Print this post Print this post

Alexander Dugin on “White Nationalism” & Other Potential Allies in the Global Revolution

dugin32,429 words

French translation here

Editor’s Note:

The following text was compiled by John Morgan from various informal statements that Alexander Dugin posted to his Facebook page over the last year which deal with common themes. The compiler has combined and restructured them in an attempt to reshape them into a single, coherent text, and also brushed up the language somewhat. 

There are different tendencies in the new generation of revolutionary, non-conformist movements in Europe (on the Right as well as the Left), and some of them have been successful in attaining high political positions in their respective countries. The crisis of the West will grow broader and deeper every day, so we should expect an increase in the power and influence of our own Eurasianist resistance movement against the present global order, which is a dictatorship by the worst elements of the Western societies.

Those from either the Right or the Left who refuse American hegemony, ultra-liberalism, strategic Atlanticism, the domination of oligarchic and cosmopolitan financial elites, individualistic anthropology and the ideology of human rights, as well as typically Western racism in all spheres – economic, cultural, ethical, moral, biological and so on – and who are ready to cooperate with Eurasian forces in defending multipolarity, socio-economic pluralism, and a dialogue among civilizations, we consider to be allies and friends.

Those on the Right who support the United States, White racism against the Third World, who are anti-socialist and pro-liberal, and who are willing to collaborate with the Atlanticists; as well as those on the Left who attack Tradition, the organic values of religion and the family, and who promote other types of social deviations – both of these are in the camp of foe.

In order to win against our common enemy, we need to overcome the ancient hatreds between our peoples, as well as those between the obsolete political ideologies that still divide us. We can resolve such problems amongst ourselves after our victory.

At the present time, we are ALL being challenged, and ALL of us are being dominated by the forces of the prevailing global order.

Before we concern ourselves with these other issues, we first need to liberate ourselves.

I am very happy that Gábor Vona, whom I have met, and who is the leader of the Jobbik party in Hungary, understands this perfectly. We need to be united in creating a common Eurasian Front.

In Greece, our partners could eventually be Leftists from SYRIZA, which refuses Atlanticism, liberalism and the domination of the forces of global finance. As far as I know, SYRIZA is anti-capitalist and it is critical of the global oligarchy that has victimized Greece and Cyprus. The case of SYRIZA is interesting because of its far-Left attitude toward the liberal global system. It is a good sign that such non-conformist forces have appeared on the scene. Dimitris Konstakopulous writes excellent articles and his strategic analysis I find very correct and profound in many cases.

There are also many other groups and movements with whom we can work. The case of the Golden Dawn (Chrysi Avgi) is interesting because it is part of the growing (and very exciting indeed) reappearance of radical Right parties in the European political landscape. We need to collaborate with all forces, Right or Left, who share our principles.

The most important factor should not be whether these groups are pro-Russian or not. What they oppose is of much greater importance here. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is simple and easy to understand. If we adopt such an attitude in order to appeal to all possible allies (who either approve of us or who do not), more and more people will follow suit – if only due to pragmatism. In doing so, we will create a real, functioning network – a kind of Global Revolutionary Alliance. It is important that we pursue a strategy of uniting the Left and the Right everywhere, including in the United States. We need to save America from its own dictatorship, which is as bad for the American people as it is for all other peoples.

The issue of limited or unlimited government is, as far as I can see, of lesser importance in comparison with geopolitics – it all depends on the historical tradition of the nation in question. Gun ownership is a good thing when the guns are in our hands. Therefore, these two points when taken as a political platform I consider to be absolutely neutral in themselves. Such an American Right can be good or bad, depending on other factors beyond these two points. We need to have a dialogue with those who look deeper into the nature of things, into history and who try to understand the present world order.

I consider the “White nationalists” allies when they refuse modernity, the global oligarchy and liberal-capitalism, in other words everything that is killing all ethnic cultures and traditions. The modern political order is essentially globalist and based entirely on the primacy of individual identity in opposition to community. It is the worst order that has ever existed and it should be totally destroyed. When “White nationalists” reaffirm Tradition and the ancient culture of the European peoples, they are right. But when they attack immigrants, Muslims or the nationalists of other countries based on historical conflicts; or when they defend the United States, Atlanticism, liberalism or modernity; or when they consider the White race (the one which produced modernity in its essential features) as being the highest and other races as inferior, I disagree with them completely.

More than this, I can’t defend Whites when they are in opposition to non-Whites because, being White and Indo-European myself, I recognize the differences of other ethnic groups as being a natural thing, and do not believe in any hierarchy among peoples, because there is not and cannot be any common, universal measure by which to measure and compare the various forms of ethnic societies or their value systems. I am proud to be Russian exactly as Americans, Africans, Arabs or Chinese are proud to be what they are. It is our right and our dignity to affirm our identity, not in opposition to each other but such as it is: without resentment against others or feelings of self-pity.

I can’t defend the concept of the nation, because the idea of the “nation” is a bourgeois concept concocted as a part of modernity in order to destroy traditional societies (empires) and religions, and to replace them with artificial pseudo-communities based on the notion of individualism. All of that is wrong. The concept of the nation is now being destroyed by the same forces that created it, back during the first stage of modernity. The nations have already fulfilled their mission of destroying any organic and spiritual identity, and now the capitalists are liquidating the instrument they used to achieve this in favor of direct globalization. We need to attack capitalism as the absolute enemy which was responsible for the creation of the nation as a simulacrum of traditional society, and which was also responsible for its destruction. The reasons behind the present catastrophe lie deep in the ideological and philosophical basis of the modern world. In the beginning, modernity was White and national; in the end, it has become global. So White nationalists need to choose which camp they want to be in: that of Tradition, which includes their own Indo-European tradition, or that of modernity. Atlanticism, liberalism, and individualism are all forms of absolute evil for the Indo-European identity, since they are incompatible with it.

In his review of my book The Fourth Political Theory, Michael O’Meara criticized it on the grounds of advocating a return to the unrealized possibilities of the Third Political Theory. It is good that people from different camps present their responses to the Fourth Political Theory, but it uses typically old Right/Third Way racist/anti-Semitic arguments. It is not too profound, nor too hollow. I doubt that we can get anywhere by repeating the same agenda of Yockey and so on. This draws the line between the Third Way and the Fourth Way. At the same time, I consider Heidegger to be a precursor of the Fourth Political Theory, and he was acting and thinking in the context of the Third Political Theory.

Concerning the “identitarians,” I have never uttered the name of Faye in all of my writing – he is not bad, but also not good. I consider Alain de Benoist to be brilliant – simply the best. Those “identitarians” who view the positive attitude toward Islam or Turks as a negative aspect of the Fourth Political Theory do so, I believe, partly due to the manipulation of globalist forces who seek to divide those revolutionary forces which are capable of challenging the liberal-capitalist Atlanticist hegemony.

Muslims form a part of the Russian population, and are an important minority. Therefore, Islamophobia implicitly calls for the break-up of Russia. The difference between Europe and Russia in our attitude toward Islam is that, for us, Muslims are an organic part of the whole, while for Europe they are a post-colonial wave of re-invaders from a different geopolitical and cultural space. But since we have a common enemy in the globalist elite, which is pro-Pussy Riot/Femen, pro-gay marriage, anti-Putin, anti-Iran, anti-Chávez, anti-social justice and so on, we all need to develop a common strategy with the Muslims. Our traditions are quite different, but the anti-traditional world that is attacking us is united, and so must we become.

If “identitarians” really love their identity, they should ally themselves with the Eurasianists, alongside the traditionalists and the enemies of capitalism belonging to any people, religion, culture or political camp. Being anti-Communist, anti-Muslim, anti-Eastern, pro-American or Atlanticist today means to belong to the other side. It means to be on the side of the current global order and its financial oligarchy. But that is illogical, because the globalists are in the process of destroying any identity except for that of the individual, and to forge an alliance with them therefore means to betray the essence of one’s cultural identity.

The problem with the Left is different. It is good when it opposes the capitalist order, but it lacks a spiritual dimension. The Left usually represents itself as an alternative path to modernization, and in doing so it also opposes organic values, traditions and religion, just as liberalism does.

I would be happy to see Left-wing identitarians who defend social justice while attacking capitalism on one hand, and who embrace spiritual Tradition and attack modernity on the other. There is only one enemy: the global, liberal capitalist order supported by North American hegemony (which is also directed against the genuine American identity).

In terms of traditionalism, usually traditionalism is defensive or is considered to be such. What we need is to break this assumption and promote offensive traditionalism. We should attack (hyper)modernity and make the status quo explode, in the name of the Return. I mean “offensive” in all ways. We need to insist.

Politics is the instrument of modernity. I think neo-Gramscism is an important tool. We have to form a historic bloc of traditionalists alongside organic intellectuals of a new type. We have Orthodox Christians (and perhaps other types of Christians as well), Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus who all reject the idea of the “Lockean heartland” (as per Kees van der Pijl) becoming global. We need to attack it together, not by ourselves. And we need to attack in any possible way – everyone as he or she is able – physically, politically, and intellectually . . .

It is time to be offensive.

Soon the world will descend into chaos. The financial system is going to collapse. Disorder, ethnic and social conflicts will be breaking out everywhere. Europe is doomed. Asia is in tumult. The oceans of immigrants everywhere will overthrow the existing order. The present system will be broken and disbanded.

After this transitional period, direct global dictatorship will be implemented. We should be prepared and start to organize the global resistance right now – the planetary network of traditionalists, Conservative Revolutionaries, Heideggerians, the partisans of the Fourth Political Theory and multipolarity, and non-conformists of all sorts – a kind of Sacred Front beyond Right and Left, and consisting of different, older political and ideological taxonomies. All three of the political theories have been phased out of modernity, and also out of conventional and assumed history. We, and also our enemies, are entering absolutely new ground.

Every traditionalist should ask himself (or herself) the following questions:

1. Why have I arrived to be on the side of Tradition in opposition to modernity?

2. What is the reality that makes me what I am, in essence? Where have I got it from?

3. Is my vocation as a traditionalist the result of my socio-cultural heritage (society, family, and culture) or is it the result of some other factor?

4. How it is possible, in the midst of modernity and postmodernity, to be differentiated from them?

5. In which way can I cause the modern world around me real damage? (In other words, how can I effectively fight against the Devil?)

The Fourth Political Theory struggles for the cause of all peoples, but it is not made for the people. It is a call to the intellectual elite of every human society, and rejects hegemony in all senses (philosophical, social, and political). This time, the people cannot help us. This time, we must help the people.

Opposing us is nothing more than an intellectual elite, but it is a hegemonic one. All its material power is nothing but an illusion and a phantasm: its texts, discourse and words are what really counts. Its force lays in its thought. And it is on the level of thought that we have to fight and, finally, win. Everything material that opposes us is actually nothing but pure privation. Only thought really exists.

It is easy to manipulate the masses, much easier than to persuade the few. Quantity is the enemy of quality – the more so, the worse. The capitalist elite thinks differently. That error will be fatal. For them. And we are going to prove it.

We need an open, undogmatic Front that is beyond Right and Left.

We have prepared for the coming moment of opportunity for too long. But now, finally, it is not so far in the future.

We will change the course of history. At present, it is on a very wrong course.

We can only win if we combine our efforts.



  1. Daybreaker
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Alexander Dugin: “More than this, I can’t defend Whites when they are in opposition to non-Whites because…”

    Thanks for playing: 21st Century White Genocide

    You have chosen: Team Anti-White

    Please direct all your communications to your own team, Team Anti-White, as Team White is busy trying to prevent the genocide of the white race through mass immigration and forced integration.

    Play hard, have fun, and the best of luck betraying your racial kin and making all the sacrifices of your ancestors useless.

    – the 21st Century Real Life Gaming Team

    • Stronza
      Posted June 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

      Ha ha ha! Very good! Or should that be wOOt!

  2. rhondda
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    The dismissal of Mr. O’Meara’s essay is troubling to me. In fact, I read one reply by a leftist blogger aligned with Mr. Dugan’s group and it was just an ad hominem attack on Mr. O’Meara. There was nothing of substance said. What this tells me is that Mr. O’Meara is correct. The third political theory has not been explored at all, but dismissed because of the demonization of Hitler. (Let’s not go there, we will get the tribe upset)

    It is not true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy may indeed be a worse enemy just waiting in the wings for the opportunity to attack.

    Also, I do not believe that the third political theory has been explored at all in any real sense.
    The hollowcaust has overshadowed all attempts to find out what was good about it. It’s the fog that the sun must dissipate. Beware of anyone who says “just trust me.” Run fast to the hills!

    I read the Fourth Political Theory. It is pretty vague and abstract. Again, Mr. O’Meara is right. It does not consider the third political theory in any substance. It ends on gender and that just made me all the more suspicious. Then I discovered that Mr. Dugin’s daughter is into the political scene and quite the emanation of her father. Funny that. This is an observation and not a judgement.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted June 3, 2013 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

      I do not think it is a good idea to think in terms of the “political theories” (first, second, third, and fourth) that Dugin has set up because that concept strikes me as too simplistic and overly generalized and thus rather misleading. Of course, the philosophies of the “Third Political Theory” (which is in fact composed of a variety of different groups) should be explored because something valuable can always be learned, keeping in mind that the movements of the early 20th Century associated with it are largely outdated. However, many important intellectuals on what is typically called the “Right,” such as the Revolutionary Conservatives (Spengler, Moeller van den Bruck, Freyer, Spann, Klages, etc.) and Julius Evola, are associated with the the “Third Political Theory,” but Dugin simultaneously has some respect for them and links them to the “Fourth Political Theory.” In reality, they don’t belong to either group, because most of these thinkers would take issue with some of Dugin’s attitudes but at the same time cannot be simply lumped into the “Fascist” (to use in a general sense an often abused term) category. I should say that while O’Meara made a few points that were valid (although some were just wrong), he went a bit too far on some things and attacked too many good people in the process. So on that issue I don’t think Dugin is completely wrong.

    • GB
      Posted June 4, 2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink

      Nobody “dismissed” Michael O’Meara, there were no ad hominem attacks on him (respectfully disagreeing is not attacking) and I imagine the reply from the “leftist blogger” you allude to is this one:

      A point-by-point refutation of O’Meara’s review of Dugin’s book is not an attack either. The above commentary actually acknowledges O’Meara’s role as a singularly valuable thinker in America. If you don’t have the intellectual capacity to deal with arguments and counterarguments please don’t engage in caricature.

      • Lew
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        If you don’t have the intellectual capacity to deal with arguments and counterarguments please don’t engage in caricature.

        Is it really necessary to be so rude? Are you the author? I saw that person’s ad hominem swipe at Jared Taylor. I have a policy of not taking on the nuts and cranks in their own holes, but I will be happy to debate you, the author of that article, or any other Dugin supporter, right here on the value of Dugin’s work for people against white genocide and for the white working class. That person’s priorities speak for themselves.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        Lew gets full marks for his ability to condense long, rambling critiques into few tightly written words of criticism, and rebutting them with fewer words of constructive criticism.

        I have spent many afternoons to great profit reading the essays of Dr. O’Meara, usually spending one afternoon per essay, as there is so much said, and it is said so well.

        What snippets we have from Dugin are disjointed, and lack a metapolitical theme, other than some Eurasian system of governance developing over time, something which is less likely by the day given implacable Muslim hostility. The only way I can see this taking place is for Russia to deal with the Muslim Question in a very quick, final manner. This is not out of the question.

        Lew wisely condenses all of the arguments to one issue, and one question: Is it for or against the genocide I repeat genocide of the White race?

        That’s all that matters, and by The Gods, the Old as well as the New, how far we have fallen that we have to even discuss this issue at all.

        Incidentally, this is the first of the month, and time for one and all to recognize that counter-currents desperately requires your financial support. Today would be fine. Tomorrow just might be too late.

  3. Mauretanier
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    A word to the Identitarians:

    Theire Position is pretty much exactly like the one outlined by Mr. Dugin in his article. They are not anti-Islamic per se, and certainly not pro-American, but oppose solely the Islamization of Europe.

    It is a great challenge that the enemy has managed to divide the Islamic ond European resistance to Western Universalism by flooding muslim masses into Europe.

  4. Lew
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    I’m ambivalent about this man’s ideas. While there is a lot here that’s interesting, insightful and praiseworthy, there is also much that’s dubious.

    He repeats canards about American WNism.

    His multi-polarity concept is window dressing for Russian empire.

    He relies heavily on “the enemy of our enemy is our friend” fallacy. Without reciprocity, there is no friendship. Suggesting otherwise is misleading. At best, an enemy’s enemy is a potential ally.

    He encourages too much sympathy for non-Western peoples, the Islamic world, and people who are not “us” (Western in the proper sense), and with whom we have major conflicts of interest.

    He isn’t willing to identify the role of Jewish influence in poisoning the world which is problematic to be kind about it.

    I worry about the intellectual current in Traditionalism that seeks to link the fate of the West properly understood to people around the world with whom we have conflicts of interest, including historic enemies. Can’t ever just properly define an in-group, take our own side and leave it at that. The approach amounts to let’s take our side, and others’ too.

  5. Abraxas
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    I have to say that, despite my high IQ and my 5 university degrees –including a doctoral dissertation partly on Heidegger– I never really know what Mr Dugin is talking about.

  6. kennewick man
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    It may be unfair to judge Dugin based on a compilation of quotes, but he seems a bit self-contradictory. The most important contradiction I see in this piece is the recognition that

    “for Europe [Muslims] are a post-colonial wave of re-invaders from a different geopolitical and cultural space.”


    “Soon the world will descend into chaos. The financial system is going to collapse. Disorder, ethnic and social conflicts will be breaking out everywhere. Europe is doomed. Asia is in tumult. The oceans of immigrants everywhere will overthrow the existing order. The present system will be broken and disbanded.”

    This is to be followed by “direct global dictatorship.” Thus Dugin recognizes that immigration is an instrument being used for the destruction of the West. Then he calls on us to “develop a common strategy with Muslims.” If that strategy included repatriation of Muslim immigrants I would have no problem at all working with Muslims, but substantial numbers of Muslims, and well as other immigrants, such as La Raza in the US, have an avowed goal of taking over Western countries to which they immigrate. How would we benefit it the New World Order was overthrown to be replaced by Sharia states in Europe and a US controlled by Hispanic immigrants?

    Dugin’s priority is obviously the promotion of a multicultural Russian Empire. Maybe he would deny that Muslims in the Russian Federation have a different culture than Orthodox, but the Chechen insurgents don’t agree. Should they give up their aspirations for an ethnostate in order to strengthen the Russian Empire? I guess my point is that the enemy of my enemy isn’t always my friend, and while I may be happy that Muslims or Hispanics struggle against modernism and US government power, it isn’t clear to me how I could or should form common cause with them.

  7. Posted June 3, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    For those who have trouble understanding Dugin’s abstract language, I did a review of his book on my site.

    • Lew
      Posted June 3, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      I’m not surprised you admire Dugin. You’re on Team Anti-White. He sure does seem to attract a lot like you. I remember your race denialism and favorable outlook on non-Whites participating in Euro neo-paganism. What are you doing here?

      • rhondda
        Posted June 3, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

        Lew, I just have to tell you that you were great at OD. I don’t comment there, but wow you were on a roll.

      • Posted June 4, 2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        Thanks for your response Lew. I don’t agree with everything Dugin says 100%. I think his writing style is very abstract and he needs more of a point by point explanation of his ideology. I also disagree with Dugin on his assertion that the 3rd political theory could not work, it was very successful until WWII happened and the Allies messed it up. Until that point, many people in Europe saw Fascism as the future – since Germany and Italy were actually starting to pull themselves out of the Depression and do well economically, unlike their Democratic neighbors. I should probably make this point in my blog post.

        Yet I think there are redeeming aspects about Dugin. He has a vision of unlikely bedfellows fighting globalization together. Doesn’t mean that these people have to live in the same country together or sacrifice their own individual values, but they can join political and ideological forces in the fight.

        This is probably the most realistic way to fight the forces of globalization. History is a game of the most organized power winning over scattered sectarian mini-forces.

      • Posted June 4, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        I also realize I wasn’t critical enough of Dugin in my post, so I apologize for that. I changed some things.

        My main criticism of Dugin is the following:

        1. He needs to write more of a strategy guide instead of a philosophical dissertation.

        2. He needs to form more of an offensive, rather than defensive strategy. He talks much about what he is against – but not enough about what he wants to replace the Liberal Global order with.

        3. He dismisses the 3rd political theory as a failure, when it is not quite clear actually if it was a failure or not. After all, it’s only been about 60 years since the supposed failure of fascism, which is a drop in the bucket in terms of historical time. In my defense of Fascism, I state that it was actually quite successful in Germany and Italy during the 1930’s. The world wide depression was a result of Neo Liberal Capitalist Economics from The First Political Theory. In this sense, the First Political Theory was a failure. Many political theorists began to see Fascism as the way of the future. Germany pulled itself out of a depression via fascism and divorced the impotent Weimar Republic. However, because of World War II, fascism never really got a chance to prove itself and was completely obliterated by the Allied Powers.

        Since then, this First Political Theory has been held afloat by a massive system of debt and political subsidies. It is also ironic that a Democratic State like the U.S. is getting aid from a Totalitarian State – China, which is closer to the Third Theory in practice than the first.

        There is much evidence that the more authoritarian countries are doing better economically than their Democratic counterparts and could be a model for the future.

        I do not agree with everything Dugin says, but I value him as an out of the box thinker with creative ideas.

      • Lew
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink


        Thanks. Being a Southerner, I can appreciate OD. I think OD is getting an interesting mix of views right now.

    • rhondda
      Posted June 3, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      Interesting. I do prefer concreteness instead of disguised post modernism.

  8. Prussiancroat
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Dugin seems to be pushing an anti-globalist multiculturalism which is better than the globalist version but I think I’ll pass, seeing that Dugin is a “former” Communist maybe he’s trying to create a new version of the 2pt instead of brand new philosophy . Daseins of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your post-modernism.

    • Lew
      Posted June 4, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      I did not know that Dugin is an “ex”-communist. When I read your comment, it hit me like a thunderbolt why Dugin’s ideas have always left me cold. William F. Buckley and the “conservative” intelligentsia in America were masters of diffusing potential opposition by convincing white Americans to waste time on distractions. Many of them were “ex” communists too. With white genocide in progress, Dugin encourages white rightists to support other peoples’ goals as if whites don’t have enough to do without taking on the Palestinians and Starbucks in Malaysia. Dugin’s primary enemy is globalization: The same as Alex Jones, known controlled opposition. Trotskyites are clever. I’ll give them that much.

      • Posted June 4, 2013 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        Dugin was never a Communist. He was even arrested for a brief period in the early 1980s for being a subversive. As he has made clear elsewhere, and as has been discussed in many writings about him, he joined the organization Pamyat in his youth in the 1980s. Pamyat was a sub-group within the Communist Party of the USSR (and which included a swastika as part of its insignia). However, this wasn’t because he loved Communism, but because in Russia in the 1980s, no parties that weren’t associated with the Communist Party were allowed to exist – this wasn’t the U.S., where you just get some people on the street to sign a petition, and suddenly you have a party. Dugin has said that he joined it simply because it was the closest thing to a nationalist party in existence at that time. There is a brief clip of him from the 1980s on YouTube, talking about Pamyat:

        In it, he talks about the importance of the nation, tradition, the legacy of one’s ancestors, and the need for “spiritual values,” not ideals you would expect a fervent Communist to espouse. He also briefly supported the Communists during the early 1990s, not because he loved Soviet ideology but because he knew what horrors would await the world if the USSR ceased to act as a counterweight to NATO hegemony (horrors which came true). But one would be hard-pressed to find places in Dugin’s writings where he advocates for Communism. Even in this very text above, he writes, “The problem with the Left is different. It is good when it opposes the capitalist order, but it lacks a spiritual dimension. The Left usually represents itself as an alternative path to modernization, and in doing so it also opposes organic values, traditions and religion, just as liberalism does.” Pretty clear, isn’t it?

        If people want to take issue with Dugin’s ideas and positions, fine, but don’t resort to these ill-informed ad hominem attacks based on false information or due to prejudice.

      • Lew
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        The information does not appear to be entirely false. Based on your explanation, it sounds like Dugin was involved in communist groups, but it was because he felt he had no choice. It wasn’t because he supported communism. Fair enough. I can understand how Prussiancroat might get that impression, however. I withdraw my comment comparing Dugin to Buckley and American Trotskyites. I stand by this part for now.

        With white genocide in progress, Dugin encourages white rightists to support other peoples’ goals as if whites don’t have enough to do without taking on the Palestinians and Starbucks in Malaysia. Dugin’s primary enemy is globalization: The same as Alex Jones.

      • Posted June 5, 2013 at 1:46 am | Permalink

        My response to that is that it’s a matter of differing approaches. Some White nationalists seem content to attack the problems we face piecemeal, focusing on the local symptoms rather than the causes. Dugin wants to attack the modern world at its roots, and on a global scale. It may be that “whites already have enough to do,” but at the same time, the approaches that have been taken in recent decades have all been completely ineffectual. I agree with Dugin that White nationalists aren’t going to get anywhere unless they are prepared to cooperate with other groups around the world, groups which may not share the same beliefs or ethnicity. As he said, the people are not going to come to our aid this time. And WNs aren’t strong enough to do this entirely on their own. My two bits, anyway.

      • Lew
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        One can make the local effects in white lands the top priority and still attack the modern at the roots. Anything else is taking on other peoples’ fights. Because the white nations are so degraded, there are more opportunities to attack modern ideas and make a case for traditionalist alternatives in the white nations than anywhere else. With a matter like globalization, what’s wrong with saying “look what globalization is doing here?” “Let’s close the borders here. Let’s protect wages here. Don’t let business and government put money first here,” and so on.

  9. bluegrass
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    His ideas are convoluted and often contradictory, but, if he’s truly an established intellectual in the Russian establishment like its claimed, there’s only one thing I care about:

    Will his work convince the Russian government: now in an existential conflict with the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis, to send FSB agents undercover in America to finance, advise, and support White Nationalist organizations?

    It would be the ultimate irony. Communists and the KGB had a hand in turning traditional White America into a monstrosity, only to find it hungrily waiting consume what’s traditional Russia.

  10. Brian
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    Goodbye anti-white past, hello anti-white future.

  11. Lew
    Posted June 3, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Dugin’s frame is startlingly useless IF white survival is the objective. In fact, it’s worse than useless. I will go so far as to call Dugin’s ideas harmful to white interests, because they muddle the issues IF white survival is the goal. White genocide is what we are up against. This is the pressing existential threat not “globalism.”

    Globalism is not an enemy of white people, necessarily. Neither is capitalism, necessarily. These are abstract economic systems. They don’t act. People with power act. Moreover, globalism delivers benefits as well as harm. My own objections to globalism mostly have to do with its effect on wages and quality of life in the white nations.

    What does it even mean to say globalism is our enemy? It’s incoherent. If the Pakistanis are drinking Sprite, the Syrians buying Nike, and GE assembling turbines in Brazil to sell to South Korea, what does that have to do with white survival? Those activities might be keeping some whites employed in the US and Europe.

    Regarding matters like immigration, to the extent unchecked globalism creates incentives for non-white immigration into the white nations, the problem still isn’t “globalism” generally but a specific application of it. The problem there is not a nebulous “globalism” but people in business enabled by anti-whites with government power who collude to put money ahead of the public good for whites.

    These ideas are really incoherent even I’d say, again, harmful to white interests the more I think on them. Our enemies are the the anti-white genocidalists . White versus Anti-White is the only divide that should matter to anyone who isn’t anti-white.

    Globalism versus the world means a neutral, abstract system versus mostly non-whites. This is not a frame that helps us.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted June 4, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      Lew, I think the reason many people advocate fighting globalism (or rather, globalisation) is because it is more than the sale of different products across the world; it entails the existence of powerful multi-national business organizations which are difficult to control by any government and also the free movement of people across borders, on which companies often feed because of the cheap labor it provides. This is why practicing globalisation poses a concrete threat to the survival of any people that is susceptible to population shifts (meaning, immigration of racial or cultural foreigners such as is occurring primarily in Western countries), not to mention certain economic problems.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        I should add that, that being said, I think Dugin advocates fighting globalism for political and economic as well as cultural reasons. However, the problem is that he does not care about race but only about cultural ethnicity; as if an ethnic group can assimilate racial foreigners into its culture without any change being done (on the contrary, in reality if the racial make-up of an ethnic group is changed so extensively that it no longer looks the same, the essential racial background of that group was lost and we can hardly say it is the same ethnicity anymore). I once had a friend who interacted with a “Eurasianist” (the Dugin type) group online, and he told me he quit on it because whenever someone advocated combatting multiracialism and race-mixing, the people there would complain about how he is being “racist.” I have also observed the attitudes of some of Dugin’s followers on Facebook, and I have seen that they have a tendency to argue that racial differences are (according to them) so minute that they are irrelevant socially and culturally. They defy everything that has been set down by the most intelligent intellectuals of the Right who have proven that racial type is in fact relevant culturally and socially. Dugin himself, as far as I know, does not go as far as his followers (if I am right, he probably doesn’t because it would completely destroy his reputation in the Right), but he seems to encourage these attitudes on a “subterranean” level.

      • Lew
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink


        The enemy is not globalization. It’s a complex system for meeting supply and demand on a global scale. That’s all it is. The goals of the multi-national corporations do not include white genocide. Their goal is money.

        Your comments are always well-reasoned and informative. You appear to have substantial knowledge in your domain. But let me ask: why is the cultural, political and economic impact of globalization outside of white nations a white problem? If Syrians are demanding Sprite, Starbucks and McDonalds, I don’t see how it matters. Globalization is giving them what they want.

        The solution, I think, is first to admit that globalization per se is not anyone’s enemy and does have some upside for whites. Without globalization, we couldn’t have this discussion. Globalization enables the exchange of rightist ideas worldwide.

        Second, I think we fight the effects of the specific aspects of globalization that are a problem in white nations. These largely boil down to wage depression and immigrants.

        A key element of effective opposition is opposing the true source of those problems. This group includes the governments that enable the corporations to put profit ahead of the public good in the white nations where they operate. It also includes the mass media that shuts out critics of globalization from a white racial perspective and hides the impact of certain applications of globalization in the white nations. Multi-nationals are not primary.

        I look firsts to your thoughts if you care to share them.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        Lew, I think you are right that some aspects of globalisation, such as international communication and trade, are beneficial developments. However, when people say they oppose globalisation I do not think that they have a problem with these positive aspects but rather with the negative ones (completely open societies, open borders, unlimited immigration, lack of controls, etc.). To that extent, it seems that they are not opposing globalisation but certain aspects of it. However, I think we are dealing with a semantic issue here; “anti-globalists” usually refer not to a generic globalisation (that simply means some level of international trade/communication, even when limited) but rather to the extreme and negative globalisation of the liberal “New Class.”

      • Lew
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

        Even in that fomulation, globalism is still the wrong target IF white interests are your top priority. Western governments control the borders not multi-nationals. A global alliance against international Jewry might make some sense. Jews are overrepresented in banking, american think tanks, western governments and the other institutions that facilitate the negative aspects of globalism. It’s a matter of symptoms and causes. To the extent Muslims listen to this man, he is encouraging them to focus on the wrong problems too if he is telling them the main problem is globalism. Unless I’m mistaken, John Morgan said Dugin sees the critics of Jewry as conspiracy theorists.

      • Posted June 5, 2013 at 2:50 am | Permalink

        I’m getting deja vu, since this discussion is evolving in exactly the same directions as every other discussion following a post by Dugin at Counter-Currents over the past year, but at any rate, to reiterate something that has been posted at CC before, Dugin has certainly discussed Jews before. Here is but one example: Dugin also enjoys close relationships with groups like Hezbollah and Iran, which would suggest he’s not exactly ignorant about such issues. I have also never read or heard him refer to people who talk about Jews as “conspiracy theorists,” even though I suspect he would disagree with anyone who hates Jews collectively as a race.

        Since you mentioned me as well, I’ll say that I have never, nor would ever, dismiss people who discuss the issue of Jewish/Zionist power, such as Kevin MacDonald who has done important work, as conspiracy theorists. However, I do dismiss those who see this question as the only relevant matter of discussion, as if the mere existence of Jews in the West is the only obstacle between where we are now and a utopia. The matter is much more complex than that and involves many factors. And, as Dugin himself points out above, Whites themselves have their own share of the blame for our current situation.

        The WN movement is never going to get anywhere as long as the Jewish question is the be-all-and-end-all of any and every discussion about everything.

      • Lew
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 8:50 am | Permalink

        I have never in my life been able to find any American WNist who believes Jews are the only problem. The dymamic often unfolds because many people who claim to be against the modern deny or downplay the relevance of Jewish influence in promoting and sustaining modern systems. Dugin seems to be an example of the latter. Did Dugin mention Jews in his most important book on the 4PT? When this happens, nationalists often respond by pointing out Jews matter a lot too, and then critics incorrectly portray their calls for balance as claims only Jews matter.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

        I am basically in agreement with John Morgan on the Jewish issue (and also Julius Evola and Tomislav Sunic, who have expressed comparable thoughts on the matter). I have already mentioned this topic before; I think many groups of Jews throughout history have been problematic for the nations in which they lived, but to think that they are the sole source of problems is ridiculous (in my perspective, they are not even the primary source of problems). Much of what is associated with Jews could not have happened without the even more extensive contributions of corrupt or decadent Gentiles (who themselves oftentimes provided important ideas for subversion even before they could have entered any Jewish mind). It is also important to recognize that not all Jews are subversive, since Jews as a whole are not ideologically homogeneous but extremely heterogeneous (of course, this does not mean we should mingle with any group of Jews, because they are after all a different ethnic group which should live separately from us).

        As for conspiracy theories, all I will say is that what we denounce as a conspiracy theorist is a person who believes in the existence of a very large conspiracy for which we have no sufficient evidence and which can be misleading in analyzing problems (not to mention that it normally has a “self-sealing effect”). I reject notions of giant and unrealistic conspiracies, but people like MacDonald have shown clearly that the Jewish Problem can be tackled without resorting to conspiracy theories, so someone who believes that Jews pose a problem cannot ipso facto be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Finally, I should say that regardless of how much influence Jews have on Western governments, the predominant sources of problems in all times and places are the corrupt ruling class (which is largely Gentile) and social and cultural decadence (which obviously cannot be simplistically attributed to a few Jews), and thus these should be our primary targets.

      • Lew
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Permalink


        Unless I’m mistaken, John Morgan said Dugin sees the critics of Jewry as conspiracy theorists.

        John Morgan:

        Dugin also enjoys close relationships with groups like Hezbollah and Iran, which would suggest he’s not exactly ignorant about such issues. I have also never read or heard him refer to people who talk about Jews as “conspiracy theorists,” even though I suspect he would disagree with anyone who hates Jews collectively as a race.

        I wasn’t going to link this, because I don’t think it’s a big deal. This is what I was recalling when I mentioned you, Dugin and conspiracy theories.

        It is not my intent to start another round on this point. I wasn’t even going to bring it up, but since GB said I’ve been “misrepresenting” Dugin I wanted to make it clear to all why I said that.

        Posted July 27, 2012 at 4:07 am

        Could have asked him about the Jewish role in the Liberal Universalist project.

        John Morgan
        Posted July 27, 2012 at 7:18 am

        Dugin is not interested in that subject. When I was talking with him, he made it clear that he’s not interested in what he calls “conspiracy theory.” He has been critical of Israel before, but his real target is the U.S. and its allies in Western Europe. At the same time, however, he has never objected to those who discuss this subject. The work done by scholars such as Kevin MacDonald is entirely in keeping with Dugin’s worldview, if one wishes to combine them.

        Interview with Alexander Dugin

      • Posted June 6, 2013 at 2:48 am | Permalink

        What I think Dugin meant in dismissing “conspiracy theory” – I can’t be entirely sure, as it was just an offhand remark he made during a conversation – was in reference to those who attribute to Jews (or other groups) occult-like, omnipotent powers in terms of geopolitics, without taking into account the many factors that go into our current political situation, of which Jewish power is only one factor. However, the article by him that I linked to earlier in this thread demonstrates that he does consider it a valid point of discussion. I stand by my statement from last year that there is nothing in Dugin’s thought that in any way contradicts, for example, that of Kevin MacDonald or others who discuss this problem. And those studies are already available to anyone who cares to look at them. But we don’t need even more people repeating the work that is already being done by others. Dugin isn’t interested in writing critiques of the Jews or in comparing IQ test results or in writing anti-immigration tracts (especially since immigration isn’t yet a factor in Russia, anyway). Dugin is trying to do truly innovative work, in providing a framework for global action based on traditionalist and anti-liberal principles against the pillars of our current world order, from the perspective of one of the nations that is already one of the leaders in the fight against it. But some people, it would seem, prefer to just have more of the same. Anyway, I’m not going to say anything more on this topic, since it’s getting boring, besides which we’ll probably end up having this exact same discussion the next time Dugin comes up in a CC thread.

    • Jaego
      Posted June 4, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      His view seem in line with what survival expert and conspiracy theorist Joel Skousen said: each of the big three (the West, Russia, and China) have their own Globalist Agenda in competition with the other two. Perhaps the West even has more than one, say the Neo Cons vs the United Nations. Both Russia and the West are using Muslims as chips in the game. Based on this model, China may be doing the same with the Muslims they have access to. And of course Muslims are using all these for their own Globalist Agenda – the Jihad.

      And yes, by definition, all of them are opposed to us.

    • GB
      Posted June 4, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

      Lew, I’m answering here because for whatever reason I wasn’t allowed to reply in the above thread. Dugin does not deny race or its importance and the fact that he is calling for tactical alliances with other groups (which given the imbalance of forces is a realistic alternative) doesn’t make him an enemy (nor a paid officer of the Russian government, as someone absurdly claimed elsewhere in the comments) of any genuine anti-system organization. I can’t speak for the organization in whose website the article was posted because I’m not a member, but I agree with their political outlook completely and don’t understand what you seek to prove with that link you posted. As the author, however, I can speak for the article. Regarding a debate, I’ll be more than happy to do so but I don’t know if we are allowed to argue about an article that wasn’t published in C-C in the C-C comments section. That seems to me to be a simple, common courtesy to the moderators of this forum.

      • Lew
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

        Propriety aside, I doubt a debate would go anywhere because we appear to have different normative assumptions. People can debate a position, but a debate can’t resolve different assumptions about a moral priority.

        My normative assumption is that our people are more important than other people. Therefore, because white genocide is underway, I believe the top priority of Euro peoples worldwide ought to be combating white genocide in the Euro homelands and in the white diaspora nations. Effort geared toward anything else is a waste of time.

        Your normative assumptions appear to be different. The fact that you agree with that group’s outlook and say my point in linking to their page wasn’t immediately apparent tells me this. Their “flyers” page puts the Palestinians at very the top, along with Syria and others, not white children.

      • GB
        Posted June 4, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink


        (Again, I’m not allowed to respond directly to your post so I’m posting this above your message.) You were the one who asked for a debate but in spite of your sudden change of heart I agree that it seems pointless. Displaying empathy for other groups doesn’t mean you are neglecting yours, period. If you choose to oversimplify everything into “Team White vs. Team Non-White” then good luck accomplishing anything. I’ll leave now because I agree this is non conducive. For the record, you never refuted a single argument in the article (not to mention that it’s not disrespectful of O’Meara, it simply disagrees with him) and, furthermore, you attributed a position to Dugin that he’s never held.

      • Lew
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 12:17 am | Permalink

        [Dugin is] calling for tactical alliances with other groups (which given the imbalance of forces is a realistic alternative)

        This is false as far as I can tell. It’s not realistic. Dugin is proposing alliances with groups who don’t respect Europe for Europeans. Consider the US/Western/Zionist powers hit list.


        I just spent 45 minutes entertaining myself by scouring the internet looking for a shred of evidence anyone associated with these places has ever expressed support for the Golden Dawn party in Greece. I came up empty.

        Maybe Dugin knows something I don’t. Alliances are about reciprocity. I know what they would get from white support. They would get more support. More awareness in white communities around the world of their plight. More sympathy from whites. What will whites get from them? Having done a 45 minute review of media discussion of the main targets of the US/Western/Zionist powers, I can’t find evidence that any of them have ever expressed support for Golden Dawn.

        I did find evidence of Golden Dawn representatives making supportive statements about Iran and criticizing the US/Zionist position on Iran. But not the reverse, even though Golden Dawn is being targeted by the same Western powers targeting Iran, Syria, etc.

        The icing on the cake in terms of irony is that Aljazeera, owned by a billionaire Sunni, and PressTV, Iran’s official state media, both describe Golden Dawn as Neo-Nazis. Just like Western /Jewish media. Unsurprisingly (to me anyway not sure about my friends here), they take the side of the Muslim communities in Greece.

        Here’s a video from Iranian state TV complaining about Golden Dawn’s treatment of Muslims in Greece. Iranian state TV takes pretty much the same tone and approach to Golden Dawn as the World Jewish Congress.

        The World Jewish Congress said Tuesday it is greatly concerned about the emergence of what it called neo-Nazi parties in Europe

      • Posted June 5, 2013 at 2:17 am | Permalink

        What difference does it make what Iran or Hezbollah’s attitude toward Golden Dawn is? Most Americans are trapped in a very simplistic “friend/enemy” way of looking at the world, which is extremely detrimental in politics. As Carl Schmitt wrote, one cannot invest other powers and groups with an idea of absolute good or absolute evil. “Friend” and “enemy” are always temporary, pragmatic concepts, subject to change based on circumstances. The idea of the enemy as an absolute evil and the friend as an absolute good has been the Western paradigm since World War II and look where it’s got us. Being in an alliance with another community or group doesn’t imply that you agree with everything they say and do, that you love and admire them, and that your alliance is destined to last for eternity. Being in an alliance with Iran, for just one example, doesn’t mean you have to like Persians or Islam, or that you want them to come and live next door to you. Once the problem of our mutual foes is decided, then we can address the secondary issues. It’s just strategy, which is something many WNs seem to struggle with understanding.

        At any rate, I have no idea what the Iranian government’s attitude toward Golden Dawn is, but they’ve been making overtures to the radical Right in Europe and the U.S. since the 1980s. Rightists who are completely marginal at home are greeted as visiting dignitaries there.

      • Lew
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        John Morgan,

        What difference does it make what Iran or Hezbollah’s attitude toward Golden Dawn is?

        It’s relevant because their attitudes are evidence that Dugin’s proposals for alliances are unworkable. Again, alliances require reciprocity. Moreover, again, there is no evidence that the other targets of the Western powers are willing to reciprocate in alliances with anti-system whites in Europe or elsewhere.

        This matters, because time and energy are limited. A sizable number of anti-system whites are presently wasting time raising consciousness about Syria, the Palestinians, Iran, etc. without getting any reciprocal support from those peoples’ representatives and activists. Muslims love drawing Westerners into their disputes with Israel without conceding anything in return like calling for all Muslims to leave Europe. I hate to see folks who ought to know better take the bait.

        The Iranian media’s treatment of Golden Dawn shows this dynamic in action.

        Iran is at the very top of the Western power’s hit list. The same Western powers that are against Iran are also against Golden Dawn. They have a common enemy. Moreover, Golden Dawn representatives have made favorable statements about Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians.


        We stand in solidarity with Iran and their efforts to combat international Zionism, and also admire certain anti-corruption laws they have. We had many fights with the “Democratic Left” party, because they also want to impose sanctions on Iran.

        Remember, we aren’t anti-Muslim. We are anti-Muslim-that-live-on-Greek-land. Source.

        Looks like they’re using an approach Dugin would support. But is there evidence of reciprocal sympathy? No, there does not seem to be, at least not that I could find. Not only does Iran not appear to be giving Golden Dawn’s efforts any reciprocal sympathy, they’re attacking Golden Dawn for being mean to Muslims in Greece. The proof is that Iran uses their English-language media network to disparage Golden Dawn in precisely the same terms and frame as Jewish-Western media.


        Press TV is state-funded[10] and is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). The annual budget of Press TV is 250 billion rials (more than US$25 million).[11] Press TV broadcasts news reports and analyses which are close to the official position of the Iranian government, and its programmes are monitored and regulated by the Islamic Republic.[12][13]


        Racial hate-crime in Greece has skyrocketed since extreme far-right Nazi sympathizers Golden Dawn party was elected in parliament in last summer’s national elections. Souce

        Press TV broadcasts news reports and analyses which are close to the official position of the Iranian government.

        In fairness, I haven’t done an exhaustive review, but that treatment seems typical. This is what I could ascertain in 40 minutes. PressTV does appear to allot space to white nationalists and their sympathizers. I’d venture a guess, however, that PressTV gives them space to say things that are consistent with Iranian interests like attacking American/Israeli policies in the ME. I doubt they give them space to raise consciousness about white genocide and the Jewish role in it, or to call for the expulsion of Muslims from Europe. I might look at it later.

        Press TV’s U.S. Desk features many who also write for anti-war website outlets maintained by Veterans Today, American Free Press (formerly known as The Spotlight which was founded by Willis Carto) and David Duke.

        Each of these groups promote Holocaust denial claims and the anti-Semitic trope that the U.S. government and media are controlled by Jews.

    • Posted June 5, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      The last thing I have to say on this matter (for the moment) is a quote from this same essay: “We need to have a dialogue with those who look deeper into the nature of things, into history and who try to understand the present world order.”

      • Jaego
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 3:53 am | Permalink

        Not all deep issues are complicated. Moral issues are often very simple and stark – as the Existentialists remind us. So too matters of Identity. Are you a White Nationalist btw?

  12. Maaldweb
    Posted June 4, 2013 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    Mr Dugin is a paid employee of the Russian government, never forget that. He has to promote the official state ideology of the Russian Federation which is in practice imperialist, anti-slavic/anti-white, multi-ethnic, anti-western and pro-muslim.

    Dugin is aware that the slavic population demographics are below replacement level, he also knows that muslim demographics in Russia are far above replacement level. He thinks he can promote a form of civic nationalism among the muslims of Russia and somehow save the Russian Federation. He will eventually fail because a Russia without a core slavic population will not be Russian but something far different.

    Dugin will say different things to different audiences in order to acquire their support. To muslims he will argue that Russia is a friend of the muslim world and a multireligious state with millions of muslims and he will play down the strong Orthodox identity of the core slavic population of Russia. To the christian orthodox countries he will portray Russia as a christian nation which can be the guiding force of the Orthodox world. It is rather funny but Dugin tends to forget muslims when he speaks to traditional allies of Russia (e.g. the Serbs) who have fought centuries against muslim invaders…

    I believe CC should establish some ties with Russian white nationalists and post some of their views in form of articles. They consider Putin and Dugin traitors to the Slavic people and for a good reason. A few thousands of them are currently rotting in Russian prisons thanx to the anti-white policies of Putin & Medvedev. The latter is also probably of jewish descent (although he claims he is of Armenian origin).

  13. Greek here
    Posted June 4, 2013 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    Greek here

    This is indeed crazy…Dugin claims that the radical new-left party of SYRIZA in Greece is a potential ally… The man is either joking or has no idea what he is talking about… SYRIZA is a coalition of trotskyites and other radicals who support total amnesty for all illegal immigrants, open border policies, they are pro-gay, pro-feminist, anti-family, anti-tradition, they have supported FEMEN and the Pussy Riot, they are violently antinationalistic and they openly speak in favour of globalisation, they just disagree with its neoliberal aspects and of course they seek the abolition of all nation-states and of the Greek ethnostate in particular. SYRIZA is in reality the best advocate of western decadent liberalism and cultural marxism. Even the stalinists of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) have some views which are compatible to traditionalism (e.g. they are pro-family and anti-gay marriage), SYRIZA is the exact opposite of anything Dugin claims to represent…
    In the past SYRIZA has even sabotaged certain initiatives for a russo-greek cooperation by voting in the Greek parliament against their implementation. In fact SYRIZA is a purely anti-russian party.
    If Dugin really thinks that SYRIZA is an ally to his cause, then our cause as European and white nationalists is diametrically opposed to his!

  14. Lucian Tudor
    Posted June 4, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I think the reactions of most people here, even if they lead to some exaggerations, are largely justified. Personally, although I would not go so far as to classify myself as his enemy, I find Dugin to be one of the more disagreeable thinkers in our field of thought. I should say that although there are some things that can be criticized about American White Nationalism because it is a rather vague grouping encompassing both good and bad tendencies, Dugin does not seem to offer any criticism that is particularly profound.

    The fact that Dugin, along with many of his followers, speak of ethnic identity yet paradoxically deny that race has any importance is rather disconcerting for me. I find it strange that he has such high praises for Alain de Benoist when Benoist himself has persistently defended the idea that race is real and matters socially and culturally (in English, see particularly his essay “What is Racism?”). Whatever one may think of Benoist’s immigration policy proposals (which, from what I have read of his thoughts on the matter, seem to be very time-bound and I would not be surprised if Benoist would change his mind and advocate complete deportation under different circumstances), he is not very far from the common trend of thought of the rest of the European New Right or even of that here on Counter-Currents.

    I cannot say the same for Dugin, who is very ambivalent about ethnic and racial issues. I also find it strange that Dugin often refers to “Traditionalist” thought considering that Julius Evola himself has clearly affirmed in his works that blood purity and biological racial type (along with the spiritual race) were valued in “Traditional” cultures. It is ironic that the same people who Dugin seems to respect (Benoist and Evola), a respect which I actually share, completely contradict his denial of the importance of racial differences or that races should be separated in some way.

    Also, while I do agree that globalization needs to combatted on a global level, which does indeed entail some sort of cooperation or alliance with foreign peoples and races, Dugin’s idea of a Eurasian Empire is very unrealistic. Truly, it would be rather troubling if this “Eurasianism” that denies traditional blood values became the dominant form of “Right-wing” thought (if we can call it that) in Russia, because it is not even certain if the end-result would be defensive enough of their ethnic make-up. Russians, and everyone else too, need to firmly defend the importance of maintaining their own ethno-cultural space and racial type if they want to ensure that their future does not consist of any destructive multiracialist & multiculturalist (“melting pot”) possibilities but rather something healthy and normal. Dugin’s so-called “Eurasianism,” as long as it takes positions that cannot guarantee the protection of ethnic and racial type, is something unhelpful and maybe even counter-productive.

  15. rhondda
    Posted June 4, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    I do like Dugin’s concept of Sacred Geography/Geopolitcs, but that was not the point of this post.
    It takes quite a leap to think about it and how it would work, without a few wars. At least we can agree we all hate liberalism.

  16. Lucian Tudor
    Posted June 4, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    The problem with Dugin is not that he opposes “racism,” but that he denies that race has any importance whatsoever. It is possible to affirm the reality and the importance of race, to believe that races should live separately, and to oppose race-mixing, and still not be a “racist” (since racism is basically a belief in racial “supremacism,” not per se a belief that race matters) and in fact even to be “anti-racist.” Dugin is not merely opposed to racism, but rather, like many decadent Westerners, argues that race is insignificant and relatively unimportant culturally and socially. While I think we need to oppose biological reductionism and maintain a balanced perspective, Dugin takes the wrong position on the issue of race. This is why he has a problem with the rest of us, and why we have a problem with him.

  17. Posted June 4, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Globalization in itself is not so much the problem as is the threat of global government by the Anglo-American-Judeo-Freemasonic elite at the top. These are the people who push White genocide, as it appears to be a necessity in the creation of their NWO. WE should trade, and communicate, and solve problems at a global level but that doesn’t mean wiping out Whites by forced assimilation and integration as part of bargain.

    The question I would ask potential allies across the world is this. Do you support the right of Whites to have their own spaces and institutions for explicit White interests and destines?

    If the answer is “yes” then of course I’ll support the South American Indians who don’t want their forests raped by Big-Lumber. Or the Palestinians who don’t want to muscled off their land by the Jews. Or the Tibetans who don’t want to blended out of existence by the Chinese.

    But then a moral question comes up. What if the Israelis support us but in return ask us to turn a blind eye to them ethnically cleansing the Arabs in their creation of a greater Israel?

    I can see a day when the Anglo-American-Judeo-Freemasonic elite give Whites in America and the other Anglo countries anything they want as long as they go to war against the German-Russian-Chinese alliance that is forming. They may even give up the Jews, as long as they can stay on top and have their global government. Instead of a multicultural global order they may change it to an White Anglo-American global order but Whites will have to smash the rest of the planet for them to have it.

    Are you willing to kill a billion people for the Queen of England to get a White homeland in North America?

  18. Tim
    Posted June 5, 2013 at 12:42 am | Permalink
  19. Lew
    Posted June 5, 2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Empathy for others is fine. What’s wrong with empathy for your own?

    Based on their flyer page, your group has no empathy for whites suffering genocide. I infer they don’t perceive that it’s happening, or they don’t care that it is. But they’re happy to raise consciousness about the Palestinians, Libya and Syria. Free Palestine! Don’t keep us in suspense. You and the people who run that project are all white, no?

    Your essay contained personal attacks on Michael O’Meara and Jared Taylor. You called the latter a Buckleyite capitalist. I’m glad you did this. People need to see where Dugin’s ideas can lead. If applying Dugin’s ideas requires rejecting Jared Taylor over his economic positions, that is something people need to know.

    • GB
      Posted June 5, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      No, the article didn’t contain attacks against Michael O’Meara. Don’t lie. I did call Jared Taylor something along those lines because that’s what he is. He’s the one who refuses to talk about Zionism or make any significant statements about the subject, not Dugin. Likewise, he and his groupies are the ones who advocate for nonsensical initiatives like the “Majority Strategy” to supposedly “recapture” the Republican party, as if defeating the system depended on Republicans and as if the ideology that’s inspired the party from day one wasn’t a big part of the problem. As for calling Taylor a capitalist, well, that’s how he’s described himself in the past. He’s an advocate of free market capitalism and if you don’t see any incompatibility with that and the values that inspire organizations like the NANR then maybe your “Team White” is even smaller than I thought. Also, if you can differentiate between something written by Dugin and something written about Dugin (such as my article) then the next logical step would be to ascertain which ideas are his and which ideas are mine. So far, you’ve misrepresented Dugin systematically and lied about what I said in the article regarding Michael O’Meara, someone I actually respect.

      Using your same logic about alliances, why are you so worried about what others think of the Golden Dawn? They’re fighting for Greeks, not you. You’re “Team White,” remember?

      • Jaego
        Posted June 5, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        No, the Golden Dawn is for a free Europe, a Europe of Nations free from both the Jihad of the Muslims and the Crusade of the New World Order. They know that their task is made much easier if other European Nations are headed in the same direction. Since the Evil is International the response must be too – without sacrificing Ethnic Integrity, which is the soul of Nations. This is our Movement and we know who’s in and who’s out. The Golden Dawn is in. You and Dugin are out.

    • Jaego
      Posted June 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

      Being against something or someone can unite people or create the illusion of that for some. Mohammad himself taught about temporary alliances and treaties – to be broken when Muslims were again ready to take up the Jihad. Several years ago David Duke, some Non-Zionist Hasids, etc went to Iran for the Holocaust Conference. Duke said that he got a respectful hearing when he said he wanted Europe for Europeans. But does that mean they agree with him? I don’t know what Duke really thinks, but I’d say no. They listened to a temporary ally, that’s all. Just so, does the fact that the Hasids were there mean that they have renounced their ethnic supremacy as written in their holy Book of the Law, the Talmud? I don’t think so.

      Whites seem to have immense trouble understanding this simple truth. We’ve been on top for so long that we’ve lost all of our Cunning. Russia is allied with the Shia without trusting them. We should have been so wise.

    • Lew
      Posted June 5, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

      No, the article didn’t contain attacks against Michael O’Meara. Don’t lie.

      I’m not lying. I see your concluding “bombast” section as a type of personal attack that went beyond the requirements of professional disagreement by implying conspiratorial thinking and such things to O’Meara. You say it wasn’t. People can scroll up and read it for themselves. At a minimum, your tone was not collegial. But calling Jared Taylor, a man who has fought tirelessly for white people for decades and at great personal cost I’m sure, a racist Buckleyite capitalist was definitely a personal attack. Buckley used his influence to inflict severe damage on white American prospects in the United States, while promoting some of the worst enemies not just of White Americans but of the whole world into positions of influence in American media. Drawing a parallel between that man and Jared Taylor is not fair.

      You say Taylor hasn’t made statements on Zionism. He hasn’t made statements on abortion, marginal tax rates, or American maneuvers in the South China Sea either. Zionism and many other matters are out of scope for what I understand to be Taylor’s main priorities: building a case for white racial identity without a lot of distractions on peripheral issues – like how Israel is treating the Palestinians. In other words, Taylor has credible reasons for not tackling the issue unlike Dugin.

      Personally, I disagree with Taylor’s philo-semitism, and his refusal to denounce Jewish aggression against white folks in their homelands. But his decision not to address Zionism, Israeli government policy in the middle east, is the right call. Quite frankly, I prefer Taylor say nothing about Jews than talk about a peripheral matter like Zionism, because talking about Zionism draws attention toward the middle east and away from what’s happening to whites folks here and elsewhere. Israeli government policy toward the Palestinians is peripheral to white genocide.

      I understand the problems with capitalism which is why I don’t support it in its current form, nor am I reflexively against it in all cases. It depends on the type of capitalism at issue. The current form as practiced in the west is pretty obviously bad. Not all forms of it are. I’m not sure what Taylor has said about this subject. I doubt he supports the elements of any strain of capitalism that are anti-white in practice such as open borders immigration for cheap labor and such things.

      Yes, Greeks are a subset of white. I’m not worried about what “others” think of Golden Dawn. In this case, I’m interested in what the Islamic world thinks about them since Dugin sees benefits to aligning with Islam.

      • GB
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 1:06 am | Permalink

        Obfuscate what you said as much as you want. You stated that I’d personally attacked O´Meara and I didn’t. Ergo, you’re lying. Also, you don’t seem to read posts in their entirety nor I believe you read the above texts by Dugin in their entirety. I already said I don’t belong to the organization whose page you linked to so I could hardly talk about their membership. Take your complaints to them or at least stop misrepresenting them.

        And please don’t talk about collegial tone. You of all people with your childish “Team Anti-White” meme. How can an adult even frame an argument in those childish terms? And before you misrepresent my arguments again, I’m not denying that there’s a systemic attack on White nations.

        As for the Taylor barb, try to read more carefully. I said he was a racist Buckleyite because that’s what he essentially is. I’m not the one who advocates delusional ideas like the “Majority Strategy” or whatever it’s called. When I mention Zionism, I am also referring to its aggression against European peoples. Your argument about Taylor not making statements on abortion or marginal tax rates is simply laughable. Why would you try to exculpate him from deliberately downplaying a problem that’s far more significant than the subjects you mentioned? I’m not saying Taylor’s public activities haven’t cost him dearly. They probably have. Nonetheless, he still wishes to exculpate the one group that seems to have hurt him like no other. You tell me who’s wrong and why you are so eager to create excuses for him while condemning Dugin for things he hasn’t done nor said.

        And yes, you’re asking about what’s Iran and Hezbollah’s stance on the Golden Dawn so it’s only logical to assume it concerns you. You seem to forget what you write from post to post. Let me give you a hint: what they think about the Golden Dawn is irrelevant. In any event, the Golden Dawn leader just declared that he wants his party to become like Hezbollah so maybe Greek nationalists do see some value in organizations that you clearly are unable to.

      • Lew
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

        I found that article when I was reviewing PressTVs treatment of GD. I agree Hezbollah is a useful model for GDs situation. It’s besides the point at issue here. It’s not evidence of reciprocity (evidence of a faction of Dugin’s proposed Islamic allies supporting Greece for Greeks or Europe for Euros). The article shows that GD wants to model Hezbollah not that Hezbollah/Iran support GD. I was momentarily excited when I found that. I was hoping to find a indication that Hezbollah/Iran might offer GD assistance in return, if not direct aid or advice on organizing then at least moral support. Stupid me. Hezbollah hasn’t even offered perfunctory moral support. Why would they, with Shia home-base telling the world GD is a neo-Nazi group?

      • GB
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

        But I didn’t post the GD-Hezbollah article to claim one was supporting the other. All I said is that the GD can see the value in what other “Team Non-White” organizations are doing, unlike you who gets offended by the mere idea that someone would express empathy towards, say, Palestinians. And maybe Hezbollah hasn’t provided support to GD or others because they’re actually in the middle of a war against a much more powerful enemy. They don’t have time for “Team White vs. Team Non-White” digressions. Also, I couldn’t help but notice you don’t have a reply for the other points I made.

      • Lew
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        Dugin recommends aligning with Islam. Whatever his personal views, Taylor isn’t telling anyone to join with the US Chamber of Commerce. Nice try though.

        I looked at your article again. You don’t like fascism. You don’t like Harold Covington’s Northwest idea. You’re not sure if Golden Dawn is a positive development. You don’t like Taylor because of his economic positions. White v Anti-White is simplistic, according to you. Meanwhile, you seem to have a favorable view of possible alignments with Islam and the disguised form of multi-culturalism known as ethno-pluralism.

        Your commentary is an excellent example of how new right ideas can be used to justify anti-white positions.

      • GB
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

        Boy, you really have trouble understanding what you read. What about what I said about Casa Pound or Giorgio Freda? (Google him since I´m pretty sure you don´t know who he is) If I didn´t have any sympathy for fascism and a thorough understanding of the ideology (which, I can assure you, is much better than yours) I wouldn’t have bothered writing that article or posting on this thread. Also, I don’t “dislike” people because of their economic positions but I do dislike people who complain about oppression while refraining from mentioning one of the main oppressors. You, on the other hand, just provide excuses for this type of behavior.

      • Lew
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

        I thought you were advocate of the 4PT over other approaches including fascism. To boil it down, I read O’Meara as arguing fascism/3PT might still have some potential and you as arguing that Dugin’s 4PT is the way to go. I meant you don’t like fascism in the sense of not seeing it as a path forward. That’s a misreading?

      • GB
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        I don’t know which one is the path forward but I see both alternatives as valid (as opposed to a spurious brand of racialist Republicanism that refuses to identify its enemies.) My issue with O’Meara’s review was his claim that 4PT hasn’t accomplished much (of course not, since it’s rather new) in comparison to postwar fascism (which, given all the years it’s had to develop and modernize itself and in light of what’s transpired in Europe an the U.S. over the last several decades amounts to very little progress.)

      • Lew
        Posted June 6, 2013 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        I looked up The Majority Strategy. I didn’t know what it was or that Taylor supported it. At one time, he didn’t take political positions except on immigration. Disappointing!

        I grant your point here without hesitation. You are right that any anti-liberal strategy that involves using American mainstream politics is a waste of time and effort, and it is not an option that I would recommend that anyone pursue. However, The Majority Strategy at least defines the in group correctly: the strategy is about the good for whites not others. In this sense, TMS, or an approach like it, could have metapolitical value simply by pushing the idea into the public square that whites have interests. Even though the approach will never lead to meaningful change through American institutions, by raising consciousness about the basic idea whites have interests as whites, the approach could lay the groundwork for other initiatives in the future.

        The 4PT, on the other hand, doesn’t have any immediate practical value for whites either. No one who backs it as far as I know controls any governments or institutions with the power to make changes. This is not strike against it as essentially, it seems to be a body of developing theory. But metapolitically, the 4PT is outright counter-productive to white interests because it’s not focused the good for whites only.

        While TMS is bad, I think Dugin’s is ultimately worse for whites because of poor in-group definition. It seems wrong at the foundation. I don’t think whites who rightly reject American conservative and mainstream approaches should leap from one flawed approach to another, especially one that does not put white interests first.

        I do have a lot sympathy for the Palestinians. But that doesn’t mean they should be a priority when whites are suffering genocide, our own need sympathy too, and the Palestinians do not give a rat’s ass about us. Or do they? Is there a Palestinian activist site that encourages Palestinians to print flyers that say in Arabic “Free White Americans from Black Criminals and Jewish Bankers!”

  20. Rus
    Posted June 6, 2013 at 4:41 am | Permalink

    As a Russian, I can not simply agree with Dugin’s Eurasianist views. We Russians are a European, christian traditional people. His revision will bring the destruction of us. Muslims are not an “integral part of Russia”.

    • Jannik
      Posted June 7, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      I fully agree. Islam is completely incompatible with russian culture, or any european culture in general. Dugin is just advocating another version of globalism.

      Its clear that Dugin wants to build some sort of soviet inspired empire. He is not a nationalist in any meaningful sense of the word.

  21. Lew
    Posted June 7, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    John Morgan,

    Dugin is trying to do truly innovative work, in providing a framework for global action based on traditionalist and anti-liberal principles against the pillars of our current world order, from the perspective of one of the nations that is already one of the leaders in the fight against it. But some people, it would seem, prefer to just have more of the same.

    This answer brings some clarity for me on the potential value of Dugin’s work. Your comments are always well reasoned.

    You are right that reinventing in the wheel and “more of the same” aren’t necessarily helpful. At the same time, William Pierce’s warning keeps popping into my head in these Dugin debates: it’s better to do nothing than something counter-productive.

    Despite the appealing aspects of Dugin’s thought (and I agree there are some), it’s just not clear to me which side of the fence Dugin is lining up on. That is, it’s not clear IF white preservation, cultural renewal and restoration based on anti-modern principles are the main goals, but with preservation as the top priority because nothing else is possible without it.

    Last time we exchanged words on Dugin, I think I remember you saying something like “we have quit making the same mistakes over and over again.” This is a simple but powerful observation, and true. I can’t help but wonder, however, if some people (not you) gravitate to Dugin’s ideas because in a sense Dugin is one of the “only games in town” for anti-modern theorists with big and ambitous ideas.

    With the repeated mistakes, two mistakes that we have made repeatedly are trying approaches that don’t work over and over again **and** getting drawn into supporting goals other than our own. It’s a completely different context, and far from a perfect parallel, but a lot of North American whites were duped into supporting Ron Paul. He appeared to be out of the mainstream, claimed to be an ally, and pushed select ideas somewhat aligned with WNist ideas. It turned out to be a waste.

    The problem with a global orientation — and I’m stunned that people who advocate for this orientation don’t seem to appreciate this point — is that while everyone has essentially the same enemy, everyone’s circumstances are not the same. The globalist threat to traditional Islam, for example, isn’t happening in parallel with a slow of genocide of people who follow Islam.

    The European New Right in general, IMO, makes too many concessions to multi-culturalism, which is itself a key foundation of the modern global order. We don’t want to repeat the same mistakes. I know some would dispute this, but I’m not going to split the technical hairs between ideas like “ethno-pluralism” and “multi-culturalism” — they’re justifications for not removing all non-whites from white living spaces.

    My two cents is the people who prioritize white survival and have the ability to do it, if there are such people, should take a run at developing an updated fascist theory. Golden Dawn’s success is evidence in favor of Michael O’Meara’s notion that there is potential left if not in facism than in approaches derived from fascism.

    • Posted June 8, 2013 at 4:04 am | Permalink

      Dear Lew,

      I was going to exit this discussion, but since you replied to me respectfully and sincerely, I’ll answer you.

      “Despite the appealing aspects of Dugin’s thought (and I agree there are some), it’s just not clear to me which side of the fence Dugin is lining up on. That is, it’s not clear IF white preservation, cultural renewal and restoration based on anti-modern principles are the main goals, but with preservation as the top priority because nothing else is possible without it.”

      I don’t think White preservation is the PRIMARY goal of Dugin’s efforts, no. However, I see it as being part of what he’s doing with Eurasianism, and an inevitable by-product of his efforts, since his stated purpose is the defense of ALL ethnic identities (which is identical to the European New Right’s “cause of the peoples”). I don’t think it’s very surprising that he doesn’t go on about White survival, however, since immigration has yet to become the problem in Russia that it has in the U.S. and Western Europe (which is to Russia’s credit).

      ‘Last time we exchanged words on Dugin, I think I remember you saying something like “we have quit making the same mistakes over and over again.” This is a simple but powerful observation, and true. I can’t help but wonder, however, if some people (not you) gravitate to Dugin’s ideas because in a sense Dugin is one of the “only games in town” for anti-modern theorists with big and ambitous ideas.’

      I imagine I have undergone a very similar political development to most of the people here at CC, even if I’ve ended up in a somewhat different place. I can’t speak for why other people like Dugin – although he certainly doesn’t arouse the same degree of controversy in Western Europe that he seems to do in North America. Many of the identitarians are enamored of Dugin, for example – some of them are even engaged in translating his work. Even the British seem to have an easier time seeing him as an ally. I am not a follower of Dugin – I do not agree with him on everything he says and writes (such as some of his views about the nature of race, or about the legacy of the 3PT), nor do I look to him for guidance on every issue. But I consider him a major figure because he is the only person who has tried to take the ideals of the European New Right and of traditionalism, which had been confined to books and seminars for decades, and actually tried to translate them into something like a coherent ideology and strategy. Plus he actually has the ear of one of the world’s most important governments. He also has a metaphysical basis for everything he does. To have an ideology, it’s insufficient to just say that one is in favor of White survival or whatever – it needs to have a basis that addresses all of the aspects of life. Having a United States the same as we have now, just devoid of non-Whites, is not my goal, personally speaking. WNs keep insisting that they agree with me on that, but I see little indication in practice, since all most of them seem interested in talking about is Jews, 3PT (although who is the primary theorist of 3PT today?), immigration and affirmative action, and IQ test scores. That’s not the sort of thing that gives rise to a new culture or a new type of individual. Most are avowed atheists who pooh-pooh any sort of theory at every opportunity (which, admittedly, is a problem for America as a whole, not just among WNs). For me, this is insufficient and not a workable strategy, and is one of the main reasons that the history of the true Right over the last several decades is one of continuous, colossal and humiliating failure. So while I admit that I don’t regard Dugin as the be-all-and-end-all, until something better comes along (although I’m not holding my breath on that), I think he provides the best framework for developing a workable global strategy.

      “With the repeated mistakes, two mistakes that we have made repeatedly are trying approaches that don’t work over and over again **and** getting drawn into supporting goals other than our own. It’s a completely different context, and far from a perfect parallel, but a lot of North American whites were duped into supporting Ron Paul. He appeared to be out of the mainstream, claimed to be an ally, and pushed select ideas somewhat aligned with WNist ideas. It turned out to be a waste.”

      Well, I wouldn’t compare Dugin to Ron Paul, but I see your point. Anyway, what is the alternatives? Website postings and conferences don’t constitute a political movement. Still today, as before, the true Right in North America is dead in the water.

      “The problem with a global orientation — and I’m stunned that people who advocate for this orientation don’t seem to appreciate this point — is that while everyone has essentially the same enemy, everyone’s circumstances are not the same. The globalist threat to traditional Islam, for example, isn’t happening in parallel with a slow of genocide of people who follow Islam.”

      No, but the adversaries are the same. Again, I take a Schmittian approach on this.

      “The European New Right in general, IMO, makes too many concessions to multi-culturalism, which is itself a key foundation of the modern global order. We don’t want to repeat the same mistakes. I know some would dispute this, but I’m not going to split the technical hairs between ideas like “ethno-pluralism” and “multi-culturalism” — they’re justifications for not removing all non-whites from white living spaces.”

      It’s not a question of ideals, it’s a question of reality. Realistically, a purely White society is not achievable under present circumstances. Even just slowing the trends that are already taking place has been completely beyond the ability of the true Right, let alone reversing them. It needs to get somewhere, anywhere, first. Personally, I see Eurasianism as offering a possibility for that.

      “My two cents is the people who prioritize white survival and have the ability to do it, if there are such people, should take a run at developing an updated fascist theory. Golden Dawn’s success is evidence in favor of Michael O’Meara’s notion that there is potential left if not in facism than in approaches derived from fascism.”

      While there are lessons to be learned from 3PT, personally I see it as having been too specific to the needs and situation of the mid-twentieth century. Also, the fact is that there was a great deal of banality in fascism. Most of the more interesting stuff (as Dugin himself has indicated) was relegated to the margins, and was often suppressed by them. People never seem to appreciate the irony of the fact that many of the figures that are held up by the Right today as heroes of 3PT were not just marginal but often became part of the opposition to the fascist regimes. Also, personally I do not desire to live in a totalitarian state.

      Thanks for making a serious reply.

  22. Lew
    Posted June 7, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    John Morgan,

    Also, are you the owner of Arktos?

    • Jaego
      Posted June 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

      I was amazed the evening I found Arktos: I had no idea there were people like me in the world who valued White survival and Traditional Spirituality. I thought they had died out with the Nazis. But the shipping rates were prohibitive. And then I found Counter Currents that had the same strengths and none of the British weaknesses.

      • Posted June 8, 2013 at 4:24 am | Permalink

        Jaego, thanks for your kind words about Arktos. It is true that, since our warehouse is in the UK, shipping rates to North America can be high. However, our books are also available through Amazon and, of course, Counter-Currents. I’m not entirely sure what you meant by “British weaknesses,” but Arktos really isn’t a British company except technically. Our warehouse is there, and we are based there for legal purposes, but at the moment only one of our staff is living there and there are actually no English people among our directors. (I’m American.)

    • Posted June 8, 2013 at 4:12 am | Permalink

      Lew, I am AN owner of Arktos, by virtue of the fact that I am one of its many shareholders. I am also one of the directors of Arktos (not all shareholders are directors). But there is no single person who owns Arktos or who makes all the decisions. I should probably point out that people should not assume that the things I post here and elsewhere are the official Arktos line on any particular subject. They are just my own views alone, and I’m sure some of my colleagues would disagree with me on some points.

  23. Jaego
    Posted June 7, 2013 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    White Survival isn’t enough for our White Nationalist high brows. They are ashamed “just” being for other Whites. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic – as if we aren’t on the verge of extinction. No, instead we have to be for all the Peoples of the World. To even talk of this right now is insane and just more of the same old same old Treason. Thus White Nationalism is on the verge of just becoming the little sister of Political Correctness.

    Think of the Great Man of the Vedas. Yes, the Brahmins are the Head but the workers are the feet. Our Brahmins are suffering from psychic neuropathy and act like their feet belong to someone else. No wonder they can hardly move. So a stronger more clever People organize our Sudras for their own purposes. Thus we have the English Defence League. We have no one to blame for this but ourselves. People not being represented are Power in Potential. Things like this don’t last. Someone will exploit it. Why don’t we be the ones to exploit the American Power vacuum? Or are we going to continue to be disembodied, talking about the rights of people thousands of miles away while our Race dies? A head without a body cannot live. The Golden Dawn has it right as does Hezbollah. But we are only allied with the first. I know its complicated to people without bodies.

    • Lew
      Posted June 7, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      The worldview of Amy Biehl and Rachel Corrie with a traditionalist twist. I fault David Duke, American Southerner, for this trend too. Too much focus on bullshit like Zionism, the Palestinians, Iran and neo-conservativism.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    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

    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


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace