Print this post Print this post

Dugin’s America

Liberators: Kultur Terror (1944)

Liberators: Kultur Terror – Anti-American Nazi Propaganda Poster (1944)

1,252 words

Alexander Dugin is a popular, well-connected, and academically respected professor at Moscow State University. Unlike his North American and Western European counterparts, his ideas are not censored by Russia’s mainstream media, and he more or less enjoys the favor of Putin’s Russian government. While he’s indubitably the most prominent New Right thinker in Russia, his domestic influence and his ambitious efforts to build international partnerships and relationships have made him arguably the most prominent New Right thinker in the world. 

His recently written and translated book, The Fourth Political Theory is a critical milestone in the global development of a New Right school of thought. In it, he strives to speak to a truly global audience, though his parochial biases and perspectives are a regular distraction from that goal. He strives to speak above and beyond modern liberal paradigms and values, but there’s a fair share of self-censorship, cleverness, and . . . Realpolitik . . . to wade through.

Fortunately, those who are intelligent and thoughtful enough to gain anything from this book will be intelligent and thoughtful enough to look past those distractions and at his invaluable insights, strategies, and perspectives. After all, the whole point of Benoist’s pluriversalism (universal pluralism) which he endorses is that the different regions and communities can retain and preserve their own unique narratives and perspectives. In the Russian psyche, “America” is something quite alien to what we Americans experience . . . just as our imaginary “Russia” is surely alien to actual Russians.

Foreigners, especially Russians, almost exclusively see our bad side. In many ways, Russians think more about America’s military and foreign policy than we do. Their exposure to “our” culture is almost exclusively from a handful of Jewish and cosmopolitan hubs which are nearly as alien and hostile to ordinary Americans as they are to Russians. When they visit, they’re more likely to visit those hubs. Just as 20th-century Americans perceived Russia as a villainous caricature of Jewish Bolshevism and belligerent Marxism, contemporary Russians perceive America as a villainous caricature of Jewish liberalism and cannibal capitalism.

In one especially irritating example among many, he explains how American liberal Ayn Rand’s capitalist ideology of Objectivism is the Protestant work ethic taken to its logical extreme. For the record, Ayn Rand was born and raised in Russia, only traveling to America after completing her studies in the very post-secondary university system Dugin works for. The conflation of Rand’s Hegelian inversion of Marxist ideology with Protestant perspectives on predestination could only occur in the fevered imagination of a Russian anti-American polemicist.

Of course, we on the North American New Right  are so gauche as to note that she’s actually neither Russian nor American, but a Jewess (actual surname: Rosenbaum), with a secular Jewish identity, attitude, and spirit. If we were to define a clear distinction between a host nation and Jewish culture, we would find that our actual differences are but a filioque relative to the chasm between either of our nations and the Jewish nation.

Dugin’s political theory “rejects all forms and varieties of racism” as one of its “essential features.” This may be a translation issue, but he seems to define “racism” as supremacism, carrying on about the evils of class racism, progressive racism, economic racism, technological racism (Mac vs. PC?), and cultural racism. Fortunately, he declares that his political theory has a “positive attitude toward the ethnos,” which is perhaps a loophole through which biological definitions of ethnic identities could be smuggled.

It’s very easy to denounce racial “supremacism” when both you and your society have had the privilege of being removed from racial strife. Historical examples of “supremacism” were not instances of simple villainy, but emergent reactions to powerful historical forces. Continental Europeans and Russians have plenty of advice to offer and judgment to pass on White South Africans, Australians, and American Southerners who didn’t have the luxury of developing racial attitudes at the comfortable distance afforded to a tenured professor deep in the heart of a largely White country.

Even within America, you’ve had (and continue to have) the aloof Yankees lecturing the South on the immorality of their structured relationship with the Black American people. The Great Migration of Black Americans into the North over the past century has afforded Yankees an opportunity to put their egalitarian theories into practice. Instead of a structured relationship, America’s Northerners opted for no relationship at all. While Southerners merely insisted on “separate but equal” schools, Northerners have avoided, evaded, and neglected their way to a definitively “separate but equal” country.

As the saying goes:

Southerners don’t mind Blacks living nearby . . . as long as they don’t get uppity.

Northerners don’t mind Blacks getting uppity . . . as long as they don’t live nearby.

If Russians are as alarmed by our supposed mistreatment of Black Americans, Amerindians, and other minority groups as they purport to be, perhaps they would consider offering them asylum? Perhaps the disproportionate share of Blacks we’ve imprisoned are political prisoners, political prisoners who will thrive in a less “supremacist” society? I kid. I kid. The Russians aren’t suicidal enough to invite that problem into their country and wouldn’t handle the problem any better than we have. Finally, Black Americans would not accept such an offer. Statistically speaking, Blacks may not be as intelligent as Whites . . . but they’re not stupid. They’re not about to pass up the rather comfortable and privileged position they enjoy in America’s “supremacist” society.

But there’s little point in seriously engaging the racial perspectives of Dugin and other New Right intellectuals abroad, because it’s a subject they clearly don’t take seriously yet. The European and Russian New Right will likely avoid taking racial issues as seriously as the North American New Right does until the sweeping demographic changes present them with serious racial issues. While we in America have a tremendous amount to learn from our brothers abroad, our current status as the primary host of Jewish Power and our intimate historical and direct familiarity with the racial question requires that we approach those problems clearly and directly, without word games, obfuscations, and evasions.

I agree with Dugin and the rest of the New Right that the structured “supremacist” framework of the American South and elsewhere should be retired in favor of ethnic identity and autonomy. I agree with Dugin that the hour has come for a sweeping alternative to the political theories of yesteryear. I agree with Dugin about the basic contours of that political theory: a pluriversalist and multipolar world order constructed upon the time-honored political unit of tribal identity.  I agree with Dugin that Western capitalism is at the heart of the problem . . . though I’m not willing to ignore the critical role Jews have historically played and continue to play in advancing and directing that destructive force.

I’ve been and will continue to be very critical of not only America’s subverted and psychotic regime, but of the degenerate aspects of our culture which cannot be blamed on Jews and multinational corporations. A good share of the problem is surely our fault. As we move forward, this problem of anti-Americanism is one we’ll need to parse thoughtfully and carefully. Much of the antipathy coming at us from our European and Russian counterparts is valid, understandable, or easy to brush off. There is, however, a good share of it which amounts to mere abuse, distorted demagoguery which plays well to domestic audiences at the expense of developing the very partnerships and relationships of which Dugin obviously grasps the importance.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

74 Comments

  1. 1rw
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 2:16 am | Permalink

    American racism is an old Soviet trope. I remember posters in my soviet school depicting poor innocent negro children being menaced by a looming white policeman. It’s an easy score. I’m surprised Dugin recycles this crap. It may be a way to bite back at America’s constant chiding of Russia’s lack of transparency, human rights abuses etc…. As usual, both are a bit hypocritical. Russians have their own ‘blacks’ and sometimes clash with them in the streets. And America that subcontracts torture of prisoners and assassinates its own citizens without due process can’t really be taken seriously when it chides Russia on human rights. Yet these are the games diplomats and thinktankers play. Remember, Dugin is a creature of the Putin state, so his musings are a way for his masters to articulate their goals and justify their actions. The Soviets had their Institute of Marxistm-Leninism that always found that the communist party policy was in accordance with Marxist theory

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    Alain de Benoist’s term pluriversalism is a good find and should be adopted by all WNs. This is exactly what we want : all ethnic groups are entitled to their own territory and independance instead of an enforced universalism that is destructive of ethnic and cultural identities. No “racism” or “supremacism” but ethnonationalism for all diverse groups of humanity. To realize this, all incompatible immigration has to be stopped and reversed, thus securing the survival and flourishing of all groups. But of course the present Masters of Discourse will call that “racism”.

  3. NM
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Dugin is basically an imperialist of the old-fashioned kind, and I have no idea why sites like Counter-Currents are promoting him in particular, when there’s many Russian thinkers who are far superior. Dugin is basically a Russian neo-con, not an ethnic nationalist. He’s a geopolitician who thinks in terms of “blocs” and empires, rather than nations. The only difference between him and an American neo-con is that Dugin has a fetish for caste systems rather than for spreading liberal democracy.

    It’s very easy to denounce racial “supremacism” when both you and your society have had the privilege of being removed from racial strife.

    Russia doesn’t have that privilege. A large chunk of Russia’s urban population are swarthoids from the Caucasus and immigrant workers from Central Asia. The growing presence of these people (who are called “blacks” by Russians), together with the low Russian birth rate, should be seen as a demographic threat. It’s the same ethnic problem that France has with Arabs, or that the US has with blacks and mestizos. Addressing this should be of importance to Russian nationalists, but Dugin obviously won’t do it.

    Dugin is opposed to racism because he wants a multicultural Russian superstate, in the good old tradition of Tsarism and the USSR. He is a geopolitical thinker and couldn’t care less about Russia being for ethnic Russians.

    • Dominion
      Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

      Dugin is influenced by the Traditionalist writers. In Traditionalist political thought, the idea of the Imperium is important, in that it allows for transcendent ideas to be brought into relation to peoples and nations. This is the Imperial idea Dugin is talking about when he speaks of Empire. It is imperial in the same sense the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and so on, were imperial: that is to say, different nations and ethnic groups within its space are preserved. The fourth theory would have the cultures and ethnicities of Eurasia preserve their own culture whilst participating in the Eurasian sphere of civilization (the Imperial space). The neocon imperialism merges and blends these together into a formless mass to serve the economic gods and their masters.

  4. uh
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Another tireless and tiresome architect of castles in the sky. His platonic daydreaming is a form of therapy encouraged by these “connections” he is said to have.

    1. Every white people to the north and east of us, excepting the British and Australians who actually follow current events, still love to pretend that “Americans” are Marlboro Men who “lynch de black people”. Cheap feeling of moral superiority results. Forget that Russian thugs occasionally prey on poor Caucasians, not excluding children, and the infamous behavior of Russian soldiers in Chechnya and Afghanistan. So either Dugin knows better and is lying to hold up Russians as superior, or he’s embarrassingly misinformed.

    2. I can’t waste reading time on an author using a “loophole” to prefer his own kind. Besides, let’s see Dugin take his routine to Tashkent, Astana, Dushanbe, Bishkek or Aşgabat. Think our beloved Dubya in Islamabad.

    3. Here’s the thing: “pluriversalist” and “multipolar world” already exists. Dugin’s problem is that he yearns for it all to be an official Russian imperium. This is the precise psychological underpinning of his soi-disant “theory”. Like I say: let’s see him take his notions on tour to the capitals listed above. And why can’t he? They don’t want his Russian imperium. And they have deals with America which they would never sacrifice to again become satellites of Russia.

    Honestly, this career-amateur cannot see past his own nose. Why does anyone allow him the self-styled title of “geopolitical theorist”?

    • Dominion
      Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

      The International Eurasian Movement just formed a branch in Jordan. Think of that what you will.

      Part of the point of the fourth theory is that it actually takes into account how humans and peoples are and live. So it shouldn’t be surprising that it reflects to an extent how things already are. But the current system of values (Liberalism) reigning today does not recognize many these things (the idea of equality, no differences between sexes and races, and so forth). This manifests in capitalism, economism, open borders and shut-down ideas. The fourth theory is necessary to subvert the accepted value system and create a different basis and ideal with which to work.

  5. Lew
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    In my part of the South, the saying went we Southerners hate Blacks as a race and love them as individuals while Northerners love them as a race and hate them as individuals. Apparently, this insight goes for Russians who think like Dugin, too.

    Dugin’s comment on Ayn Rand made me spit up my coffee I chuckled so hard. It might not be possible to pack more inaccurate information into a single thought. His were not minor misstatements either but statements literally 180 degrees from the truth akin to writing Jesus was the Son of Satan. Major factual errors like that usually indicate carelessness and shoddy work. If there are many errors like that, I don’t agree “intelligent” people should be willing to look past them for otherwise invaluable insights. Dugin appears to be:

    1) Philo-semitic, a person who doesn’t believe Jews have played a role in Western decline, and a person who believes pointing to a Jewish role is conspiracy theory. Dugin by implication writes off Kevin MacDonald’s work, among many others.

    2) Condemns racism. Shows no concern for White racial preservation.

    3) Repeats discredited communist lies.

    4) Has a superficial understanding of America confusing NY/DC/Hollywood with America (but no Jewish role!).

    5) He looks to alliances with Asia.

    So, assuming the goal is saving White people and not just Russians, what are the invaluable insights? Opposition to Capitalism? The value of his insights depend on the form of capitalism he criticizes and the definition he uses. Using the tribe as an organizational unit? I don’t think this idea is new to him, and I’m not sure what anyone can possibly add to that idea to improve it. Opposition to globalism? Lots of people oppose globalism.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 14, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

      “Philo-semitic, a person who doesn’t believe Jews have played a role in Western decline, and a person who believes pointing to a Jewish role is conspiracy theory. Dugin by implication writes off Kevin MacDonald’s work, among many others.”

      You know, being philo-Semitic and not talking about the Jewish problem much are two very different things. I would bet that if you had a personal talk with Dugin, you’d find that he’s not really a fan of Jews.

  6. Posted October 11, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    I assumed Dugin’s characterization of Rand as an American was deliberate, as there is a very common tendency in the European Right to talk about the US as a Jewish state. Period. End of story. We might not like such a Jew-washing, but politically and culturally speaking (the only ways one should expect foreigners to interact with America) there is no other truth. If we on the NR have broken the Jewish thought control, then each of us certainly feels like a foreigner in our own county.

    Just today I tried to explain to a libertarian that his hyper-liberalism is more problematic than Obama’s socialism. He thought I was joking and I left it at that. The point is, Americans have given neither Dugin nor any other European/Russian/Eurasian any reason to think we are not who they see on MTV. That will change if more people like us move to Europe, but even then I wonder if we aren’t sometimes too chauvinistically inclined to make them want any alliances with us. They simply don’t need us – as Americans. Instead, what they need from us is to keep doing what we are doing – thinking critically, teaching each other, and fighting (for the race, against degeneration, etc).

    Just as Dugin proposes temporary alliances, we might have some alliances now that we won’t have in ten years. So be it. My enemy is modernity and the bourgeois form of life – and that includes who – and I mean every who, including the remaining fibers of my being that are infected with the bourgeois rot – keeps us enslaved to modern man. I feel that Dugin is fighting the same enemy. He might not like the way I go about it, but I don’t like all of his proposals either. Anyone willing to compromise anything about the greatness of the West is going to rub me the wrong way.

    And, just to say it, Matt Parrott is far more patriotic than me (even at >1%). I give Matt credit, though, for having lived in a totally different America than the Southern and Northern urban centers in which I have had the great misfortune of living. Being around conservative (in a close-to-the-land way) white folk has a way of making one forget about urban white folk. So when I hear Dugin talking about America, he is, in fact, talking about my America. I feel that America is the greatest mistake in human history. But, I am not fighting to save America, nor are any of us. So, if Dugin bashes America, I say that’s better than some ZOG enslaved flag wavers calling us NAZIs in order to keep us at bay.

    • Roissy Hater
      Posted October 11, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      “My enemy is modernity and the bourgeois form of life”

      The fact that our right wing is composed of people who are excited about their right to wield a gun and vote Ron Paul is beyond disturbing.

      “I feel that America is the greatest mistake in human history.”

      Strong stuff, but all too true. I’m afraid you are in small company and dangerous territory spouting rhetoric like that, however much I might agree with you. Some may find your words harsh and think that 1950s America was a fantastic time to be alive, but I would ask anyone with a brain how such a great lifestyle/culture could be subverted within half a century and turned into the cesspool which now exists?

      • Lew
        Posted October 11, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        The fact that our right wing is composed of people who are excited about their right to wield a gun and vote Ron Paul is beyond disturbing.

        Roissy,

        What is your objection to gun ownership? The conventional, mainstream American “right” wing is very confused. They’re not right about much. Their intransigent position on gun rights might be and probably is one of the few issues they get right. I am heavily armed myself with a wide variety of firearms and many thousands of rounds on hand.

        1950s America was a pretty nice place. My grandmother, great aunts, mother and aunts used to walk the streets of New Orleans alone in those days. If you go to the same areas today, you will be taking a chance on getting killed. How did it get subverted so fast? It was for many reasons. One of the main ones, perhaps the only one that matters, was the outcome of the US Civil War. To sum it up, the egalitarians killed the anti-egalitarians allowing their outlook and worldview to prevail in America’s centers or power from that point forward.

        I doubt anyone here has any real love for present day America or, especially, the US government and its policies. It doesn’t mean we Americans can’t respond to the false, misleading and superficial, redundant commentary about America that seems to flow with regularity from European New Right intellectuals. It’s not a matter of reflexive patriot-tardism but rather getting clear on the facts to determine which ideas from the ENR can help White folks in North America and which can’t. If Alexander Dugin is nothing more than a Russian imperialist writing post hoc rationales for a neo-Russian imperium lead by Vladimir Putin, that’s relevant.

      • Roissy Hater
        Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

        Middle Americans who believe that the gov’t wants to take their guns away are so narcissistic and delusional it makes me, as a gun owner, laugh.

        You know what the gov’t is really afraid of? Citizens who take back their school systems, demand a better higher-ed humanities program, teach their children history, and read rather than watch TV. Fat NRA members should go read Heidegger and Dr. Sunic instead of joining the militia (and get in shape). Just a thought.

        I agree with the scathing European criticism of America, because its all true. America is a theme park full of people who are proud to be ignorant.

      • Lew
        Posted October 12, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

        Re: Roissy’s comment,

        This is broad over generalization reflecting the fallacy of composition combined with arbitrary subjective opinion. There are plenty of Americans who do the good things mentioned here and don’t do the bad.

        The claim that America is the worst thing to happen in history is an exaggeration. Just to pick one obvious point of rebuttal, roughly 80% of German casualties in WW2 were at the hands of Russians not Americans. The world’s situation would be likely be better now if Germany had won. The Soviets made that impossible.

        Gun control is real. As recently as 1992, the government ordered civilian rifles off the market.

      • Daniel Constantin
        Posted October 14, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

        Lew, talking about who did what in World War II is only going to make everyone go round and round all day long. You could argue Soviets did more killing when they conquered, but someone could argue that Americans provided the necessary leverage to make the Axis lose, and someone else could argue that the Germans were just not using their resources right and losing valuable support by mistreating Slavs. The fact is that everyone, including the Germans, made choices in that war that had devastating consequences.

        As for America, I’ve lived in it for many years and traveled around it as well, and I think anti-Americanism is entirely justified. This place is so totally saturated with liberalism and bourgeois lifestyle that its culture is corrupted very deeply. While some Europeans who’ve never been to America have a distorted image of it and their criticisms might be a little off here and there, they are basically justified in what they say. And then we should remember those anti-American Europeans who have indeed seen America’s nature extensively, such as Valdas Anelauskas (see his book “Discovering America As It Is”).

    • Sandy
      Posted October 12, 2012 at 3:01 am | Permalink

      Someone is having a bad hair day to write I feel that America is the greatest mistake in human history. Considering that the country is almost 500 years old and was founded by a race that is at least 5,000 years old I would think that the country is just having a bad hair day of its own. Mind you, it is puzzling why the government thinks and acts like the Beast of Revelations and the Christian people are hell bent on rebuilding Babel but all these things will pass. Was it Garett Garrett who wrote The Revolution Was back in the 1930’s? All we have to do is have a Counter-Revolution and after a few decades or more of meta-politics that shouldn’t be too difficult. For the children!

  7. Razvan
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Excellent point have been made, only one I want to address.

    I do not think that the image of America is as bad as some Americans might think.

    At least for the people that really count, America is the plethora of scientists that changed the world (even they were not Americans it was America to make all those things happen), the fact that the best books on any given subject are published in America, the fact that in the past the tag “Made in US” was the best warranty in the world. You can’t imagine the thrills and the joys from those first personal computers (IBMs still made in US in the nineties).

    In the seventies many Romanian Agricultural engineers visited America to learn from their American counterparts (thanks to Richard Nixon). They came back with so much respect for the American farmers and America.

    On the funny side I know someone whose father had a “John Deere” tractor and after the WWII he hid his beloved tractor in a deep hole in the ground so it will not be stolen by the “soviet” soldiers or by the communists (jews and their minions). It was unearthed after 1990 and supposedly it was still working.

    There are countless stories.

    Does anyone imagine such a powerful critique to the modern-jewish world happening anywhere else in the world than America?

    The problem is that America is no longer America. With all of its historical mistakes, with all the jewish power, for many, America remains the only real chance for all of us.

    Dugin is a good proof that this is the case indeed. The previous posters dissected the problem all too well.

    • Roissy Hater
      Posted October 11, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

      “Does anyone imagine such a powerful critique to the modern-jewish world happening anywhere else in the world than America?”

      That’s completely ridiculous. The only reason a critique occurs in America is:

      (a) few here have the brains to care, therefore the masters of the universe allow for freedom of speech in a country where freedom of speech is no threat to state power
      (b) in the countries where this issue would be relevant it is banned from public discourse
      (c) Americans bombed into oblivion the warriors who were trying to level more than a critique against said enemy

      • Razvan
        Posted October 12, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        I was talking about the present. And yes, Americans bombed my country too and mostly civilian undefended targets like trains with refugees and even churches (drop your bombs on villages, Ploiesti was too heavily protected).

        But as I said let’s talk about the present day. Let’s see what really America offers beyond those morons led by their jewish puppeteers (morons are everywhere, too lazy and too fat to care, too blind to see the strings). But also America offers things like CC and not only.

        The problem is not that the America offers too few things, the problem is that what’s beyond Dugin’s offering and that is unacceptable and ridiculous. His proposal is “America is bad and ugly, so you must accept our empire (renamed cultural influence spheres)”. As if America has only dark facets and the Soviet Empire only the bright ones.

        If the American nationalists have shame and remorse and some idea regarding the justice and fair-play, let me tell you that the Dugins have none. He is trying to hijack your fair-play and turn it in a guilt.

        If America recedes, that empty place will be filled by another empire. Angrier and hungrier than ever. With an infinitely savager record, the Dugins feel no shame and no remorse. Instead they are painting it in the brightest colors. It makes me sick!

        As I said, America is the last chance. As feeble as it may seem it is the last chance.

        The Russians are much more blase and dormant than the Americans. Any revival of the Soviet Empire will only shut down any surviving nationalists remained. The masses will not care as long as their “pride” and “messianic mission” is spared. They will go on mission much easier than than the Americans in Afghanistan.

        Dugin’s multipolarism or pluriversalism are only about their new empire and nothing else. If it wouldn’t been the case Moscow would show it already.

        Can’t you see that these people are suffering of the worst kind of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance? If it is about defending Russia, then nationalism is good. When invading others, bombing and raping to oblivion, when stealing, falsifying, plundering – it is in the name of the best empire the world has seen. No, that’s ridiculous indeed.

      • Lew
        Posted October 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        Dugin’s multipolarism or pluriversalism are only about their new empire and nothing else.

        Great comment in general, and there is some evidence for this claim. A Russian observer named Andrei Saveliev has described Putin has a Russophobe who doesn’t care about ethnic Russians and is pursuing a cosmopolitan, capitalist, liberal agenda with a Russian twist.

        There is this tendency among American Rightists to treat the enemies of our enemies as our friend. This has got to change. Islam is no friend and neither is Putin or the Russian government. It won’t help White folks is North America or Europe to trade one anti-White imperial regime for another.

        Andrei Saveliev:

        Could one call Putin a Russophobe?

        He ought to be so called. A man who denounced as ‘idiots and provocateurs’ those who repeat the phrase of Tsar Alexander III ‘Russia for Russians!’ has clearly defined himself as a stranger to our people. He decided to interpret the thesis that ethnic Russians are the ‘state-forming people’ in a liberal manner, adding the word ‘only’: ‘only for Russians’. Of course, that was never the idea at all. But the opposite thesis seems to be the guiding principle of Putin and his followers: ‘Russia without Russians.’ And here his energy is astounding. Not only the destruction of any social action by Russians, but the colonization of the country by tens of millions of foreigners—both legal and illegal immigrants. We call this the ‘policy of replacement immigration.’ Putin doesn’t like the Russian people, so he is replacing them with another people who will be easier to control. Migrants, you know, are pleased to become slaves of the liberal bureaucracy, but the native peoples of Russia demand a welfare state and government that is accountable to them. They’re too high-maintenance

        …This policy is tied to the interests of the oligarchs who take these immigrants and form them into a class of slaves who have neither social nor political rights, live under monstrous conditions and receive slave wages. The appearance of this class also serves as a mechanism for crushing the native peoples’ struggle for social rights. Because on the labour market, an immigrant who has no rights, no capacity to defend his interests, is much more profitable for an employer than a native resident, who, upon being hired, demands that his rights be observed and that there be payments into his retirement fund and other benefits.

        Mark Hackard (American with expertise on Russia):

        [Putin] closest advisers are virtually indistinguishable from the official front-men of financial elites in the West—their modernization projects are intended to strengthen the primacy of the oligarchs, and they hail mass immigration from the Caucasus and Central Asia as a disposable labor resource and political dependency. In the typically bourgeois formula of Calvin Coolidge, the business of Russia Inc. is business—production, consumption and profit. For the global civilization that Russians are entreated to join, there is no value higher.

        http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/revolt-against-oligarchy-ii/

      • Posted October 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

        I should probably mention that Dugin is as critical of Putin as he has been supportive of him. In fact he recently published a very critical book about him, “Putin vs. Putin.”

      • Razvan
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:49 am | Permalink

        @Lew,

        Thank you very much.
        Great finding too. I missed this article of Mark Hackard. Great indeed.

        When an entity behaves exactly the same for more than one thousand years, one might extrapolate about the future of that entity.

        We need to save the Western culture and civilization, strengthening and healing it from the jewish harms: doubt, greed, shallowness.

        If we don’t, the remains will not be an empty lot to start over, but a gangster paradise.

        As the Russian General Mihail Kutuzov (the same as in the battle of Borodino) said: “I’ll leave you only the eyes to weep for what you had and never have again” (addressing the local population, after the the occupation of Bessarabia in 1812, not by fight but bribe).

        Guess no one wants to weep for what he had and never have again for the sake of a sadistic imperial gangster.

        This is why the splendor of the Occident must endure. No matter the Dugin’s paint for the Filofei’s madness, nor jewish self-chosenness.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 14, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

      Razvan, you have to realize that although Dugin argues that the Soviet Union had some positive aspects, he’s not really aiming for its revival, but rather for the creation of something actually good. It seems clear to me that most intelligent Russian nationalists have already realized that they need to move forward and develop positive relationships with other Europeans. It’s much like the way nationalists in other nations are realizing similar things. Germans, for example, have transformed entirely, and now have more pan-European leanings than ever before (certainly their old anti-Slavic attitudes are largely gone; in most of them, that is).

      • Razvan
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:10 am | Permalink

        I wasn’t talking about Russian nationalists. But the imperialists from Russia. Be them Russian, jewish or easily manipulated masses. Russia for Russians indeed. But Bessarabia for Romanians. And Latvia for Latvians, Estonia for Estonians, Georgia for Georgians and so on and on and on. The Russians should have nothing to say about these peoples and countries. These countries are not Russia.

        When year after year they celebrate their victories against smaller people, how they scientifically denationalize, enslave, deport, imprison, falsify the history, distort the language, they are not talking about nationalism. They are talking about the most sinister imperialism.

        That positive part about Soviet Union is easily scattered when seeing a list of wars, border incidents and provocations in which the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation has been involved against their much smaller neighbors.

        The fact that this brand of imperialism is hurting the Russian people should be obvious for the Russian leaders. Unfortunately it is not. As any other Russian and Soviet leaders they are not fighting for the wellbeing of the Russian people.
        You can not complain that Russia is depopulating yet you maintain so many colonies in an effort to occupy others.

        These leaders are fighting to erase everyone else. They are not defending Russia by occupying (controlling economically, military, politically, culturally through their jewish proxies as always) small countries as Republic of Moldova. They are plundering an already weakened and defenseless population. There are innumerable jews plundering Moldova with the support from the Russian Federation. Where is the Putin’s fight against the jewish oligarchs? Because from this part of the world it can’t be seen – the amalgamation of dual, triple, quadruple citizens and former army, KGB, and FSB officers is too blatant. Everything well guarded by the brave Russian 14’th Army. They are insuring the constant flux of weapons, drugs, organs and blond sex slaves.

        These “brave” men are selling women to whore in Israel. And that’s a fact. It’s sickening.

        As an aside. Sometimes ago, NYPD arrested a human and organs trafficking ring of rabbis. Humans and organs from Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova. Everything smuggled through those pieces of land controlled by the Russian Army. How many arrests in this part of the world? None.

        Or how many Viktor Bout are really out there?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6kub-Ehbd4&fmt=18 might give anyone a hint. This is the real face of the Russian imperialism.

        That is not nationalism. It is simply demonic imperialism.

        Probably they should shut down the immense lying machine, stop saving other and start to save themselves, put the thugs and punks behind bars not in the Army, Secret Services or Parliament. (Of course this is true for everybody else too.)

        Russians will be much better, and everybody else too.

  8. denikin
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    I’m going to have to jump on the anti-Dugin bandwagon here. I can’t find anything concrete or coherent in this guy’s thinking. It seems like he just cobbled a philosophy together and is now trying to market it. To be honest I always found Russian intellectuals to be kind of silly, and I think it’s because they keep trying to take Western ideas and philosophical concepts and apply them to an Eastern populace. The problem is that Russians are not really Europeans, they’re someting different. Western ideas will not work for them. Dugin would be well-advised to start over.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

      While I agree that some aspects of Dugin’s thinking are kind of messed up (I have criticized him extensively in past comments), I don’t think he’s entirely bad. A lot of Western philosophers such as Carl Schmitt or Alain de Benoist have ideas to offer that are useful to anyone. As for whether or not Russians are “European,” do be careful how you use that word, because these days it has a thousand different meanings. Many people, including many Russians, define “European” as “Western.” However, this is not the way others, such as Poles, Lithuanians, or Romanians – all of whom generally call themselves European but not Western – define the term. Furthermore, if one defines it as “Indo-European,” this goes beyond “Western culture,” as does a racial definition. Just watch out for that stuff.

  9. excalibur
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    I think Dugin does not understand today’s world.If he visits Western European counties,US and maybe some Asian or African country, not only visit but live there for few years, even more importantly to free himself from any preconceptions, he will think differently.
    I have some trouble with the term “bourgeois form of life”.It seems that there are some supra-economic forces which are paramount.

  10. Posted October 11, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Originally I wasn’t going to post anything in response to this, but the above comments and, to a lesser extent, Matt’s review reveals a great deal of misinformation and prejudice against Dugin, so I feel the need to address them at least briefly (not that I expect it to do any good, to be honest):

    1. Dugin is not anti-American. Like anyone sensible, he denounces the American political and economic systems, not America as a whole. This is briefly addressed here: http://americanfront.info/2011/09/24/alexander-dugin-real-friend-to-the-american-people/ Any attempt to forge a “New Right,” American or otherwise, must have as part of its basis a rejection of the American political and economic system and what passes for American “culture” these days. If that is anti-American, then the NANR must be anti-American, in my view at least.

    2. Dugin refers to Ayn Rand as a liberal because she is one, according to the classic definition of liberalism, which is synonymous which capitalism. All writers outside of the US and the UK refer to capitalist thinkers as liberals. For the difference, see Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom,” where he clarifies the difference (and Hayek is proud to call himself a liberal in that).

    3. Yes, Dugin denounces racial supremacy of any type, but he does not disagree with the importance of maintaining racial differences, which is fundamental to his thought, since multiculturalism is part of liberalism. This is not specific to Dugin alone but is the general attitude of the entire European New Right.

    4. I don’t know how Matt can say that the ENR has never addressed the race problem. They have published many books about race. It’s just that none have been translated yet.

    5. Dugin is well aware of the Jewish question and has written about it on several occasions. Here is just one example in English: http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/defeat.html There is another essay he wrote, called “The Jews and Eurasianism,” which resulted in Dugin begin denounced as an anti-Semite, but it is untranslated as of yet. He does not write about the Jews to the exclusion of all else. As the NANR should learn, eventually you have to get past obsessing about the Jews and actually decide what you want to do, which is where Dugin is way ahead of us. As should go without saying after reading the essay linked above, Dugin has never expressed philo-Semitism of any kind.

    6. Dugin does not see Russia as a part of Europe and insists on Russia’s unique identity. So to say that he is attempting to adapt Western ideas for the Russian situation is ridiculous, since he refers to as many Russian thinkers as European ones (and American ones as well). As for saying that the philosophy of a particular nation is unique to that nation and that one alone, and therefore has no relevance to any other nation, that is just stupid. By that logic, Americans shouldn’t bother to study German or French philosophy and apply it here (when America has already been greatly influenced by both).

    • Posted October 11, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      John,

      1. Dugin is not anti-American.

      Calling Ayn Rand and George Soros both “American” could only be anti-American propaganda. Later on in the book, he calls for a rebellion against the White American male, does he not? The vast difference between his definition of “American” (one which is expanded to include Russians he dislikes!) and the typical American deserved a clarification in the text, in my opinion.

      2. Dugin refers to Ayn Rand as a liberal because she is one, according to the classic definition of liberalism, which is synonymous which capitalism.

      I objected to his claim that she’s an American, not that she’s a “liberal”. I agree with Dugin’s analysis of Ayn Rand.

      3. Yes, Dugin denounces racial supremacy of any type, but he does not disagree with the importance of maintaining racial differences, which is fundamental to his thought, since multiculturalism is part of liberalism.

      That interpretation was what I began with and what survived the first several chapters. It did not survive his chapter on gender.

      4. I don’t know how Matt can say that the ENR has never addressed the race problem. They have published many books about race. It’s just that none have been translated yet.

      I would love to know the titles and perhaps any reviews in English. Aside from a thoughtful aside on race in Evola’s Metaphysics of War, what I’ve seen have been politically correct word games at best and outright anti-White at worst.

      5. Dugin is well aware of the Jewish question and has written about it on several occasions. Here is just one example in English: http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/defeat.html There is another essay he wrote, called “The Jews and Eurasianism,” which resulted in Dugin begin denounced as an anti-Semite, but it is untranslated as of yet.

      It’s his issue whether he wants to engage the JQ or not in this work or elsewhere. I believe his listing of Ayn Rand, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke as “Americans” warrants a friendly correction. That’s all.

      He does not write about the Jews to the exclusion of all else. As the NANR should learn, eventually you have to get past obsessing about the Jews and actually decide what you want to do, which is where Dugin is way ahead of us.

      I stated in my review that I agree with Dugin that Western capitalism and not “the Jews” is at the root of the problem. I just glanced at the last ten articles I’ve posted and none of them are focused on the Jewish Question. I believe I’m being strawmanned on this count.

      6. Dugin does not see Russia as a part of Europe and insists on Russia’s unique identity.

      I respect and understand that. I also agree with that, that there’s an entirely different tradition and spirit at work there than in Western Europe.

      As for saying that the philosophy of a particular nation is unique to that nation and that one alone, and therefore has no relevance to any other nation, that is just stupid.

      That would indeed be stupid if that were what I meant. What I intended to convey is that we don’t necessarily need to resolve the subjective narratives of different identity groups. There are some things, especially historical narratives, which are as mythic as they are factual.

      As the balance of the comments demonstrates, this issue is a major stumbling block to spreading his ideas here. My article attempted to contextualize his anti-American rhetoric and encourage Americans to explore his ideas despite those concerns.

      • Posted October 12, 2012 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        Replying to Matt:

        “Calling Ayn Rand and George Soros both “American” could only be anti-American propaganda.”

        That’s just splitting hairs. Ayn Rand and George Soros are quintessentially American, in terms of what America is today. We need to give up on this view of an idealized America that no longer exists, if it ever did. America today is absolutely represented by people such as them. Secular Judaism and American culture are synonymous today. Just ask any of the untold millions of non-Jewish Americans who love “Seinfeld.” White Nationalists need to get realistic about what America really is.

        “Later on in the book, he calls for a rebellion against the White American male, does he not? The vast difference between his definition of “American” (one which is expanded to include Russians he dislikes!) and the typical American deserved a clarification in the text, in my opinion.”

        I think it’s clear in the book that the idea of “whiteness” that Dugin objects to is that which was created by American capitalism in the post-war era, not any authentic identity that is rooted in traditions. And this type of artificial “whiteness” is an archetype that has spread throughout the world.

        “I objected to his claim that she’s an American, not that she’s a “liberal”. I agree with Dugin’s analysis of Ayn Rand.”

        Hmmm… “In one especially irritating example among many, he explains how American ‘liberal’ Ayn Rand’s capitalist ideology of Objectivism is the Protestant work ethic taken to its logical extreme.” Perhaps that’s what you meant, but that’s not how it reads.

        “That interpretation was what I began with and what survived the first several chapters. It did not survive his chapter on gender.”

        How so?

        “I would love to know the titles and perhaps any reviews in English. Aside from a thoughtful aside on race in Evola’s Metaphysics of War, what I’ve seen have been politically correct word games at best and outright anti-White at worst.”

        I don’t know of any reviews in English. Precious little is available. There have been some articles written by those hostile to the New Right in English. I don’t have time to come up with a comprehensive list, but Alain de Benoist’s “The Study of Intelligence and the IQ Controversy” was published by the Institute of Man in English in 1998. GRECE dealt with racial issues in the 1960s and ’70s – they eventually moved beyond it.

        “It’s his issue whether he wants to engage the JQ or not in this work or elsewhere. I believe his listing of Ayn Rand, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke as “Americans” warrants a friendly correction. That’s all.”

        Fair enough. I don’t have any more to say about this than I did above.

        “I stated in my review that I agree with Dugin that Western capitalism and not “the Jews” is at the root of the problem. I just glanced at the last ten articles I’ve posted and none of them are focused on the Jewish Question. I believe I’m being strawmanned on this count.”

        I was addressing some of the people commenting, and not you specifically.

        “That would indeed be stupid if that were what I meant. What I intended to convey is that we don’t necessarily need to resolve the subjective narratives of different identity groups. There are some things, especially historical narratives, which are as mythic as they are factual.”

        Again, this was addressed mainly to one of the comments, not to your article. Perhaps I shouldn’t have replied to both simultaneously. But as for the historical narratives, those outside America have an ability to look at the realities of America that is untainted by all of the illusions that we adopt here to get through everyday life. Very often, their criticisms hit closer to the mark of those realities than those of many who are supposedly on our side, and reflect truths that they sometimes have difficulty acknowledging.

        “As the balance of the comments demonstrates, this issue is a major stumbling block to spreading his ideas here. My article attempted to contextualize his anti-American rhetoric and encourage Americans to explore his ideas despite those concerns.”

        Yes, and I appreciate that, although I disagree with your conclusions. I should mention that Dugin posted your article to his own Facebook wall today, somewhat to my surprise. When I asked him what he thought of it, his response was, “In essence he is right I think.” So perhaps I’m being too hard on you.

    • Lew
      Posted October 12, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

      As the NANR should learn, eventually you have to get past obsessing about the Jews and actually decide what you want to do, which is where Dugin is way ahead of us.

      John,

      Suppose I wrote this sentence:

      “As the ENR should learn, eventually you have to get past obsessing about America and capitalism and actually decide what you want to do.”

      I’ll venture a guess it strikes you as a flawed question? Clearly, the problems created by certain forms of capitalism and American influence in the world (more precisely US gov + mass media influence) require discussing these topics often. Just as you can’t properly analyze our situation without considering the impact of capitalism, you can’t do a complete diagnosis of our problems without addressing the Jewish role as often as capitalism and these other factors.

      Given his keen interest in curbing American influence in the world, it’s not clear why Dugin avoids the topic or at least seems to give it minimal weight. The US government often serves as a surrogate for Jewish power and has for years. Given the number of Jews in the highest echelons of international finance, it’s not clear why he avoids the topic in this area either especially if he is not a philo-semite or the Russian equivalent of a neocon.

      • Posted October 12, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

        As I detailed in my longer response, Dugin HAS addressed the Jewish question, on many occasions, so the point is moot. My point is, he actually writes about other topics as well. From some of the comments I see here at CC and elsewhere on English-language sites, I sometimes get the impression that many people would prefer that we should ONLY talk about Jews and race. That is not any kind of Right that I want to be involved with.

      • Posted October 12, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

        I should also add that, if one’s primary concern is to fight Jewish power, then the best way to do that is to combat the U.S. government and economic system, and its tendrils around the world, since America, and liberal capitalism itself, is the most powerful instrument Zionism has ever had on its side. So, in that sense, Dugin’s approach makes more sense to me.

      • Lew
        Posted October 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

        John,

        Yes, I read the article. It doesn’t moot my point. My point is that whatever he does in his secondary writings, Dugin does not appear to address Jews in his fourth political theory. Yet he appears to claim it provides a comprehensive analysis of liberal modernity and a solution for its problems. It doesn’t, and it can’t, because of that omission. It doesn’t matter that some of what Dugin says about the impact of capitalism is true; his analysis is incomplete, and therefore flawed, and therefore of questionable value outside Russia. I say this based on videos I have seen of Dugin discussing his work, discussions of his work on this web site and other sites, and on Matt Parrott’s review above.

        In his fourth political theory, as far as I can tell Dugin doesn’t discuss Jews like he discusses factors like America and capitalism — as a force in the world that needs to be identified, fought and overcome through political struggle.

        In the article you linked up above, Dugin addressed the JQ in terms of tensions and incompatibilities between the Jewish and non-Jewish worldviews. He concluded the problems these tensions create for traditionalists can be solved through mutual “understanding.” Personally, I think that’s fantasy because a resurgence of traditionalism around the world is not good for the Jews, and the Jews only respond to power.

        Overall, I thought Dugin’s treatment of the JQ in that particular discussion was mighty respectful given the Jews’ treatment of the hated Russian goy, other slavic goys and their traditional cultures (hated from the Jewish point of view).

        To put it bluntly, I think anyone but especially a Russian trying to lay off the world’s problems on America and Americans is comical.

        Jews overthrew the Tsar, raped his daughter, murdered his family; Jews were in the vanguard of seizing control of Russia; Jews led the mass slaughter of slavic peoples in Ukraine and elsewhere; and, despite this, Dugin’s countrymen, the Russian people, marched into battle against Germany under the banner of Bolshevism and destroyed the one nation in the world that would have prevented the “jewish/american spirit” from being loosed upon humanity.

      • Posted October 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

        Lew: yawn.

      • Roissy Hater
        Posted October 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

        “To put it bluntly, I think anyone but especially a Russian trying to lay off the world’s problems on America and Americans is comical.”

        Lew, I totally agree.

        The only reason WNs and defenders of the West get sick of/refuse to talk about the JQ is because they know there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. And they don’t want to be laughed at.

        That’s fine, when JQ-deniers find out the world is being herded into a dystopia with concentration camps they can pray to Yahweh for help.

      • Daniel Constantin
        Posted October 14, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

        Lew, you can talk about the Jewish problem all day long, but I have discovered that taking a break from it every now and then does indeed help one think more in-depth about other issues. If I was always in anti-Jewish combat mode, I doubt I would have ever bothered to read the works of Alain de Benoist, Oswald Spengler, Ludwig Klages, etc. I would still be reading books that focus mainly on Jews. Seriously, people need to relax sometimes to put things into perspective. If you really want to solve the Jewish problem, you’re going to need to properly understand the other problems surrounding it first.

      • Razvan
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 8:06 am | Permalink

        @John Morgan

        I take only two small paragraph from
        http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/axe.html
        “Axe is the name of mine”. By Alexandr Dugin

        “We Russians are a blessed nation. Therefore all our manifestations – lofty and shabby, comely and terrifying – are sanctified by otherworldly senses, by rays of the otherworldly city, are washed by transcendent moisture. In the abundance of the national Grace the good and the evil are mixed, pour from one to another, and suddenly the dark lightens, whereas something white becomes a mere hell. We are as unknowable as the Absolute. We are a divine nation. Even our Crime is incomparably superior to some other’s virtue.”

        And:
        http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/the%20Jews%20and%20Eurasia.htm
        “The Jews and Eurasia”
        “Jewish orientalism, the deeds of humbleness and sublime insensateness of the first legendary tsadiki, the sincere compassion to our fellow creatures, irrespective of their racial and religious origins, the fanatical belief in equity and the honest building of society, and at last, that vaguely guessed solidarity with another tragical and beautiful people of history, too elected, chosen by God, the Russian people – all this is ineradicable from a definite part of hebraism, inseparable from its unique destiny. ”

        Also the part regarding Lazar Kaganovitch.

        With his method you can justify everything. Including torching the planet. It looks some mambo-jumbo of a mad man rationalizing some multi million killings.

        “Even our Crime is incomparably superior to some other’s virtue.”

        Sorry, but he’s not distancing from the JQ, he’s searching for allies while strawmaning “America”. While we are fed up with jewish chosenness, what was missing was the Third Rome Holy Empire and its good “orientalist” jewish proxies as opposed to the bad “occidental-american ” ones. Great.

      • Lew
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        Daniel,

        I agree there should not be an exclusive focus on Jews. I’m not suggesting otherwise. The West is facing many problems. Jewish influence is one important problem but not the only one. Therefore, discussing it makes sense in some contexts but not others. The problem comes in with these thinkers that discuss every problem facing the West except Jewish influence (liberalism, secularism, multiculturalism, low birth rates, capitalism, economics, or “America”).

        No thinker should be allowed to get away with spreading incorrect (or deliberately misleading) information without JQ-aware Rightists responding. It’s the responsible thing to do. In some cases, friendly correction might be in order. In others, pointing out lies by omission that intended to mislead people might be in order. It’s not “America” or “Americans” using the global mass media to bombard the world’s traditional societies with all forms of trash. I’m not sure which side of the fence Dugin is lining up on.

  11. Posted October 11, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    I think I agree with all of your “I agree” statements, Matt. Great writing, as always.

    Love the poster the editors picked for this.

  12. rhondda
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Well, I have not finished Dugin’s book yet, but I am impressed. He has energy and vitality and he is reaching for the stars. It’s an idea, a conception, not a perception. He is delineating a mental space not a concrete place. The argument should be about that, not whether his perceptions of America is correct or not.
    There used to be a TV show on Canadian TV called ‘Talking to Americans” I don’t watch TV anymore, so I don’t know if it is still on or not. But Rich Mercier would go to the states and ask Americans what they thought about something that was totally absurd that he claimed Canadians did. We would just hoot with the answers given. One was “What do you think of the Canadian custom of putting their elderly on ice flows?” I told my kids ‘ hey that’s what you can do with me.’
    Dugin is talking about political theories, not the American people as such. I think it is just tragic that Americans let their government oppress them so much. I always thought that the American spirit was adventure, innovation, and determination. We Canadians were supposed to be the placid ones. The dark side of all your heros have been thrown in your face.
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang
    but a whimper.

  13. fnn
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    Am I wrong in thinking that Rand was never very popular outside the US ? After all, it’s perfectly normal to encounter Americans who are or were fans of Rand, but I’ve never encountered a non-American afflicted with this malady. So, regardless of ancestry and place of birth and education, she seems like an essentially American phenomenon.

    “I believe his listing of Ayn Rand, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke as “Americans” warrants a friendly correction.”

    I thought he was cautiously making a point about Jewish domination of the US.

    • Posted October 11, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

      fnn,

      I thought he was cautiously making a point about Jewish domination of the US.

      That crossed my mind as a possibility. If that’s the case, then he created an opportunity for writers like me to explicitly connect those dots and discuss that issue.

      I think some are leaving this article with the impression that I’m anti-Dugin. I’m not. I’m digesting and discussing his ideas. I’m participating in an international discussion about his ideas. Ideally, Dugin could even participate directly.

      • Posted October 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

        I just thought I’d mention, as I did above, that Prof. Dugin posted this review to his Facebook wall yesterday. I asked him what he thought of it, and he said, “In essence he is right I think.” When I asked for clarification, he replies as follows:

        Not exactly. Right because the Americans close to New Right should have the explanation of the reason of their pitiful state and have the inner enemies. My vision is US seen outside. This picture is common in general to the Russians, Asians and also partly Europeans. So it is correct in itself (may be some details are wrong, but that doesn’t matter much). That is not my lack of understanding but the divergency between outward image and inward one of USA. So I would wish to America to be better and to accomplish the inner Revolution against the inner enemy. I support that and I forgive any critics against myself on the condition that American New Right will progress and develop in US.

  14. Dominion
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    From some comments, I get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about what the fourth theory is meant to be for. In my view, and in Dugin’s as well, I believe, the point of the fourth theory is to establish the first principles of restoring a transcendent order (or Eternity, as Dugin puts it) as a foundation for societies. Each people and civilization manifest and develop these in a unique way (being-in-the-world, or Dasein). Thus, the theory is universal in principles, useful for a white American, a European, an indigenous South American, a Turkic Eurasian, a black Muslim in Timbuktu, etc.

    As I’ve brought up elsewhere, Dugin’s use of being-in-the-world as a basis for an ideology is far more ingenious than some seem to realize. While it is true, as some have stated, that the people will likely not be ‘storming the Bastille’ anytime soon over ‘Dasein’, However, the fourth political theory must be one which creates a slow shift, an enduring force in this waning of the current cycle, a theory which can be applied to people living their lives, formed by ethny and gender and culture and transcendence; not simply another way for the angst-ridden to try and realize their dream of a sexy revolution, flags and thunder behind them. Purposefully applying the principles of Tradition (again, what he seems to refer to as Eternity) to shape ones being-in-the-world as a person, a people, and a civilization seems a prime way to allow Tradition to manifest in countless forms.

    • Posted October 12, 2012 at 12:49 am | Permalink

      Dominion, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      • Dominion
        Posted October 12, 2012 at 1:25 am | Permalink

        John, good to know I’m not entirely insane.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

      Dominion, while I agree that Dugin’s presence and contributions are generally a good thing, I think that the kind of “slow shift” you’re talking about has already progressed long before Dugin’s recent rise into popularity. Think about it, the revival of the thought of the German Conservative Revolution (from Spengler, Freyer, Sombart, Schmitt, Spann, Klages, etc.), the contributions of Julius Evola, New Right thinkers such as Armin Mohler, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Tomislav Sunic, etc. and the internationalization of these thinkers’ intellectual contributions. The change is happening. Really, Dugin is late in the game, and while he’s of some use, I doubt he’ll be the primary philosopher leading the “game.”

  15. Lew
    Posted October 11, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    Based on this review, Dugin’s views on Rand appear to be superficial.

    Obviously Rand identified as an American and wanted to be remembered as an American. She also wanted to be remembered as staunch opponent of Marxism and communist repression. Rand did a lot in her time to oppose and speak out against communism while American liberals and Jews from that era were busy white-washing the communist record. She defended Joesph McCarthy, a man despised by Jews and liberals not because he was wrong but because he was right. Rand did denounce racism as barnyard collectivism. But she also opposed integration and the Civil Rights Act while Dugin’s countrymen were using American “racism” for propaganda purposes to bludgeon the US government for not forcibly integrating whites with blacks. Rand defended Charles Lindbergh’s early accomplishments in the years after he was falsely labeled an anti-Semite by Jews.

    Rand’s absurdly zealous defense of capitalism is perfectly understandable given she was raised in the Soviet Union under the Bolsheviks. Many Rand critics forget or ignore this context.

    Rand’s primary intellectual influences were not Americans. There is nothing “American” about Nietzsche and Aristotle. They’re not classical liberals either. Rand carved out her own epistemology based on an idea she called measurement-omission, another area where she owes no debt to any American.

    Grouping Ayn Rand with George Soros is ludicrous. Obviously, and this is basic, there are different forms and strains of capitalism. Broadly, there is capitalism that creates and capitalism that exploits and extracts. It’s clear from Rand’s writings that she celebrated the former — a capitalism of production. Hank Rearden, her prototype for the industrial genius, makes his money the way Henry Ford and Steve Jobs made theirs, through creative genius and productive activity building real products. George Soros, on the other hand, makes his money through parasitical financial speculation, not by producing a good or delivering a service. As I recall, none of Rand’s industrial heroes in Atlas Shrugged made money through financial speculation for profit. Rand’s capitalists were not portrayed making money doing the 50s-era equivalent of packaging default credit swaps and subprime mortgages for sale with AAA ratings . Her capitalists were oil barons, train magnates, capitalists that did things. Thus, George Soros and Ayn Rand defend capitalism of different characters that resemble each other only superficially.

    Regarding the ENR critique of capitalism in general, what, exactly, is new or original about it? As far as I can tell, the ENR links their critique of capitalism to ethnic self-determination and autonomy — admittedly a very important linkage. That said, Americans too have a long tradition of opposing finance capitalism going back to Thomas Jefferson. They’ve just been defeated in power struggles. Thomas Jefferson defended the agrarian tradition. Andrew Jackson dismantled the National Bank. William Jennings Bryan argued for going off the gold standard and onto silver because the gold standard favored east coast banking interests over ordinary people.

    Theodore Roosevelt said this:

    Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country.

    Who among the ENRightists or anywhere in Europe for that matter ever said it better than that?

    America also produced Eugene Debs, Father Coughlin and Huey P. Long, all critics of capitalism. America produced numerous isolationists who opposed war on Germany both times. Henry Ford sounded the alarm on Jews in the 1920s. Even today, there is a fairly visible anti-corporate, anti-globalist, and anti-capitalist left active in America. They exerted influence on the OWS protests.

    So, the claim that America has always been this monolithic, materialist, capitalist engine is simply not true. There have always been countervailing and opposing currents and forces in America against capitalist excess. These other Euros ought to quit writing about aspects of America they don’t appear to understand or at least be more careful in what they say, unless, of course, their intent all along is to take cheap shots.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 14, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

      “Who among the ENRightists or anywhere in Europe for that matter ever said it better than that?”

      I personally think that Francis Parker Yockey said it better than that… way better than that. Can’t forget about Carl Schmitt either. Then there’s a whole list of other great Europeans that I admire more than any American leader who said similar things. I do not even have to being listing out popular European nationalist figures because they are well known around here.

      • Lew
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

        Let’s see their prose cut then.

      • Daniel Constantin
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        Lew,

        First of all, the problem with Theodore Roosevelt is that while he was a racialist and a critic of materialism and the power of monopolies, he basically supported a system which was conducive of the very things he was criticizing in the quote you cited above. The fact is that the American capitalist system has always been conducive to and has encouraged hyper-individualism and materialism which will lead to money-centered living, the rule of money, and the rise of a “homo economicus-dollaricus” (to use Sunic’s phrase). This is the problem I find with so many Americans: they all seem to be dreaming about the same things Europeans are but don’t seem to know how to get there. And ironically, Lew, Roosevelt was also one of the American presidents which we can find complaining about the supposed persecution of Jews in Russia. I’m only mentioning this because we just have to scroll up a bit on this page and we can find you talking about we strongly have to focus on the Jewish Problem. So the question is, how great was Roosevelt really?

        Now, as for those quotes you requested:

        Yockey (from “Imperium”): “The financier has only power, no responsibility, not even symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History, Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private, anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is for money and ever more money.”

        Another from Yockey: “The most powerful money-magnates are not well-known to the masses, nor do they wish to be. Fame, responsibility, and sanctions go together. The Master of Money desires no limelight, no risk of life, but only money and ever more money. Party politicians exist only to protect him and his operations. The courts are there to enforce his usury. The remnants of the State are there to do him service. Armies march when his trade system is challenged. He is subject to nothing, he is the new Sovereign.”

        I could go on for pages with Yockey quotes. Here’s a speech by Oswald Mosley on globalisation dealing with the same issues surrounding money:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxSVuMIQ6ns

        Now you tell me, what American has ever said it as good as that?

        The fact is that I can find hundreds of Europeans dealing with this issue, and unlike their American counterparts they are not hypocritical nor do they suffer from cognitive dissonance (meaning, they do not support a system which creates what they criticize).

      • Lew
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

        Daniel,

        Yes; they said it very well (especially Moseley). I agree. Thanks for running those down and posting them.

        Roosevelt was also one of the American presidents which we can find complaining about the supposed persecution of Jews in Russia. I’m only mentioning this because we just have to scroll up a bit on this page and we can find you talking about we strongly have to focus on the Jewish Problem. So the question is, how great was Roosevelt really?

        I didn’t know this. It’s interesting. He appears to have been totally uninformed on the JQ, although, maybe this is understandable. Jews didn’t hold so many dominant positions and other circumstances were different.

        But, to clarify, my main point about the JQ is that it needs to be addressed today, by people who are alive today, in proper context and in a reasonable, founded manner to the extent this is feasible. I better start adding that last part from now on to ward off the impression I think Jews and only Jews should be discussed out of context from all other problems. How people treated the JQ in the past is unimportant other than to learn from it. The evidence seems to show ignoring it doesn’t help. It’s part of the reason Jews have so much power. Almost no one has openly opposed them since WW2. Even then, it was basically only the German leadership that specifically identified their influence as a negative for the nation.

        The fact is that the American capitalist system has always been conducive to and has encouraged hyper-individualism and materialism which will lead to money-centered living, the rule of money, and the rise of a “homo economicus-dollaricus” (to use Sunic’s phrase).

        I’d have to see his definitions, arguments and examples before agreeing in such broad strokes “the American capitalist system” is responsible for those outcomes. Generally, not speaking to Sunic, I think once you make people who argue in these terms use precise definitions (what form of capitalism?) and give empirical evidence to support the other claims (who has ever self-described as living a “money-centered” life?), the case that “capitalism” (broadly) is a problem becomes less clear.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      Lew,

      America has always used capitalism as its economic form; using the term in its general sense. It is true that there have been variations in policies, and different forms of capitalism have been practiced, but it was still capitalism and had its basic components and consequences. What the problem is with any form of capitalism is that this basically generates a method of life in which a large amount of people, sometimes even the majority, become obsessed with making more and more money and oftentimes depreciate or sacrifice things that have little or no economic value (but high cultural or spiritual value). The focus in capitalism is always profit, hence why it is called capitalism. This is exactly why oftentimes in America you see negative changes which are basically “profitable” for business, but harmful in a cultural, racial, or spiritual sense (such as giving up certain traditions or lifestyles or opening up the borders for cheap immigrant labor).

      Furthermore, capitalism gives way to the manipulation of politics by wealthy businessmen. The only successful response is the limitation of capitalism to the point where the accumulation of money cannot possibly lead to an influence on politics, which amounts to the elimination of capitalism and thus the implementation of some form of socialism. As Spengler’s famous question went: “shall business rule the state, or the state rule business?” (from “Prussianism and Socialism”). The fact is that Americans who are today obsessed with maintaining their tradition of capitalism will have to face these facts and realize that they should look to European nationalist models for proper economics.

      If you want good critiques and commentaries on capitalism, I would particularly recommend the works of Yockey (coincidentially enough), Spengler, Schmitt, Edgar Julius Jung, Werner Sombart, Julius Evola, Hans Freyer (if you can read German), and Alain de Benoist. There’s many more (especially in the Neue Rechte), but that gives you a good start. And certainly you cannot argue that these respectable intellectuals are merely fools who don’t even know what captialism is.

      • Daniel Constantin
        Posted October 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

        Lew,

        I forgot to mention Othmar Spann in that list of intellectuals. I might also note that there’s a really good book in English known as “Economic Life in the Modern Age” collecting various key selections from Werner Sombart’s works. It’s definitely something you’d want to look at if you wanted to understand what capitalism is and why it is ultimately undesirable.

  16. Jaego
    Posted October 12, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Well said. There’s no crime in being defeated if you’ve fought the good fight. You just have to try again. As is said in Zen, fall down six times get up seven.

    And good defence of Rand – she’s wasn’t all bad and her books contain many insights into the corruptions of capitalism and the parasites who parrot them. But as Covington said, her books will go into the flames with everything else alien. Hopefully those flames will be metaphorical and metaphysical and not actual. Her heroes were Aryan Supermen although she could never bring herself to say it. And obviously, she’s not the one to look to for building a social saftety net or the actual renewal of White Culture. She was an outsider looking in and worshiping.

    Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I belive Nietzsche recognized the great Capitalists as having some of the qualities of the Overman – though obviously lacking in a sense of the sacred.

  17. Posted October 12, 2012 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    As usual, a great article by Matt Parrott. I don’t see why the same (or similar) points Trainspotter made here (http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/10/battered-white-nationalist-syndrome/) should not apply to silly “race is just a social construct”-talk from people like Dugin.

  18. Roissy Hater
    Posted October 12, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Today’s Russians and today’s Americans are not the same people who existed 30 or 40 years ago. Increased consumerism, degeneracy, constant electronic media usage, spiritual apathy, and self-denigration/multiculturalism has led the people of both countries into a state of complete passivity.

    We now live in a unipolar, globalist agglomeration. Using old models, like the idea of civic participation (as opposed to the reality of ‘totalitarian humanism’) as a means to change politics or nationalism and ethnic identity are dead ends.

    The world has passed we (who believe in prior forms of identity that are more than economic) by. It’s not going to revert back.

    • Stronza
      Posted October 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      How do you know it’s not going to revert? It could, you know – it’s just that it might take a long time. As individuals have been reborn, so could an entire societies. I say, why not? (I’m not referring to Christian style rebirth here.)

      • Roissy Hater
        Posted October 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        I agree that cycles come and go, but I think that those who control us plan on using technology to permanently keep us in a Brave New World – Blade Runner world where they can use us for their own nefarious purposes.

        It’s very Biblical to think in terms of final outcomes, but my inquiry into the subject of Zionism tells me that the whole charade is about creating a post-industrial mongrelized humanity, ruled by the UN. Our controllers have advanced technology to do their work for them, so dumbing us down or miscegenating us is not going to hurt their profits at this point.

      • Daniel Constantin
        Posted October 14, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        History is essentially upredictable; this is what people who adopt determinist attitudes keep forgetting.

    • Sandy
      Posted October 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      You raise a good point there Roissy: Today’s Russians and today’s Americans are not the same people who existed 30 or 40 years ago. Increased consumerism, degeneracy, constant electronic media usage, spiritual apathy, and self-denigration/multiculturalism has led the people of both countries into a state of complete passivity. I would also add in the way our food is prepared(or unprepared, if you prefer) for us and the heavy metals introduced into our bodies through vaccinations that messes up our internal electronics but I’ll leave that to someone who knows what he is talking about. But even, so we still function well enough to support a way out for future generations.

  19. fnn
    Posted October 12, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a young American reactionary with some good videos:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nrSI2WU00&feature=relmfu

    He mentions Sunic, so I doubt if he’s an Israel Firster like Moldbug.

  20. fnn
    Posted October 13, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Just to bring up an example that no one recalls, NSADAP and KPD were open allies in the 1932 Berlin Transit Strike. That was in the pre-postmodern era when strikes were a big deal.

    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=140990

    Both Communist and Nazi trade unions played a leading role in organizing a public transportation strike in Berlin in November 1932. Early November 1932 the “Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft” (BVG), a municipal transport organization, announced a cut in wages. Due to the severe economic crisis there was simply not enough money to pay all the BVG workers. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for November 6, and Communist and Nazis expected to make significant gains if they were to play a leading role in an anti-BVG strike. The Communist “Revolutionäre Gewerkschaftsopposition” (RGO) and the Nazi “Nationalsozialistischen Betriebszellenorganisation” (NSBO) simply outmanoeuvred the moderate trade unions in the central strike committee. This was in line with what KPD party chief Ernst Thälmann had said in October 1932: “When strikes are being organized in firms and companies, it is absolutely essential and desirable that Nazis are invited to take part in the Strike Committees.”18

    This was part of the “common front strategy from below” recommended by high ranking Comintern officials.19 Instead of forming alliances with moderate Social-Democrats (invariably denounced as “Social-Fascists”) the Communists joined ranks with the equally extremist Nazis. Hitler’s notoriously violent SA-men or “brownshirts” and Communists marched together through the streets of Berlin – even destroying buses whose drivers had ignored the call to strike.

  21. Percy Arbeghast
    Posted October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    I have not read Dugin’s work (and probably won’t bother based on this review) but I can add my metaphorical two cents to this debate since I have a Russian girlfriend.

    Russia does have an immigration problem primarily due to its extensive Muslim population who have an unfortunate and provocative habit of planned street worship to demonstrate their power. Then there are the various immigrants from the Asian states who provide shoddy but cheap labour.

    The main positive issue though is that ‘Russian’ means someone who is ethnically Russian. It does not refer to someone who merely resides in the Russian Federation or who has somehow managed to obtain a Russian passport. The issue is ethnicity rather than nationality.

    At a time when any Tom, Dick, Shalom, or Mohammed can be American (or British or Irish or French) such a divergent approach is most welcome and should be encouraged.

  22. Achaean
    Posted October 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Jaego’s observation that Rand’s “heroes were Aryan Supermen…an outsider looking in and worshiping” is all too true among many non-whites. Whites are resented because they are admired. Non-Whites don’t want to eliminate but to provinciallize them — make sure Whites are not singularly proud of their achievements but view themselves as members of a wider collection of ethnicities all of which are important to the “West”. Deep down they know Whites founded the best societies in the world; even Jews are aware of their minimal constribution to European civilization prior to the 1800s (hard at work as they are redefining Europe’s foundation as “Judeo-Christian”). Liberal whites are embarrassed by the greatness of Europe and America; it belies their egalitarian ideals, and this is why academics have spent the last 100 years finding reasons to explain away, hide, degrade, excuse, diversify the accomplishments of ancient Greece, Rome, Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance…to the point that grad students today come out of university barely aware of Europe’s supreme greatness. They don’t know that over 90 percent of the great deeds, artistic works, philosophical treatises, musical compositions were white male creations. Rushton et. al. have ranked East Asians on top of the IQ totem poll but have yet to explain the superior creative destruction of Europeans. Rushton mentions but does not measure personality traits associated with the joy of creation and the will to power. IQ advocates appear to admire the “preserver types” who engage in orderly scientific endeavors, which the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are so good at.

    Creative Destruction: Nietzsche may have recognized “the great Capitalists as having some of the qualities of the Overman”, but it was Joseph Schumpeter who located a modern Nietzschean overman in capitalist entrepreneurs with a powerful personality capable of employing their rationality for the joy of creation, the impulse to fight off competitors, and the will to conquer markets. Capitalist overmen were creative destroyers of the existing economic conditions (Nietzsche: “Whoever must be a creator always annihilates”). Schumpeter did not identify the bourgeois entrepreneur with the last man; to the contrary: “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces, than have all preceding generations together.‎”

    Very different from Nietzsche’s identification of the bourgeoisie with all the things he despised. For Schumpeter, capitalism personified the will to power, the opposite of preservation, stagnation, the status quo: “Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary…‎” But Schumpeter was not optimistic, and under the influence of Weber’s iron cage, saw a future in which capitalism would be replaced by a panoply of bureaucratic bodies, collectivities, regulations, and masses of last men concerned with orderly management, regularity and continuity — even as the society continued to innovate and promote development.

    I think of this society as “Chinese”; or, it brings to mind a passage from Nietzsche’s Gay Science: “…for the claims of the strong dissatisfied persons are too gross, and really too modest to resist being finally quieted down. China is an instance of a country in which dissatisfaction on a grand scale and the capacity for transformation have died out for many centuries; and the Socialists and state-idolaters of Europe could easily bring things to Chinese conditions and to a Chinese ‘happiness,’ with their measures for the amelioration and security of life, provided that they could first of all root out the sicklier, tenderer, more feminine dissatisfaction and Romanticism which are still very abundant among us.”

    I can’t see how one can talk about white nationalism while envisioning a romantic pluriverse world in which, in fact, a select group of East Asians will naturally dominate the meritocratic ordering of a regulated world economy both through their own nations and inside white nations as the dominant technocratic elite — without powerful European personalities seeking to employ their rationality and will to initiate a new order and a new process of creative destruction. How can the will to conquer in a rational way not be a WN goal? Spengler’s writings in the 30s on the coming struggle for world power within an industrial-military complex are relevant. He was dead right in his criticisms of National Socialism. As the Wiki article on him clearly puts it: “Although himself a German nationalist, Spengler viewed the Nazis as too narrowly German, and not occidental enough to lead the fight against other peoples.” The Germanic peoples are obviously central to Europe’s revival to a position of economic and cultural superiority (one does not have to call this “racial supremacy”) but it means competition, for example, with China inside Africa and around the world — unless we ourselves become more Chinese as Rushton and Lynn suggest. Needless to say, the notion that the current liberal oder will be ended peacefully is delusional; from whatever angle one looks at the future — the struggle to end liberalism and then compete in the so-called pluriverse world — it means that WNs and the Occident generally will have to express their modern paths in a Faustian way.

  23. Daniel Constantin
    Posted October 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know if anyone else addressed this, but I should point out that Matt Parrott does not seem to understand why certain European identitarians or nationalists claim to be “anti-racist” but uphold the idea of ethnic and racial separatism at the same time. It is obviously not only Dugin who does this, and actually not even only the New Right; there are in fact some modern “old right” type of people taking up this language as well. This basically has to do with how a person defines the term “racism.”

    What some people are doing is defining it as “supremacism” (i.e. the idea of a race being superior to others and/or the practice of putting down other races) and then basically asserting that they oppose “racism,” which they proceed to distinguish from simply having and preserving and ethno-racial identity. What this allows them to do is simultaneously say that they oppose white racism as well as anti-white racism; i.e. they oppose their own destruction as a people by the invasion of hostile foreigners. So it becomes evident here that when a European nationalist denounces “racism” while at the same time supporting racial separatism, they are clearly not using the term in the sense that most Americans are familiar with. See Alain de Benoist’s “Manifesto for a European Renaissance” for a concise explanation of the matter.

    As for the fact that Dugin is living in a mostly white country and “can afford to denounce supremacism,” there are three things need to be taken into account: (1) Denouncing racial supremacism is hardly the same thing as denouncing the idea of upholding racial identity and insisting on separation, as my explanation of the new usage of the term “racism” reveals; (2) many Europeans such as the French and the English who are taking an “anti-supremacist” stance have and are indeed experiencing seriou racial problems, so this has nothing to do with a lack of inter-racial contact, and; (3) claiming that you believe that your race is superior to others in the current situation is tactically absurd and plays right into the hands of our enemies. I am, of course, saying this without implying that Dugin is secretly a racial supremacist or anything like that. Do keep these things in mind when you read certain European works on these issues (and yes, I am including Russians under the term “European,” to which I give a racial definition rather than equating it with “Western,” as some often do).

    • Posted October 16, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Thats all fine and good but that is NOT Dugins position. In his speech at Identitarian idea 4 he explicitly stated that race is an unproven concept, so with regards to Dugin its not about denouncing supremacism, it is about rejecting race as a biological reality. He made that very clear to everyone present.

      • Daniel Constantin
        Posted October 17, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

        Is that so? John Morgan seems to be saying otherwise (meaning, more like what I was just saying about “racism”). I’ll admit I have not yet read Dugin’s book, so I can’t be entirely sure of what his position is. However, if he really does deny the reality of race then that is a bit of problem. If you are right, he has forgotten some very important lessons, because it hardly matters whether or not race can be scientifically proven to be real, it has an undeniable reality and importance in a mythical and spiritual sense.

      • Posted October 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

        I completely agree with your position. I want to make clear that I have not read his book either, Im just going on what the man himself stated at ID4. I know Mr Morgan keep stating the opposite, and I do respect him but I am puzzled by it. Someone said it might be tactic (from Dugin) but how is one to know that, one can only relate to what he actually says, and besides why would he deny race to a room full of people whos only common denominator is the belief that race is the basis of our existence unless he really believes it? If Dugin says he dosent believe in race I have to take his word for it, at least until he makes a statement to the contrary.

  24. john
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    “If Russians are as alarmed by our supposed mistreatment of Black Americans, Amerindians, and other minority groups as they purport to be, perhaps they would consider offering them asylum? Perhaps the disproportionate share of Blacks we’ve imprisoned are political prisoners, political prisoners who will thrive in a less “supremacist” society? I kid. I kid. The Russians aren’t suicidal enough to invite that problem into their country and wouldn’t handle the problem any better than we have. “

    Actually Russia that has over 150 different ethnic groups officially per population has the largest annual immigration in the world and the 2nd highest in numbers after the US with the government structure being pretty diverse with large Muslim populations who with billions in foreign aid from countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, US and Britain through NGO’s and international organisations like Hiz-but-Tahrir and the Gulen movement are supporting and sponsoring ethnic separatism and nationalism among the Turkic populations of Russia and neighbouring countries the most noticeably example of which is Chechnya that is just a proxy of Turkey and used by the US, Britain and EU to destabilise the North Caucasus so as to control the Caspian energy basin.

  25. Lew
    Posted October 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Daniel,

    It is true, I admit, that Americans value their economic liberties and that Americans like to take advantage of them. I see no reason not to be proud of it. It’s one reason America produced Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and others, and one reason Nikola Tesla abandoned Europe for America. America has a lot to offer a certain type of person who may or may not be primarily interested in money.

    Tesla obviously saw something different in America than what some people see today see when they look back on that era. I doubt Tesla said to himself “America is materialist, soul-crushing, profit-above-all else, culture-destroying machine! I better get over there!”

    Now, about this:

    What the problem is with any form of capitalism is that this basically generates a method of life in which a large amount of people, sometimes even the majority, become obsessed with making more and more money and oftentimes depreciate or sacrifice things that have little or no economic value (but high cultural or spiritual value).

    I see this charge made often, invariably without support. In my experience, it’s an empty assertion. The people who say it never put anything behind it. They don’t give surveys, poll results, peer-reviewed research or other data that shows Americans in general only or mostly care about money.

    Once you think on it, you don’t need data to quickly realize there is something off the mark about this notion that Americans embody “homo economicus-dollaricus.”

    A little personal reflection should be sufficient to cast doubt. I mean, when is the last time you ran into someone who said all they care about is money, that they’re “obsessed” with money, or that they don’t care about the spiritual side of life or values besides money?

    If none of us know anyone personally who has ever said “all I care about is money,” and there is no research showing Americans in the aggregate only or mostly value money, then the reasons to believe this oft repeated claim are what exactly??

    The focus in capitalism is always profit, hence why it is called capitalism.

    There might or might not be anything wrong with this. It’s situational.

    Often, a profit focus creates efficiencies that help society. It leads to innovations and productivity gains that help everyone. It means people will be paid for their work, that they can provide for their families, that they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. It means a bigger tax base and more revenue for infrastructure, social services and projects in the public interest. These are major benefits that derive directly from profit.

    Now, of course, an unchecked focus on profit can lead to bad outcomes, too: pollution, exploitation, child labor, workplace abuse, ignoring worker safety and racing to the bottom for cheap labor. I’m not suggesting otherwise. Still, in and of itself, a profit focus does not necessarily those to “bad” outcomes.

    Some of the problems you’re talking about (and that Yockey and Theodore Roosevelt focus on in those quotes) have less to do with the economic system than with certain super-wealthy people buying influence to distort the system in their favor. This group includes financiers, speculators, oligarchs and banking interests, generally parasite classes that don’t produce. To me, the need to restrain these people implies reform not radical change of the economic system. There is evidence many Americans are open to reform along these lines, none they are willing to entirely abandon the system for socialism.

    I doubt that many Americans will ever be open to giving up their economic system, nor should they be. It has too many advantages, and the problems around it are often exaggerated, misplaced or fixable with reforms.

    The West’s cultural and spiritual problems have little to do economics anyway (in my opinion). It is hard for me to understand how switching from one economic system to another is going to solve a spiritual and cultural crisis. Look no further than Sweden. The Swedes use a very different economic model than the Americans but collectively show most of the same pathologies.

    Sweden is a good example that shows it’s not “the Jews” (Sweden has relativety few) OR American-style capitalist economics (they don’t use it). The people who blame “the Jews” might not be totally right, but then again neither are rightists who put the main emphasis on “capitalism.”

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 19, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

      Lew,

      Let me start here:

      “It is true, I admit, that Americans value their economic liberties and that Americans like to take advantage of them. I see no reason not to be proud of it. It’s one reason America produced Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and others, and one reason Nikola Tesla abandoned Europe for America.”

      This is hardly a relevant observation, because I can point out great scientists all over Europe who lived in different economic conditions, even in the Soviet Union, who made contributions to technical advancement (without assuming, of course, that technical advancement is the highest value, which it is not). So capitalism is hardly the real cause of technical progress.

      “I see this charge made often, invariably without support. In my experience, it’s an empty assertion. The people who say it never put anything behind it. They don’t give surveys, poll results, peer-reviewed research or other data that shows Americans in general only or mostly care about money… when is the last time you ran into someone who said all they care about is money, that they’re “obsessed” with money, or that they don’t care about the spiritual side of life or values besides money? If none of us know anyone personally who has ever said “all I care about is money,” and there is no research showing Americans in the aggregate only or mostly value money, then the reasons to believe this oft repeated claim are what exactly??”

      You are misinterpreting what I wrote, taking claims from it which were not made or intended, as well as artificially exaggerating certain aspects of my own assertions which were not meant to be taken in an exaggerated manner. In short, you are not taking the necessary care to understand my claims.

      Nowhere did I say that Americans or any other people practicing capitalism care “only” about money. Nowhere did I (or Sunic, or any other thinker I referenced) say that there was no other concern Americans had, or that each and every one of them was obsessed with money. Nowhere do I say this or even imply it. As a matter of fact, I specifically chose the wording that I chose in order that you would not take that way, but you did anyway.

      There is only a minority of people anywhere in the world, America included, who care only about money and nothing else. Only an idiot would say otherwise. What I was actually saying was that there is too much focus on money, that pofit and economic success oftentimes have more value placed on them than any other value. They, of course, have other things they care about, but too often do we see things being sacrificed for the sake of financial or economic concerns. This is collectively speaking, not in terms of each individual American. It is not hard to observe American culture to see that there is far too much moral materialism in it, and that is undeniable today. You can see it vividly reflected in American political and economic practices. That capitalism is a contributing factor is also undeniable. If you want actual research on these kinds of things, why not start with the work of people like Werner Sombart?

      And finally, it is obvious that it is not only America that has these problems with capitalism, as we can see similar patterns in European countries that are capitalist (or any other country). Like I said, nowhere do I imply that an increase in moral materialism and overt focus on financial gains includes every single member in the populace, only that a significant portion of the populace, most importantly businessmen and economic and political leaders, shows this kind of behavior and that thus the culture and spirit of the people is harmed as a result. The economic system, of course, is not the only cause for this behavior, but that it is a powerful factor is quite obvious.

      “Often, a profit focus creates efficiencies that help society. It leads to innovations and productivity gains that help everyone. It means people will be paid for their work, that they can provide for their families, that they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. It means a bigger tax base and more revenue for infrastructure, social services and projects in the public interest. These are major benefits that derive directly from profit.”

      Obviously profit is needed, but should it really be something that should have more value than spiritual or cultural concerns? Should we sacrifice the ethnic integrity of our nations, the health of the natural environment, etc. for the sake of profit? Why does it seem that so many people (not all, of course, but too many) in capitalist nations like America have this kind of attitude? We can see clearly that many destructive policies are carried on in America because they are, from a liberal economic point of view, financially and economically beneficial. Cheap Mexican labor, for example, is thought to be ecnomically good for American companies, and, without any surprise, we see hordes of Mexicans here.

      “Some of the problems you’re talking about (and that Yockey and Theodore Roosevelt focus on in those quotes) have less to do with the economic system than with certain super-wealthy people buying influence to distort the system in their favor. This group includes financiers, speculators, oligarchs and banking interests, generally parasite classes that don’t produce. To me, the need to restrain these people implies reform not radical change of the economic system. There is evidence many Americans are open to reform along these lines, none they are willing to entirely abandon the system for socialism.”

      This is what I meant when I said that Americans dream of the same things Europeans do but don’t know how to get there. There are no reforms that will restrain the class of parasites you speak of (that is, without totally removing capitalism); it has already been tried before and does not work. Either the state controls the economy or the economy controls the state. The only way to fix the situation is to change the economic system. Also, Yockey does not only cover the issue of oligarchs as Roosevelt does, he does indeed talk about the social and cultural consequences of capitalism in general.

      As for whether or not Americans are willing to give up their current economic system (they certainly don’t have to call the alternative “socialism,” by the way), all I can tell you is that a catastrophe is coming, and if they do not know how to deal with it, their rigidness will kill them.

      “The West’s cultural and spiritual problems have little to do economics anyway (in my opinion). It is hard for me to understand how switching from one economic system to another is going to solve a spiritual and cultural crisis. Look no further than Sweden. The Swedes use a very different economic model than the Americans but collectively show most of the same pathologies.Sweden is a good example that shows it’s not “the Jews” (Sweden has relativety few) OR American-style capitalist economics (they don’t use it). The people who blame “the Jews” might not be totally right, but then again neither are rightists who put the main emphasis on “capitalism.””

      Never did I say that the economic system was the only cause for our problems. Again, only an idiot would say that… or a Marxist (who would arguably be an idiot anyway). There is the problem of values, regardless of economics, there is the problem of religion, of government, of elites, of cultural influences, of worldview, and of racial and ethnic identity, etcetera. There are a gigantic number of non-economic factors that must be taken into consideration. However, no single factor totally eliminates another, and economy is still an important factor.

      Furthermore, I did not write a comprehensive overview for a rejection of capitalism in my earlier comments, I only offered a few brief statements. For example, I did not cover the issue that capitalism and classical liberalism results in social atomism (an issue that was covered by many of the writers that I referenced as well as the sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies). Do you see why I said earlier that you were misunderstanding what I wrote? Now please, look into the philosophers I mentioned earlier. I do strongly recommend Sombart’s “Economic Life in the Modern Age,” which even contains a commentary on America.

    • Daniel Constantin
      Posted October 20, 2012 at 12:27 am | Permalink

      Lew,

      I thought I might add in an excerpt from Alain de Benoist’s forward to Tomislav Sunic’s “Against Democracy and Equality”:

      “The ENR tries hard to identify the real enemy. The main enemy is, on the economic level, capitalism and the market society; on the philosophical level, individualism; on the political front, universalism; on the social front, the bourgeoisie; and on the geopolitical front, America. Why capitalism? Because, contrary to what communism preached, capitalism is not just an economic system. It is first and foremost an anthropological system, based on values that colonize the symbolic imagination and radically transform it. It is a system that reduces everything of value to market value, to exchange value. It is a system that considers as secondary, transient, or non-existent anything that cannot be reduced to quantitative calculation, i.e., money. Finally, it is a dynamic system whose very structure forces it to rush forward headlong. Karl Marx was not wrong when he wrote that capital considers any limitation as an obstacle. The Capitalist System consists of the logic of “always more”—more trade, more markets, more goods, more profits — in the belief that “more” automatically means better. It is the universal imposition of the axiom of self-interest, i.e., the idea that infinite material growth is possible in a finite world. It is Heidegger’s Gestell: the enthrallment of the whole Earth by the values of efficiency, performance, and profitability. It means transforming the planet into a giant supermarket, a giant commercial civilization.”

      This commentary is not the limits of Benoist’s critique of capitalism, but does give you a good intro to it. You see how it has similarities to what I myself was saying before? Let me ask you: Where do you see Benoist claiming that capitalism is the sole cause of problems? Where does he claim that every single person under capitalism is greedy? The answer to both questions is nowhere; he does not say such things just as I never said such things. Yet he rightly points out that capitalism is one of many factors (yet still an important factor, even if it is among many) that cause harm to our societies. This is what you do not understand, because you are too focused on trying to convince yourself that capitalism has absolutely no negative effects on people.

      • Lew
        Posted October 20, 2012 at 2:44 am | Permalink

        With the caveat that I’m always open to changing my position in the future, I have to say the Alain de Benoist passage relies on exactly the kind of reasoning that I just don’t find convincing. It looks like he writes his own definition of capitalism, proceeds to attack it, and ascribes all these consequences to it that follow based on his definition. As he defines it, no sane person would support capitalism. The issue is whether his definition makes sense, whether it fits with the facts, and, from my perspective, whether his analysis translates to the situation in America.

        I agree with you on one key point. However it is labeled, super-wealthy oligarchs cannot be permitted to shape policy against the public interest. Where I disagree, for now, is on the claimed linkage between economics and the social, cultural and spiritual crisis, that is, the extent to which market economics partially contributes to these problems or even at all.

        Assuming the ultra-wealthy are prohibited from rigging the game, a market is a neutral human creation. A market simply delivers what people demand. If people demand Lady Gaga over Beethoven, the market is not the cause of this outcome. It occurs because the audience is spiritually rotten. In a healthy society, the same market mechanisms would deliver the opposite outcome. Likewise, if McDonalds, WalMart and Starbucks are open for business in traditional societies or anywhere else, it’s because the locals keep them in business. They’re not charities. If there were no demand for their services, they would go away. So, the problem is not the market mechanisms.

        Daniel, I do appreciate your responses and will seriously think on your points. I didn’t misread your comments on purpose and have enjoyed exchanging words with you.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance