Alexander Dugin

[ogenoct]

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

Constantin

[ogenoct]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ogenoct]

THE SACRAL AUTHORITY OF EURASIA

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Comrades,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ambrosio Spinola]

As a staunch Socialist, Dugin is opposed to any kind of Fascist ideologies

What a bunch of BS. I got severely drunk with the man several times and he ended up singing with me the Horst Wessel :D

[ogenoct]

I got severely drunk with the man several times and he ended up singing with me the Horst Wessel

I am well aware of the fact that Dugin harbors NS sympathies. Dugin nowadays plays the anti-Fascist in public, though. Nevertheless, Dugin certainly leans more to the Strasserist side of NS than to the Hitlerite side. The Horst Wessel Lied is not a Fascist but a National Socialist song. It is quite possible to be an anti-Fascist National Socialist. When and where did you get drunk with Dugin? I am curious.

Constantin

[Ambrosio Spinola]

He visited our group several times in the mid 90´s in Spain and attended several meetings where he explained his eurasian ideas much to the horror of the portugese there who he called "Atlantics" (bad guys) :D. He used to tell me how back in Russia he even drank cologne water and this pissed a friend of mine off, where we were sleeping, since he just gulped down a full bottle of Chivas like it was water :D

[ogenoct]

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

Constantin

[Boleslaw]

The Soviet Union, by its benevolent nature, was always geared towards preserving the collective geniuses of the various folk cultures and ethnicities that it administered.

Sure it was.



Capitalism, on the other hand, is internationalist by definition

So is Marxism, "the workers have no country" remember?

[ogenoct]

Sure it was.

I am glad you agree.

So is Marxism, "the workers have no country" remember?

The Soviet Union did not fully conform to Marxist dogma.

Constantin

[Boleslaw]

The Soviet Union did not fully conform to Marxist dogma.


Im well aware of that. However, the USSR was never a nationalist state by any means - it was nationalism that tore it apart. Stalin himself stated that Soviet patriotism was not based upon racial/ethnic grounds, but the unity of the working classes of the union.

As many Marxist theorists, like the Juchists, have noted: inter means between. So without nations there is no internationalism. Even the Black Panthers agree, hence why Huey Newton preferred to use the term "inter-communalism".

So either way, you're just setting up a strawman.

[ogenoct]

However, the USSR was never a nationalist state by any means - it was nationalism that tore it apart.

You obviously did not read my post. I never said that the Soviet Union was a nationalist state. I also hinted in my post that nationalism is negative. Nationalism is a backwards and anti-imperial ideology. Nationalists prosper when empires decay. Being an empire, the Soviet Union obviously did not endorse nationalism. Your criticism of my post is none at all as it does not even address any of the points I made. I have no idea who you are criticizing here. I think you are the "strawman" incarnate.

Constantin

[Boleslaw]

The Soviet Union was an empire now, well so much for its anti-Imperialist rhetoric.

[ogenoct]

The Soviet Union was an empire now, well so much for its anti-Imperialist rhetoric.

It was not just "rhetoric." The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist empire.

Constantin


EMPIRE AGAINST EMPIRE

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


An empire that embraces anti-imperialism as its prime directive is an empire that will last.

AmeriKa is an empire that is imperialist in nature. It is aggressive, domineering and hell-bent on conquering new territories, subjugating them under its cultural and economical spheres of influence. AmeriKa wants to rule the world, impose its way of life on all peoples it subjugates and thereby usher in the final dawn of mankind. Resistance to this kind of Americanized globalization is met with annihilation. AmeriKa has become the tool of Aryan and Jewish ambitions to control the world’s peoples and territories according to the wannabe salvational principles of the two related tribes. AmeriKa’s indigenous European peoples have been designated to become the discardable pawns in this global quest for control and genocide through murder and multiculturalism. The European population of AmeriKa must free itself from the bondage of their oriental overlords and unite with their cousins in the Old World to become one once more.

The new European empire will be anti-imperialist in that it will recognize the rights of its freely federated territories. In the new European empire, nation-states will be abolished as they exemplify relicts of a feudalist, and hence imperialist, past. Instead, newly established regions, that reflect ancient ethnic, linguistic and cultural entities (recognized will be even the smallest entities, such as the Basque and the Sorb territories), will be set up in a decentralized federation. Thus, there will be no “leading nation” and no “leading people.” Instead, ethnic equality will become a reality through radical measures that will include the dismantling of symbols of chauvinism, symbols that have haunted Europe for millennia, symbols that were ultimately responsible for horrible fratricidal wars all throughout European history.

burn the churches, comrades!
pillage the treasure chambers of the elderly!
onwards to freedom,
liberty
and equality!
burning cross the symbol of de-enslavement
dressed in white a pure circle cheers

There will be no main power base and no “leader” in this European federation. Instead, a council will be set up in the yet not chosen capital of the new European federal empire. In this council, representatives of all the sovereign European regions (entities) will form a ruling party that will act in the interests of all the different European peoples. In this way, internal policy, benefiting the development of the various regions, will have a chance to be implemented, and foreign policy to secure the long-term interests of the empire will be decided upon (with all regional members of the party committee having an equal say). The party will always be right in that the party will serve the interests of all Europeans with respect to their varying ethnic, cultural and linguistic traits.

The early Bolshevik regime and its nation policy of “re-root-taking” can serve as an example. When the Soviet Union was established in 1922, wise Lenin had the foresight to grant independence to all territories within the former sphere of control of the then deposed Tsar. Tsarist Russia was decidedly imperialist in that it did not recognize the legitimate ethnic interests of the non-Russian territories that Russia controlled (therefore uprooting and delegitimating the unique national characteristics of these territories). Lenin insisted on the right to self-determination of all nations. While the Whites were political reactionaries and Russian nationalists, the Reds were revolutionaries in that they wanted to rid the Eurasian heartland of Russian chauvinism. The Bolsheviks promoted social equality and a voluntary federation of the various Eurasian nations. After the victory over the Whites, the Bolsheviks established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 30 December, 1922. In practice, this meant that all republics were considered equal in the new Communist/Eurasian empire. In contrast to Tsarist policy, the administration of the non-Russian republics was left to local elites. The cultural tolerance of the Bolsheviks manifested itself in the promotion of non-Russian languages and traditions. 48 ethnicities received new written languages (in Latin, not Cyrillic, script) and non-Russian languages were used in administrative and education facilities. In this way, illiteracy was successfully reduced and independent regional development guaranteed.

run up the hill, comrades!
fast!
look down and behold:
the castle for all

[Boleslaw]

The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist empire.

That is an oxymoron.

[ogenoct]

That is an oxymoron.

No, it is not. Only if you do not know the difference between the words "imperial" and "imperialist." If you would actually read my posts, you would cease making such ignorant comments.

Constantin

[Macrobius]

Christos Voskrese! Constantin. Glad to see you on the Orthodox side.

[Cadavre Exquis]

The early Bolshevik regime and its nation policy of “re-root-taking” can serve as an example. When the Soviet Union was established in 1922, wise Lenin had the foresight to grant independence to all territories within the former sphere of control of the then deposed Tsar. Tsarist Russia was decidedly imperialist in that it did not recognize the legitimate ethnic interests of the non-Russian territories that Russia controlled (therefore uprooting and delegitimating the unique national characteristics of these territories). Lenin insisted on the right to self-determination of all nations. While the Whites were political reactionaries and Russian nationalists, the Reds were revolutionaries in that they wanted to rid the Eurasian heartland of Russian chauvinism. The Bolsheviks promoted social equality and a voluntary federation of the various Eurasian nations. After the victory over the Whites, the Bolsheviks established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 30 December, 1922. In practice, this meant that all republics were considered equal in the new Communist/Eurasian empire. In contrast to Tsarist policy, the administration of the non-Russian republics was left to local elites. The cultural tolerance of the Bolsheviks manifested itself in the promotion of non-Russian languages and traditions. 48 ethnicities received new written languages (in Latin, not Cyrillic, script) and non-Russian languages were used in administrative and education facilities. In this way, illiteracy was successfully reduced and independent regional development guaranteed.

The early years of the USSR saw the suppression of many aspects of non-Russian cultures, as well as the suppression of religiosity in all Soviet peoples - this latter undoubtedly having a huge impact on religion and culture in the republics and territories. The a ban on the teaching of Hebrew and Decossakisation are just two examples. Rather than the Russification of Tsarist times, a policy of creating a unifying Soviet culture was followed instead (although it must be said that it was not as extreme as the Tsarist policy).

Then there's the issue of Russian being taught in many (if not most) of the Warsaw Bloc states. The states within the USSR and its sphere of influence weren't as independent in their cultural development as you make it seem.

[Cadavre Exquis]

Christos Voskrese! Constantin. Glad to see you on the Orthodox side.

I wasn't aware that you're of the Orthodox faith.

Voistino Voskrese!

[ogenoct]

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

Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S.

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

By Megan Stack
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 4, 2008

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your views on Vladimir Putin have fluctuated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email]megan.stack@latimes.com[/email]

[Transcendentally Challenged]

Og,

why are you promoting this nonsense?

It is evident, that Europe would never align with Russia against 'Atlantists'.

[Joe McCarthy]

Og,

why are you promoting this nonsense?

It is evident, that Europe would never align with Russia against 'Atlantists'.

Extreme anti-American boilerplate, of whatever strain, is handy fodder for elements of the 'far right'. Few of these people seem to recognize that if the bad ol' Americans ever go away, we'll then be dealing with Indians and Chinese as prospective hegemons. There's a fine improvement.

[Roland]

Dugin is not a representative of the Occident; his anti-Americanism is parochial.

I wonder if "American hegemony" is something so concrete that it can be compared by analogy to hypothetical "Indian" and "Chinese" hegemony. The power of the American military is channeled into protecting the interests of international commerce, which is deeply penetrated by Chinese and Indian interests.

Of course this isn't the whole story - we have our American "realists" (nationalists) in both parties - but I question whether American hegemony is really restraining something substantially worse than itself.

[Joe McCarthy]

Dugin is not a representative of the Occident; his anti-Americanism is parochial.

I wonder if "American hegemony" is something so concrete that it can be compared by analogy to hypothetical "Indian" and "Chinese" hegemony. The power of the American military is channeled into protecting the interests of international commerce, which is deeply penetrated by Chinese and Indian interests.

Of course this isn't the whole story - we have our American "realists" (nationalists) in both parties - but I question whether American hegemony is really restraining something substantially worse than itself.

My comment had more to do with Og's use of Dugin than Dugin himself. Dugin himself is probably valuable. The only balancing of the US that I can see as useful is that of Russia, though it is troubling that this balancing entails propping up Third World nuts like Hugo Chavez.

As regards US hegemony, I can guarantee you that as nature abhors a vacuum, the ongoing decline of the US and economic-political rise of China will prompt a challenge. If you really think things are bad now, and they no doubt are, the enthronement of a Third World hegemonic power will have ramifications that will make the anti-American whiners look upon this era as the good ol' days.

[ogenoct]

Alexander Dugin talks about the Conservative Revolution at Moscow State University - with English subtitles:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XI3eqEteT0&hl=de&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XI3eqEteT0&hl=de&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Boleslaw]

Og,

why are you promoting this nonsense?

It is evident, that Europe would never align with Russia against 'Atlantists'.
Not to mention align with the Arab, Chinese, and Indians as well in one common superstate.

Personally I have more support for something akin to the Międzymorze concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%C4%99dzymorze) devised by Pilsudski as far as European geopolitics are concerned.

[ogenoct]

picture from a recent demonstration by the Eurasian Movement in Moscow (on the anniversary of the Georgian attack on South Osettia):

"One Soul - One Nation!"

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/129749213.jpg

[ogenoct]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FxRKPSw4sN8&hl=de&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FxRKPSw4sN8&hl=de&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Transcendentally Challenged]

Not to mention align with the Arab, Chinese, and Indians as well in one common superstate.

Personally I have more support for something akin to the Międzymorze concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%C4%99dzymorze) devised by Pilsudski as far as European geopolitics are concerned.

Stillborn child, nothing more, nothing less. No real ground for union as with the anti-atlanticist league.

[Kshatriya]

Fascism - Borderless & Red

Comrade Aleksandr Dugin's timeless article on Russian National Bolshevism
(AKA: 'Red Fascism' or 'Russian Socialism').

To read the full version (in English), visit:
http://hnn.us/comments/134662.html

itHdrgu29Iw