • USA
NationalVanguard.org (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/)

[IMPERIUM]

Moscow’s new chief ideologist: Ivan Demidov

By Andreas Umland [JdN: formerly a visiting fellow at Stanford, Harvard and Oxford]

[COLOR=blue][I][All photos and captions by John de Nugent][/I][/COLOR]
Online Journal Guest Writer
(from an Online Journal article of March 25, 2008 (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3097.shtml))


Recent attention by Russian and Western commentators was focused on the presidential elections of March 2, 2008, and the personality of Dmitry Medvedev. Therefore, the appointment of 44-year-old [I]Ivan Demidov[/I] as head of the Ideological Directorate of the Political Department of United Russia’s Central Executive Committee in late February 2008 went largely unnoticed.

[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/DemidovSpasTV.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=DemidovSpasTV.jpg)
[B]Ivan Demidov.[/B]

Demidov is a colorful Russian politician who became a [COLOR=blue][B]cult figure among the young[/B][/COLOR] in the 1990s when he was a popular moderator and producer of youth-related programs for various TV stations. His new post as official chief ideologist of Russia’s ruling party had to be freed up by another prolific politician, Leonid Goryainov, for Demidov.

As Russia has recently returned to a [I]de facto[/I] single-party system, Demidov occupies a unique position in Putin’s “vertical of power.” His office has the explicit purpose of [B]formulating and spreading the ideology of the party[/B] that controls most of Russia’s federal, regional and local parliaments, and which (together with some minor parties) officially nominated Medvedev as candidate for president.

[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/Demidov.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=Demidov.jpg)
[B]Demidov with unknown Russian girl. Demidov has a large following from his TV days among Russia's youth.[/B]

Demidov had already before his recent advance been working as an advisor for United Russia. In addition, he was editor of the party’s nationalist “Russian Project” website, and head of the Coordination Council of United Russia’s rabidly anti-Western [COLOR=green][B][JdN disagrees: [I]anti-Jewish-controlled[/I] Western][/B][/COLOR] youth wing called “The Young Guard.” He also worked as director of the small religious TV channel “Spas” (in Russian, "Savior") which transmits a variety of programs infused with strong anti-Americanism. [COLOR=green][B][JdN disagrees: Demidov is against the Washington regime. which he correctly perceives as Jewish-controlled, multiracial, nation-invading, and spreading economic and military chaos.[/B][/COLOR]

Demidov had become famous, however, before these political appointments. In the 1990s, he was known as a non-conformist journalist coming out of a group of young anti-Soviet TV men who, with their widely-watched talk shows, had their share in the delegitimization of the late USSR’s social-political system.

Demidov was then seen as somebody linked to Russia’s liberal or, at least, anti-totalitarian movement. Yet, in recent years, he developed along the lines of a number of other Russian prominent figures of his age, including Sergei Markov or Mikhail Leont’ev -- two of the Kremlin’s preferred political commentators whom one can see on prime time TV shows several times per week. Like Markov or Leonte’v, Demidov went from being a symbol of Russia’s new post-communist generation to becoming a part of Moscow’s neo-traditionalist establishment.

He is now an [I][COLOR=blue]advocate of Russia as a unique world civilization as well as self-sufficient great power,[/COLOR][/I] and participates in the Kremlin’s increasingly successful spread of such attitudes [B]among teenagers and students.[/B] His recent promotion follows general trends in the Kremlin cadre's policies expressing itself in the appointment, earlier this year, of the prolific [B]Russian nationalist Dmitry Rogozin as Russia’s new envoy to NATO Headquarters[/B] in Brussels.


[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/IvanDemidov.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=IvanDemidov.jpg)
[B]Demidov -- a typical “tough Russian.” Although Americans and Westerners are taught to adore the last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, as a liberator from communism, Russians unanimously see his reign as a [COLOR=red]catastrophe for the white world and for Russia,[/COLOR] since it led to a total takeover of Russia under Boris Yeltsin by Jewish billionaire “oligarchs.” This brought about an economic depression, mass poverty, and skyrocketing alcoholism, suicide and crime rates. Just as bad, Gorbachev's weak and chaotic rule caused the catastrophic breakup of the Russian Empire – whether called that openly under the tsars or called the “USSR.” (Under Joseph Stalin, 1878-1953, the Russian Empire added almost all of Eastern Europe.) Since the latter days of Stalin's rule, Jews could never rise to higher than the number-two position in any factory, university department, hospital, government agency, or military command. (This was personally confirmed to me by a Russian Jewish psychiatrist, Alexei Nissenbaum.) An Aryan Russian had to be supreme in every department, never what the Russians would call a [I]zheed[/I] (in Russian, “kike.” Jews in Russia are officially called “Hebrews,” which is wrong since they are mostly Turkish Khazars converted [I]en masse[/I] by their sultan to Talmudic Judaism 1200 years ago.) The GPU (Soviet [I]military[/I] intelligence, not the KGB) required that all members prove they had no Jewish blood going back many generations. Stalin used Jews for much of his dirty work -- but then realized they were a threat to him and to the regime, and arrested or annihilated all Jews, large and small, who could oppose his agenda. He cracked down on them in three waves: 1) in the 1930s (in the “Moscow show trials” of the heavily Jewish Old Bolsheviks), after 1945 (in the Cold War campaign against those whom he euphemistically called “the cosmopolitans” [IMG]http://www.libertyforum.org/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif[/IMG]), and in the early 1950s (in the purge called the “doctors' plot” campaign, which alleged that Jewish physicians were poisoning Soviet leaders who were their patients.). When Stalin died at age 75 in 1953, he was planning a massive anti-Jewish purge -- one of the many “silver linings” to the dark clouds of Stalinism. Most Russians have ambivalent feelings about Stalin, who was unquestionably a [I]vozhd[/I], a “great/strong leader.”[/B]

This might have been the reason why Demidov’s rise has, so far, caused little attention in Russia and the West. It needs to be added, however, that Demidov has professed to be under the influence of a particularly extreme brand of Russian imperialism, known under the label of “neo-Eurasianism.”

This ideology has been principally developed, in hundreds of articles and books, by the neo-fascist Russian theoretician Alexander Dugin (b. 1962), and constitutes perhaps the most radical anti-democratic ideology that has gained acceptance within Russia’s political establishment today.

In a November 2007 interview for Dugin’s website Evrazia.org (http://www.evrazia.org/) ["Eurasia.org"], Demidov stated:


[INDENT]Quote: “Doubtlessly, a crucial factor, a certain breaking point, in my life, was the appearance of Alexander Dugin.” [/INDENT]

[COLOR=green][B][JdN: Even if you do NOT understand Russian, an important Aryan language, still you should at least take a look at www.evrazia.org (http://www.evrazia.org/) ("Eurasia.org"). The English-language website of the Movement Eurasia is http://evrazia.info/index.php?newlang=english][/B][/COLOR][B][[/B]



[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/AlexanderDugin.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=AlexanderDugin.jpg)
[B]Alexander Dugin. Every young man needs an older mentor in every organic, natural, healthy tribe (whether a white "tribe," a black, red or yellow one) regardless of the tribe's technological level. Dugin has been the [I]mentor[/I] of Ivan Demodov, who has risen to become the chief thinker for the ruling United Russia Party of Vladimir Putin and of Russia's incoming president, Dmitry Medvedev. Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin): [COLOR=green]“One of the basic ideas that underpin his theories is that Moscow, Berlin, and Paris form a "natural" geopolitical axis, because a line or axis from Moscow to Berlin will pass through the vicinity of Paris if extended). Dugin's theories foresee an eternal world conflict between land and sea, and hence, Dugin believes, the U.S. and Russia. He says, "In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." According to his 1997 book, [I]The Basics of Geopolitics,[/I] "The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal [anarchic] values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union."[/COLOR] Dugin admires Jews as a dynamic, nationalist people, but not “Zionism”'-- in the sense of a Jewish urge to dominate the world from its power centers in Tel Aviv, London and New York. [I]Dugin respects Jews who respect whites[/I] -- and who break with those Jews who try to destroy Mother Russia and Europe.[/B] [COLOR=red]"The pen is mightier than the sword"[/COLOR] certainly applies here, an adage coined by the Englishman Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 for his play "Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy."


[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/ThomasJeffesonbldgLibraryofCongress.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=ThomasJeffesonbldgLibraryofCongress.jpg)
[B]"The pen is mightier than the sword" adorns the Thomas Jefferson building in Washington (an old painting is seen above). The Jefferson Building is the main building (facing the east side of the US Capitol) of the Library of Congress, which contains [I]fifty million books and periodicals.[/I] I spent many hours studying here while at nearby Georgetown, and ended up reading half of them. [IMG]http://www.libertyforum.org/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif[/IMG][/B]


[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/LibraryofCongressHal.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=LibraryofCongressHal.jpg)
[B]A hall in the Jefferson Building. Jefferson bequeathed his entire library to the Congress after his death on July 4, 1826, the same day as his friend John Adams died in Massachusetts. Jefferson proved that an intellectual could be a GREAT revolutionary -- and a GREAT president.[/B]


The two men have been cooperating for a while now within Demidov’s “Spas” TV channel, where Dugin has his own show called “[I]Vekhi[/I]” (Signposts). To be sure, Demidov has repeatedly stated that his various patriotic propaganda projects are designed to deprive Russophile ultra-nationalists of their control of the nationalist agenda and thus aim to fight the increase of xenophobia and hate crimes in Russia. He announced that “the words ‘Russian’ and ‘fascism’ are antonyms,” and that he and his associates will “fight against the infusion of the term ‘Russian fascism’ into mass consciousness.”

However, in 2007, Demidov, with explicit reference to Dugin, also acknowledged being a “convinced Eurasian.” This is oddly the same phrase that Dugin had used 15 years earlier to describe the political beliefs of Reinhard Heydrich (1904-1942), the infamous chief of the SS Security Service and one of the planners of the Holocaust. [sic]

Dugin sees his Eurasian movement as the follower of a secret “Eurasian Order” that existed for centuries, and included, among others, various German ultra-nationalists. While, at times, strongly distancing himself from Hitler’s crimes, Dugin has, throughout the 1990s, repeatedly expressed his admiration for certain aspects of the Nazi movement. For instance, he called the theory sector of the Waffen-SS an “intellectual oasis” within the Third Reich, and admitted that National Socialism was “the fullest and most total realization” of the Third Way that Dugin advocates to this day.

In one of his numerous pro-fascist articles of the 1990s, Dugin got excited about the prospect that, after the failures of Germany and Italy, there will, in Russia today, finally emerge a truly “fascist fascism.” In the new century, to be sure, Dugin’s rhetoric has become more cautious. Now a frequent political commentator on various TV shows, he often poses as an “anti-fascist” and describes himself as a “radical centrist.” Dugin tries to draw a line between the inter-war right-wing intellectuals whom he admires and those who supported Hitler. Yet, as late as 2006, Dugin admitted that among his models are the ultra-nationalist German brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser who got into personal conflicts with Hitler in the early 1930s, yet had also played a crucial role in making the NSDAP a mass party in the 1920s. In March 2008, his website, Evrazia.org, confirmed that Dugin still has sympathies for the Strasser brothers.

[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/DavidDukePhDAlexanderDuginMandevill.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=DavidDukePhDAlexanderDuginMandevill.jpg)
[B]Dugin at the Konstantin Vassilev Gallery in Moscow with David Duke, PhD (www.davidduke.com) (http://www.libertyforum.org/www.davidduke.com). One of the world's most well-known white civil rights activists, the charismatic Duke earned his Ph.D. in history in 2005 at the MAUP University, Kiev, Ukraine, for a doctoral version of his brilliant book [I]Jewish Supremacism[/I], available at Amazon.com. (http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Supremacism-My-Awakening-Question/dp/1892796058)[/B]

[IMG]http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/JewishSupremacismbookDuke.gif[/IMG] (http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/?action=view&current=JewishSupremacismbookDuke.gif)



In spite of many similar well-known statements by Dugin and his associates, Demidov enthusiastically expressed his admiration for Russia’s chief “neo-Eurasianist.” Demidov stated, among others, that:

[INDENT]Quote: “doubtlessly, a crucial factor, a certain breaking point, in my life, was the appearance of Alexander Dugin.” [/INDENT]

Moreover, Demidov proclaimed that “it is high time to start realizing the ideas, as formulated by Alexander Dugin, of the radical center, through projects.” In his new position as chief ideologist of Russia’s ruling United Russia Party, Demidov will have ample opportunity and the [B]necessary resources[/B] to do so.


[I]Dr. Andreas Umland, a German, teaches at the National “Taras Shevchenko” University of Kiev, Ukraine.[/I]

[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/AndreasUmland.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=AndreasUmland.jpg)
[B]Andreas Umland. He edits the book series (in Russian, German or English) entitled “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society” (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=296151257&page=0&view=&sb=&o=&part=&vc=1), and compiles the biweekly “Russian Nationalism Bulletin.” [I could not find any active link to this.][/B]

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal



[IMG]http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/Russia_A135_120606.jpg[/IMG] (http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/?action=view&current=Russia_A135_120606.jpg)
[B]Russia recently test-fired the A135 missile, the world's fastest and most accurate ICBM, which also weaves and bobs unstoppably as it flies.[/B]


[IMG]http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/Putinwaves.jpg[/IMG] (http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/?action=view&current=Putinwaves.jpg)
[B]Vladimir the Great, proof that great men still arise among the Aryans. As Edward de Vere wrote, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them" (from the comedy [I]Twelfth Night[/I]). In Jewmerica, "Some become great through selling out their country, defaming their rival traitors, massive injections of fact-free hoopla, and thrusting themselves on unwilling voters who are not given a truly great man to vote for."[/B]

[Thanks for providing me this link --- to Constantin von Hoffmeister in St. Louis, [I]who knows and has interviewed Alexander Dugin,[/I] and to Robert Prince in Washington. More info on Dugin -- provided by Von Hoffmeister and also reflecting his own personal views as an Eurasianist -- is to be found below:

http://nationalfuturism.org/Biopolitics-vs-Geopolitics.html

and in this piece (by Von Hoffmeister's friend and a brother former US Marine, Justin Cowgill):

[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/JustinCowgill.jpg[/IMG] (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/?action=view&current=JustinCowgill.jpg)
[B]Cowgill[/B]


http://evrazia.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2187

important essays about the Eurasian idea:

http://evrazia.info/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=12

about Demidov:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4728203.stm


[IMG]http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/Su-30MK_1.jpg[/IMG] (http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/?action=view&current=Su-30MK_1.jpg)
[B]The Russian fighter-bomber “Sukhoi 30 MK”[/B]

The hip, cool website in Russian of the youth organization of the "Movement Eurasia" (http://%22http//russia3.ru%22)


[B]Russia with its millions of Slavs must be part of the Imperium.
Ireland to Vladivostok : the four cousin sub-races -
Anglo Saxons, Teutons, Slavs and the Latins.

[/B][B]Imperium
0803
[/B]

[Gladiator]

Interesting reading. Shows that amongst the stars, some shine more than others.

[ogenoct]

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1870319/posts

Alexander Dugin, the Issue of Post-Soviet Fascism, and Russian Political Discourse Today

Ukrayinska Pravda ^ | 07/23/2007 | Andreas Umland

The past two years witnessed a welcome sensitization of the Russian public towards skinhead attacks and ultra-nationalist propaganda. In view of escalating violent attacks and other actions against foreigners, the debate on Russian fascism is currently experiencing a new high in the Russian media. There was a similar debate in the mid-1990s, when the confrontation between President Boris Yeltsin and the “intransigent opposition,” a state of near-civil war in Moscow, the ascent of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the appearance of neo-Nazi parties, and the first Chechen war, gave rise to the notion of a “Weimar Russia.” Even though this construct has made only rare appearances in commentaries in recent months, the current media debate is also marked by alarmism. It is to be welcomed that the increasing right-wing extremist tendencies within the Russian party landscape and youth culture, which had been largely ignored for many years, are now at least partially acknowledged by the Russian public, and countermeasures are being debated. Even the Russian judiciary which has been known for its pro-nationalist bias is beginning to submit to the pressure of public opinion (or the presidential administration), and now applies the Russian penal code’s section on xenophobic crimes more frequently than was the case during the 1990s. Other promising developments include the sharp reactions of state officials to a xenophobic campaign advertisement aired by the Rodina (Motherland) alliance ahead of elections for the Moscow municipal parliament and the measures against the often deadly skinhead attacks on immigrants and visiting students. Official statements on such issues occasionally refer to the “anti-fascist” heritage of the Soviet Union and to the Russian people’s alleged special deep-rooted aversion against fascism.

Despite such encouraging signs, the Kremlin-controlled mass media have kept an altogether ambivalent stance toward right-wing extremist tendencies. Although manifest anti-Semitism and violent racism are now heavily criticized and visibly stigmatized, other xenophobic patterns remain present, or are even increasing, in foreign news reporting and political commentaries. In addition to the traditional anti-Western, anti-Baltic, anti-Gypsy, and anti-Polish reflexes, this is increasingly true for prejudices against Ukrainians and Caucasians, recently, especially, against Georgians. Unquestionably, though, it is the US that holds first place among the “enemies of Russia,” as projected by the Russian state media. The increasingly primitive and profound anti-Americanism seen, for example, in prime time political television shows like Odnako (“However”, hosted by Mikhail Leontiev), Real’naya politika (“Real Politics”, hosted by Gleb Pavlovsky), or Post Scriptum (hosted by Alexei Pushkov) is raised to the level of a Manichean world-view, where the US is made responsible for the majority of mishaps and failures in recent Russian, and indeed world history, and where US society mutates into the negative Other of Russian civilization. It is curious that Germany – the country that has caused Russia the most harm in recent history – is often excepted from this paranoid perception of the external world and stylized as a collective friend of Russia, probably not least because of Putin’s personal preferences (a distorted view that has, however, been stoked by the unorthodox approach to Russia of former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder).

Finally, despite the increasing censure of certain right-wing extremist tendencies, the representatives of ultra-nationalist political groups regarded as close to President Putin have been excepted from the Kremlin’s campaigns to discredit the radically nationalist camp. This is true, for instance, with regard to Zhirinovsky’s so-called Liberal Democratic Party, although many statements made by Zhirinovsky and his entourage equally stir xenophobic hatred among the population (for example, his notorious pamphlet “The Last Leap toward the South”). Last year, Putin personally awarded the Order of Merit for the Fatherland to Zhirinovsky – a man who in September 1995 had physically attacked a female MP, Yevgenia Tishkovskaya, in the State Duma in front of TV cameras.

Besides such tendencies in the broader public, there are similarly contradictory developments in the discourse of the elites and political pundits. On the one hand, the political leadership is promoting integration of Russia into Western organizations such as the G8 and the WTO. On the other hand, the political discourse of experts, as well as intellectual life in general, are characterized by the spread of an anti-Western consensus often described as “Eurasian.” Its essence is the assertion that Russia is “different” from, or indeed, by its nature, the opposite of the US. The Russian book market is experiencing a glut of vituperative political lampoons whose main features include pathological anti-Americanism, absurd conspiracy theories, apocalyptic visions of the future, and bizarre fantasies of national rebirth. Among the more or less widely read authors of such concoctions are Sergei Kurginyan, Igor Shafarevich, Oleg Platonov, and Maxim Kalashnikov (a.k.a. Vladimir Kucherenko).

Probably the best-known writer and commentator of this kind is Aleksandr Dugin (b. 1962), who holds a doctorate in political science (from an obscure Russian provincial institute) and is the founder, chief ideologue, and chairman of the so-called International “Eurasian Movement.” This Movement’s Supreme Council boasts among its members the Russian Federation’s Culture Minister Aleksandr Sokolov, Vice Speaker of the Federation Council, Aleksandr Torshin, Presidential Advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov, several diplomats and scholars as well as other illustrious personages, including some marginal Western intellectuals and CIS politicians.

Among the latter are Nataliya Vitrenko, the well-known head of the so-called Progessive Socialist Party of Ukraine, and Dmitro Korchinsky, formerly leader of the Ukrainian fascist party UNA-UNSO and now chairman of the Bratstvo (Brotherhood) Party. Dugin’s name was recently mentioned in Ukrainian mass media in connection with the scandal that arose when Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Mykola Zhulinsky was barred from entering Russia during a private trip to St. Petersburg this summer. This was interpreted as a retaliation for Ukraine’s refusal to permit Dugin entering Ukraine shortly before. In June 2006, Dugin had been declared persona non grata in Ukraine until 2011 for violating Ukrainian law, and was thus deported back to Russia after he had arrived by plane at Simferopol airport in early June 2007 in order to attend the festival “The Great Russian Word” organized by the Russian Community of the Crimea. In spite of this conflict with the Ukrainian authorities, the youth organization of Dugin’s Movement, the Eurasian Union of Youth, has an active branch in Ukraine, and is particularly visible in Sumy, Kyiv and the Crimea.

Dugin’s increasing celebrity in the CIS is remarkable considering that the chief “neo-Eurasian” is not only among the most influential, but also one of the most brazen of Russia’s ultra-nationalist publicists. While authors such as Kurginyan or Shafarevich are satisfied to promote a renaissance of classical Russian anti-Western sentiments in their pamphlets and subtly draw on Western sources, Dugin admits openly that his main ideas are based on non-Russian anti-democratic concepts such as European integral Traditionalism (e.g. René Guénon, Julius Evola, Claudio Mutti, etc.), Western geopolitics (e.g. Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer), the German “conservative revolution” (e.g. Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck), and the francophone New Right (e.g. Alain de Benoist, Robert Steuckers, Jean Thiriart).

Furthermore, during the 1990s, Dugin repeatedly hinted at his sympathy for selected aspects of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, such as the SS and its Ahnenerbe (“Ancestral Heritage”) Institute, and has described the Third Reich as the most consistent incarnation of the “Third Way” that he explicitly advocates. In the chapter “Fascism – Boundless and Red” of the online version of his 1997 book Tampliery Proletariata (The Templar Knights of the Proletariat), he expressed the hope that the inconsistent application of originally correct ideas by Hitler, Mussolini, etc. would, eventually, be followed in post-Soviet Russia by the emergence of a “fascist fascism”. In Dugin’s apocalyptic worldview, global history consists of a centuries-old confrontation between hierarchically organized “Eurasian” continental powers and liberal “Atlantic” naval powers. Today, this confrontation is carried out between Russia and the US as the main representatives of the two antagonistic types of civilization, and its final battle is approaching (Dugin uses the German word Endkampf, which has Nazi connotations, without a Russian translation).

One might expect Dugin, and other extremely right-wing pundits offering similar pro-fascist statements, to be subjected to the same public stigmatization as neo-Nazi parties and skinhead groups are currently experiencing in Russia. However, this has not been the case so far. On the contrary, Dugin and others of his ilk, such as the well-known editor-in-chief of Russia’s leading ultranationalist weekly Zavtra (“Tomorrow”), Aleksandr Prochanov, are popular guests in prime-time political television shows such as Vremena (“Times”, hosted by Vladimir Pozner), Tem vremenem (“In the Meantime”, hosted by Aleksandr Archangelsky), Voskresnyi vecher’ (“Sunday Evening”), or K Bar’eru (“To the Barricade”, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov), and are even invited to popular talk shows like Pust’ govoryat (“Let Them Speak”, hosted by Andrei Malakhov).

The fact that Dugin has so far been “spared” by the Kremlin-controlled media and his political opponents is not only due to his recent posing as a “radical centrist” and fanatical supporter of Putin as well as his ability to win sympathies of prominent members of the Russian legislative and executive braches. He has also managed to avoid the charge of promoting fascism by adapting his writings and public image to the distorted conception of fascism inherited from Soviet propaganda. In the post-Soviet discourse, the term “fascism” is equated with German National Socialism and its external trappings, such as the swastika or Roman salute. Occasionally, the propagandistic usage of the term “fascism” goes so far as to include all ideas regarded as “anti-Russian”, and, paradoxically, becomes thus a rhetorical instrument in xenophobic agitation campaigns of Russian ultra-nationalists.

The example of Dugin illustrates that, as a result of the idiosyncratic conception of generic fascism in post-Soviet Russia, it is sufficient to rhetorically dissociate oneself from the worst crimes of Nazi Germany and to refrain from blatant copying of Nazi symbols in order to avoid public stigmatization as a “fascist”. This approach would, at least, explain why, on the one hand, obviously neo-Nazi groups such as the Russkoe Natsional’no Edinstvo (Russian National Unity) of Aleksandr Barkashov or skinhead gangs are being vocally suppressed by the executive and judiciary, while on the other hand ultra-nationalist writers who, in terms of their rhetoric, are no less radical are not only tolerated, but have unhindered access to public platforms and state-controlled media, and are, sometimes, allocated an active role in PR projects of the Kremlin’s political technologists.

Another factor in favor of Dugin and similar publicists is the return of the Russian leadership to quasi-Orwellian forms of organizing public discourse. Kremlin-controlled political reporting in the mass media has become a succession of national-patriotic happenings in which international developments of any kind – whether a Russia-China summit or Russian athletes’ performance at the Olympics, the “Orange Revolution” or foreign success of a Russian fantasy movie – are exaggerated into either collective triumphs or shared humiliations of the Russian nation under its faithful leadership. The attendant superficiality and emotionality of public debates, which occasionally degenerate into bizarre shouting matches between participants of political television shows, replace serious analysis. Political commentaries are fixated on the “here and now” which, in the case of Dugin, may have contributed to that his well-known neo-fascist stance during the 1990s has been “forgotten”. The mantra-like disparagement of the West that accompanies the agitational realignment of foreign news reporting increases the playing field for the propagation of anti-Western slogans which also furthers the spread of extremist ideas proposed by Dugin and theorists with similar leanings.

Will the newfound sensitivity towards nationalist tendencies lead to a sustained return to tolerant and liberal aspects of Russia’s political tradition? Or is this new tendency no more than the latest episode in the Putin administration’s fluctuating media campaigns? One can identify two contrary trends – one ideological, the other pragmatic – whose collision has restored a certain measure of controversy to the generally dull public discourse in Russia. On the one hand, the dualist worldview introduced by the Kremlin in the past few years – the simple, but honest Russians struggling for independence against a devious, soulless, imperialist West – fulfils an important role in legitimating the “tough” course of the resurging Russia under its new president. However, the officially approved paranoia also opens the floodgates for radical conclusions. Since the US model of society is presented as the antithesis of Russian civilization, one should not be surprised when youth gangs of violent thugs try to prevent an “Americanization” of Russian society in their way. The damage caused by such reactions to the international image of Russia is, in turn, incompatible with the equally strong tendency towards establishing the country as a respected partner of the Western countries and as becoming a part of the “civilized world” (the preferred Russian term for the economically advanced democratic states). Besides, the leadership of the Kremlin appears to be considering large-scale immigration as a way of replenishing the rapidly dwindling population of the Russian Federation, which would create new, potentially explosive, tensions. Finally, the fanatical anti-Americanism and pro-Iranian positions of Dugin and others are in contradiction to a number of security policies of the Kremlin and its efforts to join the international coalition against terrorism as a full member. Due to these and other challenges in the coming years, the particulars of the – at least partial – handover of power from Putin to his successor in 2008 will gain additional importance.

[IMPERIUM]

Dugin’s increasing celebrity in the CIS is remarkable considering that the chief “neo-Eurasian” is not only among the most influential, but also one of the most brazen of Russia’s ultra-nationalist publicists. While authors such as Kurginyan or Shafarevich are satisfied to promote a renaissance of classical Russian anti-Western sentiments in their pamphlets and subtly draw on Western sources, Dugin admits openly that his main ideas are based on non-Russian anti-democratic concepts such as European integral Traditionalism (e.g. René Guénon, Julius Evola, Claudio Mutti, etc.), Western geopolitics (e.g. Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer), the German “conservative revolution” (e.g. Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck), and the francophone New Right (e.g. Alain de Benoist, Robert Steuckers, Jean Thiriart).

Furthermore, during the 1990s, Dugin repeatedly hinted at his sympathy for selected aspects of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, such as the SS and its Ahnenerbe (“Ancestral Heritage”) Institute, and has described the Third Reich as the most consistent incarnation of the “Third Way” that he explicitly advocates. In the chapter “Fascism – Boundless and Red” of the online version of his 1997 book Tampliery Proletariata (The Templar Knights of the Proletariat), he expressed the hope that the inconsistent application of originally correct ideas by Hitler, Mussolini, etc. would, eventually, be followed in post-Soviet Russia by the emergence of a “fascist fascism”. In Dugin’s apocalyptic worldview, global history consists of a centuries-old confrontation between hierarchically organized “Eurasian” continental powers and liberal “Atlantic” naval powers. Today, this confrontation is carried out between Russia and the US as the main representatives of the two antagonistic types of civilization, and its final battle is approaching (Dugin uses the German word Endkampf, which has Nazi connotations, without a Russian translation).

Interesting - post Soviet Russia is searching for the "Third Way".
So important that the EU expands Eastwards - avoiding the pernicious Neocon efforts to set us up against the Slavs.
There is so much East and West can achieve together ().

Ogenoct, what is the relationship between Tulaev's Atheneum and Dugin's Eurasian Institute?
What is the bone of contention between them?
You know both of them and have their respect.

The () to a planetary Imperium unifying the Whole White Race.
This () constantly agitates, provokes and diabolically destabilises the destiny of the 4 cousin sub-races.
The () : the fundumental, () to all our problems.

Imperium
0804

[ogenoct]

Why was Norman's post edited?

Constantin

[ogenoct]

Ogenoct, what is the relationship between Tulaev's Atheneum and Dugin's Eurasian Institute?
What is the bone of contention between them?
You know both of them and have their respect.

I am not respected by Dugin's organization any longer. I was denounced as "a homofascist and MI6 agent" on one of their websites. I am not sure why. Tulaev's organization is staunchly opposed to Dugin's. Dugin is not interested in creating an Aryan imperium or saving the White race. Dugin is merely interested in building up an empire where the fire of tradition can continue to smoulder. For Dugin, race is irrelevant. Only tradition matters. When I once met Dugin, he told me that it would not matter if a Russian man married a Tatar woman. The only thing that matters is that, if the couple had children, the parents would have to transmit their respective traditions to the next generation. Tulaev's organization considers Dugin a traitor of the first order since Dugin's organization wants to ally itself with non-White countries (like China and Iran) against the White West. For Dugin, the main enemy is AmeriKa (not ZOG, but the United States as a whole).

Constantin

[IMPERIUM]

I am not respected by Dugin's organization any longer. I was denounced as "a homofascist and MI6 agent" on one of their websites. I am not sure why. Tulaev's organization is staunchly opposed to Dugin's. Dugin is not interested in creating an Aryan imperium or saving the White race. Dugin is merely interested in building up an empire where the fire of tradition can continue to smoulder. For Dugin, race is irrelevant. Only tradition matters. When I once met Dugin, he told me that it would not matter if a Russian man married a Tatar woman. The only thing that matters is that, if the couple had children, the parents would have to transmit their respective traditions to the next generation. Tulaev's organization considers Dugin a traitor of the first order since Dugin's organization wants to ally itself with non-White countries (like China and Iran) against the White West. For Dugin, the main enemy is AmeriKa (not ZOG, but the United States as a whole).

Constantin


Thanks ogenoct for the explanation.
You will remember I had always suspected Dugin, years ago.
There is a post somewhere, to this effect.

I find Tulaev's idea of a Federated Europe stretching from the channel to Vladivostock:
very compatible, similar to our envisaged Imperium.
The only difference is the Nation States vs The Regions.

So important that all similar pan-European groups meet as MEPs in Brussels.
There, to turn this mercantile Europe into an Imperium of Aristocratic values.
We, the emerging Elite must restore, regenerate, instaure Europa!

Imperium
0804

[etoile noir]

Why was Norman's post edited?

Constantin
constantin, as you well know, norman was handed a 2 year sentence suspended for 4 years. anything that he says, writes or does, and that can be construed as some kind of misdemeanor, is edited here, as it is when he's on tv, radio, or wherever evidence can be brought against him by those who want to silence him forever.

[ogenoct]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-dugin4-2008sep04,0,2871108.story?page=1

Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S.

Aleksander Dugin, a popular theorist in hard-line circles, advocates an alliance between the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. He says Georgia crisis could be start of a real conflict with U.S.

By Megan Stack
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 4, 2008

MOSCOW — Writer, political activist and father figure for contemporary Russian nationalism, Aleksandr Dugin is the founder of Russia's International Eurasian Movement and a popular theorist among Russia's hard-line elite. He envisions a strategic bloc comprising the former Soviet Union and the Middle East to rival the U.S.-dominated Atlantic alliance. The Times interviewed Dugin this week at his Moscow office, a room draped with flags bearing the slogan "Pax Russica." The following are excerpts.



What is your assessment of Russia's place in the world now, and how should Russia be behaving with respect to the West?

First of all, I advocate strongly a multipolar construction of the world. I think that the pretension of the United States to be the unique pole of the world . . . is completely wrong, immoral and unacceptable by the other great centers of power.

We support the creation of great space, a few great spaces, instead of only one point of decision, the United States' decision. We think Russia should be in the vanguard of this process.

We consider -- not only myself, not only I, but our political chiefs -- we consider that in Georgia, [President Mikheil] Saakashvili has committed not only a moral crime, but also he tested what is behind the Russian words, behind the Russian protests against American domination. They wanted to test up to which point is this only words, and what Russia could oppose directly, in concrete acts.

Many in the West believe that Moscow deliberately provoked a confrontation over Georgia's breakaway republics. Who do you believe is responsible for the eruption of armed conflict?

It was too risky for us to begin it. And I think, also, that as long as I have known [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V.] Putin and [President Dmitry] Medvedev, they would like to avoid at any price direct confrontation with the United States.

Their idea was that they should gain the time to prepare Russia to attack or to withstand the possible attack of the United States, and they needed 10 years. The reaction of Putin -- of Putin and Medvedev -- was such as it was only because they considered this an offensive, impossible and unacceptable provocation from the Georgians. And that was a reaction, not a planned strategic offensive. . . . [Putin and Medvedev] were not ready to start by themselves, by their will, such a difficult situation and a difficult war that doesn't seem to end. We political analysts we see that we could start such a war, but we could not end it.

It is very far from the end. It is only the beginning of a real, and maybe very serious, and very dangerous for all of the sides, confrontation between us and Americans.

What was the strategic purpose in recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Russia is, so far, completely alone in the recognition.

First of all, by this step Russia confirmed its will to go until the end in this conflict. . . . It was a kind of demonstration of our serious and profound will to continue.

Second, we needed, and now we have gotten, juridical explication of what our armed forces were doing on the Georgian territory. Now it is more or less clear. . . .

Regarding recognition, I think that if Russia will stay in this confrontation, if Russia will continue this demonstration of the firm decision and power, the other countries will, little by little, step by step, join the attitude toward South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

It is not the rule that from now on we will recognize all the separatist regions. Absolutely no. We will recognize those separatists' regions that would be geopolitically on our side -- either on our side or on our friends' -- and opposed to the United States.

The United States showed us this double morality. They recognized pro-American Kosovo and don't recognize anti-American, pro-Russian South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They don't recognize the integrity of Serbia, but they recognize the integrity of Georgia.

How does Russia view the development of friendly relations between the United States and former Soviet republics such as Ukraine and Georgia?

As a declaration of war. As a declaration of psychological, geopolitical, economic and open war.

Putin was pro-Western at the beginning. He was pro-American. That was the reason of our criticism of his conduct. For example, after Sept. 11 we were against his help to United States and his steps toward United States.

But little by little, he was confronted with the complete neglect of all Russian interests. With these neoconservatives, with Richard Perle or Dick Cheney, we always were helping. "We will sign here, it is so."

Step by step, with the economy and the trade of energy resources, we finally found the force and the will to respond against this war. Because this war was not desired by us. It was a challenge. It was imposed on us by the United States.

We consider that all of the post-Soviet space -- except the Baltic states -- we are dealing with Eurasian civilization. Not with European, not with the West. And to try to get these spaces out of our control, or out of our dialogue, or out of our special relations with them, based on history -- it was a kind of attack, a declaration of war. It is not, as Americans like to put it, a competition. . . . It was perceived to be not a competition but an act of aggression, as Napoleon or Hitler, and nothing else.

When Russia faced a separatist movement in Chechnya, it reacted with a large-scale military attack and an air assault that turned [the Chechen capital of] Grozny to rubble. Yet Moscow has been quick to criticize [the Georgian capital of] Tbilisi for launching a military operation in its breakaway republic. Isn't there a double standard at work here?

Yes. Yes. . . . It was reaction to a double standard by a double standard. I agree.

If it's going to be a reaction to a double standard with another double standard, where does the cycle end?

The United States behaves as a unique pole that could define what is good and what is bad. . . . It will never end if something would not say, "stop it." . . . So we should demonstrate, stop it or you will repent. Maybe we also will repent, but you will repent. Stop it.

You have been banned from visiting Ukraine. Do you believe that Ukraine will join NATO, and if so, how will Russia react?

I think that most of the population of Ukraine doesn't want to come into NATO. The majority of the population, after the Georgian case more than before, wants to have a good relationship with Russia. Entrance to NATO will signify complete abolishment of any kind of relationship, and real, hard confrontation.

Half the Ukrainian population consider themselves to be Russian -- politically, geopolitically, culturally, ethnically and so on.

We could not conserve Ukraine without either a split or a compromise between two parts.

President [Viktor] Yushchenko hollered to put me out of Ukraine and to prohibit me from entering in this state. I think it is his right. It's a sovereign state. . . . But I think by doing so he diminished his respect for different kinds of Ukrainian people. Because, you know, my ideas are very popular in eastern Ukraine and Crimea and there are many, many hundreds of thousands of people who are supporters of the Eurasian movement there.

If Ukraine were to move into NATO, what do you think the Russian reaction would be?

I think that Russian reaction would be to support an uprising in eastern parts and Crimea and I could not exclude the entrance of armed force there, as in the Ossetian scenario.

But the difference is that half of the Ukrainian population is Russian, is directly Russian, and this half of the population regards itself as being oppressed by the values, by the language, by the geopolitical issues, completely against their will. So I don't think that, in this case, direct intervention of Russian armed force will be needed. I think on the eve of the entrance into NATO there will be public riots and the split of Ukraine into two parts.

What do you think would happen if Ukraine were to push Russia's Black Sea Fleet out of [the Ukrainian port of] Sevastopol?

I think it could be armed conflict there, because now we feel ourselves at ease, more or less.

We are ready to continue in Georgia. But at the same time, we haven't finished in Georgia. It's far from the end, the situation there. We need Saakashvili's head. We consider him to be an aggressor and author of war crimes.

Morally, I think our army and our political leaders are completely prepared to play hard, to play tough with the Ukrainian leader because we consider him to be an accomplice of Saakashvili.

You have spoken of Iran as an alternative to American power. Are you still thinking of Tehran in this light?

I think that Iran should and could be an ally of Russia. . . . Working with Iran, exchanging weapons and the possibility of resources and the base to transport natural resources from Eurasia and Iran, to combine our efforts in strategy, military, economy and energy -- we could create a real force to influence the whole Middle East. . . .

With Iranians we have common interests . . . because I consider that to stop American unipolarity is the most important thing, the absolute thing. . . . These parties, these pro-Westerners here in the Russian government, they insisted that Iran, being fundamentalist, could at some time aggress us. But . . . that was a kind of propaganda against Iranians made by pro-American, pro-Western forces in Moscow.

Your views on Vladimir Putin have fluctuated.

I appreciated very much his concrete steps to reinforce political order in Russia, his steps to get away the oligarchs, to diminish influence of Westerners and to save Russian territorial unity in the Chechnya situation.

But also I saw that he was encircled by pro-Western, pro-liberal politicians and advisors and experts . . . and that was main reason for my criticism toward him.

But I think that now, after [Russia's military intervention in Georgia on] Aug. 8, Putin and Medvedev have passed the irreversible point. They have shown that the will and the decision to put the words into practice are in fact irreversible. So my support to Putin and Medvedev is now absolute.

I was deceived by these circles. But at the same time, maybe the West also was deceived by them.

And by Medvedev, also! Because I considered Medvedev to be the revenge of the liberals, and I protested. I think Washington and Brussels also saw the same and we were all deceived. Medvedev proved to be a real hard-core Russian patriot and statesman. So I admire such deception -- even if I was also the victim.

Is Moscow overplaying its hand? Many analysts question whether Russia has the military strength and economic stability to risk isolation.

Russia will be not isolated -- not from Europe nor from Asia. From the United States, maybe, but that doesn't mean anything for us.

[COLOR=#0066cc]megan.stack@latimes.com[/COLOR] (megan.stack@latimes.com)

[IMPERIUM]

Dugin is incoherent.
He had advocated in the past a Russian alliance with Europe and Israel.
Now he pushes for an alliance with Iran - the country that Israel is screaming for the USA to bomb.

It must be the vodka!

Imperium
0908

[ogenoct]

He had advocated in the past a Russian alliance with Europe and Israel.

Never did he do such a thing.

[IMPERIUM]

Alexander Dugin and Pan Europeanism

[QUOTE=ogenoct][I]I am fascinated with Dugin's Movement EURASIA. Dugin is a National Bolshevik. He identifies Putin's government as the new embodiment of National Bolshevism in Russia. While many people criticize Putin for his liberalism and pandering to the West, he is nevertheless an Orthodox Russian patriot and tries to implement policies that underline this position.[/I]

[B]True. Putin is a true patriot. The fact that he has been rounding up the usual parasites - (those who bought Russian assets worth billions for a few dollars borrowed from their cousins in Wall Str) - have cast Putin and Russia increasingly in bad light with the world's controlled media. Russia is being portrayed as increasingly illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-free speech and free-enterprise and all those Jewish catchwords, preparing the ground for more future strive.

Incidentally, that is why Russia is cuddling up to China, with joint military maneuvers - in order to counteract the rodents' media onslaught. This is all for the good for us Europeans. Anything that weakens the Jewish hold in America is to the benefit of all Europids.
[/B]
[I]Dugin is opposed to petty nationalism as he is the leading advocate of geopolitical strategies today.[/I]

[B]True. One only has to visit his sites and read him. The man is undoubtedly the leading geopolician alive, today.[/B]

[I]He wants to create a new Eurasian Empire that, as some of his critics claim to the contrary, is not about merging Europe and Asia into a mixed whole. Rather, Dugin espouses ethnopluralistic affinities. While he stresses cooperation and strong bonds between the various Eurasian states, he by no means wants to see racial mixing or a merging of cultures. Dugin wants all etnicities and traditions preserved in a strong federation that is able to withstand the process of liberal and capitalist destruction that America and its allies are conducting.[/I]

[B]Exactly as we of [B]IE[/B] see the situation. The only difference between us and Dugin is that we abhore the "federated" concept. As [I]Praefectus[/I] rightly pointed out "Within a Federation, the states can go to war with each other".

In an [B]Imperium [/B]consisting of [I]Regions [/I]and cousin [I]Peoples,[/I] that just does not happen - it is impossible for that to happen!
[/B]
[I]As a staunch Socialist, Dugin is opposed to any kind of Fascist ideologies. He calls himself an "anti-Fascist" in the line of Ernst Niekisch and other leading National Bolsheviks of the early 20th century. While Hitlerism was essentially an offshoot of the Conservative Revolution, it was at the same time its perversion.[/I]

[B]We of [B]IE[/B] are likewise not Fascists or Nazis. We are beyond that. We call ourselves the [B]RRRRR[/B] in order to project the [I][B]Revolutionary Conservatism[/B][/I] that, we believe, encapsulates and [I]Transcends[/I] all the various Fascisms and National Socialisms (Hungary had the strongest version of Nazi ideology).

As to whether Hitler was an aberration or perversion of [B]RC[/B] that is debatable. He never completed his opera. He had merely 12 years of power. He made colossal mistakes, antagonising the Slavs when they greeted German troops as liberators. He was crude and [I]in fondo, un piccolo borgese.[/I] But he took on, single-handedly, those international rodents and almost put them in their place!

Of course, now they are more powerful than ever. But, they have had their innings and they are rapidly coming to an end. This time, we'll give them something to really moan about!
[/B]
[I]Also, Dugin supports Zionism as he sees Israel as a potential ally. I suspect that he would rather see the Jews having their own country than meddling in the affairs of others (as parasites). In this sense, Dugin is in total ideological agreement with the likes of Adolf Eichmann (who called himself a Zionist rather than a Nazi). I am not so sure about this dubious aspect of Dugin's political ideology.[/I]

[B]Of course, this is my bone of contention with Dugin. He invites Zionists, Rabbis and what not, to lecture at his institute. I have to put this in Italian: [I]non so non voglio so, ma quache cosa deve ce'![/I] - In basic English: It stinks!
[/B]
When the new [B]RRRRR[/B] group: [B]NOVA EUROPA[/B] is formed in Brussels, it will no doubt collaborate at all levels with Dugin. As the EU moves Eastwards, this new group can only increase in strength. Eventually, it will have the deciding, casting vote in the EU Parliament. From there, the takeover becomes possible, indeed probable, in fact: a certainty!

[B]Imperium
0503[/B]


[B] [/B]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Re: Biopolitics Versus Geopolitics[/FONT]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Very good article Constantin.
You brought out the contradictions:
in otherwise brilliant Dugin.

I remember once in the past:
mentioning Dugin's Jewish connections:
[I]qual cosa puzza![/I]

Imperium
0507[/FONT]


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Re: Euro-Soviet Empire[/FONT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']ogenoct[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']from: [COLOR=#22229c]http://freeweb.supereva.com/nikolatempo/eurasiani.htm?p (http://freeweb.supereva.com/nikolatempo/eurasiani.htm?p)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[I][COLOR=black][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Norman/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg[/IMG][/FONT][/COLOR][/I]


[B]Excellent link!
[COLOR=#22229c]http://freeweb.supereva.com/nikolatempo/eurasiani.htm?p (http://freeweb.supereva.com/nikolatempo/eurasiani.htm?p)
The genesis of Imperium.

When one reads Haushofer, Thiriart:
one understands the nature of Geopolitics:
the underlying struggle.

Thalassocracy and Tellurocracy:
Yin and Yan:
they need to merge into Imperium Europa.

We, The New Right:
the furthest point in today's global politics:
Nietzsche's bird flying over waters, towards a distant perch.

One understands Ogenoct's observation:
of a "Roman Catholic" baroque, National Socialism.
Fueher as Jesus Christ, Swastika as cross.

The contradiction of a great Dugin:
successor of Haushofer and Thiriart:
yet surrounded by rodents.

If one wants to understand Ogenoct:
read the link: from start to finish.
It says it all.

Imperium[/B][/COLOR]


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Re: Empire Against Empire[/FONT]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']An article that places Ogenoct:
within the Imperium vision:
spot on!

Yes, sometimes Ogenoct is:
ungraspable, elusive, nebulous, seemingly contradictory.
It is not his fault - he is an Artist!

I need a drink.
Yes, I do need a drink:
Before I read Ogenoct!

One either understands him totally:
[I]afferrare! - al volo![/I]
Or not at all - Zen!

Imperium
0507[/FONT]


[B]Re: White Eurasia[/B]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Quote:[/FONT]
Originally Posted by [B]Viriato[/B]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Besides the text of Constantin von Hoffmeister being dedicated to Guillaume Faye, it seems to me that he mix up things that one should avoid. For instance, the concept of Eurasia has been promoted by the Russian thinker Alexandar Dugin and it is based in the idea of Asia and Europe being united in a same impire. Dugin is a supporter of Turkey adhesion to EU.

As for the concept of Eurosiberia promoted by Guillaume Faye, its a much more logical and viable one. Not only because it is based on an ehtnic-cultural premise, the essence of our fight.

Euroasianism is a dangerous concept and should be denounced as so.

Eurosiberia is our only chance to face the yankee imperialism, islamic terrorism, chinese expansionism and zionist manipulation. he only way to avoid our obliteration as a civilization and ethno-culture.

Hoffmeister is a poet and should put his feet on the ground, should think in a more logical way.[/FONT]

[SIZE=3]Beautiful piece of writing by Constantin.
So good to have him back.
But one tends to agree with Viriato.

In the coming Imperium Europa:
we must carefully define our borders:
and who is out, who is in.

The vast borders of Southern Russia and Siberia:
must be sealed, taking note of Race, Peoples:
and defensibility of terrain - what to capture, what to sacrifice.

Dugin started with Eurasia:
then mentioned Imperium Europa.
His defense of Turkey, links with Israel are grey areas.

Emerald Isle to Vladivostok: EuroSiberia.
Vinland and White Latin America:
Australia and White Africa.

Two White Rings encircling the globe:
controlling the food producing areas.
A Planetary Imperium for Europids only.

Then onwards to Mars:
terra forming and White colonies in space.
Not aliens, but Aryans!

Imperium
0602[/SIZE]
[B][SIZE=3][/SIZE]

[FONT=Times New Roman][B]Re: Bad Jews Or Good Jews?[/B] [/FONT]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[quote=ogenoct]http://www.gnosticliberationfront.co...%20Eurasia.htm (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/the%20Jews%20and%20Eurasia.htm)

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.co...%20Eurasia.htm (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/the%20Jews%20and%20Eurasia.htm)
Ogenoct Post No 29.

ON THE PATH TO EURASIA

EXCERPTS FROM ‘THE JEWS AND EURASIA’

Aleksandr Dugin


[SIZE=3]Thank you Ogenoct for uploading this interesting article by Dugin.
I read it with care and attention, recognising the research involved and the dept of knowledge and intellectual reach of Dugin.
It is the [I]intention [/I]of the article, of which I am not so sure of.

Dugin is telling us exactly that:
their are bad Jews and good Jews.
He goes to considerable pains to distinguish them and describe them.

But behind the belaboured wording and repeated arguments:
there lies the clear intention of Dugin to insert the Rodents withing the Eurasian leading Elite:
and this, at the very inception of the IDEA of Eurasianism.

It is like Norman Lowell forcibly arguing that the Rodents:
should form the leading cadre for the coming Imperium Europa.
It is madness! It is injecting the poison in the new born child.

Dugin was always ambivalent in my eyes.
I always questioned his ostentatious posturing as a "non-fascist" and "non anti-semite".
In short, I always smelt a Rodent!

Clearly, either the Jews have something on him -
or else they are financing him.
There is more to Dugin, than meets the eye.

Imperium
0611[/SIZE]


[B]Re: Alexander Dugin[/B]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Dugin’s increasing celebrity in the CIS is remarkable considering that the chief “neo-Eurasian” is not only among the most influential, but also one of the most brazen of Russia’s ultra-nationalist publicists. While authors such as Kurginyan or Shafarevich are satisfied to promote a renaissance of classical Russian anti-Western sentiments in their pamphlets and subtly draw on Western sources, Dugin admits openly that his main ideas are based on non-Russian anti-democratic concepts such as European integral Traditionalism (e.g. René Guénon, Julius Evola, Claudio Mutti, etc.), Western geopolitics (e.g. Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer), the German “conservative revolution” (e.g. Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck), and the francophone New Right (e.g. Alain de Benoist, Robert Steuckers, Jean Thiriart).

Furthermore, during the 1990s, Dugin repeatedly hinted at his sympathy for selected aspects of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, such as the SS and its Ahnenerbe (“Ancestral Heritage”) Institute, and has described the Third Reich as the most consistent incarnation of the “Third Way” that he explicitly advocates. In the chapter “Fascism – Boundless and Red” of the online version of his 1997 book Tampliery Proletariata (The Templar Knights of the Proletariat), he expressed the hope that the inconsistent application of originally correct ideas by Hitler, Mussolini, etc. would, eventually, be followed in post-Soviet Russia by the emergence of a “fascist fascism”. In Dugin’s apocalyptic worldview, global history consists of a centuries-old confrontation between hierarchically organized “Eurasian” continental powers and liberal “Atlantic” naval powers. Today, this confrontation is carried out between Russia and the US as the main representatives of the two antagonistic types of civilization, and its final battle is approaching (Dugin uses the German word Endkampf, which has Nazi connotations, without a Russian translation).

[/SIZE][SIZE=3]Interesting - post Soviet Russia is searching for the "Third Way".
So important that the EU expands Eastwards - avoiding the pernicious Neocon efforts to set us up against the Slavs.
There is so much East and West can achieve together - so long as the mischief-makers are kept in their place.

Ogenoct, what is the relationship between Tulaev's Atheneum and Dugin's Eurasian Institute?
What is the bone of contention between them?
You know both of them and have their respect.

The World Enemy is the only hindrance to a planetary Imperium unifying the Whole White Race.
This pernicious minority of marauders constantly agitates, provokes and diabolically destabilises the destiny of the 4 cousin sub-races.
The World Enemy : the fundumental, central cancer to all our problems.

Imperium
0804[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]-0-0-0-0-0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]This is the best I could do.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Can't find an article by Dugin where he specifically calls for a Triple Alliance amongst Europe, Israel & Russia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I must have lost this article but it surely exists.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]This Triple Alliance would mean that Israel would again be accorded the Middleman status -[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]where it could set up Europe and America against Russia -[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]exactly as it is doing now.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]With the added difference that Israel would be part of Europe and Russia -[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]where it definetly should not be - notwitstanding every effort to insinuate, involve itself as a European country.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Dugin would allow the viper to be embedded in the White Man's bosom.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Imperium[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]0908[/SIZE]

[/B]

[oebalus]

A sound way to understand what separates them ( Dugin- Tulayev) is asking both of them or any one of them what they think of each other and their world concepts. Maybe even they are not aware of what separates them. It could be that both men's ideas are undergoing formation, ever evolving, ever soaring ,endeavouring to reach a philosophical plus ultra, a nirvana. They have daunting challenges, the social and political configuration of nations and regions is in such a state of flux, with the rapid passage of time the globe vessel is becoming more loaded and more interdependent, like a tuti fritu omelette, in which six months old policy formulations might be considered redundant or pre historic. However when either party brings in the chosen as a pivotal factor in their philosophies, that takes the cake for unblushing mendacity; further expostulates serve little purpose; they are either vicitms of their own deception , or planted trojan horses. We continue driving in the hollow cave of darkness. Nothing has changed, nothing changes. The movie is replaced with another celluloid. but the theater is the same decrepit, soot laced , foul smelling building. " If anyone of them believes that they can enter into a profitable partnership with parasites they are like a tree trying to conclude for its own profit an agreement with a mistletoe" .