Alexander Dugin on the Heartland versus the Heartless: The Neocon and Neoliberal Plan for Russia (and America)

James Wald


There is a marked difference between freedom and liberty, a distinction which highlights the greatest defect of liberalism (especially as it has come to be understood in postmodern discourse).

“Liberty” implies liberation from something, which marks freedom as a negative category. Because of the connotations of liberty commonly understood in the West before the rise of left-wing concepts like liberation theology (i.e. Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech), the negative functions of liberty aren’t always obvious to people in the Anglosphere, even or perhaps especially those who consider themselves conservative.

The Eurasians don’t struggle with this bind. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political scientist maligned as a fascist in the West, gets to the heart of the matter in his book, Putin vs Putin: Putin viewed from the Right:

Today, in realizing the ‘liberty from’, we understand ever better that this nihilistic agenda is leading us to an abyss.… A declaration of individual freedom in effect means total dependence of the common man on the oligarchy. Individual freedom abolishes all forms of collective identity. One is not allowed to be a supporter of a national state or a religious institution, because this is not politically correct (Dugin 59).

It is not hard to understand why a Russian political scientist is suspicious of liberty as it has been sold by the Atlanticist powers (Western Europe and the U.S.) when too often neoconservative concepts of liberty involve liberating people from their lives, or neoliberal projects result in liberating nations from their resources. This asset-stripping facet of ostensible liberation is also not lost on Dugin: “In a former socialist country, where a capitalist coup was implemented on short notice, state and public property ended up in private hands and social guarantees…were done away with” (Dugin 59-60).

When people are convinced that the responsibilities that bind them to one-another (faith, community, ethnicity) are merely burdens to be shed, when they are sold individualism as a fetishized commodity that atomizes them, they are ripe for plunder and exploitation. Many on the Right cite Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals as a foundational blueprint for how the Left operates (and it is), but no book encapsulates this nihilistic isolation as a desired state of affairs like Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies, which holds that “liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning” (Dugin 297). Billionaire Jewish business magnate George Soros was so apparently taken with the book, which he considers his “personal bible,” that he saw fit to borrow the title for his grant-making network, the Open Society Foundation.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Dugin is not the first political scientist to note this conflict between rooted peoples and rootless individuals attempting to break the will of larger groups in order to exploit them. Indeed, much of Dugin’s concept of a Eurasian political bloc arrayed against Atlanticist powers owes its formulation to the German political theologian and jurist Carl Schmitt, who took the biblical concepts of Leviathan (representing sea-based, thalassocratic trading societies) and behemoth (representing the land-based, traditional tellurocratic societies) and applied these ideas to modern geopolitics, itself an outgrowth of cartography and geography (especially as realized by Sir Halford John Mackinder).

Schmitt contrasts these two world-orientations in his The Nomos of the Earth. On the one side is the land, where hard work and loyalty to one’s ingroup is considered honorable “because human toil and trouble, human planting and cultivation of the fruitful earth is rewarded justly by her with growth and harvest” (42).

The “her” in this context is the earth, which might give feminists and other identity-politics apparatchiks a bout of cognitive dissonance, if they ever bothered to read conservative philosophers. Schmitt speaks of the “the solid ground of the earth [as] delineated by fences, enclosures, boundaries, walls, houses, and other constructs,” these “boundaries” of course being key to the contestation now between globalists who insist on open doors and open markets on the one hand, and those who want functioning borders and some form of protectionism in trade deals on the other. Schmitt also cites the landed society’s emphasis on attachment to, “families, clans, [and] tribes,” the last of which the globalists are certainly opposed to (except in the case of their own ingroup).

Contrasted with the land-based people are the sea people who experience “no such apparent unity of space and law, of order and orientation … On the sea, fields cannot be planted and firm lines cannot be engraved. Ships that sail across the sea leave no trace” (42). Schmitt acknowledges that freedom exists on the sea, but his description of freedom achieves eerie parity with Dugin’s negative liberation:

The axiom ‘freedom of the sea’ meant something very simple, that the sea was a zone free for booty. Here, the pirate could ply his wicked trade with a clear conscience. If he was lucky, he found in some rich booty a reward for the hazardous wager of having sailed the open sea. … On the open sea, there were no limits, no boundaries, no consecrated sites, no sacred orientations, no law, and no property. (43)

Schmitt is unsparing in his view of those who live free from the nomos/concrete abiding order of nature and her laws, seeing their realm as having “no character, in the original sense of the word, which comes from the Greek charassein” (42) (sein should be recognizable to readers of Heideigger, who spoke of Dasein in his existential philosophy).

As with Heideigger, Schmitt was not shy about addressing the Jewish Question, especially when citing Jews as an example of the quintessential, sea-based society (with antecedents naturally in the tale of the Wandering Jew). “In Schmitt’s presentation, the Jewish people, lacking a land and the corresponding ability to dwell in the land, also lack the status of being human” (Samuel Garret Zeitlin, “An Introduction to Land and Sea. Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation by Carl Schmitt. Telos, 2015, pp xxxi-lxix).

Liberalism and its economic and political system favor those with the rootless mentality over those who have attachments to anything beyond “the fields of economics and business” (276). This results in “creating a privileged society that advances a very specific type of individual (which the American sociologist Yuri Slezkine calls the ‘mercurial type’)” (276).

Yuri Slezkine, author of The Jewish Century, acknowledges that Jews fulfill this role and that they “provide services to peoples who produce food.” What Slezkine can’t or won’t say is that many of these “services” are not wanted or needed in the first place, have rapidly diminishing returns, and leave havoc in their wake.

For those who want to extrapolate into the future what this competition between those of the sea vs. those of the land will lead to, the Jewish economist Jacques Attali offers his prediction:

The next phase of capitalism will bring about a… world defined by nomadism, which will result from the development of social media and demographic pressures. The ultimate result of this would be a world in which nations cease to have meaning, dominated by an ultraliberal economic system (276).

For those who want a concrete example of what happens not in the future, but in the here and now when the sea tries “flooding of the Land” (82) in Dugin’s words, Russia serves as an instructive example, or perhaps cautionary tale.

Dugin sees the “shock therapy” of the post-Cold War years as the “accelerated transfer of Russia’s entire economy to the ultraliberal railway” (81) which had “catastrophic consequences: the impoverishment of the population, the devaluation of the economy, the complete decline of industry, the privatization of basic profitable enterprises, and the rise of new oligarchs who had seized key positions in the country by illegal means.”

Key institutions such as “media, informational, and even military structures” (82) were “corrupted by the new oligarchs or directly infiltrated by Atlanticist agents of influence.”

Malefactors include former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, who with aid and counsel from Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, led the way in privatizing state assets in a way that caused hyperinflation and mass suffering among the population, attended by the siphoning of the nation’s wealth to a small handful of oligarchs.

One of the most notorious of the billionaire boyars was “Mikhail Khodorkovsky…arrested in 2003 on charges of fraud and ultimately imprisoned” (20). He was found guilty of embezzlement and money laundering, but was freed from prison due to pressure from powerful friends abroad. The New York Times, of course, looked at the backlash in this period of Russian privatization and saw only the specter of groundless antisemitism looming over the Heartland.

Besides the physical privation suffered by the common people in Russia after neoliberal shock therapy (go to the 14:35 mark in this video for a typical view of how things changed under the oligarchy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UIPh4BX9Y ) a more basic, existential conflict emerges when sea floods land, an erosion of one set of values and a replacement with another (null) set. Dugin lists the values of these two opposed systems in his book Last War of the World-Island, which deals with the Eurasian landmass that has Russia at its center as the apotheosis of Schmitt’s concept of Land (which can mean “land” in German but more typically means “country” or “nation,” although it lacks the volkisch connotations of Boden).

Key features of the Land are “conservatism, holism…the narod [as] more important than the individual,” (7) as well as values such as “sacrifice, faithfulness, asceticism, honor, and loyalty” (8).

These core values stand in opposition to those thalassocratic elements that are the “Essence of liberalism” (295) such as “anthropological individualism (the individual [as] the measure of all things)” and the “belief in progress…[that] the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present.” This temporal aspect is key not only to inter-continental conflict, but to our local political culture (think of the clash between Trump supporters wanting to “make America great again” as it was in the past, as people demonstrating implicit narod/volk values, versus those on the far-left who insist that “America was never great” and going so far as to wear hats stitched with the slogan).

The sea peoples view the heartland as the enemy and have created the paradoxical definition of democracy as “the rule of minorities…defending themselves from the majority” (295) which they believe to be “always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or ‘populism.’” The horror with which the elite have reacted to Donald Trump’s overtures to make America work for Americans (whether sincere or not) perfectly encapsulates the struggle between a “dispossessed majority” (Dugin borrows the term from Wilmot Robinson) against a hostile minority that labels its oligarchic rule democracy.

It is understood that nihilistic liberalism has been routing Heartland conservatism in battle after battle in the culture war for a long time now, both in the Occident and in Eurasia. (It is debatable whether Putin is ultimately a bulwark or katechon1 against the rot encroaching from the West.)

However, the corrupt system emanating from the Atlanticist powers might be a victim of its own success. Liberalism, in Dugin’s view, “only begins to show its negative essence after victory. After the victory of 1991, liberalism stepped into its implosive phase. After having defeated Communism and fascism, it stood alone, with no enemy to fight” (298).

Once conservatism is subdued and the populists are marginalized or silenced, the post-victory honeymoon is over and recriminations start. At this point liberals begin to punish even slight deviations among moderates who consent to their overall program but question elements of it (think Tim Wise on a campus in a roomful of what John Derbyshire calls “goodwhites,” critiquing those who are with the program but still need to be hectored and groomed by a midlevel functionary antiracist/ human resources commissar):

Liberal societies began to attempt to purge themselves of their last remaining non-liberal elements: sexism, political incorrectness, inequality between the sexes, any remnants of the non-individualistic dimensions of institutions such as the state and the Church and so on. Liberalism always needs an enemy to liberate from. Otherwise it loses its purpose, and its implicit nihilism becomes too salient.

Having silenced, cowed, or destroyed the careers of anyone to their right, the liberals begin to attack each other because there is nothing else to liberate themselves from, or to justify the categorically negative orientation of their liberalism. This provokes an “implosion of the personality” (299) which leads to everything from gender confusion to various degrees of self-hatred dressed up as fashionable theory that results in a lot of confused, unhappy young Americans saddled with useless “studies” degrees and debt.  Then denunciations start and the show trials commence, with members of the revolutionary vanguard criticizing other members of the same movement for not being liberal enough. For a modern example, see the internecine melee that emerged between the Think Progress and Jacobin factions of the left, documented here.

While watching circular firing squads between leftist foot soldiers is good enough sport, the bad news is that those pursuing the rhetoric of democracy, liberation and free markets further up the food chain are already engaged in the opening stages of a new Great Game with American, Russian, Syrian, Iranian, and Ukrainian lives as their playthings:

They badly need Putin, Russia, and war. It is the only way to prevent chaos in the West to save what remains of its global and domestic order. In this ideological play, Russia would justify liberalism’s existence, because that is the enemy which would give a meaning to the struggle of the open society, and which would help it to consolidate and continue to affirm itself globally.  (Dugin 300)

The “they” currently coveting Russia is the Foreign Policy Initiative, founded by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the former of whom wrote an editorial asserting that America’s interventions abroad in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya (and presumably anywhere else) should be thought of as liberations rather than invasions. If the names Kristol and Kagan sound familiar, they should. Both men also founded the Project for the New American century, a think tank which helped shape policy during the Bush administration (especially in pushing for the invasion/liberation of Iraq.) The FPI is just old wine in new bottles.

The only difference this time is that the chosen target now not only has the means but probably the will to fight back, and faulty or deliberately fabricated intelligence isn’t necessary to establish that the new nation in need of liberation has weapons of mass destruction.

One would like to think that the threat of assured mutual annihilation would deter a game of nuclear brinkmanship from getting out of hand. This threat still looms despite the victory of Donald Trump, who, notwithstanding the alarmist rhetoric against him, is probably a safer bet to have his finger on the button than Hillary Clinton. Robert Kagan, the key neocon, slandered Trump as a fascist and endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race, which serves as its own endorsement of Trump as the less bellicose of the two (at least in regards to the Crimean Peninsula and Russia). But the threat of war is still very real regardless of who is in the White House, since, as Carl Schmitt himself knew, every chamber of power creates its own antechamber (here think tanks) and they are the ones pushing for war.

The neoconservative and neoliberal establishment have proven repeatedly that they are willing to make others suffer for their designs. One would at least hope that their hubris would find some check in the instinct for self-preservation, that they would know that human extinction would be a possible outcome through a chain of secondary effects in the event of a mutual strike (and Israel would more than likely be included in the annihilation). Even barring eschatological concerns and apocalyptic outcomes, the world that liberalism created is not a pretty one. Its implosion is a good thing inasmuch as it is an anti-volk/narod/populist force, but too many innocent people are in its orbit and suffering in the blast radius of the figurative fallout it has already produced: “[Liberalism] has now begun to implode. It has arrived at its terminal point and started to liquidate itself. Mass immigration, the clash of cultures and civilizations, the financial crisis, terrorism, and the growth of ethnic nationalism are indications of approaching chaos.” (299)

Let us hope for a reprieve for the people who have suffered unnecessarily and that those who have inflicted the suffering are at least divested of some of the power they wield in institutions, for the good of the rest of us. Let us also hope that at some point they will finally be held accountable for their crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

*The Katechon is a key part of Carl Schmitt’s political theology, borrowed from Thessalonians (2:6-7). This has been translated as everything from “forestaller” to “one who restrains” and was originally meant by Saint Paul to refer to something which prevented the antichrist from manifesting himself in the world. Tangential but not synonymous American political concepts are the ratchet effect and William F. Buckley’s declaration that true conservatives stand athwart history yelling “Stop!” in National Review’s mission statement.


Works Cited:

Dugin, Alexander. Last War of the World Island: The Geopolitics of Contemporary Russia. Arktos, 2015.

Dugin, Alexander. Putin vs. Putin: Vladimir Putin viewed from the Right. Arktos, 2014.

Schmitt, Carl. Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation. Telos, 2015.

Schmitt, Carl. The Nomos of the Earth. Telos, 2006.

Zeitlin, Samuel Garrett. An Introduction to Land and Sea. Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation by Carl Schmitt. Telos, 2015, pp xxxi-lxix.

 

 

 

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

46 Comments to "Alexander Dugin on the Heartland versus the Heartless: The Neocon and Neoliberal Plan for Russia (and America)"

  1. John lockett's Gravatar John lockett
    February 10, 2017 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    I was replying to ms summers comments that what was said is exactly the way I think in respect to the way is going and wanted to know if this was his/her own conclusions.
    John Lockett

  2. Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
    February 8, 2017 - 10:17 am | Permalink

    People can find many quotes of Dugin on the Net, e.g:
    -An important aspect of the Eurasian worldview is an absolute denial of Western civilisation. In the opinian of the Eurasians, the West with its ideology of liberalism is an absolute evil- European civilisation is evil, the America empire must be destroyed.
    -I’m a supporter of Blacks. White civilisation, their cultural values, dehumanising model of the world, built by them-did not pay off. Everything goes to the beggining of anti-White pogroms on a planetary scale, Russia saved only by the fact we are not pure White. Predations, multinational corporations, oppression and supression of all others, MTV, gays and lesbians- this is the fruit of White civilisation from which is necessary to get rid of. So I’m for yellows, reds, greens, blacks, but not for Whites. I’m wholeheartely on the side of the races oppressed by the Whites.
    ——-

    (Mod. Note: “Zaida”, are you sure you’re commenting on the right site? The TOO masthead clearly states that we are about “White Identity, Interests and Culture”, not the interests of others.)

    • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
      February 8, 2017 - 4:26 pm | Permalink

      She is quoting what is attributed to Alexandre Dugin i think.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        February 8, 2017 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Cigar to Mr. Prester.

    • February 9, 2017 - 4:55 am | Permalink

      You don’t seem to have understood the “contribution” of Jews. They contaminated white civilisation, and are still doing so. (This included taking large parts in slave trades of blacks). Many wars were run by Jews; serious historians probably have centuries of work before them to try to sort out those events. And you seem to be implying that Blacks built something; or indeed anything.

  3. Fin of a Cobra's Gravatar Fin of a Cobra
    February 8, 2017 - 6:44 am | Permalink

    Let us hope for a reprieve for the people who have suffered unnecessarily and that those who have inflicted the suffering are at least divested of some of the power they wield in institutions, for the good of the rest of us. Let us also hope that at some point they will finally be held accountable for their crimes.

    This is a pitifully weak ending for an otherwise tour-de-force essay: you “hope” for this, you “hope” for that… What kind of Teutonic spirit is that? Why do you not take as a model Schmitt’s view of the Jew as described by Zeitlin: “In Schmitt’s presentation, the Jewish people, lacking a land and the corresponding ability to dwell in the land, also lack the status of being human”. Now them’s fightin’ words!!!

    Schmitt is doing nothing more than attacking the Jews with their own words: the fact that Jews consider all non-Jews as non-humans is weaved right into their vocabulary; after all, “goy” means “cattle”. Why pull the punches, then, when it comes to retaliating? Do you know who you are dealing with? Do you know what Kristol, Kagan, and a whole Sachs of them are capable of? These “people” grabbed your civilization by the jugular and you “hope” they won’t wield so much power? “They” got you by the gonads and you “hope” they will be held accountable? So maybe you are also hoping that they will “change”? What are you, a hope-and-change Obama-nite?

    For God’s sake, where is the indignation? Where is the fury? It is practically your birthright as a White to be infuriated at the Jew. Why does the White only conjure up his own hellfire when he is battling… another White?!? Because the Jew knows how to rile the White up into a frenzy! The White is tricked into warring against his own flesh by the wile and guile of the Jew. And the Jew is a Master at this: getting the Whites to bludgeon each other unto death.

    Stop kidding yourself: there is NO HOPE that the Jew will CHANGE.

    So, Mr. Wald, do not go gentle into that good alt-right, The page should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the White.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      February 9, 2017 - 9:11 am | Permalink

      Fin of a Cobra,

      “They” got you by the gonads”

      I would call that something of an understatement. Selling the eggs of Caucasian women is a 3 billion dollar a year business. Our male reproductive tissue, thru fertility centers, sperm banks, sperm auctions and donor banks, is sold in Kigali, Rwanda, Pu dong, China, Las Rojas, Chile.

      “Where is the fury?”

      Good question! At the moment European males have accepted the role of – hipster or hennetaster.

    • anon's Gravatar anon
      February 10, 2017 - 8:58 pm | Permalink

      Fin of a Cobra:
      Though “goy” does have a very negative connotation it does not literally mean “cattle.”

  4. T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
    February 8, 2017 - 12:04 am | Permalink

    (((Karl Popper)))

  5. Vehmgericht's Gravatar Vehmgericht
    February 7, 2017 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    The ginning up of anti-Russian sentiment has become a feature of the British media, including the ‘impartial’ BBC, and ‘The World’s Leading Liberal Voice’, The Guardian.

    Scarcely a day goes by without some absurd Putin-inspired enormity being splashed across the front pages: “Now Russian Hackers Menace Our NHS” etc.

    For balance I suggest to look at RT

    I suspect that *English* people secretly admire Putin and envy Russians for maintaining a proud and rooted identity, contrasted with our flimsy and phony ‘Britishness’.

    But who the is behind the anti-Russian propaganda, and what is its purpose?

  6. HK Wills's Gravatar HK Wills
    February 7, 2017 - 10:53 pm | Permalink

    The heavily Jewish influenced American national security establishment is a special interest in its own right. It needs monsters abroad to slay in order for its members to retain their incomes, power and prestige. This fits hand and glove with the Jewish desire for an activist U.S. foreign policy as a guarantor of Israel’s security. Among neocons North Korea’s nuclear weapons do not seem to garner the obsessive focus that Iran, as a potential nuclear power does. The Jews loathe Putin for the simple reason that he sees through the Jews. His treatment of the “oligarchs” – 7 of 8 were Jewish – makes that clear. It is no coincidence the neocons would make him, along with Iran, a preferential target of their, of course non self interested, world morality/democracy crusade.

  7. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 7, 2017 - 8:39 pm | Permalink

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/igor-artemov/
    As the above articles highlight, multiculturalism is pursued in Russia with at least as much gusto as in the West. I find Dugin’s “Eurasian political bloc” less than enthralling. Coke vs. Pepsi.

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      February 8, 2017 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

      Kind of looks that way to me, too. Coke vs Pepsi? More like Frying Pan vs Fire.

      • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
        February 8, 2017 - 6:46 pm | Permalink

        Well, that’s interesting. Americans shared thier country with Europeans. I wonder if Dugin is okay with doing the same with Russia? Would Russians share their vast country with Europeans- Germans and Dutch and Italian immigrants and make them equal citizens? Europeans are a little crowded right now and could use some breathing room. I say we steal Eastern Russia before China does.

  8. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    February 7, 2017 - 8:04 pm | Permalink

    They would have waged nuclear war against Russia. Obama too said that the problem with Russia is that the outcome is never certain. He entertained the thought of being the new Napoleon. He just restrained himself.

    I hope it never comes to it, but I have heard that a few times Russia has considered preemptive nuclear strike on US. Not surprised.

    Chutzpa. Waging wars for the interests of Jews where evil White people die or are maimed. The more, the better.

  9. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    February 7, 2017 - 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Malefactors include former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, who with aid and counsel from Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, led the way in privatizing state assets in a way that caused hyperinflation and mass suffering among the population, attended by the siphoning of the nation’s wealth to a small handful of oligarchs.

    True privatization does NOT cause hyperinflation and there’s no way anyone can draw a causal connection between the two. Exactly how does one explain the steep inflation in Chavez and Maduro’s pure socialist Venezuela? Not exactly a beacon of privatization there, LOL. Or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? However, central banks, many but not all (as the two aforementioned examples prove) in the hands of Jews, certainly do.

    And sure, Soros liked Popper’s model to apply to the gentile West. He’d NEVER apply it to Israel precisely because he favors Israel’s common goals and values. Typical Jewish hypocrisy.

  10. Mr. Kalobenko's Gravatar Mr. Kalobenko
    February 7, 2017 - 6:31 pm | Permalink

    While I don’t deny that the author of the review mostly makes good points, we must be exceedingly careful with Dugin. He is not even a potential ally to White Nationalists, and is terrible on the JQ. And all critiques of Dugin aside, he skips over a lot of anti-nationalist behaviors of Putin.

    In an article here a few years ago, Dr. MacDonald himself pointed out, “But it soon became apparent that Dugin’s FPT was more than a critique of American hegemony and Atlanticism; it was an unrelenting attack on the very essence of Western civilization. . . .

    Dugin defends the Russian people and empire from the perspective of tradition while criticizing the West from the perspective of postmodernism and cultural Marxism. It has escaped the attention of commentators in the alternative right that Dugin relies almost entirely on cultural Marxists in his assessment of liberalism. I don’t think we should take it lightly that he celebrates (((Karl Marx’s))) ideas as “tremendously useful and applicable” (50), calls (((Franz Boas))) “the greatest American cultural anthropologist” (63), and believes that (((Levi-Strauss))) “convincingly showed” that primitive cultures in Africa were as complex and rich as European cultures (109). . . .” (echoes added by me). Of note, Claude Lévi-Strauss was a student of the Jewish-Russian linguist Roman Jakobson. This connection is important to Dugin, since Jakobson was not only one of the founders of the structuralist school in linguistics (which hardly seems like a real science, IMHO–our Evolutionary Psychology is far superior when it comes to quantifying and explaining racial differences), but also a Eurasianist.

    He deplores White Nationalists who attack “immigrants and Muslims”, even going so far as to say, “Muslims form a part of the Russian population, and are an important minority. Therefore, Islamophobia implicitly calls for the break-up of Russia.” (In the mind of many Russian civic nationalists, someone of any race who speaks Russian and acknowledges Putin’s authority can be “Russian”–be he a Jew, Buryat, Mongol, Kazakh Muslim, etc.). Lucian Tudor, who has written an insightful review of Dugin’s philosophy, is unclear how much Dugin actually believes in race….

    He also claims, “When it comes to the myth of ‘the solidarity of the white race’, it is a complete utopia that leads not only to the Holocaust of the Jews, but also to a genocide of the Slavs.” (Is that Russian for “It’s annudah shoah!!”?)

    He has attacked people who mention Jewish power with the typical canard that one must be a conspiracy theorist who sees Jews behind ‘everything’: “I just cannot believe it. Some imaginary ‘masons’, the Jews behind every single thing, paranoia, mania of being constantly followed”. That said, Dugin isn’t entirely ignorant of Jewish misdeeds: “the Hassidic commissars could not, despite all their bloody genocide, erase the population of the eternal “Russian Empire””

    Oh, and he is fond of Black genocides of Whites. “I am a supporter of blacks. White civilization – its cultural values and false, dehumanizing model of the world, built by them – there were no benefits. Everything is leading to the start of anti-White pogroms on a planetary scale. Russia is saved only by the fact that we are not pure white. Predatory multinational corporations, oppression, and suppressing everyone else, besides MTV, gays and lesbians – this is the fruit of White civilization, which is necessary to get rid of. So, I am for reds, yellows, greens and blacks, but not for Whites. I’m wholeheartedly on the side of the people of Zimbabwe.”
    We Russians are no nationalists, we never were a nation. When we speak of the ‘Ours,’ it isn’t meant ethnic. The Chechen or the Uzbek are also included…”

    “Eurasia – that’s Russia and her partners. Turkey, Iran, China, India. The post-Soviet space, which even includes Mongolia…”

    And all that’s just background about Dugin. While the question of to what extent is Putin actually a threat to World Zionism is complicated, the book makes no mention of Putin’s anti-nationalistic qualities (imprisoning Russian nationalists, criminalizing literature questioning The Worst Event to Ever Happen Ever or discussing other topics of interest, etc.). Most immediate to the issues of (((oligarchs))) stealing Russian wealth, it ignores the fact that many oligarchs who are loyal to Putin or at least neutral on politics are Jewish (including some of Putin’s best friends, the (((Rotenberg))) brothers whom he met while playing, of all things, Judo!).
    And it is only half-right to say that Western companies expropriate Russian resources. This was true during the privatization schemes of the 1990s, but, at least in the early 2010s, Russia made about 25% of its GDP from exporting oil alone. In fact, Putin has done little to reduce Russia’s endemic corruption, which makes it hard to make an honest living except in a few spheres (IT being an important one, since workers can evade corrupt bureaucrats via the internet).

    Finally, Putin has made no observable effort to achieve peace in Donbass–and many observers suspect that he does not want the breakaway republics to actually become part of Russia–he rather wants them to remain tantalizingly close to Ukraine, so it will waste blood and treasure on the conflict, or perhaps reintegrate them (and thus add significantly to the pro-Russian electorate). This isn’t to say that Putin deserves all the blame for the conflict; Poroshenko (who MAY be 1/2 Jewish himself; allegedly, his father’s Jewish surname was Valtsman) is a fool if he really thinks that Donbass, let alone Crimea, will return to Ukraine in the foreseeable future.

  11. February 7, 2017 - 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Quite an interesting article. Many people don’t grasp the size of Russia, and don’t realise it was an empire, because (as opposed to British and French empires, and US later) it was not a sea empire. I’ve seen Russia compared to a huge sprawling mansion, but with only one front door. So the land vs sea idea makes some sense. It’s ingenious to compare this with jewish attitudes, but not imho convincing, since after all most people live most of the time on land. There’s a hiatus in the piece, switching to recent events, and (a theme with articles here..) saying little about Jewish influence, in spite of the fact that Russia as the USSR suffered more under Jews than most countries. Nor does it identify Jews as the ones making off with assets and leaving debts, something which certainly deserves to be understood and publicised and verified true (or not). So come on Dugin; get dug in.

  12. James Reinfeld's Gravatar James Reinfeld
    February 7, 2017 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Many white nations were born from the sea. Any political theory that implies that these nations were corrupt from the beginning is suspect.

  13. James Reinfeld's Gravatar James Reinfeld
    February 7, 2017 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Alexander Dugin’s intellectual structure hides race and Jewish agency while turning Christopher Columbus, Captain Cook and all the other great Faustian rovers and explorers into quasi-Jews. That’s not acceptable.

  14. John C.'s Gravatar John C.
    February 7, 2017 - 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Theories and ideological debates is how the Left bamboozles the Right. The left are totally ideologically dishonest and will espouse any contradiction to further their cause. Discussing with them is a total waste of time, but not for them. Keeping us engaged fruitlessly with them is strategically to their benefit. Meanwhile they know victories are won by the sword, not the pen, and certainly not by debates. They win by action, not by words. We on the right had better focus on action, like the Left does, if we ever expect to win. And winning means wiping out the enemy, putting fear in him, making him be quiet, not score debating points. The Left conquered the West by force, starting with the French Revolution. World War II was won by the Left. They took over every institution, purged opponents from education, the media, arts and even common employment. As soon as they gain a foothold they conspire to employ only their own kind and freeze out everyone else. They blackmail, use anonymous letters, allegations, and all manners of schemes to eliminate non-Leftists from any environment they can. Meanwhile we should remain the open-minded and intellectual idiots discussing and debating ideas with them while we are being effectively purged everywhere. To beat the Left we have to use the methods that work, and that’s not debating with them on the level of ideas. They don’t deserve to be considered at that level. Total waste of time. Some folks once realized large doses of castor oil were the right way to deal with Leftists. It worked.

  15. ms summer's Gravatar ms summer
    February 7, 2017 - 4:33 pm | Permalink

    The larger meaning of ‘America’ and ‘Russia’

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/16/jeremy-corbyn-accused-of-being-russian-collaborator-for-questioning-nato-troop-build-up-on-border/

    ‘Russian’ is now codeword for anyone who resists Anglo-Zionist-Globo-Order.

    So, even though it is the Anglo-Zionist-Globo-Order(or AZGO) that is the aggressive and expansive power in the world, we are led to believe that Russia is the aggressor for resisting this ‘inevitable’ End of History force.

    So, if political results or voices in the US and EU call for an end of hostilities toward Russia and a peaceful multi-polar world, they are labeled as ‘Russian’ by the Jewish-controlled media and Jewish-bought whore-politicians.

    ‘Russian’ is becoming synonymous with ‘nationalism over globalism’.

    In contrast, ‘American’ has become synonymous with ‘globalism over nationalism’.

    What is the ‘Russian’ way? It means each nation should guard its own sovereignty, political independence, sense of history, and sense of identity/culture.

    What is the ‘American’ way? It means all nations must obey the US, imitate the US, follow the US, and see the ‘American’ way as the only correct one.

    No wonder Duterte is leaning to Russia. America offers more money and aid, but its message is ‘be our whore’ whereas Russia says ‘be yourself and remain politically independent’.

    Russia says Russia should pursue its own path according to its values and history. And Russia respects the same rights for China, Iran, Syria, Philippines, etc. Russia doesn’t try to force its culture, attitude, and values on other nations.

    In contrast, America, as the ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, the lone superpower, feels it has the right to invade, intervene, and infect every nation with whatever happens to be fashionable in the Current Year. So, if the new religion of the US is homomania, then the entire world must be turned onto it cuz the American Way is the Only Way.

    Inside every gook is an American trying to get out.

    Trump has been good to speak of pulling America out of the imperialist game and fixing problems at home. But then, the fool is trying to mess up affairs in Asia by abandoning the One-China policy. It’d be like some nation saying Alaska isn’t part of the US.

    But then, it is in the interest of the US to maintain dominance in East Pacific forever, and that means encouraging Taiwan to declare independence and make permanent the division between South Korea and North Korea — and pressuring South Korea to drop its negative historical narrative on Japan and join US & Japan against China. All these East Asians except for China are cuck-puppets of the US.

    While Japan is rich — far richer than Russia — , it is politically poor. Russia controls its own government, military, intelligence institutions, and everything. In contrast, Japan got rich as a whore sucking on Uncle Sam’s cock. So, even though a rich nation, it is just a rich whore… like South Korea and Taiwan.

    But Duterte is good to go ‘Russian’ by telling imperialist US to fuck off. US bitches about Duterte’s human rights record, but the US is a nation that didn’t protest Israel’s mass killing in Gaza. US is a nation that only offers lukewarm criticism of Israel’s ongoing occupation of West Bank. No condemnation, just wussy lukewarm criticism that has zero impact. And US has been silent about Saudi Arabia’s brutalities cuz it’s an ally. So, ‘human rights’ in American Foreign Policy is more fluid than gender in the Queer Studies Department at Harvard.

    So, if you’re Iranian, to be ‘Russian’ means to guard and defend your Iranian identity, nationality, territory, and sovereignty. Like Russia does.
    On the other hand, for an Iranian to be ‘Americans’ means to surrender his identity, territory, and sovereignty to the forces of American celebrity trash culture, open borders, and national autonomy.

    Of course, these meanings are dictated by Jewish-controlled media. To be ‘American’ no longer means what it once used to mean. America wasn’t always about spreading homomania and fighting Wars for Israel and Jewish-globalist interests. That is the New America under Jewish domination. From the Jewish supremacist-globalist perspective, ‘American’ power means spreading Jewish tentacles everywhere and weakening all identities and borders(except in Israel) so that Jewish-controlled finance, media, entertainment, and ideology can penetrate and gain control in all nations. Like George Soros and Paul Singer have done in nation after nation.
    Jews are now pro-‘American’ because the New America as globalist empire is no longer about gentile nation-states. It is about Jewish supremacists using American power to destroy and weaken other nations. Since Russia is the resistant force against this massive globalist agenda, Jews have equated ‘Russia’ with everything evil and unpleasant. We are told Putin is ‘new hitler’. That’s hilarious since Hitler was an aggressive war-monger. If anyone people are like Nazis, it is the current Jews. And if any nation is like Nazi Germany, it is the US that has made a wreck of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. US also aided Neo-Nazis to overthrow the democratically elected regime in Ukraine.

    It’s all a mind-trick by Jews.
    Just think. If to-be-‘Russian’ means for each nation to be proud of itself, protect its borders, and secure its sovereignty, then, going ‘Russian’ means national independence. This so-called ‘Russian influence’ is nothing more than ‘nationalism for every country’ and that means liberation from Jewish supremacist globalism. And of course, Jews know this. What Jews fear in America is not this ‘Russian influence’ but the rise of American gentile nationalism, esp of the white kind. This nationalism isn’t owned by Russia. It isn’t controlled by Russia. It isn’t directly influenced by Russia. But it is partly inspired by Russia. Furthermore, Russia isn’t inspiring White Americans to obey Russia or bow down to Moscow. Rather, Russia is inspiring Americans to regain autonomy, independence, and sovereignty from globalist tyranny. After all, even though the US is the center of globalist empire, American people are also subject to globalist rule that is controlled by the oligarchs, elites, and their commissars. For too long, the American people went unheard as the globalist oligarchs fleeced the nation financially and flung open the borders for massive foreign invasion, a ploy to reduce white Americans into a minority so that Jewish elites could play divide-and-rule among the various warring gentile groups. Also, Jews figure that massive race-mixing will weaken nationalism among the gentiles. (In contrast, Israel enforces the policy of Jews mating with Jews so as to strengthen the sense of Jewish identity and unity. Israel doesn’t encourage Jews to mate with Arabs or Africans.)

    So, to go ‘Russian’ means to regain one’s own national independence and sovereignty from Anglo-Zio-Homo globalism.
    And that is why the Jewish-controlled Media goes rabid with talk of ‘Russian, Russian, Russian’. It is a mind-trick to fool American gentiles(esp whites) that their true-blue nationalism is controlled by Russia, a foreign power.
    But surely, inspiration isn’t same as influence or intervention. Suppose John, Bob, Tyrus, Jack, and Ivan are slaves. Suppose Ivan is the first one to break free. Suppose John looks at what Ivan has done and tries to do the same to free himself. He has made himself free of the master, but then, the master tries to fool him that he is now under the influence of Ivan. But in fact, Ivan was just an inspiration that taught John that he can be free too. John’s following in the footsteps of Ivan to free himself doesn’t make him the puppet of Ivan. What really matters is John is no longer the slave of the master.

    Russia, for all its problems and horrors(there are many), did manage to break free from globo-oligarchic control under Putin. It freed itself from the Anglo-Zionist globo-oligarchy, and its example may be inspiring to others. If other nations do as Russia did, they would be following Russia’s lead to regain independence and sovereignty. But the globalists would like for us to believe that breaking out of globalist domination is akin to coming under Russian control.

    Because the US is the center of globo-oligarchic power, Americans were supposed to just shut up, hunker down, and obey the globo-oligarchs with their grand agenda. But enough white Americans rebelled in 2016 and made Trump president. Though Trump is pro-Zionist, his agenda is at odds with Anglo-Zionist globalism. He also fired up nationalist feelings about the hoi polloi. It’s derided as ‘populism’ by the know-it-all elites. Trump is for American nationalism, and he is also for less American imperialist meddling overseas. It means the rise of Americanism and NO to globalism. But globalism is the agenda of the Jewish globalists who hate the idea of nationalism that erects walls against penetration of the tentacles of the Zionist-Globo Octopus.

    So, Jews who control the media tell us night and day that the revival of Americanism is ‘Russian intervention’. But it is really the rising of American independence from Zionist-Globalist Control that is the real alien force in American politics. Jewish-Americans don’t identify with most Americans. After all, the main loyalty of American Jews isn’t to fellow Americans of gentile kind but to fellow Jews around the world. Jewish-Americans feel closer to Jews in Europe and Israel than with ‘all those deplorable subhuman white trash living in trailer parks’. That’s how Jews really see the world. Jews in NY feel closer to Jews in Paris and London than with Evangelicals, working class whites, Texas whites, and etc.
    Does anyone think George Soros and his ilk cares about gentiles? They foment wars all over the Middle East, unleash massive ‘refugee’ crisis, and then pressure Europe to take in all those invaders uprooted by Wars for Israel.
    And consider how so many Jewish Americans serve in Israeli military than in US military. Yet, these very Jews pressure EU to take in more ‘refugees’, all while being totally OK with Israel taking in ONLY Jewish immigrants and keeping Golan Heights stolen from Syria.

    • John lockett's Gravatar John lockett
      February 10, 2017 - 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Excellent comment. Well explained. It is precisely the way I see what is going on in the world. Are this your own conclusions?

  16. Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
    February 7, 2017 - 3:33 pm | Permalink

    I am afraid that the guy who invented the leaf blower is going to invent something else.

    Russia has given us so many gifts. Bolshevism. Nihism. Objectivism. Communism. Feudalism. And neo-Feudalism. Russian Imperialism and Russian neo-Imperialism….Agrarian Reform and all kinds of good stuff like that. The International Comintern and all its gifts..

    This was one hell of a construct of words. One of the reasons Russians and Jews always seem to win in the ideological war is becuase they are better bullshit artists.

    • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
      February 7, 2017 - 6:03 pm | Permalink

      what is that thing in logic where the concept is mis- defined- then attacked?

      Liberalism and alot of other things in this article are such.

      Many of you guys would get 5 years in jail in Russia for the stuff you say on this website. It is the Liberalism of the 1rst Amendment Right- that allows it.

      anti-fa is fa- not lIberal.
      —–
      (Mod. Note: Last I heard, “that thing” is called a Straw Man Argument. There may be other logical fallacies that are appropriate as well.)

      • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
        February 7, 2017 - 6:15 pm | Permalink

        The Alt-Rightosphere is against the very thing that allows it to exist. It is such because it has European understandings of things. and Europeans nor Jews nor Russians aren’t famous for being Liberal. They just can’t get the hang of it. You always think about the French understanding. They got it wrong right off the bat.
        and it is being taught incorrectly by academics today. Misdefined…thus misunderstood. misunderstood- thus misapplied.

    • anarchyst's Gravatar anarchyst
      February 10, 2017 - 3:14 pm | Permalink

      It wasn’t the ordinary Russian that supported and promoted that jewish invention–communism. According to my relatives and associates who lived during the imposition of communism, only Russian Orthodox and other Christian churches were closed and “repurposed” into stables and other secular, non-religious uses. NOT ONE SYNAGOGUE WAS TOUCHED…THIS, in itself says it all about who the TRUE purveyors of communism were (and still are)…

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        February 11, 2017 - 7:42 am | Permalink

        And the first law enacted by that rabble was the criminalization of “anti-Semitism “. Not unlike the here and now. Wasn’t St. Basil’s Russian Orthodox Cathedral blown up, rather than merely being ” repurposed ” ? I thought its cleared lot had a swimming pool installed on it later; since then rebuilt.

        It makes me exceedingly happy, to have sat on the very kitchen table chair on which Stalin had Trotsky assassinated in his then high-security compound on Vienna Street in suburban Mexico City: even if it is merely one v. ultimately and consequentially ca, 110+ millions.

        A friend, whose parents were born in St. Petersburg, told me, that this murderous NKVD filth {{{symbolically}}} used a short-handled pick-axe, driven into the back of the skulls. I forgot its specific designation but shall ask him again.

  17. John's Gravatar John
    February 7, 2017 - 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I recognized the name Jacques Attali. Here is some information from his book:

    http://i.imgur.com/WkD7qJo.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/KJEaRDi.jpg

  18. John's Gravatar John
    February 7, 2017 - 11:57 am | Permalink

    Please sign this petition to declare ANTIFA a terrorist organization. It already has 61,000 signatures.

    https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-declare-antifa-a-terrorist-organization?source_location=minibar

    • charles Frey's Gravatar charles Frey
      February 7, 2017 - 5:22 pm | Permalink

      John, signed and donated. Do you know whether the FBI’s classification of the Jewish Defense League as a terrorist organization is still in force ?

      • John's Gravatar John
        February 8, 2017 - 4:14 pm | Permalink

        Charles, I’m not sure how accurate this information is but this is what Wikipedia states:

        The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism’s database of identified terrorist organizations, which is compiled by official contractors and consultants to the United States government and is supported by the Department of Homeland Security, identifies the JDL as a “former terrorist organization”.[11]

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          February 10, 2017 - 9:33 am | Permalink

          John, the very nomenclature of ” The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism ” can only become even more suspect, after reading of the contributors to their database.

          What the hell does W mean by ” former terrorist organization ” ? Were they actually or only nominally abolished ? Did they dissolve voluntarily ? Have they merely changed their organization’s logo ? Have they been court-ordered to attend good manners classes ? Or has the stipulation of the term ” terrorism ” been redefined; because in this application it is unacceptably ” anti-Semitic ” ?

          W uses the English language, as one expects it in any ME bazaar.

    • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
      February 7, 2017 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

      I signed. I hoped somebody starts a petition like this on the White House page. What is the point? What happens next?

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 7, 2017 - 8:42 pm | Permalink

      If nothing else, a good way to harvest names.

  19. John's Gravatar John
    February 7, 2017 - 11:52 am | Permalink

    Regarding the vilification of Russia and “Russian aggression”.

    Before the reunification of Germany in 1990, all the occupying powers (US, Britain, Soviet Union) agreed that only German troops would be stationed as far east as the former East Germany. Non-German NATO troops would only be allowed to be stationed in West Germany. In 2004, NATO moved right up to Russia’s border.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-unlikely-diplomatic-triumph-an-inside-look-at-the-reunification-negotiations-a-719848-druck.html

    Two weeks before the democratically elected Ukrainian leader was forced to flee, the BBC posted the transcript (“Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call”) of a telephone conversation that the Russians had intercepted where assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, discuss whom they are going to place in power in the Ukraine.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

    There is also video on the web of Gunter Verheugen, the former Vice-President of the European Commission, saying that he believed that there was a long standing plan to organize “regime change” in the Ukraine.

    https://youtu.be/J8De-d5Znz8?t=596

    From a Yahoo news article:

    “Today the Ukrainian navy consists of only 6,000 servicemen, down dramatically from the 14,000 it boasted in 2013. Of the 8,000 sailors who served in Crimea only 2,000 chose Ukraine. Most of the others opted to join the Russian side.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-navy-left-high-dry-crimea-losses-053535632.html?ref=gs

    From the Global Research web site:

    “Rapoza noted that a June 2014 Gallup poll, which was sponsored by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, found that 82.8 percent of Crimeans said the March 16 referendum on secession reflected the views of the Crimean people. In the poll, when asked if joining Russia would improve their lives, 73.9 percent said yes and only 5.5 percent said no.

    “A February 2015 poll by German polling firm GfK found similar results. When Crimeans were asked ‘do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea,’ 93 percent gave a positive response, with 82 percent saying, ‘yes, definitely.’ Only 2 percent said no, with the remainder unsure or not answering.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/5438563

    Britain and Canada criticized the 1983 US invasion of Grenada and the United Nations General Assembly condemned the invasion as “a flagrant violation of international law” by a vote of 108 in favor to 9, with 27 abstentions. The United Nations Security Council considered a similar resolution, which was supported by 11 nations but vetoed by the US.

    ——

    (Mod. Note: “John”, please limit your insertion of links to one or two. TOO comments are about comments, not long, term-paper type “proof”.)

    • Mr. Kalobenko's Gravatar Mr. Kalobenko
      February 7, 2017 - 6:37 pm | Permalink

      John, even though I consider myself pro-Ukrainian, I don’t deny for a minute that most Crimeans want to be part of Russia. And many that don’t are Tartars, who are not a bad bunch per se (in fact, they sided with Germany in WWII) and certainly deserve autonomy, but they are not ideal for Ukraine as they are largely of Turkic extraction, not White.

      One doesn’t have to accept the hyperbolic claim that Donbass and even Crimea will be returned to Ukraine–or that it’s in Ukraine’s best interest to have these areas, even if they could be acquired perfectly peacefully (which will be impossible for decades given the enmity engendeed by the ongoing war!)

      But many observers have noted that it doesn’t seem Putin wants Donbass to actually be part of Russia. It seems he’d rather keep the Brothers’ War going, killing off Ukrainian nationalists (and the multi-ethnic Buryat-Chechen-Russian-God only knows who else force that fights for DNR)

      • John's Gravatar John
        February 8, 2017 - 4:23 pm | Permalink

        Mr. Kalobenko, I hope, naively, that it can all be settled by negotiation. What seems to be clear is that Putin didn’t take steps to seize Crimea and secure Russia’s warm water naval base there until Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to the Ukraine where discussing who should be in power once Yanukovych is ousted. Putin waited until there was no other option.

  20. m's Gravatar m
    February 7, 2017 - 11:45 am | Permalink

    “…no book encapsulates this nihilistic isolation as a desired state of affairs like Karl Popper’s The Open Society…which holds that “liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning.”

    Perhaps one related irony is that the so-called father of neoconservitism, Leo Strauss, dismissed Popper’s understanding of Plato as shallow, for similar reasons. It was in a series of letters between Strauss and Eric Voegelin:

    “May I ask you to let me know sometime what you think of Mr. Popper? He gave a lecture here, on the task of social philosophy, that was beneath contempt; it was the most washed-out, lifeless positivism trying to whistle in the dark, linked to a complete inability to think rationally, although it passed itself off as rationalism–it was very bad. I cannot imagine that such a man ever wrote something that was worthwhile reading, and yet it appears to be a professional duty to become familiar with his productions.”

    Voegelin responded by saying that Popper’s book was “dilettantish crap.”

    • February 7, 2017 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

      Bertrand Russell thought Popper’s book was wonderful. Popper said in effect Plato was just a totalitarian, and Russell added that the literary merits of Plato prevented snobbish classicists from noticing the ‘totalitarian’ tendencies. Just thought I’d point that out. One of the skills of Jewish ‘thought’ is to be vague and evasive and ambiguous. Just think of the Bible. And Soros for that matter.

      • m's Gravatar m
        February 8, 2017 - 1:31 pm | Permalink

        Yes. Being a hardened social liberal, Russell could not (or would not) see the relationship between liberalism and real totalitarianism. He certainly had no use for Plato. Or any philosopher not pretty much tied to the analytic post. His thinking was similar to HG Wells and the general tone of British socialists, in that he assumed technology and intellectual “progress” would usher in a new golden age.

        Really interesting, though, was Russell’s trip to the Soviet Union where he stated that it was mostly run by Jews. Back then you could say that in Britain without scandal. Today, the Earl would be prosecuted for mentioning it.

  21. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    February 7, 2017 - 10:38 am | Permalink

    I have found it interesting that many of Reagan’s insiders were opposed to the “advice” being given to Russia, which facilitated the capitalist coup. The late Jude Wanniski openly stated that the transition had to be at a pace Russians were comfortable with, or the result would create animosity toward the US. Former Treasury Undersecretary Paul Craig Roberts warned Russia against any co-operation with the US as long as Democrats and Neocons were in the picture, and has criticized Putin for not being more nationalistic. As an aside, both Wanniski and Roberts have stated that real “trickle down” economics were never allowed to happen during Reagan’s terms.

    On a closer-to-home theme, the “liberals” protesting against Trump seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are waging war on themselves. The complaints of higher student debt, part time jobs, unemployment, free trade, and all of the other “liberal” ideals are directly responsible for their plight, not conservatism. They are completely unable to recognize their enemy. Yes, there are problems with Trump, but ending free trade and limiting immigration are not among those problems.

  22. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    February 7, 2017 - 10:10 am | Permalink

    (((William Kristol))) never found a war he wasn’t interested in White people fighting for him.

    I liked the links you provided as explanation. Many Whites may find themselves full EJW, vs SJW and joining the Jacobins due to the rapid increase of automation coming.

    They just tested a long range robot truck. Truck driving is high percentage of employment in the nation. Within 15 years a LOT of jobs will be automated. I saw an article where amazon costed a self serve supermarket and they were counting on better than 20% profits whereas a normal market is 2% or less profits. Think if every truck driver and all larger stores laid off almost all their employees. This will happen immediately if amazons cost numbers of 20% or higher profits is proven true. Education won’t help. There’s plenty of educated people working in service jobs already and lots of those will go.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 7, 2017 - 8:27 pm | Permalink

      Stagnant or falling wages makes capital investment in automation less, not more, attractive. Educated people will probably accept service jobs at even lower wages than at present. What else are they going to do?

  23. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    February 7, 2017 - 9:41 am | Permalink

    “the “shock therapy” of the post-Cold War years as the “accelerated transfer of Russia’s entire economy to the ultraliberal railway” (81) which had “catastrophic consequences: the impoverishment of the population, the devaluation of the economy, the complete decline of industry, the privatization of basic profitable enterprises, and the rise of new oligarchs who had seized key positions in the country by illegal means.”

    According to a Lancet article (summary below) UNICEF attributes more than 3 million premature deaths to transition; the UN Development Programme estimates over 10 million missing men because of the system change.*

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673609600052/abstract

    *copied from original Lancet article

Comments are closed.