Print this post Print this post

The Eurasian Idea

dugin24,202 words

Changes in the Original Meaning of Eurasianism

Different terms lose their original meaning through their daily use over the course of many years. Such fundamental notions as socialism, capitalism, democracy, fascism, have changed profoundly. In fact, they have turned banal.

The terms “Eurasianism” and “Eurasia” also have some uncertainties because they are new, they belong to a new political language and intellectual context that is only being created today. The Eurasian Idea mirrors a very active dynamic process. Its meaning has become clearer throughout history but needs to be further developed.

Eurasianism as a Philosophical Struggle

The Eurasian Idea represents a fundamental revision of the political, ideological, ethnic, and religious history of mankind, and it offers a new system of classification and categories that will overcome standard clichés. The Eurasian theory went through two stages—a formative period of classical Eurasianism at the beginning of the 20th century by Russian emigrant intellectuals (Trubeckoy, Savickiy, Alekseev, Suvchinckiy, Iljin, Bromberg, Hara-Davan, et al.) followed by the historical works of Lev Gumilev and, finally, the constitution of neo-Eurasianism (second half of the 1980s to the present).

Towards Neo-Eurasianism

Classical Eurasian theory undoubtedly belongs to the past and can be correctly classified within the framework of the ideologies of the 20th century. Classical Eurasianism might have passed, but neo-Eurasianism has given it a second birth, a new sense, scale, and meaning. When the Eurasian Idea arose from its ashes, it became less obvious, but has since revealed its hidden potential. Through neo-Eurasianism, the entire Eurasian theory has received a new dimension. Today we cannot ignore the large historical period of neo-Eurasianism and must try to comprehend it in it modern context. Furthermore, we will describe the various aspects of this notion.

Eurasianism as a Global Trend; Globalization as the Main Body of Modern History

In the broad sense the Eurasian Idea and even the Eurasian concept do not strictly correspond to the geographical boundaries of the Eurasian continent. The Eurasian Idea is a global-scale strategy that acknowledges the objectivity of globalization and the termination of nation-states (Etats-Nations), but at the same time offers a different scenario of globalization, which entails no unipolar world or united global government. Instead, it offers several global zones (poles). The Eurasian Idea is an alternative or multipolar version of globalization, but globalization is the currently major fundamental world process that is deciding the main vector of modern history.

Paradigm of Globalization—Paradigm of Atlantism

Today’s nation-state is being transformed into a global state; we are facing the constitution of planetary governmental system within a single administrative-economic system. To believe that all nations, social classes, and economic models might suddenly begin to cooperate on the basis of this new planet-wide logic is wrong. Globalization is a one-dimensional, one victor phenomenon that tries to universalize the Western (Anglo-Saxon, American) point of view of how to best manage human history. It is (very often connected with suppression and violence) the unification of different social-political, ethnic religious, and national structures into one system. It is a Western European historical trend that has reached its peak through its domination of the USA.

Globalization is the imposing of the Atlantic paradigm. Globalization as Atlantism absolutely tries to avoid this definition. Proponents of globalization argue that when there will be no alternative to Atlantism that it will stop being Atlantism. The American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama writes about the “end of History,” which actually mean the end of geopolitical history and of the conflict between Atlantism and Eurasianism. This means a new architecture of a world system with no opposition and with only one pole—the pole of Atlantism. We may also refer to this as the New World Order. The model of opposition between the two poles (East-West, North-South) transforms to the center-outskirt model (center—West, “rich North”; outskirt—South). This variant of world architecture is completely at odds with the concept of Eurasianism.

Unipolar Globalization Has an Alternative

Today the New World Order is nothing more than a project, plan or trend. It is very serious, but it is not fatal. Adherents of globalization deny any alternative plan of the future, but today we are experiencing a large-scale phenomenon—contra-globalism, and the Eurasian Idea coordinates all opponents of unipolar globalization in a constructive way. Moreover, it offers the competing idea of multipolar globalization (or alter-globalization).

Eurasianism as Pluriversum

Eurasianism rejects the center-outskirt model of the world. Instead, the Eurasian Idea suggests that the planet consists of a constellation of autonomous living spaces partially open to each other. These areas are not nation-states but a coalition of states, reorganized into continental federations or “democratic empires” with a large degree of inner self-government. Each of these areas is multipolar, including a complicated system of ethnic, cultural, religious and administrative factors.

In this global sense, Eurasianism is open to everyone, regardless of one’s place of birth, residence, nationality and citizenship. Eurasianism provides an opportunity to choose a future different from the cliché of Atlantism and one value system for all mankind. Eurasianism does not merely seek the past or to preserve the current status quo, but strives for the future, acknowledging that the world’s current structure needs radical change, that nation-states and industrial society have exhausted all their resources. The Eurasian Idea does not see the creation of a world government on the basis of the liberal-democratic values as the one and only path for mankind. In its most basic sense, Eurasianism in the 21st century is defined as the adherence to alter-globalization, synonymous with a multipolar world.

Atlantism is not Universal

Eurasianism absolutely rejects the universalism of Atlantism and Americanism. The pattern of Western-Europe and America has many attractive features that can be adopted and praised, but as whole it is merely a cultural system that has the right to exist in its own historical context along with other civilizations and cultural systems.

The Eurasian Idea protects not only anti-Atlantic value systems, but the diversity of value structures. It is a kind of “poliversum” that provides living space for everyone, including the USA and Atlantism, along with other civilizations, because Eurasianism also defends the civilizations of Africa, both American continents, and the Pacific area parallel to the Eurasian Motherland.

The Eurasian Idea Promotes a Global Revolutionary Idea

The Eurasian Idea on a global scale is a global revolutionary concept, called upon to be a new platform for mutual understanding and cooperation for a large conglomerate of different powers: states, nations, cultures, and religions that reject the Atlantic version of globalization.

If we analyze the declaration and statements of various politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals we will see that the majority of them are adherents (sometimes unaware) of the Eurasian Idea.

If we think about all of those who disagree with the “end of history” our spirits will be raised and the failure of the American concept of strategic security for the 21st century connected with constituting the unipolar world, will be much more realistic.

Eurasianism is the sum of the natural, artificial, objective, and subjective obstacles on the path of unipolar globalization; it offers a constructive, positive opposition to globalism instead of a simple negation.

These obstacles, however, remain uncoordinated in the meantime, and proponents of Atlantism are able to manage them easily. Yet, if these obstacles can somehow be integrated into a united force, they will be integrated into something united and the likelihood of victory will become much more serious.

Eurasianism as the Old World (Continent)

The New World is part of the Second Old World or a more specific and narrow sense of the word Eurasianism applicable to what we call the Old World. The Notion of the Old World (traditionally regarding Europe) can be considered in a much wider context. It is multi-civilizational super space, inhabited by nations, states, cultures, ethnicities, and religions connected to each other historically and geographically by dialectic destiny. The Old World is an organic product of human history.

The Old World is often opposed to the New World, the American continent, discovered by Europeans and transformed into a platform for an artificial civilization, where European projects of modernism were created. It was built upon human-produced ideologies as a purified civilization of modernism.

The United States was the successful creation of the “perfect society,” formed by intellectuals from England, Ireland, and France, while the countries of South and Central America remained colonies of the Old World, and Germany and Eastern Europe were less influenced by this idea of a “perfect society.”

In the terms of Oswald Spengler, dualism between Old and New world can be brought to opposites: culture-civilization, organic-artificial, historical-clinical. 

The New World as Messiah

As a historical product of Western Europe during its evolution, the New World very early on realized its “messiah” destiny, where the liberal-democratic ideals of the Enlightenment were combined with the eschatological ideas of radical protestant sects. This was called the theory of Manifest Destiny, which became the new symbol of belief for generations of Americans. According to this theory, American civilization overtook all cultures and civilizations of the Old World and in its current universal form, it is obligatory for all nations of the planet.

With time, this theory directly confronted not only the cultures of the East and Asia, but came into conflict with Europe, which seemed to the Americans to be archaic and full of prejudice and antiquated traditions.

In turn, the New World turned away from the heritage of the Old World. Directly following World War II the New World became the indisputable leader in Europe itself with the “criteria of verity” of others. This inspired a corresponding wave of American dominance and at a parallel time the beginning of a movement that seeks geopolitical liberation from the brutal, transoceanic, strategic, economic and political control of the “elder Brother.”

Integration of the Eurasian Continent

In the 20th century, Europe became aware of its common identity, and step-by-step started to move towards the integration of all its nations into a common union, able to guarantee full sovereignty, security, and freedom to itself and all members.

The creation of the European Union became the most important event that helped Europe restore its status as a world power alongside the USA. This was the response of the Old World to the excessive challenge of the New World.

If we consider the alliance of the USA and Western Europe as the Atlantic vector of European development, European integration under the aegis of the continental countries (Germany, France) may be called European Eurasianism. This becomes more and more obvious if we take into consideration the theory of Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals (de Gaulle) or even to Vladivostok. In other words the integration of the Old World includes the vast territory of the Russian Federation.

Thus, Eurasianism in this context may be defined as a project of the strategic, geopolitical, and economic integration of the north of the Eurasian continent, considered the cradle of European history and the matrix of European nations.

Parallel with Turkey, Russia (both ancestors of the Europeans) is historically connected with the Turkic, Mongolian, and Caucasus nations. Russia gives the integration of Europe a Eurasian dimension in both the symbolic and geographic senses (identification of Eurasianism with continentalism).

During the last few centuries, the idea of European integration has been proposed by the revolutionary faction of European elites. In ancient times, similar attempts were made by Alexander the Great (integration of the Eurasian continent) and Genghis Khan (founder of history’s largest empire).

Eurasia as Three Great Living-Spaces, Integrated across the Meridian; Three Eurasian Belts (Meridian Zones)

The horizontal vector of integration is followed by a vertical, vector.

Eurasian plans for the future presume the division of the planet into four vertical geographical belts (meridian zones) from North to South.

Both American continents will form one common space oriented on and controlled by the USA within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine. This is the Atlantic meridian zone.

In addition to the above zone, three others are planned. They are the following:

  • Euro-Africa, with the European Union as its center.
  • Russian-Central Asian zone.
  • Pacific zone.

Within these zones, the regional division of labor and the creation of developmental areas and corridors of growth will take place.

Each of these belts (meridian zones) counterbalance each other and all of them together counterbalance the Atlantic meridian zone. In the future, these belts might be the foundation upon which to build a multipolar world: the number of poles will be more than two; however, the number will be much less than the number of current nation-states. The Eurasian model proposes that the number of poles must be four.

The Meridian zones of the Eurasian project consist of several “Great Spaces” or “democratic empires.” Each possesses relative freedom and independence but are strategically integrated into a corresponding meridian zone.

The Great Spaces correspond to the boundaries of civilizations and include several nation-states or unions of states.

The European Union and the Arab Great Space, which integrates North, Trans-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, for Euro-Africa.

The Russian-Central Asian zone is formed by three Great Spaces that sometimes overlap each other. The first is the Russian Federation along with several countries of the CIS—members of the Eurasian Union. Second is the Great Space of continental Islam (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan). The Asian countries of the CIS intersect this zone.

The third Great Space is Hindustan, which is a self-dependent civilization sector.

The Pacific meridian zone is determined by a condominium of two great spaces (China and Japan) and also includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Australia (some researchers connect Australia with the American Meridian zone). The geopolitical region is very mosaic and can be differentiated by many criteria.

The American meridian zone consists of the American-Canadian, Central and North American Great Spaces.

Importance of the Fourth Zone

The structure of the world based upon meridian zones is accepted by most American geopoliticians who seek the creation of a New World Order and unipolar globalization. However, a stumbling block is the existence of the Russian-Central Asian meridian space: the presence or absence of this belt radically changes the geopolitical picture of the world.

Atlantic futurologists divide the world into the three following zones:

  • American pole, with the European Union as its close-range periphery (Euro-Africa as an exemption) and
  • The Asian and Pacific regions as its long-range periphery.
  • Russia and Central Asia as fractional, but without it as an independent meridian zone, our world is unipolar.

This last meridian zone counterbalances American pressure and provides the European and Pacific zones ability to act like self-dependent civilization poles.

Real multipolar balance, freedom and the independence of meridian belts, Great Spaces, and nation-states depend upon the successful creation of a fourth zone. Moreover, it’s not enough to be one pole in a two-pole model of the world: the rapid progress of the USA can be counterbalanced only by the synergy of all three meridian zones. The Eurasian project proposes this four-zone project on a geopolitical strategic level.

Eurasianism as Russian-Central Asian Integration; Moscow-Tehran Axis; Fourth Meridian Zone – Russian-Asian Meridian Integration

The central issue of this process is the implementation of a Moscow-Tehran axis. The whole process of integration depends on the successful establishment of a strategic middle and long-term partnership with Iran. Iranian and Russian economic, military, and political potential together will increase the process of zone integration, making the zone irreversible and autonomous. The Moscow-Tehran axis will be the basis for further integration. Both Moscow and Iran are self-sufficient powers, able to create their own organizational strategic model of the region.

Eurasian plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan

The integration vector with Iran is vitally important for Russia to gain access to warm-water ports as well as for the political-religious reorganization of Central Asia (Asian countries of CIS, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Close cooperation with Iran presumes the transformation of the Afghani-Pakistani area into a free Islamic confederation, loyal both to Moscow and to Iran. The reason this is necessary is that the independent states of Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the continuing source of destabilization, that being neighboring countries. The geopolitical struggle will provide the ability to implement a new Central-Asian federation and transform this complicated region into one of cooperation and a prosperity area.

Moscow-Delhi Axis

Russian-Indian cooperation is the second most important meridian axis in integration on the Eurasian continent and the Eurasian collective security systems. Moscow will play an important role, decreasing the tensions between Delhi and Islamabad (Kashmir). The Eurasian plan for India, sponsored by Moscow, is the creation of a federation that will mirror the diversity of Indian security with its numerous ethnic and religious minorities, including Sikhs and Muslims.

Moscow-Ankara

The main regional partner in the integration process of Central Asia is Turkey. The Eurasian Idea is already becoming rather popular there today because of western trends interlaced with Eastern. Turkey acknowledges its civilization differences with the European Union, its regional goals and interests, the threat of globalization, and further loss of sovereignty.

It is strategically imperative for Turkey to establish a strategic partnership with the Russian Federation and Iran. Turkey will be able to maintain its traditions only within the framework of a multipolar world. Certain factions of Turkish society understand this situation—from politicians and socialists to religious and military elites. Thus, the Moscow-Ankara axis can become geopolitical reality despite a long-term period of mutual estrangement.

Caucasus

The Caucasus is the most problematic region to Eurasian integration because its mosaic of cultures and ethnicities easily leads to tensions between nations. This is one of the main weapons used by those who seek to stop integration processes across the Eurasian continent. The Caucasus is inhabited by nations belonging to different states and civilization areas. This region must be a polygon for testing different methods of cooperation between peoples, because what can succeed there can succeed across the Eurasian continent. The Eurasian solution to this problem lies not in the creation of ethnic-based states or assigning one nation strictly to one state, but in the development of a flexible federation on the basis of ethnic and cultural differences within the common strategic context of the meridian zone.

The result of this plan is a system of a half-axis between Moscow and the Caucasian centers (Moscow-Baku, Moscow-Yerevan, Moscow-Mahachkala, Moscow-Grozny, etc.) and between the Caucasian centers and Russia’s allies within the Eurasian project (Baku-Ankara, Erevan-Teheran, etc.).

Eurasian Plan for Central Asia

Central Asia must move toward integration into a united, strategic, and economic bloc with the Russian Federation within the framework of the Eurasian Union, the successor of the CIS. The main function of this specific area is the rapprochement of Russia with the countries of continental Islam (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan). From the very beginning, the Central-Asia sector must have various vectors of integration. One plan will make the Russian federation the main partner (similarities of culture, economic and energy interests, a common security system). The alternate plan is to place the accent on ethnic and religious resemblance: Turkic, Iranian, and Islamic worlds.

Eurasian Integration of Post-Soviet Territories; Eurasian Union

A more specific meaning of Eurasianism, partially similar to the definitions of the Eurasian intellectuals of the 1920s and 1930s is connected with the process of the local integration of post-Soviet territories. Different forms of similar integration can be seen in history: from the Huns and other (Mongol Turkic, Indo-European) nomad empires to the empire of Genghis Khan and his successors. More recent integration was led by the Russian Romanov Empire and, later, by the USSR. Today, the Eurasian Union is continuing these traditions of integration through an unquiet ideological model that takes into consideration democratic procedures; respects the rights of nations; and pays attention to the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic features of all union members.             Eurasianism is the philosophy of integration of the post-Soviet territory on democratic, non-violent, and voluntary basis without the domination of any one religious or ethnic group.

Astana, Dushanbe, and Bishkek as the Main Force of Integration

Different Asian republics of the CIS treat the process of post-Soviet integration unequally. The most active adherent to integration is Kazakhstan. The President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, is a staunch supporter of the Eurasian Idea. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan similarly support the process of integration, though their support is less tangible in comparison with Kazakhstan.

Tashkent and Ashabad

Uzbekistan and especially Turkmenistan oppose the integration process, trying again to gain the maximum positive results from their recently achieved national sovereignty. However, very soon, due to the increasing rate of globalization, both states will face a dilemma: to lose sovereignty and melt into a unified global world with its domination by American liberal values or to preserve cultural and religious identity in the context of the Eurasian Union. In our opinion, an unbiased comparison of these two options will lead to the second one, naturally sequential for both countries and their history.

Trans-Caucasian States

Armenia continues to gravitate towards the Eurasian Union and considers the Russian Federation an important supporter and conciliator that helps it to manage relations with its Muslim neighbors. It is notable that Tehran prefers to establish a partnership with ethnically close Armenia. This fact allows us to consider two half-axis—Moscow-Yerevan and Yerevan-Tehran—as positive prerequisites for integration.

Baku remains neutral, but its situation will drastically change with the continued movement of Ankara towards Eurasianism (it will immediately affect Azerbaijan). Analysis of the Azerbaijani cultural system shows that this state is closer to the Russian Federation and post-Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia than to religious Iran and even moderate Turkey.

Georgia is the key problem of the region. The mosaic character of the Georgian state is the cause of serious problems during the construction of a new national state that is strongly rejected by its ethnic minorities: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Adjaria, etc. Furthermore, the Georgian state does not have any strong partners is the region and is forced to seek a partnership with the USA and NATO to counterbalance Russian influence. Georgia is a major threat, able to sabotage the very process of Eurasian integration. The solution to this problem is found in the Orthodox culture of Georgia, with its Eurasian features and traditions.

Ukraine and Belarus—Slavic Countries of the CIS

It is enough to gain the support of Kazakhstan and Ukraine to succeed in the creation of the Eurasian Union. The Moscow-Astana-Kiev triangle is a frame able to guarantee the stability of the Eurasian Union, which is why negotiations with Kiev are urgent like never before. Russia and Ukraine have very much in common: culture, language, religious, and ethnic similarities. These aspects need to be highlighted because from the beginning of Ukraine’s recent sovereignty Russophobia and disintegration have been promoted. Many countries of the EU can positively influence the Ukrainian government, because they are interested in political harmony in Eastern Europe. The cooperation of Moscow and Kiev will demonstrate the pan-European attitudes of both Slavic countries.

The above-mentioned factors pertain to Belarus, where integration intentions are much more evident. However, the strategic and economic status of Belarus is less important to Moscow that those of Kiev and Astana. Moreover, the domination of a Moscow-Minsk axis will harm integration with Ukraine and Kazakhstan, which is why integration with Belarus must proceed fluently and without any sudden incidents—along with other vectors of the Eurasian integration process.

Eurasianism as Weltanschauung

The last definition of Eurasianism characterizes a specific Weltanschauung: a political philosophy combing tradition, modernity, and even elements of postmodernism. This philosophy has as its priority traditional society, acknowledges the imperative of technical and social modernization (without separating from traditional culture); and strives for the adaptation of its ideological program to post-industrial, informational society, which is called postmodernism. Postmodernism formally removes the counter positions of tradition and modernism, disenfranchising and making them equal. Eurasian postmodernism, on the contrary, promotes an alliance of tradition and modernism as a constructive, optimistic, energetic impulse towards creation and growth. Eurasian philosophy does not deny the realities discovered by the Enlightenment: religion, nation, empire, culture, etc. At the same time, the best achievements of modernism are used widely: technological and economic advances, social guarantees, freedom of labor. Extremes meet each other, melting into a unifying harmonic and original theory, inspiring fresh thinking and new solutions for the eternal problems people have faced throughout history.

Eurasianism is an Open Philosophy

Eurasianism is an open, non-dogmatic philosophy that can be enriched with new content: religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics, national geography, culture, strategic and political research etc. Moreover, Eurasian philosophy offers original solutions in specific cultural and lingual contexts: Russian Eurasianism will not be the same as French, German, or Iranian versions. However, the main framework of the philosophy will remain invariable.

Principles of Eurasianism

The basic principles of Eurasianism are the following:

  • Differentialism, the pluralism of values systems versus the conventional obligatory domination of one ideology (American liberal-democracy first and foremost);
  • Tradition versus suppression of cultures, dogmas, and discoveries of traditional society;
  • Rights of nations versus the “gold billions” and neo-colonial hegemony of the “rich North”;
  • Ethnicities as values and subjects of history versus the depersonalisation of nations, imprisoned into artificial social constructions;
  • Social fairness and human solidarity versus exploitation and humiliation of man by man.

Source: Ab Aeterno no. 1, November 2009

 

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.

17 Comments

  1. Alex from Russia
    Posted November 12, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    “followed by the historical works of Leonid Gumilev”. Correction: LEV GUMILEV

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Gumilev

    GREAT MATERIAL! THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON!

  2. ted
    Posted November 12, 2013 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    There’s no Otherness to distinguish oneself from if we agree that we’re both inheritors of the Eurasian Tradition.

    Exactly. And therein lies the racial suicide of Eurasianism.

    • Thierry
      Posted November 13, 2013 at 6:45 am | Permalink

      Incorrect. You’re mixing apples and oranges. That statement is the opposite of what you think it means. You’re associating it with Western liberal “multiculturalism” (in truth monoculturalism) which isn’t the case. It’s not about colonialism nor a greater amalgamation of uprooted wanderers. It’s about creating Land-ties as Dugin writes which essentially means having a “static” or fixed civilization if you’ll allow the phrase.

      You’re confusing the philosophy of Sea with that of Land.

      • Verlis
        Posted November 15, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

        Ted may be taking it for granted that Thierry understands the long-term implications of multiracialism – that it is necessarily a temporary phase, and that two races occupying the same territory will in the fullness of time interbreed to such a complete degree that one or both races will be effectively erased from the earth. Gone. Extinct. Never to be seen again. It’s a necessary implication of multiracialism but it is seldom an obvious implication, and even when one grasps the straightforward logic underlying the argument so great a departure is it from one’s customary patterns of thought that it can take a very long time – months, years – to integrate that implication into one’s worldview.

        An added complicating factor is that race is such a fuzzy concept (at the margins) it can often be seem, from one side’s point of view, to amount to nitpicking – someone’s a little bit ‘too asiatic, whooptydamndoo, no reason to hate him,’ is not an uncommon reaction. The other side, well aware of the long-term implications, finds any amount of ‘racial leeway’ intolerable for it risks opening the floodgates. In this way both sides talk past each other and the multiracialists’ cause is advanced by default (certainly so in the case where mass immigration is the law of the land).

  3. ted
    Posted November 12, 2013 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    A strict Slavic state would undermine its own population? I guess a strictly White American state would do the same then?

    No worries, Putin’s Eurasianism is doing enough undermining as it is:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/russia-putin-islam-idUSL5N0IC2S720131022

    So, the “solution” is to “reach out” to Muslin clerics, so as to better integrate and “adapt” Muslim immigrants to the colonization of Russia. Otherwise, they’d become “objects of propaganda” for various “fundamentalist groups.”

    Hint: by “fundamentalist groups” the great Eurasian demigod and anti-globalist crusader Putin is NOT only talking about radical Islamic groups. He is also talking about – likely predominantly talking about – the Russian nationalist groups.

    In other words, let’s calm down the racial tensions in Russia, to defang the nationalist groups, and to smooth the way for the race replacement of native Russians by the ever-growing Asian Muslim population.

    More land! More people! More power! A new grand Russian empire! Yes, indeed, with the Kremlin being a mosque and Sultan, rather than a Tsar, in charge. And a Central Asian majority population.

    What price empire then?

  4. Thierry
    Posted November 11, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    @Greg

    “I am all for a multipolar world. The geopolitics of continental blocs is all well and good.”

    That ultimately means the adoption of a “territorial logic” against the ingrained “borderless” post-modern delusion so prevalent in NA. Eurasian Russia cannot be the driving force of pan-Slavism. It’s that simple. Ultimately a strict Slavic Russian State would undermine its own population achieving the very opposite of its intentions. Dugin understands this.

    The notion of “preservation” of racial or cultural heritage can become deterministic. A rich culture always borrows from historical Traditions.

    @Lucian

    “Finally, and perhaps most importantly, seeing Thierry supporting “Eurasianism” in this manner here also adds to my previous comment on “North Americanism” that Dugin’s followers oftentimes do not care about racial identity or preservation at all.”

    Simply said: “preservation” has no real substance within the Eurasian framework since there is no political promotion of tribalism. If there is any substance to “Pan-Slavism”, Pan-Turkism etc then it should emerge OUTSIDE of Eurasianism. Listen to Dugin after 1:10 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sphg3SaRsII

    You’re multiplying the misunderstanding. Don’t insert your own ideas into it.

    Lastly, I’m a promoter of exactly nothing other than a greater clarity.

  5. Ted
    Posted November 11, 2013 at 5:05 am | Permalink

    Something that has been bothering me for a while, about some of these Old World “Traditionalists” and “New Rightists”: their knee-jerk hatred of America and Americans and their demand to separate America from Europe.

    They don’t acknowledge that not all Americans are multiculturalist globalist consumers. Not all Americans are fans of an Atlanticist Empire. Not all Americans are hostile to Europe and to Russia. Not all Americans want to be “integrated” with Mexico, Central America, and South America into an “Atlantic meridian zone.”

    Yockey was very critical of America and with good reason, seeing Judaized America as the “enemy of Europe.” BUT…he realized that the TRUE America was part of the West – yes, as a colony, but still an integral part. Yockey distinguished “America as it is under alien control” from “America as it should be and can be.”

    All these guys like Dugin and I think de Benoist as well conflate those two Americas into one, and condemn Americans in general – including the most radical of racial nationalists – into the category.

  6. Michael O'Meara
    Posted November 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    •Unfortunately, Eurasianism is not a pan-slavism — which would be a hundred times more acceptable than Eurasianism, which mixes Christians and Muslims, whites and yellows.

    •Christianity may no longer suffice as a religious force — but European civilization, of which Russia has always been an ambivalent part, is profoundly Christian and, for better or worse, distinguishes “us” from “them.”

    •The Turks may never be sent back to Central Asia, Golden Dawn may never take power, 60 million non-Europeans may never get repatriated from Europe, and America may continue down its path to becoming the North American equivalent of Brazil. By this reasoning, I suppose we should just go quietly into the night.

    • Thierry
      Posted November 10, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

      Eurasianism doesn’t “mix” anyone with anyone else. There’s no Otherness to distinguish oneself from if we agree that we’re both inheritors of the Eurasian Tradition. That said, if a spontaneous “pan-Slavism” were to emerge it could really only do so from a Eurasian starting point.

      Forget the Abrahamic religions for the sake of clarity. The real truth is they don’t belong to “European” peoples unless you include their voluntary/forced adoption.

      Yes, Turks will remain on the Anatolian plane but will probably orientate themselves Eastwardly.

      @Greg

      Dugin isn’t justifying anything from my viewpoint, least of all miscegenation. The expansion of one race to the detriment of another is obviously, to your mind, a glaring problem. In North America and Britain this is apparent and has been for generations. I’d argue that it’s very different in E.Europe, Russia. There, it has become clear very recently with new immigrants with strictly commercial ties and has, at least psychologically, a much bigger impact on the populace. It’s being addressed sociologically, to what degree and affect is yet to be determined. I’m not sure it’s the same in NA, in fact, it seems that the State has reached a stage where it undermining it’s very own populace with sheer inaction and horrible economic policy. Even some kind of limitation to free trade would be a start but that’s not the direction they’re thinking.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted November 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

        Any political philosophy that puts something above the preservation of distinct peoples will eventually undermine the existence of distinct peoples. Empire, colonialism, globalization, liberalism, communism, Christianity, Islam: all of them work to break down distinct peoples and identities. Eurasianism shares the same problem.

        I am all for a strong Russia. But a strong Russia requires that the Russians politically and racially separate themselves from non-Russians, not seek to rule over them. In short, a strong Russia requires the opposite of Putin’s policies and the impetus of Eurasianism.

        I am all for a multipolar world. The geopolitics of continental blocs is all well and good. But if one does not make racial and ethnic preservation a higher goal, such geopolitics will undermine distinct peoples in the end. I am afraid that too many patriotic Russians do not love Mother Russia enough to prevent her destruction from their own schemes to restore her imperial glory.

  7. Michael O'Meara
    Posted November 9, 2013 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Between globalism and Eurasianism, Europeans (and European Americans) would obviously be better off with the latter, given that American-directed globalism is inherently ethnocidal.

    But Dugin dreams. From a formal “geopolitical” perspective, there may be some common cause between Europeans/Russians on the one side and Muslim Turkic peoples on the other — especially when this perspective is situated in view of America’s parasitic empire. But culturally, religiously, historically — the peoples of “Eurasia” share nothing, except a legacy of spilt blood. Any sort of Eurasian union between them would accordingly come at the expense of Russian Christian peoples.

    For Europeans with a long memory, the mere existence of Turkey is an offense. As the Golden Dawn, argues, Anatolia belongs to Europe — which means the Turks must be pushed out of these lands they stole from from us 500 years ago — pushed back into the Central Asian lands from whence they came.

    Against Dugin’s race-mixing and civilization-destroying notion of Eurasianism, the white Christian peoples of Eurasia would be better off forming some sort of Euro-Russian federation to unite them against their enemies coming from the Global South.

    Thus, against the anti-cultural/anti-civilizational/anti-white imperatives of Dugin’s geopolitical philosophy, Russian/European peoples need to unite around their cultural, religious, and genetic commonalities. And that means Euro-Russia, not Eurasia.

    • Thierry
      Posted November 10, 2013 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      My understanding is that Dugin utterly rejects the “pan-Slavism” that you’re hinting at. With good reason since there are irreconcilable differences amongst them. Their basic commonality is linguistic, I mean how much do the Poles and Bulgarians share in? Not much, it gets even worse when you get to religion. I’m sorry but “Christian” doesn’t suffice.

      Within the Eurasian framework pan-Turkism would see Turkey turn to its East mostly and only toward the Balkans in the West.

      Dugin is rather sober about “race-mixing” and “civilisation destroying” neo-Eurasianism. For one he understands the original roots of Eurasianism of the previous century. The notion of “purity” is comical since the Mongols raped their way through Eastern Europe all the way up to Poland.

      Turkey is here to stay, no one will send them ‘back to Central Asian lands.’

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted November 10, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

        The idea of using past miscegenation — some of it mythical — to justify more miscegenation floats around in America too. So-and-so had a distant Cherokee ancestor (it is almost always Cherokee), so who are you to stand in the way of race-mixing today?

        1. I am skeptical of how widespread this miscegenation is, but I accept that at least some of it took place. In 2006, I took the Hitler tour of the Obersalzburg, and there I encountered a swarthy, Mongol-looking family (three generations). I was astonished that they spoke German and were German. My host explained that there are pockets of such people in the Alps.

        2. So let’s accept that the Finns, Estonians, and Hungarians speak a language related to Mongol because at some time in the remote past, white peoples were conquered by Asiatics who left their language behind.

        3. Let’s also accept that there was some sort of genetic admixture. It is not necessarily the case: there are millions of English and French speakers in Africa with no European blood; there are millions of Spanish speakers in Latin America with no Spanish blood. But let’s just take admixture as given.

        4. But we cannot ignore what happened since then: over time, the genetic admixture became part of a homogeneous population, in which one does not encounter “throwbacks” to the earlier types. In short, a new people, a new subrace evolved.

        5. The language and culture also evolved over time, until we arrived at the peoples we know today. That is what Finnish or Estonian identity means.

        6. That identity will, however, be destroyed by colonization and miscegenation with alien peoples, just as surely as peoples with purely European languages and genomes are being destroyed the same way.

        The idea that miscegenation can’t endanger us today because it took place in the past is as superficial and stupid as the idea that immigration can’t endanger us today because our ancestors were immigrants too. Just because people step off a boat, does not mean that they have the same interests. One admixture might create an identity, but another admixture will destroy it.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted November 10, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

        To add to what Greg Johnson already said, the miscegenation that took place in Eastern Europe due to the temporary invasion of Mongols and other Asiatics is not significant enough. The vast majority of Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, etc. still have a white European racial appearance (many are indistinguishable from the purest Europeans) as well as behavior and cultural identity; in other words, they are clearly of the same basic racial type as Western Europeans. The issue of miscegenation, “purity”, and how it relates to ethnic-racial identity has already been addressed by many thinkers of the New Right (e.g., Benoist and Faye) and of White Nationalism (e.g., Jared Taylor); it is surprising that someone comes here acting as though he has good reason for anyone to dismiss racial identity or racial separatism by citing some partial miscegenation which occurred long ago. Of course, I have also seen books about the history of Russia which point out that there was very little mixture between Slavs and Mongols to begin with. Whatever the case, my point stands. So-called “Eurasianism” is not justified by minor miscegenation which – by the way – does not even determine the identity of Slavic peoples (anyone who knows anything about them will also know that they have a strong identity as whites and as Europeans). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, seeing Thierry supporting “Eurasianism” in this manner here also adds to my previous comment on “North Americanism” that Dugin’s followers oftentimes do not care about racial identity or preservation at all.

      • Ted
        Posted November 11, 2013 at 4:37 am | Permalink

        The “purity” concept needs to be put to rest, it’s an outdated concept from the pre-genetics past. Today, I think, if you are going to look at race from the biological standpoint (there are of course also important cultural and historical aspects to Identity as well), then consider “genetic interests” and degrees of relatedness, and the preservation (and improvement of the native stock) of groups as they exist today. The past is the past and cannot be changed. But we can work in the present to affect the future. The Russian gene pool is what it is (and it is European – as Greg’s Alps experience shows, absolute purity in any ethny is unlikely). Policies decided today cannot alter what the Mongols did or did not do in centuries past. But policies decided today can indeed alter what the Russian people and Russian state will look like in the centuries to come. Will it be Russian and Slavic? Or will it be Central Asian/Muslim?

        We need to look at political realities and not only theory. Reality: colored peoples believe they have an inherent right to move into White lands (including Russia). Any friendship with a colored nation – no matter that you think it is some sort of “Traditionalist alliance” – will be considered by them an invitation to emigrate. If you close the door in their face, then the “friendship” is over.

        I was reading (in Rising Tide of Color, I believe) about US-Japanese relations in the pre-WWII era. You see, from the Japanese perspective, one sore point in relations was the Asian Exclusion policies of the US of that time, particularly in the western US (thank god for Dennis Kearny). You see, the Japanese felt they had the RIGHT to emigrate to the US, and made opening the immigration floodgates a prerequisite for better relations. Of course, the opposite was never considered – even if Americans for some reason wanted to emigrate to Japan, that never would have been accepted, and of course reciprocity was never demanded by Americans.

        The same situation exists today. Any “friendship” between Russia and Asiatic nations is going to be predicated on acceptance of immigration flows. Hence, the Putin regime cracks down on anti-immigrant nationalism – which in Russia is potentially potent and erupts in street protests.

        Hence, unlike what is seen elsewhere, Russians are not hesitant to go in the streets and openly protest in favor of their own ethnic interests. What a prize! What a power that can be exploited by a truly nationalist Russian leadership! A relatively healthy population with good instincts! And Eurasianism wants to pervert that into constitutional patriotism so in order to revive the Soviet empire.

        Disgusting.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted November 11, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

        I want to add a note for clarification: when I reference the idea of racial “preservation,” it is important to remember that this is not the only issue at hand. I am not being some simplistic “preservationist” (this should be obvious from my own past essays on Counter-Currents). Aside from the issue of survival or preservation, I am also referencing the issue of racial identity, race as a factor in ethnic community, and of placing value on belonging to a racial type. In my last statement in the above comment, what I was trying to do was point out that Dugin’s Eurasianism places little to no value on race and – even though it does not necessarily deny the existence of races – it ends up dismissing race as an important factor in identity. The problem is that we have people here claiming that Dugin is against race-mixing and believes that racial identity has importance. Does Dugin care about race or does he not? All evidence thus far points to the latter.

  8. GERT ILLIG
    Posted November 9, 2013 at 3:30 am | Permalink

    Better create an Eurosiberian Aryan Empire with the core alliance of Germany and Russia and not integrating any Central Asian and Muslim dominated States , concentrate only on the ARYAN STATES .

One Trackback

  • By The Russian Question | Atlantic Centurion on July 19, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    […] Another topic sometimes discussed is whether or not Russia is part of Europe or the West, the implications of which would have some impact, I guess, on the internationalism of White nationalism.  Russia, though much of her population is White Europeans, is not quite part of our contemporary Western civilization, both historically and currently. Its history includes Orthodox Christianity, Mongol rule, serfdom into the 19th century, single-party communist government and now something of a minor kleptocracy with levels of institutional corruption and cynicism unmatched in Europe and Anglo-America (and Anglo-Oceania). These aren’t exactly the building blocks of Western civilization. And generally, Russia doesn’t conceive of herself as a Western power anyway, just ask Dugin. […]

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    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

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    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

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above