Pax Russica

Posted by Guessedworker on September 06, 2008, 08:10 PM | #

What a shock to see Dugin in the LA Times.  Is this an anti-Bush/Cheney thing?

I have mixed feelings about Dugin.  Of course it’s good to see nationalism reified as a polar opposite and effective enemy of globalising liberalism.  But the kind of multi-axial supra-nationalism Dugin is proposing does not leave any space for Europe’s nations to be free.

Peoples cannot be free to pursue their natural interests within their borders if freedoms must be granted, or guaranteed, from a centre in Moscow or Paris or Bonn.  Elitism sniffs the wind for any opportunity, and I am not an elitist, but a believer in politics as the expression of ethnic interests.  I would prefer Salisbury to Dugin.

Posted by cladrastis on September 06, 2008, 08:55 PM | #

Let me start by saying I haven’t read any of Dugin’s writings (please post a link, if you know one), but based on this interview, and what I know of the original Eurasianists, I echo GW’s ambivalence.  I disagree that Russia should be allied primarily with Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations or that it should be the center of a multiracial empire (as per the Soviet Union).  Central Asians are neither European nor Aryan, and excepting a few scattered tribal groups and diaspora Russians, the CA peoples are the offspring of the original Scythians and Parthians (who certainly were an Indo-Aryan people) and the invading hordes of Mongols/Huns/Turks that swept into the region (and then into Europe) beginning in the first Millenium (AD).  Ancient grudges should be maintained, and these people should NOT be viewed as allies (and consequently as “one of us”).  If anything, Russia needs to be aware of history’s lessons with regard to these people.  I would be very surprised if Russian nationalists (who are dealing with the CA bastards in St. Petersburg and Moscow on a daily basis) feel any differently about them.  On the other hand, I both support and understand the utility of a Russo-Persian alliance - for it is the most logical and timely geopolitical union for breaking the backs of ZOGs the world over (especially in Central and Eastern Europe) through its control of natural gas and petroleum.  Iran’s penchant for fundamentalism is not an asset, but in matters of EGI, religion is of little importance (and anyway, I suspect that a wealthier, more powerful Iran would be significantly less religiously inclined).

Finally, Dugin needs to distinguish between America’s ZOG, and the American people (i.e. Solutreans).  The American people would not be his enemy if not for the programming of the Judeo-globalist elite.  Many of us have already awakened, but few are willing to challenge Judeo-liberal power.  Americans must be deprogrammed, but ultimately, Solutreans must ally with Europe and Russia in an Imperial alliance along the lines of Aryan Futurism or Lowell’s Imperium.  Anway, we’re going to need help, not resentment and neglect, after Civil War II.

Posted by Søren Renner on September 06, 2008, 09:58 PM | #

Americans must be deprogrammed, but ultimately, Solutreans must ally with Europe and Russia in an Imperial alliance along the lines of Aryan Futurism or Lowell’s Imperium.

I propose that there needs to be a US movement based on these “London New Right” ideas. Can I get a second?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 06, 2008, 10:25 PM | #

“I haven’t read any of Dugin’s writings (please post a link, if you know one)”  (—Cladrastis)

This link is posted over at The Civic Platform.

I just looked up “Salutreans” over at Wikipedia.  I don’t quite get the connection between us and them:  is it that they are considered the ancestors uniquely of today’s Euros?

Posted by Søren Renner on September 06, 2008, 10:30 PM | #

No, John de Nugent calls Europeans in America “Solutreans” after the Europeans who supposedly inhabited this continent thousands of years back. (There is some evidence for this. Kennewick Man is one example.) The term originally applied to a culture from Europe that made a certain kind of stone blade; similar blades have been discovered also in America.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 07, 2008, 05:40 AM | #

“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.” - Aleksandar Dugin, from the interview

Dugin is obviously describing Russian hegemony over “Eurasia”, but I think he may be adumbrating White supremacy over the non-White populations therein.  I’ve suspected for awhile that Putin’s clique is waiting until ethnic Russians and other Whites under his influence are demographically strong enough to pull it off.  Once or if Putin gets those White birth rates up to replacement level his hand will be strong indeed.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 07, 2008, 06:09 AM | #

“Putin was pro-Western at the beginning. He was pro-American. That was the reason of our criticism of his conduct.” - Aleksandar Dugin, from the interview

For good or ill, America and Russia are the natural poles of power in the White world.  They have the most Whites united under one national/ethnic identity: ethnic Russians and White Americans mostly of northwestern European descent.  We cannot allow the teaming third-world hordes of Africa and South America to engage in the destruction of bio-diversity and resource depletion on those continents.  I could definitely envision of future in which Russia and America share the responsibility of stewards of the White race and of this planet; with Europe positioned to pursue Salterian nationalism to preserve its genetically distinct groups within its small nations.

Putin’s clique is open to cooperation.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2008, 07:08 AM | #

Soren,

To establish an LNR-style - perhaps an Atheneum-style - group of serious ideas peoples in the US would be a very fine thing.  My idea, as you know, is to make it virtual, because of the barrier of physical distances involved otherwise.  If the software platform could be developed and some funding found to invest in the requisite computing power, or an existing but obviously less secure site such as the seemingly anti-racist Second Life could be used, it only remains to invite appropriate persons to become involved.  Michael O’Meara, Robert S Griffin and certain of the Americans in Troy’s group come to mind immediately.

Of course, I’m just an impractical dreamer, so don’t mind me.

Cladistris, that’s an excellent post, notwithstanding John’s Solutrean thing.

Posted by Søren Renner on September 07, 2008, 10:30 AM | #

Good idea. But it is even more important to meet and act in the physical world. Not for all of us, but for some. It is necessary to decloak, to use real names and faces and voices, to put one’s head above the parapet. “Stick out your necks while yet you live!” Alex Linder is quite inspiring on this point. Second Life-type VR (preferably along with a modified Esperanto for the New Right) will be the icing on the cake.

I’ll take point if nobody else wants to.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2008, 11:10 AM | #

Local groups are important for activism.  They are immaterial to intellectualism.  Alex doesn’t approve of ideas.  He has his one idea, and for the rest he has no time or patience.

This isn’t to say that there is no value to friends meeting and discussing ideas.  But the work required to steer a path out of this mess will need more than sporadic social groups.  It needs the very best we can muster, gathered together in one place and with one agreed aim.

Can’t agree with replacing/augmenting our language with Esperanto.  English is one of the glories of Man’s creating, second, probably, only to Sanskrit in its subtlety and power of expression.  Some five-minute chicken soup language like Esperanto will never suffice.  It is an intellectual conceit, nothing more.

Posted by Søren Renner on September 07, 2008, 12:17 PM | #

Friends? Discussing ideas?

To quote the Editors: “You knew you were out of time / But you let the day drift away…”

If a plane fell from the sky, how big a hole would it leave in the surface of the earth?”

<object width=“425” height=“344”>

<embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/KpH697da4KQ&hl=en&fs=1” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height=“344”></embed></object>

Posted by James Bowery on September 07, 2008, 01:02 PM | #

Part of the problem is that in a theocracy, religious discrimination is both the law of the land and the zeitgeist, so adherents of dissenting religions, such as ours, cannot even discuss their views openly without suffering material damages. 

That means those concealing their identities should engage in the kinds of actions and discussions that cannot practically be pursued openly due to the potential material losses.

It also means some actions and discussions that must be pursued openly cannot practically be pursued without material supports from those concealing their identities.

Posted by snax on September 07, 2008, 01:32 PM | #

I would prefer Salisbury to Dugin.

Is that the same Salisbury who was Indian Secretary under a Prime Minister of NEC origin?

Peoples cannot be free to pursue their natural interests within their borders if freedoms must be granted, or guaranteed, from a centre in Moscow or Paris or Bonn.

Nor London or Jerusalem, excepting Englishmen and Jews.

Your heroes are horrors GW, even by your own standards.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2008, 01:44 PM | #

Salisbury:-

Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”.  Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest.  He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster).

Posted by snax on September 07, 2008, 03:01 PM | #

Exactly, GW. You’re no longer endorsing Salterian universal nationalism when you trumpet Salisbury, you’re claiming English exceptionalism, and the right to deny to others what rights you aim to deliver to us.

People hostile to your universal nationalist program need only note this double standard to justify their claims you’re secretly a racist/ white supremacist.

It’s because people like Salisbury and his conservatism are compromised, surely, that you feel you need a new philosophy?

Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2008, 03:15 PM | #

Salterism in English national interest a la Salisbury:-

Regarding Lord Salisbury’s point of view, for some time past he has taken little interest in American politics, and he is averse to any form of an Anglo-American alliance, believing that the Constitution of the United States is unsuited to such a bond.  To use the words of one who is in the closest confidence of the Premier, “the politics of America have such an influence on foreign policy, and render the duration of supreme power so uncertain, that any alliance would kill itself quicker than any one could kill it.”

Lord Salisbury feels under no obligations to foster pro-British sentiment in the United States.  In fact, for the most part he remains in profound ignorance as to the trend of American public opinion.  His idea, as represented by the speaker just quoted, is to trade fairly and squarely without embroiling himself with any extraneous matters ...

Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2008, 03:20 PM | #

On a new philosophy (required for practical, not ideological, reasons): On traction, and a farewell to a political friend

Posted by cladrastis on September 08, 2008, 10:45 PM | #

I second your motion, Soren.  Let us know when you organize the first conference.  I would suggest somewhere central - such as Kansas, or better yet, the Black Hills (as this region constitutes the geographic center of North America).  We could probably buy our own Bohemian Grove in South Dakota for next to nothing.  As for “decloaking”, unless it is done in an organized fashion, we will make nothing but easy targets.  You are correct in your assumption that the time for such a movement is rapidly approaching.  Coordination, however, should not be overlooked.   

GW, I should clarify my position on the usage of the term Solutrean.  It is imperative that the European derived peoples of the Western Hemisphere create a self-designation.  There are obvious problems with “Solutrean” including a) its lack of “rootedness” to the American continent (Solutre being a region in France), b) the lack of ANY continuity between the hypothetical Ice Age Solutreans in the Americas and modern-day European derived American people, c) the easy marginalization of those self-desigating with such an obviously contrived name, and d) the apparent lack of acceptance of the term by the majority of New Rightists on this site (and, I presume, generally).  Choosing a name for ourselves is vitally important - but perhaps this subject needs further consideration.  I believe we must be able to recognize fellow tribalists, and we must be absolutely, deadly serious about it.  Words have power.

Posted by Lurker on September 09, 2008, 09:11 AM | #

I have recently read that Putin’s mother is Maria Shalomova, a Jewish surname. Is this true? Does anyone know if Putin’s a half-Jew? It would explain why he was picked by Berozovsky, why he banned Rodina, and why he does not tolerate anti-semitism.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 09, 2008, 09:30 AM | #

There are continual rumours about the Jewishness of both Putin and Medvedev.  The Russian “far right” is filled with them, as you can imagine.  Wikipedia notes that Putin’s “mother, Maria Ivanovna, was a factory worker and his father, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin ...”

Putin himself is rumoured to have amassed a fortune of 40 billion roubles from his associations with the Jewish oligarch’s whom, strangely, the state did not prosecute post-Khordokovsky.

I don’t know anything much about the true nature of Rodina, I’m afraid.  Wikipedia notes:-

On November 6, 2005, Rodina was barred from taking part in the December elections to the Moscow Duma following a complaint filed by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia that Rodina’s advertising campaign incited racial hatred. The advertisement in question showed dark-skinned Caucasian immigrants tossing watermelon rinds to the ground and ended with the slogan, “let’s clear our city of trash”. It garnered much controversy and opinion polls predicted that Rodina would come second with close to 25% in the December vote. Rogozin appealed the decision, but the ban was upheld on December 1, 2005.

Rodina’s difficulties continued into 2006, when it failed to obtain permission to contest local elections in a number of regions. It did, however, come third in the regional elections in Altay Republic.

Dmitry Rogozin unexpectedly stepped down as party leader in March 2006, and was replaced by the less known Aleksander Babakov a businessman with Russian, Swedish and Israeli citizenship. Many suspected this was a tactical decision on Rodina’s part to ease pressure from the Kremlin, although a small number of party members in Moscow had been vocal in their criticism of Rogozin’s more outlandish nationalist rhetoric.

Posted by Lurker on September 09, 2008, 09:59 AM | #

Rodina is/was a Slavic-centric Russian nationalist party in the pure sense. Anti-Jewish, anti-Caucasoid, anti-Tartar, culturally traditionalist and illiberal (in the good sense), anti-NATO, anti-AmeriKwan world domination, etc. All the good stuff that would save Russia.

Then Putin shut them down and maybe they sold out in distress to the questionable Babakov .

Posted by Othelma_Jr on September 13, 2008, 05:58 AM | #

Hello MR!

Oh yes Dugin, he is a good man who started out as a Traditionalist (see Mark Sedgewicks book: Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century and then went on to influence the Eurasian Movement.  There is a whole chapter about him in the above title.

For a WN/ Trad. like myself I agree 99% with Dugin (my only problem is he is rumored to be friendly to some jewish-zionist right wingers but I think he is just keeping his friends close and his enemies closer…)

Posted by Guessedworker on September 13, 2008, 06:34 AM | #

Welcome, Othelma.  Have you only just found us?

Posted by Fr. John on September 16, 2008, 09:22 AM | #

You should read the unedited interview with Putin on South Ossetia, over at

www.realjewnews.com

Excellent!

Posted by Othelma_Jr on September 21, 2008, 07:05 AM | #

Hey GW, I have been a lurkerer for awhile.  I will check out this blog every so often.