It is time for a critique of Dugin and his ideology of Eurasianism. I will make multiple references to quotes from this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDBnZ3gkaDc
Dugin defines much of the terminology he shares with us differently to how we define it and, despite Dugin’s rich terminology (more on this later), he is unable to apply basic terminology in a significant, meaningful way. When he speaks of ‘the West’, he has in mind only the modern West, and while many things we think of Western are also modern, such as secularism, empiricism, capitalism etc., we also consider other things to be Western, a part of its long, oppressive Judeo-Christian tradition (which Dugin is in favour of preserving) such as anthropocentrism. He also equates liberalism with individualism, whereas we equate it with relativism only, being very much in favour of the individual but still opposed to Liberalism since, like Hitler, we hold that all the best products of the human mind and most noble acts of history have been the product of the individual mind and of individual leaders, often in opposition to traditional opinion. We hold this in stark contrast to the tribalistic mindset of tradition and conformity. He equates materialism to consumerism, whereas we equate it to the pursuit of power for its own sake, which he implicitly supports, since without a higher purpose the only use of power is to gain advantages in the material world, either one’s self or one’s tribe. This reason alone makes Dugin’s use of words like ‘spiritual’ and ‘noble’ a farce.
Let us now examine the purpose of his ideology, which he calls the ‘Fourth Political Theory’, abbreviated to FPT. From the video:
‘In Liberalism, the subject is the individual; in Communism, class; in the ideology of the Third Way, either the State…or the race’. He then goes on to say that the subject of the FPT, which includes earlier writers such as Evola and the writers of the Conservative Revolutionary Movement of the Weimar Republic, is Dasein, a concept borrowed from Heidegger’s ‘Sein und Zeit’.
This is a grave error, since by claiming that the FPT is the only ideology whose aim is to address existential problems, he makes the outrageous assumption that no-one else has such aspirations. He avoids this to some extent by including the likes of Oswald Spengler in his ranks, but ultimately there is no escape for him. Codreanu was undeniably a Fascist, but also deeply religious. Schopenhauer said that each individual should be left to pursue his own salvation; the medieval Church linked itself closely to the State and believed in collective salvation, showing no tolerance for heresy; Communists believed that only through after a socialist stage would the people be liberated. Dugin is aware of an existential problem – his belief in the need for an immanent state of Dasein, but offers no solutions. Should the individual pursue his own Dasein or should it be done collectively? Must we abolish class before a state of Dasein can be achieved? If he has an answer to this question (that immanent Dasein is best achieved in the framework of a corporatist state, for example), then he can no longer claim the subject of his movement is Dasein. He must claim that it is the State, or class, or the individual, just like the other ideologies.
This focus on Dasein as opposed to class, race etc. only shows that the FPT has been constructed artificially by comparison to other movements, rather than emerging organically in response to actual problems. Spengler’s ‘Hour of Decision’ begins sensibly, by addressing the problems and proposing solutions rather than beginning by constructing alternatives to existing doctrines in a reactionary way, and Dugin insults his memory by associating himself with him, particularly since Spengler’s philosophy of history, which also defines civilizations by their spiritual direction, was already superior to his.
We can see this artificial pretentious most clearly in his criticism of Liberalism. The unnecessarily complicated theories he weaves to refute Liberalism demonstrate his lack of insight, since Liberalism is the easiest thing in the world to refute. In the video, the best he has to offer is ‘yet it (Liberalism) finds itself in deepest crisis because classical democracy of majority rule has been replaced by a new democracy of minority rule. It protects the minority from the authoritarianism-prone majority’. This is completely wrong. Liberalism simply creates an illusion of protection. People may be able to protest the government as long as it is clear they will achieve nothing, but dissidents in America are still sent to places like Guantanamo Bay without trial to be tortured, people who speak out against the Jews or 911 are still silenced, and we have many conspiracy theories (e.g. chemtrails, fluoridisation of water, HAARP, assassinations and imprisonment of people under false pretences) involving government abuse of its citizens that we could argue about all day, but the bottom line is that valid concerns are raised that the accused (typically the government) would address if they were reasonable, but they do not. If a man was on trial and refused to present counter-arguments to any of the evidence brought against him, does that not indicate his guilt? Clearly, Dugin has accepted some of the most powerful propaganda of an ideology he claims to have no influence on his ideas.
Compare Dugin’s criticism of Liberalism with Ted Kaczynski’s (paragraphs 6-32)
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
or ours
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/
both of which are much more well-formulated and get to the root problems of Liberalism in much simpler terms.
Dugin’s opposition to Liberalism, and other ideologies, is motivated less by genuine hostility to them and more by his desire to promote the idea that there can be only one alternative, embodied by Russian civilization, and hence attach a grand ideology to the ‘Eurasian’ tribe he identifies with, so that they may be given a sense of destiny and be mobilised to increase their power. The Americans had Manifest Destiny, the Colonial Empires had their civilizing mission, and now Dugin has created a Eurasian identity and hastily created an elaborate historical narrative it can identify with, again – not in response to a problem, but in order to contrast it with other tribal groups to justify their ideas of superiority. He opposes Liberalism most vehemently not because of their hypocrisy, but because their relativism engenders a stronger opposition to this vision than many other ideologies.
Dugin’s narrative centres around the idea that Russia has always assimilated foreign peoples and incorporated them into its destiny rather than conquered and exploited them like the Western colonial powers, and is hence the natural leader in uniting surrounding peoples and creating a new civilization. It is easy to create such a narrative for almost any tribal group and sound intellectual to Gentiles, due to their innate faith in the superiority of their own tribe and their taste for endless trivia and stimulation rather than straightforward truth and the development of a final, comprehensive theory. To prove this, I will create arguments that Iraq, China, the Inca Empire and Australian Aborigines are the natural leaders of the progress of mankind, and will call these ideologies Mesopotamianism, Sinism, Incanism and Australism:
(i) Mesopotamianism: In contrast to surrounding Arab states, Iraq has a separate identity and culture because its roots are in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, such as Sumer and Babylon, rather than in Islam. All the civilizations of the Old World have their origin in these early civilizations, and it is these civilizations that introduced writing, technology and higher culture to humanity. Even the civilizations of the New World, which arose independently, did not manage to invent the wheel. The race of the Fertile Crescent is the most naturally predisposed to respect social class, which is the basis of civilization, making Iraq the natural leader of a world of order and hierarchy against Western relativism and egalitarianism. The Islamic caliphate was strongest when its capital was Baghdad, and afterwards began to fragment, due to the natural egalitarian instincts of non-Mesopotamians. Only when the Islamic world is again centred on Baghdad can it regain its strength. The Phoenicians, who were the greatest traders of the ancient Mediterranean, had considerable Mesopotamian descent. Only Iraq can bring order to a world in crisis. It is also appropriate that Iraq once again becomes the centre of world civilization because it is consistent with the cyclic interpretation of history that exists in so many ancient mythologies.
(ii) Sinism: Throughout history, China has consistently had the strongest economy, been the most technologically advanced and had the greatest social harmony. The rise of the West was only an intermezzo, and now China is again taking its natural place in geopolitics. Symbolically, this leadership of humanity was expressed through China’s title of ‘the Middle Kingdom’. However, China’s empire was never based on subjugation. Once it had enough power to be secure, it isolated itself, building the famous Great Wall and pursuing a policy of isolation in relation to the Western powers in later years. It was the only major power not to be conquered by European countries, and is hence the natural leader of the world against the West. Once the West is defeated, there will be a multi-polar geopolitical system where each civilization isolates itself (represented by the Great Wall) and lives in mutual respect and peace without interfering in each other’s affairs. Since as an isolated China has always been the world’s leader in technology and prosperity, this policy, when pursued by the rest of the world, will lead to an age of abundance and prosperity for all mankind.
(iii) Incanism: The Inca Empire, like Chile today, embraced every type of climatic region. People living in different climates develop different ways of life, as they must adapt to raising different crops and animals, different styles of building and are even influenced psychologically in different ways by the differing landscape, temperature and seasons. Hence, the Incas were forced to develop a society more capable of uniting people with differing beliefs, customs and lifestyles than any other of the ancient empires, in contrast to the Liberalism of the West, which is only a crude attempt to hold a relativistic society together. This society, where different groups are not in conflict, but are able to harmonise and complement each other for the greater good, is also symbolised by the excellent network of roads built through the Andes, which were more advanced than the Roman Empire, built through the most difficult terrain and had the ancient world’s fastest and most efficient network of messengers. As the influence of Brazil is increasing and bringing prosperity to the South American region, it is entirely feasible that Chile, as the successor of the Incas, can supply the region with a new cultural model and show the way to peace in a world torn apart by conflict. Just as the Andes forms the backbone of South America, so will Incan culture form the backbone of a new world civilization. 2012 in the Mayan calendar does not represent the end of the world, it represents the end of the decadent Old World-Eurocentric hegemony and the beginning of a shift to the civilizations of South America.
(iv) Australism: The history of humanity has been dominated by conflict and conquest. Even Africa, which leftist Western academia praises so much for the historical low intensity of its conflicts, is not blameless. The excesses of Western progress have ravaged the environment and may soon make the planet uninhabitable, but even the North American natives played their role in hunting megafauna to extinction. Only the indigenous peoples of Australia have consistently lived in harmony with nature and each other. Before European settlement, an Aboriginal band visiting the territory of another would always ask permission to use their resources, and were seldom refused. An Aborigine accused of murder would, if he felt he deserved it, go out into the wilderness and was so highly in tune with nature, his own existence, his own Dasein, that he was able to shut down his bodily organs voluntarily. It is this combination of Anarchistic harmony and immanent Dasein that the world needs to move beyond oppression and conflict. This is represented symbolically by the Aboriginal myth of the dreaming, a time of primordial harmony before creative powers came to be out of balance and began to destroy, consuming itself. For these reasons, Australia is the natural leader of the coming civilization.
Of course, Aryanism also has such a narrative in the form of the Aryan-Gentile-Jew theory, but the difference is that our narrative explains far more trends in history with a much simpler theory, whereas Dugin constantly adds new dimensions to his theory whenever he encounters something that cannot be explained by what he already has, and the reason it cannot be explained by what he already has is because his theory is wrong. His constant invention of new ideas that are not derived from the original ones indicates that he is just making it up as he goes along. It reminds me of how medieval astronomers needed to devise an extremely elaborate system in order to make the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth work, needing as many as 28 epicycles for the 7 planets. Similarly, Dugin adds to his theory Atlanticism vs. Eurasianism, thalassocracy vs. tellurocracy, north vs south, east vs west, Archaeo-futurism, modernity vs. post-modernity vs. tradition and so on.
Everything revolves around a central point
His ideology is no ideology at all, only a tribalist strategy. The idea of basing an ideology on geopolitics is absurd. If he was serious about his ideology for its own sake, why demand that it only be associated with one area? And is it not absurd to demand that his geopolitical strategy must remain fixed. If his strategy was truly a means of promoting a genuine ideology, then it would be flexible, since only the triumph of the ideology would matter. A strategy cannot be an end in itself.
We also observe that Dugin’s solidarity with other countries is insincere, since he never proposes an alliance that would benefit the country proposed to, but not his own. This may seem like standard geopolitics, and Dugin’s analysis of how political alliances work in general is a good description insofar as he understands that the motivating force of politics has always been power and tribalism, but he offers little for someone who wants to imagine how things ought to be. The reality of geopolitical theory is not deducible from first principles, they are the results of something circumstantial, namely the instincts most humans were born with – what is often called ‘human nature’ and which we more accurately call ‘non-Aryan nature’. It is our duty to eliminate non-Aryan nature, not accept it as the only possibility. For example, if (for whatever reason) Aryans had come to comprise the largest portion of humanity in prehistoric times and afterwards, we would not find the recurring story in history of different groups using up all of their resources (for example, land) and then fighting each other over the remaining resources. We would instead see good management of resources or, when they were consumed, peaceful and diplomatic agreements between neighbouring groups promising to breed in fewer numbers, manage resources collectively to maximise efficiency, use resources more sparingly in the future etc. There is no reason history should have been like this instead of the shameful spectacle of cruelty and barbarity it has actually been, and in fact this would have been the more rational course. The only reason it was not like this is that most humans are not built to behave in such a way.
On a similar note, Dugin’s doctrine of contrasting the historical Russian tendency to assimilate with the ‘Atlanticist’ tendency to colonise and dominate is irrelevant to us, since although we disagree with Western colonisation because of its motivation (i.e. power), we are in favour of conquering countries who practice customs we consider unethical such as slavery, usury, democracy, consumption of animal products (although in this final case, some countries have climates incapable of growing sufficient crops, so the first step would be to suggest supplying them with food .) By assimilating such cultures, Dugin shows himself to be a relativist and finds common ground with Liberalism.
This taste for diversity and cultural preservation has prevented Dugin from criticising Fascism, Communism and Liberalism to the fullest extent possible, criticising them only as part of a historical narrative whose existence he is clearly pleased by, since he enjoys the idea of diverse ideologies competing within the paradigm he has constructed. It also prevents him from criticising the Jews. We, on the other hand, who prefer principles to diversity and take our convictions more seriously, would prefer that competing ideologies had never existed to taint history.
We could even call his desire to preserve traditions reactionary. Aryanism has long promoted the idea that those who are most prominent in promoting Liberalism are aware of how absurd it is, and that this is deliberate – nothing but an attempt to make people think that their rulers thought they could be brainwashed into believing something so ridiculous so easily, thus arousing anger and, since by now the establishment of such an absurd ideology as normal has also lowered the minimum standard of potential ideologies, herd them into following crude ideologies that they would never have followed before the standard was lowered. It is all part of an insidious plan, and Dugin’s ideology, whether he is aware of it or not, is reactionary. Before Liberalism, the dialogue might have been about whether to keep traditions, or work to improve culture, and the traditional position would have been inferior. Now the dialogue is preservation of tradition versus abandoning all standards (Liberalism), and the traditionalists are superior. Only Aryans, in our unerring quest for perfection, refuse to make this compromise, and ignore the level of the debate around us, going far beyond it if need be.
This does not mean that everything from the past must be discarded, and we may still find some truth in ancient texts and teachings, remaining open to them and not abandoning them, but the idea that all traditions (especially meaningless ‘customs’ and ‘values’) should be accepted as valid unconditionally simply because they are traditions is repugnant to us.
One cannot defeat Liberalism by refuting it’s simple premise because it is based on the Myth (of Social Progress) and like any other myth it is resistant to arguments of reason, logic and empirical data. The power of Liberalism is derived not only from military and economic power of the West but also from general negative attitude toward aggression. To destroy liberalism (or any other ideology based on a Social Progress Myth) one must go beyond intellectual phrasing & paraphrasing. The only thing that can trump ideologies based on social progress is another force and another ideology. One can only derive such ideology from the realm of tradition.
Atlantists like Akhenaten and Schopenhauer are very fine serpents - probably more refined than intellectual Jews. Far to noble for this world of violence. We cannot violently finish Westerners unless they attack us first like Hitler or Napoleon because than they’ll continue to live as “noble victims” and civilized martyrs while we shall suffer the fate of Ostrogoths, Huns and Christ-killing Jews - blamed for destroying the West and subsequently self-burdened by the same silly taboos as the dying West. Your fate is do die, our fate is to stand by like Pilatus, mind our own business and debunk ideologies you try to infect us with. If Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus Eurasians are from completely different solar system.
The Hydra of Modernity (social progress myth):
-Akhenaten’s satanic idealism of Atlantis (non-violence)
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Megadriel/ar/t397.htm
-Liberalism (Human rights + non-violence)
-Aryanism (anti-violence)
The Sword of Tradition (Khan):
-Primordial tradition (violence)
1. Overstepping the bound
2. Vae Victis
3. Legitimation of aggression in Tradition
4. Anti-aggression
5. Metaphysical genesis of terrorism
6. The first way
http://openrevolt.info/2012/04/04/without-confines/
One might criticize Dugin and his theory from any point of view… I know not enough either of his ideology, nor of aryanism to comment in depth (But I have to say I like very much this site and see it as a valuable contribution to find a way to succeed in building a valuable strategy). I only watched about three hours of his talks, including the discussion with the London school of economics students.
Nevertheless, without Dugin and Putins approach to claim self-determination to russian politics and strategy, the jews would have whole Russia in their pocket by now! Remember Putin tricked Berezowsky jew to make him president, (Berezowsky said himself he chose him because he looked the right man easy to use for HIS goals). Only to cut the power of the jew oligarchs in a way unseen of in a long time of history (yes, I wish he would have taken them down all and more completely). He took Yukos from Chodorkowsky jew right before this jew was able to hand it over to Rothschild. Would Chodorkowsky have succeeded in his handover, Russia and maybe the whole game, would have been “game, set and match” for the jews and their capitalist scum allies.
In this act, when he took back Yukos, and large parts of the media he hit the jews harder than any statesman I can find in these times. With Yukos money he paid back all foreign debt of Russia! Only because of this Russia is able to have an relatively independent strategy and politics.
So Dugin (who belongs religiously to an ancient version of russian orthodox church, as I can find info) might have flaws, might be unclear in certain aspects and so on (maybe it is explained further in his books, could it be?). But as far as a counter current to jewish destruction of the world goes, a Russia with Dugin and Putin as heads is better than nothing, no? Without these guys the jews would have claimed the victory by now, is my understanding.
It seems to me Dugins approach of multipolar world, which is by now official approach of Russia, is a useful tool to consolidate an ideological platform for those actors in world politics who feel uneasy with jewish-american domination. Basically he says, the different versions of dasein belonging to the different civilizations should be respected and given the right to choose their own path. Now that might be not the ultimate answer or way to organize things, but as a starting point to consolidate opposition to liberal capitalism, it seems better than nothing to me.
Aryanism is NOT based on the myth of social progress. We identify not with modernity, but with the noble trends that have existed throughout history (Akhenaten being a good example.) Again and again, this site declares its belief that things have a tendency to get worse over time, and that modernity is worse than ancient times. Our opposition to tradition is not based on our belief in progress, it is based on the idea that Aryans will have no need for tradition (although, as I said, they may choose to take up old beliefs and practices if they wish) because they will be innovators rather than followers. They will, for example, need no moral instruction because it will not be in their nature to do evil anyway. Hence there will be no ‘silly taboos’.
And I did not say that Liberals can be defeated by reasoning with them. But since Dugin did propose an argument against them, and that argument was false, I decided to point out that there are far better arguments available.
teri, your line of reasoning is equivalent to claiming that George Washington hit the Jews harder than any statesman in the 18th century on the grounds that he gave America independence from Britain (main Zionist power at the time). Indeed, 18th century observers could be excused for making such an assessment. But as we now know, Jews were backing both sides of the US Revolutionary War, Washington was a Freemason himself, and America’s independence ended up increasing Jewish power in the long-term, precisely because it gave Jews a new worldview to set against the old, thereby continuing the series of false dichotomies.
Jews never “claim victory”. To claim victory would be to make their domination too obvious. The form of the Jewish success is to maintain a multipolar world while always leaving themselves enough mobility to set the energy of these poles against each other, thereby firstly ensuring that the various poles never join forces against Jewry, and secondly enabling Jewish power to determine the outcome of the interpolar conflicts. This is what we are dealing with.
Jews have not the slightest intention of dominating the world under capitalism. If they had, they could have achieved this by the end of the 19th century. They did not. They deliberately invented communism so as to KEEP THE WORLD DIVIDED. The capitalism vs communism false dichotomy was what set the stage of the America vs Russia scenario that lasted until the end of the Cold War (during which time Israel built itself up unopposed). The moment the Cold War ended, Jews needed new ways to divide people. Right now they are using Judeo-Christianity vs Islam, and First World vs Third World, but Atlanticism vs Eurasianism will provide them with something even better: Cold War II, or even WWIII.
Unity among non-Jews is the ONLY thing Jews fear. The moment non-Jews unite against Jews, it is over for Jews. The only hope for Jews is to keep non-Jews fighting each other, and with useful idiot Gentiles like Longinus around, they unfortunately succeed with ease.
>>>they will be innovators rather than followers. They will, for example, need no moral instruction because it will not be in their nature to do evil anyway. Hence there will be no ‘silly taboos’.
Like ‘Sea-Monkeys’?
http://youtu.be/LihMtfUu7qM
Violence…….0%
Sex…………..0%
Equality….99.9%
You are socially progressive. Your ultimate goal is identical to liberal goal. You only differ in methods. They are trying to turn non-inventors into inventors via unpleasant education, you simply try to kill all non-inventors. Educators prefer torture they call education, you prefer painless death. I respect that. As monstrous as you enlightened Nazis may seem you should be entitled to a quick death. Inquisition basements should be reserved for only for the Enlightened educators. They gave us mercy while we lived, why should they receive our mercy in articulo mortis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBN_3YJKZrY&feature=related
Correction: “They gave us NO mercy while we lived…”
It is not like Aryanists and Liberals publicly dislike geopolitics because they are above geopolitics or because they are only attracted to their lofty ideals. This video should be of particular interest to Muslims because it reveals the hidden reason they promote depopulation and cannot find them selves on the same lines with Dugin’s Eurasian Geopolitics: http://youtu.be/XVlE6BM_lIU
Socioeconomic similarities between Liberal-Capitalist Left and Aryanism:
http://youtu.be/_L2rNOG2MoY
“You are socially progressive. Your ultimate goal is identical to liberal goal. You only differ in methods. They are trying to turn non-inventors into inventors via unpleasant education, you simply try to kill all non-inventors. ”
Ok, Longinus, now you’re just blatantly making things up.. Have you read the site at all? Rather than fabricating your own version of what you THINK we believe, maybe if you were to try actually basing your attempts at arguments on what is truly presented here, you would be able to come off as sounding like more than just a “useful idiot Gentile” as AS so aptly put it- yet somehow I doubt it..
Solaryan, by “gentile” you’re probably trying to say that I’m a racist but that is how Aryanists utilize Liberal tactics - since Liberals constantly degrade people for “being racist”. Us Eurasianists dont have to be racists to prove our metal. East is about culture, not race. I am opposed to the German blood and soil nationalism and Anglo-Saxon race nationalism. I’m not even anti-semitic in Western racist sense. Thanks to Communist Jews Rosenbergs Soviet Union armed it self with nukes which protect large parts of Slavic, Mongol and Muslim world from the genocidal West even today. I regard the Anglosphere as the greatest danger to Eurasia, so anything disturbing its stability is fine by me…races, minorities, freaks etc. Nobody sane actually hates anyone for their looks. Real racism is for the likes of liberals and anglo-saxonery. Just like feminists they imply that men are inherently bad due to having a penis and testicles (body shaming). That is something that the Western nazis would do, not Eurasianists.
“Jews never “claim victory”. To claim victory would be to make their domination too obvious. The form of the Jewish success is to maintain a multipolar world while always leaving themselves enough mobility to set the energy of these poles against each other, …”
I do not really believe I know exactly what they are up to. I do not even know for sure they did invent communism, as Marx himself wrote about how their god is money and how they are basically evil. Yet Moses Hess was behind, Rothschild said to be a finacier when one believes Bakunin. And lastly I do not know for sure why Hitler cooperated with them in the Haavara treaty to send them to Israel, why Herzl wanted to fuel anti-semitism, if the protocols are their plan or divertion or…
How do I know for sure? So I went after Jaques Attali, one of France’s most important jews, who declared Israel to be a wonderful choice for the worlds capital. The same vision was articulated by David Ben Gurion. Then I combined this with the Torah’s promise to make Jerusalem and its coming messiah the ruler of the world. This looks to me they intend to claim victory one day openly, or in between themselves. At least Attali came close to this.
What system they envision for final stages, how could I know that? At least for now capitalism seems to work just fine for them. It is very effective in its war against any higher form of ideology.
If your plan is to unify the world against the jews, I have to say, that is sadly very much unlikely. In Germany and France for example you go to jail just for stating this plan. To plan to convince people to accept an outlook or vision and share it in a huge degree, that is a task so far and high. How in the present world, where no media will promote this, should this come to pass?
So i am all fine with Dugin promoting a multipolar model so different outlooks can agree on one important thing, which is to not let liberal capitalism destroy and monopolize the worlds traditions and social fabric. I see little fault in this.
I see this as a precondition to aim for anything higher. But I recommend you to visit Russia and talk to Dugin and convince Vlad to look into your plans. An ideology is only that good, as its implementation has traction in reality. That is a sad fact, but no one can get around it.
I am not even defined myself what is the best way. Look at paneuropean initiator, Rothschild funded, jewess married Coudenhove Kalergy’s “Practical idealism”. In this book he promises a europe ruled by a new aristocracy: the jews. The ruled: a mixed brown race, just like in egypt. Because he thinks mixed people are more diverse and flexible AND less strong characterally, less hard to mould. Now that just sounds like the jews use racemixing as one element of their war. Barbara Lerner Spectre jewess has claimed europe MUST race mix to transform, I guess her Rabbi husband shares the view (it is on youtube, she is very clear about it). Recently Peter Sutherland, ex- Goldman Sachs, London school of economics director, head of important migration politics bodies in a conference announced: european immigration will be a political program of utmost importance to maintain and increase.
Mixing people increases crimes, cause people have lower levels of trust to foreign looking people. There is the opportunity for them to increase surveillance and rule by divide. A homogenous population is much more likely to unify against parasites. I think Dugin is wrong on that he promotes the idea areas of mixed peoples can somewhat form a working entity. It is chaos the jews want and mixing ethnics and turn them on each other is their best strategy besides economic warfare. If you aim to unify the different ethnics, I have to say, I wish you prove me wrong. I see no advancement in this field though. Ethnic groups tend to fight each other rather than to unify. It is sad, but life is sad in many aspects.
Yet i see french catholic Alain Soral in France is trying a similar plan, to unify (french) muslims, french of all sorts to confront the jewish oligarchy. And I support it, as I support Dugin. Anyone who fights them deserves at least basic support, even if there is disagreement in other fields.
You compare Putin to Washington and how his project will have similar outcome. Fact is the jews TRIED to take Russia and its resources, while enslaving them in debt, Putin though did stop their plan. If they tried to take Russia this was their plan to do. So your argument has little base, the jews TRIED to do otherwise.
And maybe there was other obstacles preventing them to take over the world in the late 19th century? Maybe it was not possible at the time? Maybe they need advanced technologic surveillance systems to finalize it and seal it? But who knows what they really are thinking. Maybe the circumcision trauma is in itself almost sufficient to make them thrive for all the destruction they cause (the thesis of ex-jew Prof. Roger Dommergue).
“To plan to convince people to accept an outlook or vision and share it in a huge degree, that is a task so far and high.”
So will you help out or not?
“How in the present world, where no media will promote this, should this come to pass?”
If you want to help out, please send in a contact form outlining your skills, and we will give you suggestions on what you can do.
(From the ARYANISM Glossary)
Gentile-
Non-Jewish tribalist; tribalist who is honest about his tribalism
Contrast with Jew, Aryan
Associated with hunter archetype
Not to be confused with Goy
So you see, a Gentile is an implicit tribalist, but Tribalism does not necessarily equate to racism, as racism is but one form of tribalism. We are not Tribalists- we are Universalists who seek Transcendence through our Aryan Dharma (Path of Nobility), nor are we racists, but Folkists who strive for UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY. Longinus- It is becoming ever more evident to me that you are here not to learn, but only to sow discord, and sometimes I wonder if you have bothered to read even one full article presented here.. If you would like to learn a thing or two about Aryan ideas on culture though, this would be a good place to start- http://aryanism.net/culture/. Though it is hard to imagine that someone who could even be remotely thankful to Jews for their wonderful gift of nuclear armaments could see the light of reason in this case-but hey, I suppose anything’s possible!
>>>Mixing people increases crimes, cause people have lower levels of trust to foreign looking people. There is the opportunity for them to increase surveillance and rule by divide. A homogenous population is much more likely to unify against parasites. I think Dugin is wrong on that he promotes the idea areas of mixed peoples can somewhat form a working entity. It is chaos the jews want and mixing ethnics and turn them on each other is their best strategy besides economic warfare.
This is true but only for the western countries: American nation of immigrants and cosmopolitan cities of (otherwise ethnically segregated) nation-states of Europe. Races in the huge and traditionally Imperial environment of Russia do not simply “mix” (like by liberal decree of Yankee-Judea) but more likely naturally blend into each other. There is a clear difference between European inhabitants from one region and Asiatic inhabitant from another but you’ll never notice where one starts and where the other one ends due to so many intermediate stages between the two. US and EU will try to bring in discord by taking into consideration all differences but primary they will try to use religious differences between Orthodox and Muslim. Putin and Dugin are aware of this.
>>>So you see, a Gentile is an implicit tribalist, but Tribalism does not necessarily equate to racism, as racism is but one form of tribalism.
Than you should point to my implicit tribe. You cannot because there is none. Tribalism and Imperialism are mutually exclusive. There are even Eurasianists from America and they are welcome too. Being Eurasian means to be Imperial and spiritual. I don’t care if my comrades are tribally related to me or not, nor do I care about any blood-bonds with the people from the opposite side of the trench. They can go f*** them selves if they choose to serve Evil.
>>> We are not Tribalists- we are Universalists who seek Transcendence through our Aryan Dharma (Path of Nobility), nor are we racists, but Folkists who strive for UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.
No. Eurasia is the most universal, most spiritual and noble place there is. Mother Russia is The Mother of all Nobility! By refusing to submit you expose your self as the sneaky devil of Atlantis.
>>>Longinus- It is becoming ever more evident to me that you are here not to learn,
After this entry about Dugin I’ve learned more than enough.
>>>Though it is hard to imagine that someone who could even be remotely thankful to Jews for their wonderful gift of nuclear armaments could see the light of reason in this case–but hey, I suppose anything’s possible!
Your non-proliferation attitude toward Russia coincides with Netanyahu’s attitude toward Iran: http://youtu.be/4A7HO0CkfhA
Why should possession of nukes be reserved for America? Are you trying to say that America should be to Eurasia what Israel is to the Middle East?
Personally, I have a non-proliferation attitude toward ANY nation, Russia, America, Israel, or otherwise..
The whole “Arms Race” Issue of the Cold War era was just another Jew-Orchestrated International Dick Measuring Contest that ultimately put the fate of the entire planet at stake, conveniently distracting both parties involved while Israel built itself up unabated and unimpeded..
Again, I must emphatically state that I am against the use of nuclear weapons PERIOD. We’re beginning to drift off topic here, but I think that position should be made abundantly clear..
I also think it should not have been invented to begin with, but that’s what you get in a society that worship science, inventions and new things above all instead of the quest for primordial social ideals which represents an immense challenge in it’s own right. The society ruled by effeminate scientist, progressive sociologists, deviant priests and lesbian Amazons is not acceptable any longer in large parts of the world. Only from these parts can berserkers emerge - stark raving mad and totally deaf to all illusive songs of Atlantean Sirens, so irresistible to civilized ears.
Transcendence from racial identity is the Jew’s greatest fear. They thrive on division, the only way to defeat the eternal Jew is to unite, all people, black, white, asian or whatever. The blood kernel of a ‘volk’ is made up of all of these ethnic divisions. Thus the Jew wishes to make all blood kernels enemies of each other while absolving the Jew through their eternal victimhood status. Aryanists aren’t so easily misled as the Gentile.
How could anyone object to this commendable quest to end ALL racial identities in your respected countries. I shall however retain some doubts in your sincerity until I see all of you turned brown. As for us, Easterners, we fail to see how could we possibly follow your brilliant example since as old-school socialists we fiercely oppose economic exploitation of any cheep labor including African. As strict adherents of Eastern Orthodox Old Believer Tradition we have nothing but hatred and scorn for those who dare to suggest we should import colored factory-slaves for the accumulation of excessive wealth.
“As for us, Easterners, we fail to see how could we possibly follow your brilliant example since as old-school socialists we fiercely oppose economic exploitation of any cheep labor including African. As strict adherents of Eastern Orthodox Old Believer Tradition we have nothing but hatred and scorn for those who dare to suggest we should import colored factory-slaves for the accumulation of excessive wealth.”
Non Sequitur- IT DOES NOT FOLLOW..
Slavery and “accumulation of excessive wealth” have nothing whatsoever to do with the Aryanist Weltanschaung (World View).
“I shall however retain some doubts in your sincerity until I see all of you turned brown.”
Longinus, this is genetic quackery. Gene pool fusion does not create uniform averages with respect to any phenotypical trait, but rather a new distribution reflecting the entire spectrum of the new possible combinations. If a light-skinned population and a dark-skinned population completely mix, the result is not uniform medium-toned skin, but a distribution including light, dark and all possible tones in between.
Furthmore, ending racial identity does not depend on achieving uniform averages. It depends only on the trivialization of non-uniformities which do not matter. For example, we currently live in a society of non-uniform height, nor is there total equality of outcome between people of different heights with respect to such things as employment or income. But tall people do not consider themselves a race based on tallness, and would consider it a bad joke if anyone suggested a need for tall people to socially segregate from short people, or if anyone called for random attacks on innocent short people in response to news about a criminal who happens to be short. I would consider this a society free from racial identity with regard to height, and in such a society there is no need to make everyone be of identical height. That is where we want society to be with regard to skin tone.