Connect with us



Fascinating interview with Russia’s conservative philosophy icon Alexander Dugin

On 31 August, Paul Robinson interviewed Alexander Dugin in Moscow.




Originally appeared on Irrussianality

Paul Robinson (PR): I am writing a book about Russian conservatism and wanted to talk with you as a well-known Russian conservative. In the West, many people talk of a ‘conservative turn’ in Russia. Do you think that this is the case?

Alexander Dugin (AD): This is a difficult question. In the first place, in order to have a conservative turn, one must follow the line of modernization. And that’s where the problems start. I have even written a book which is called Archeomodern, in which I describe how the modernization of Russian society, both in the Tsarist and Soviet periods, was partial, preserving a certain conservative, archaic core. Many things which seemed modern, such as Bolshevism, had a different semantic. On closer inspection, they weren’t so modern and contemporary. Marxism is undoubtedly a modernistic and progressive ideology; it was accepted, and on the basis of it the old conservative system was overturned. At least on the level of formal declarations, that’s what happened. But, looking more closely at what happened in Soviet society, it becomes clear that the Soviet period was more archaic than the Tsarist period. A large quantity of the people who were drawn into government had an ancient worldview, an ancient Slavic, eschatological religion, largely sectarian, which largely overcame the hermeneutic overlay of communism. The best commentator on this was the Israeli-Soviet dissident Mikhail Agursky, who wrote a book National-Bolshevism, in which he describes how Bolshevism, like the Soviet period as a whole, wasn’t what it seemed to be, that not just modernization but also archaism lay at the foundation of the communist epoch.

In my opinion, one can imagine the archeomodern as a system like fractions: the numerator is the modern, and the denominator is the archaic. Western society went along a different path, in which the archaic and the modern are on the same plane. That is, modern and traditional society displaced one another. And the entire process of the modernization of Western societies consisted of the replacing of elements: monarchy by democracy, religion by secularity. But in Russia, from the very beginning all these things were not mutually exclusive, i.e. one could be modern and archaic. The Soviet period was at one and the same time both progressive and archaic, what the national-Bolsheviks called ‘Soviet Rus’.

In order to understand whether or not there has been a conservative turn in contemporary Russian politics, one must first of all establish the correct version of Russian history, which a Westerner simply can’t do, because a Westerner considers his own history to be a universal paradigm. But in Russia, that’s not the case. Here, the 18th century was more modern than the 19th; the 19th more modern than the 20th. Consequently, when we talk about a conservative turn, we must bear in mind a completely different topology. Some of what we have has progressed, and some has become archaic, creating a very complicated system of coordinates.

For instance, religion was the numerator in Tsarist Russia. During the transition to communism, religion moved to being the denominator and predetermined the semantics and hermeneutics of the Stalinist period. Formally, Stalin wasn’t a Tsar, but informally he was. That is to say that the overthrown monarchy transitioned from being an explicit to an implicit model. Archaic populism, which in the 19th century was below, now moved on top in the form of communism and popular rule. With the change of places, these elements create a model which a Western thinker just can’t understand, as he is guided by linear Aristotelian logic, by the principle of the excluded middle. But the archeomodern is founded on the principle of the excluded middle. Consequently, when we speak of a conservative turn, we must put this thesis into the system of coordinates corresponding to Russian history. I have a book on this theme, The Sociology of Russian Society, where I look at the base concepts of this more complex system of coordinates in great detail.

Clifford Geertz, the American anthropologist, introduced the concept of ‘thick description’. In order to understand Russian society today, one must give it its thick description, which is never done in the West. In the West, people rely only on the ‘thin description’, and resort to thick description only in the cases of archaic societies, and Clifford Geertz  himself only used it when studying Indonesian societies. But thick descriptions aren’t employed with transitional barbaric states like Russia, China or the countries of Latin America, and completely incorrectly, as this concept can be used to describe not just archaic and barbaric societies, but also developed ones. If people in the West would describe their own societies from the point of view of thick description, they would discover many new things about themselves. Baudrillard said good things about this when he said that he was born in a very complicated world, and that at the end of his philosophical activity it had become even less comprehensible. One shouldn’t be afraid of this lack of comprehension. Russia society is incomprehensible and complicated, and one shouldn’t simplify it, simply understand it. And European society is similarly incomprehensible and complicated.

PR: If you are right about the archeomodern, does that mean that Russia has always been a conservative country? Even in times of modernization?

AD: Yes, one can say that in some sense Russia has always been conservative. But it’s necessary to elaborate that even when we overthrew the Tsar, and we rejected the institution of monarchy, we didn’t reject the monarchical hermeneutic. For us Lenin was the God of the Soviet period, and Stalin was the Tsar, who also gave birth to his own kind of sacralisation. The Soviet Union came to an end precisely at the point when Lenin and Stalin ceased to be holy figures, sacred monarchs, when they ceased to be symbols. Of course, there were many other reasons, but that’s exactly how it was.

If you understand how to decipher our society, then the Soviet period can be divided into three stages, and it degraded in proportion to the degree of desacralization. All these cycles, including the Soviet, the Tsarist, the era before the Schism, have their own map, their own topography. This conservative element is present at every step, and at every step its strength varies.

If you take the contemporary period, then there is a break with the Soviet archaic, which is discredited, but also modernized. And now the monarchic, Orthodox archaic, which used to be the denominator, is rising up and becoming the numerator. That is to say that our society is conservative in the Soviet sense, but also in another way. Today, monarchism, conservatism is the ideology of the ruling elite, there is the cult of the leader or cult of the Tsar, which is more and more explicit and is becoming closer and closer to being formalized in a monarchical system. But consciousness is becoming more and more progressive, individualistic, that is less archaic than in the Soviet period. In other words, each stage of Russian history has its own formula, its own idea of conservatism and modernization. But the two terms can’t be used in the same way throughout the entire length of Russian history.

PR: That is to say that there is no history of Russian conservatism?

AD: No, because the understanding of conservatism, the semantics of conservatism change fundamentally at every stage. As a result, it is very difficult to determine in Russian history and philosophy who in reality was a conservative.

PR: That is true.

AD: For instance, the Slavophiles. We are used to considering them conservatives. But how then do you explain that they were under police surveillance, and were considered a dangerous element? How do you explain the fact that they had more influence on the Populists, that is on the left, the socialists and the revolutionaries, than on the right? The Black Hundreds were formally conservatives, but you won’t find any references to Slavophilism among them. But you’ll find lots of references to the Slavophiles among the socialist revolutionaries.

PR: I read that Aleksandr Kireev, during the post-reform period, wrote that the aristocratic opposition was for representative institutions, for a liberal economy, but the liberals in the government were against.

AD: Exactly. And Aksakov, for instance, said that there was no need to give the people political rights, as the Russian people should be left outside of politics. The people didn’t understand it and would be destroyed if they were given political rights. It would be divided up into individuals. We see this idea, that one must preserve the unity and wholeness of the people, but in a different configuration, among the anarchists, the Populists, the socialist-revolutionaries, and even, in some version, the communists. That is, the hermeneutic, the interpretation of these or those terms – freedom, politics, people, justice, law, power, will, independence, state power – are a product of the milieu in which they are proclaimed and of the time at which we are looking at them. They change their semantics. They don’t have any universal meaning in Russian history. I once again underline the importance of Mikhail Agursky, who was a Russian, deeply loved the Russian people. He was Jewish, emigrated to Israel, and died here in 1991 having come to the first congress of compatriots. He was the person who wrote the most intelligent work entitled National-Bolshevism, about the essence of the Soviet period, in which he writes about the left conservatives and collects all these paradoxes. One can’t talk about conservativism or communism without having read his work. He also wrote a book in English, his dissertation, Third Rome.

PR: I have read this book.

AD: In this book, he provides an enormous number of examples which show the unsuitability of the classical Western political systems for describing Russia’s political history. Our conservatism is so heterogeneous, multifaceted, dialectic and paradoxical, that in order to speak seriously and accurately about it, it’s very important to understand this complicated dialectic, because what appears to be conservatism on one level is revolutionary on another; and what appears revolutionary is conservative.

PR: You have spoken about revolutionary conservatism. Do you think that one and the same person can be both a revolutionary and a conservative?

AD: Yes, that’s how it is. Take the example of Savinkov. Savinkov was undoubtedly a revolutionary. But look at his mystical ideas – he’s a complete mystic, a populist-mystic. There’s a lot like that, especially in Populism and in early communism. Andrei Platonov, for instance, was a Soviet writer, who was more archaic than just about anybody. Pre-Christian myths rise to the surface of his model – sun-worshippers, etc. There are deep roots in Russian sectarianism, in Russian mysticism, in Russian eschatology. And these were actualized in the 20th century. And this gives rise to a feeling of a certain madness in the Soviet period, which was a very specific madness. It was the madness of a reanimated subconscious, which had come to the surface. In order to understand either the Soviet or the contemporary period of history, one needs to be able to measure Russian society in many ways and to use many methodologies, including the subconscious. We have an Orwell-esque doublespeak, you say one thing but mean another. But in our case, political speech is even more complex. What our people say has almost no connection with reality. What does Putin say? I think that even he doesn’t understand what he’s saying because now he’s a liberal, now a conservative; now he’s for sovereignty, now for globalism, and now against globalism.

PR: In the West, they say that he has become a conservative, even a nationalist, even an ultranationalist. What do you think? Is he a conservative or a liberal, or a statist?

AD: I think that the West is becoming stupid in front of our eyes. It can’t even deal with itself, can’t describe itself correctly, and its attempts to describe others are even more comic. Western people weren’t always like that. I have researched very carefully when it was that the mental collapse of Western society began. Europe and the West weren’t always as idiotic as they are now. This idiocy grew very gradually in the 70s, and the 1980s were the turning point. When we read scientific literature written in the 70s, liberal, left, and right, we’re immersed in a world of openly honest people. They can be mistaken, say untrue things, but they are all genuinely dedicated to the logos. And then there’s some kind of frontier, when they all started to lie, which in my opinion is connected to a shift of liberals to the left. Suddenly, Western society began to become very stupid; it became narrower and narrower. Formally it continued along the same lines as before, but something had changed. It’s the same thing with rock music. My friends who are specialists tell me that you can listen to a certain band up to 1975, but after that you can’t, and it’s the case with all of them. It’s what Jung called ‘abaissement de niveau mental’, a lowering of the mental state. The decline of Europe about which Spengler wrote took place in the 1980s in the consciousness of Western people. Westerners were open, free, liberal; they allowed many points of view; they were critical; they listened to one another. And suddenly, this all changed. One has the impression that the spirit of totalitarianism and stupidity transferred from us to you. We had a totalitarian ideology, the Germans were fascist. And now, liberal ideology turned into a totalitarian one. Political correctness – the idea that one can’t call things by their proper names – has created a situation in which the things Westerners say have been deprived of any meaning. Westerners’ evaluations have ceased to correspond to any rational procedures. We experienced this in the 30s, when people were accused of just about anything, without giving them any right to speak, and on this basis, sentence was pronounced. This is how the American education system now works. If you don’t say that Putin is a tyrant, a murderer of children, a cannibal, then you won’t defend your dissertation, your book won’t be released, your report won’t be published. What happened here in 1937 is happening nowadays with you.

What people are saying about Putin is so biased. It’s so connected to the psychoanalytical complexes which have been let loose in Western culture that I have problems speaking about it. Individually, you are all wonderful people; but when it comes to publications, universities, news, mass media, all that stops. It becomes impossible to explain anything. It wasn’t like this even during the Cold War, when any arguments were all the same considered. The war continued in every direction. Now one has the impression that a new spirit has appeared in the West in the epoch of globalization. It won’t tolerate any objection or contradiction. It demonizes everything and everybody with its clichés: ultranationalist, nationalist, fascist, extremist, gender-incorrect, refusing to recognize homosexual marriages.

Conservatism exists only so that it can be overcome. Those who fought with racism have become the most extreme racists. Conservatives in the current situation are objects of this liberal racism. There are conservatives who have a non-liberal point of view. For now they still have the right to speak, but this is considered very dangerous for society, and so they must be isolated lest they gain power with unpredictable consequences, and so it’s better to destroy them in their mothers’ wombs. This liberal approach is pejorative, racist. It speaks of conservatives as if they don’t have a right to exist. Washington and Brussels nowadays are classic examples of the 1937 NKVD-ist.

I still sincerely believe that there are people in the West who are capable of dealing with this, who understand something, but they are few. I have an acquaintance in Canada who recently told me that he had written a dissertation and they told him that if he doesn’t criticize Dugin as a fascist, as a Nazi, a murderer, a terrorist, then he has no chance of defending it and finding a job, never, not here and not in a Canadian university. My acquaintance said, ‘I’ve read Dugin and there’s nothing like that in his books. I haven’t found anything like that; it’s a much more complex system; it can be seen as something special, exotic, but not at all like that.’ So, the people who try to accuse Putin of totalitarianism and conservatism are far more intolerant, and cruel, exclusivist and racist than he.

I recently read something about myself in Newsweek, in which it was said that Dugin is a supporter of the fourth political theory. That’s true. But, the fourth political theory rejects liberalism, communism, and fascism. They write further: ‘He’s a fascist.’ But how can one simultaneously reject the third political theory and be a fascist! From my point of view, it’s impossible! But that doesn’t stop the authors of this article. It’s the logic of double standards. It permeates the entire attitude towards Russia. If I say that there’s no proof that Russian hackers lay behind Trump’s election, then I’m a fascist. It’s very difficult to carry out a fundamental scientific dialogue because one of the sides is irresponsible. For a long time, it was we who were irresponsible. For a long time. I agree with that. But now we look at you, at the West, and we see only complete madness, because if we were take what you in the West propose in terms of criteria for democratization, freedom, and development, we would go completely out of our minds.

Therefore, the terms applied to Putin – conservative, nationalist, ultranationalist – are so senseless, particularly on the lips of a Westerner who is simply looking for proof of guilt. A conversation with a Westerner immediately creates the feeling that you are justifying yourself, you’re hiding something, even if it isn’t something you actually did. This is absolutely unbridled racism. The Westerner never allows himself to think that in principle he might be wrong, and that, for instance, the African, the Russian, the Muslim, the Japanese, the Chinese, or the communist might be cleverer or more right than he. So where are we? We are in a racist model, which is becoming more and more intolerant. This is in spite of Western culture, which still in the 20th century was genuinely open, inquisitive, was oriented to many points of view. Look at all the great Western thinkers, none of them were liberals, they were all anti-liberal, whether they were on the right or the left, but they were all oppositionists, their discourse was critical. Liberal thinkers were first small in number, and second very stupid. Popper and Hayek for example. They also have a right to exist, but they don’t shine very brightly. The genuine figures of Western, European thought are of course left-wing thinkers, oppositionists. But this stopped at some point. And the puniest, stupidest representatives of Western thought, that is to say the liberals, and their most unattractive, banal version began to dominate. And in the end, everything narrowed to the totalitarian discourse which began to dominate in the 1980s.

PR: There are people who say that you are anti-Western.

AD: No, I don’t agree. I am not anti-Western. I am anti-liberal. In fact, I love the West. I have written eight volumes dedicated to Western culture, Western philosophy. I have written two volumes on Greek and Byzantine culture; a volume on Latin culture; a volume on Germany; a volume on France; a volume on England; a volume on America, including North America. I am interested in the Western logos; I study it; it is extraordinarily complicated. I don’t only criticize it, I know it and understand it deeply. Until a certain moment when this liberal, globalist ideology triumphed, the West was a jewel. The West produced daring thought, beautiful thought, sunny thought. It had everything. Until the 1980s. What happened in the West in the 80s affected universities, art, mass media, all of society. I consider that contemporary Europe is an anti-Europe. I simply cannot accept the West in its current condition, at the end of modernity. I find that I have more sympathizers in Western cultural circles than in Russian ones. The West is my spiritual, intellectual motherland. That’s not to mention Western European culture, which I admire. I know all the so-called ‘cursed’ French poets by heart. I love English culture. I’m not some evil Russian peasant who hates the West. I know European languages quite well. I know the West, I live my life through it. One can even say that I love the West. But I am deeply offended by its current condition, because it’s sincere pain for a close friend. It’s a systemic pain. Not accidentally, something malfunctioned, something went wrong. And I am trying to understand what it was.

Of course, I am a Russian patriot, a Russian man, and a Russian above all else.  But I am not indifferent about the West.

PR: That leads me to one of my questions. I wanted to ask, that in your works you cite a lot of Western philosophers. So can one say that your thought is founded on a Western paradigm?

AD: Of course, I even think in French.

PR: But, you are best known as a Eurasianist.

AD: Well, there are European and Asian parts.

PR: But it seems to me that you cite far fewer Asian sources. So how can you say that Russia is a Eurasian country, when the sources of your thinking are Western?

AD: Good question. Do you see what Asia is? When we speak about what Asia is, we mostly think of something non-Indo-European. But there are two cultures in Asia which are indeed Indo-European – Iran and India. Here I must say that Iranian thought, religion, metaphysics and history have had a colossal influence on me. Iranian thinkers such as Sakharvardi, Molasadra, the Zoroastrian tradition and Shiite Iran, are sources of continual inspiration. For me, Iranian thought hasn’t been worked out in as much detail as Western though, but is far more capacious and voluminous. I have even written a volume on the Iranian logos. The second civilization which I admire is Indian civilization. I began my philosophical research with a study of Advaita Vedantism, which is a colossal, fundamental Indo-European logos compared to which Greek philosophy is only faint echoes. And what is best in Greek philosophy, such as Platonism and neo-Platonism, in reality has Indian influences. Second, my research into the Indo-European cultures which are the foundations of Europe, led me to Turan. The Turan were the nomadic Indo-European peoples who were the ancestors of the Iranians, the Indians, and the European peoples, who created European culture. So, the Turanian factor, which is the basis of our Eurasians, is of first importance to me. And those peoples which accepted the mission of the Turanian Indo-Europeans are the Mongols, the Turks, who are normally considered Asiatics, but their culture is based on the same principles, the vertical of power, building an empire, honour, will, military societies, which are what I like in European culture. Being a total anti-racist, I consider that you can’t compare peoples with one another. We must accept them as they are. We can never evaluate one people from another’s point of view. Methodologically, this is incorrect and immoral. In this sense, I am a follower of Nietzsche and his genealogical morality, when he said that every people has its own morality. Therefore, we can never evaluate one people from another’s point of view, as both have different moralities. Thus, if we look at Asia, at the East, not through the eyes of a Westerner, but through the eyes of a Russian, an open-minded person, we see a spiritual treasure there. We will not oppose European culture to Asiatic culture, but we see a deep world of variety and polyphony of East and West.

Therefore, if we take a thick description, we understand that we are not talking about the opposition of East and West. We are talking about a deep understanding of the essence of the East and the West. Russia, which occupies a space in between, is not a mechanistic combination of East and West, not simply a imposition of two peripheral zones, but a special field in which a dialogue of principles takes place, an exchange of conceptual semantic cores between the most varied types of cultures. In Russia there are elements of Iranian culture, and Indian, although to a lesser degree, and also Mongolian and Turkish, which have brought colossal positive benefits into our history. This is the approach which is Eurasianism. Paying great attention to the Western logos and regarding it with love, I love no less and pay no less attention to the logos of the East, to traditional society in all its varied forms. And even Eastern, Indian, Turkish, Chinese culture – I have a book on Chinese culture, which isn’t one logos, but a whole collection of logoses and civilizations.

We are dealing with a world which is so complicated that its complexity obliges us to reject simple oppositions and the use of simple forms like conservative-modernist, good-bad, liberal-not-liberal. Eurasianism is an invitation to anti-racism. If we begin to understand these cultures, we begin to understand Russians. For me, the concept of the Eurasian, the Russian, is a concept of complexity. As soon as we begin to speak of the Eastern or Asiatic parts of Russian culture, we narrow our discourse so much and so reduce it that all conversation becomes unthinkable. That is why I am a Eurasian. I think in Indo-European languages, including Farsi, Sanskrit, which in my head periodically pop up in the form of certain terms for which I can’t find analogues, but which form part of my thinking.

PR: You said that this isn’t an opposition of West and East. But in your old book about geopolitics, you said that conflict between continental and maritime powers is inevitable. Doesn’t what you wrote in your book contradict what you just said about opposition?

AD: No. In my book on geopolitics, I write that we are close to certain continental European states, such as Germany. But Eastern Europe’s interests are incompatible with those of the Anglosaxon maritime powers. It’s not I who dreamt up geopolitics, but MacKinder. But I saw a serious base in it, because it explains a lot of the historic confrontations with the West; with that West which is moved very gradually towards its current globalist position. If we analyze the genealogy of globalization, we see clearly an Anglosaxon policy, this liberalism is an Anglosaxon, an American phenomenon. And this liberalism, which developed out of the Protestant ethic, according to Weber, has gradually become the core of the ideology which has triumphed on a global scale. But this is not the whole West, not all of Europe.

PR: It’s not the West? It’s just the Anglosaxon world?

AD: It’s not the whole West. It’s part of the West, which is beginning to grow larger and larger. This liberal, capitalist civilization, which is part of the West, is beginning to swallow the entire West. So, it was a part, but is becoming the whole. Steven Gia, if I’m not mistaken, or some Dutch thinker, I can’t remember, has an interesting idea. The idea is that this was the ideology of Scottish traders of the epoch of the Glorious Revolution. Then, its logic began to take hold of at first England, then America, and then gradually became the norm. So, everything which beforehand was part of a very complex Western culture, gradually became subordinated to a totalitarian ideology. Eurasianism opposes this globalist liberal ideology. That is, it doesn’t oppose the West as such, but that which accepts this ideology in the form of NATO, atlanticism, liberalism, capitalism. The West has tied its fate to such a small part, small spot, to a cancerous swelling of Scottish philosophy of common sense, which was part of a distinct people, had its own roots, its own place, but at some point grew into a cancerous swelling and somehow became universal. Dobriyan speaks beautifully about this, about how the specificity of cancer lies in the production of unnecessary cells. The production of something complex, like male and female, produces a third thing, something new. But cancer produces only the same cells. Our civilization instinctively opposes it, as it does this Scottish philosophy. Now, the purpose of this confrontation is just to be left in peace, because we have always defended ourselves, but we have sometimes pushed outwards our frontiers.

Consequently, we must above all fight this spirit. If it was just the ideology of Scots, it wouldn’t bother us. But when the entire world must follow the ideology of 17th century Scots, we are surprised because we consider that ideology is much richer than that. This ideology of common sense, and I don’t know of anything unhealthier, was a basis for the thinking of the founding fathers of America. But I still consider it to be some type of pathology; it’s a local pathology which has a right to exist. That’s my opinion. We shouldn’t throw it out. I personally am not going to throw it out. I just don’t like it. And why should I accept this nonsense as the main ideological model? Me and all my people? And here I stand on the side of the Europeans before the 1980s, and also on the side of Asians. I cannot understand why this rubbish is being thrust on humanity. Even if I could understand, I wouldn’t agree, and so we must create a powerful geopolitical bloc to resist it.

PR: But it seems to me that Russia needs two things to resist this ‘Scottish ideology’, which it doesn’t have. The first is resources: economic, moral, political. The second is will. It seems to me that your government does not have the will. The current authorities still want some compromise with globalization. I remember that in your book on geopolitics there was a map which showed a grandiose continental bloc, which it seems to me Russia does not have the power to create.

AD: As they say, nothing is ever impossible for Russians. We are a magical, fantastical people, and when it seems that all is lost, that we have no more resources, we somehow win. Napoleon came, considered that we were nobodies, and then ran away. Hitler’s powerful army, which was much stronger than ours, came. This was a worthy opponent. But they lost everything. In the 90s Eurasianism, when I first wrote that text, was considered pure nonsense. Then Putin proclaimed the Eurasian Union. We began to move forward a little; we pushed back a bit. Crimea is ours. Donetsk is ours. South Ossetia is ours. Abkhazia is ours. Soon, still more will be ours. Yes, of course, the maps I draw are absurd. But the path to the ideal project is long. You have to have a lofty goal. You must remember that any of our achievements, expansions, are nothing compared with what we must do. We must carry the light of Eurasian polycentric civilization. We must free civilizations, including the Anglosaxon, from Locke’s Heartland, which itself is falling into the abyss and dragging all humanity with it. This is our mission. Whether we can do it or not, nobody knows, but we are trying. As a philosopher, as a thinker, I am trying. Putin, as a practitioner, is trying.

I agree with you that our situation is far from optimistic. But look at yourselves. Everything you have has completely collapsed. What’s going on in America? Civil war. It talks about this in the Bible: why do you behold the mote in another’s eye when you don’t notice the beam in your own? I agree with this. Our will is weak, we aren’t intelligent enough, our resources are insufficient, our economic situation is bad, but not as bad as yours which is a total nightmare. And what’s going on in the West is genuine hell, which is becoming reality, though you don’t realize it yet. With our people, with our government, with our corrupt political elite, you can’t don’t anything. But we’ve had it like that for centuries. And yet look at our territory! America now needs to take an examination to see whether it will survive, because it has taken as much of the world as we have, but clearly can’t cope with it. I agree that everything is not very good here, that we don’t have the strength for a new upsurge. But there is a Russian proverb: The eyes fear, but the hands act. It’s a dream. This Russian dream propels us forward. It will last a long time, and I can’t say whether it will be fulfilled immediately, but we will live to see its fulfilment. We are pushing so far forward we cannot be stopped.

When I wrote the project on Eurasianism and tried to persuade the Yeltsin regime to push it forward, I was considered mad because everyone was sure that the West, liberalism, NATO, were fate. But some time passed, and they stopped thinking it was mad.

PR: Finally, I would like to ask you about the influence of your ideas. You no doubt remember the article ‘Putin’s Brain.’ There it’s written that you have a significant influence on geopolitical thinking in Russia. But others say that you have no influence and are a peripheral figure.

AD: Those who think that I stand on the periphery of power are correct. I have no influence. I don’t know anybody, have never seen anyone, I just write my books, and am a Russian thinker, nothing more. I write books, somebody reads them.


Alexander Dugin

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


World War I Homage – A Triumph of Lies and Platitudes

The unilateral, lawless imperialism that engendered World War I and 20 years later World War II is still alive and dangerously vigorous.



Authored by Finian Cunningham via Strategic Culture:

World leaders gathered in Paris on Sunday under the Arc de Triomphe to mark the centennial anniversary ending World War I. In an absurd way, the Napoleon-era arc was a fitting venue – because the ceremony and the rhetoric from President Emmanuel Macron was a “triumph” of lies and platitudes.

Among the estimated 70 international leaders were US President Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, each sitting on either side of Macron and his wife. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was also given pride of place beside the French president.

Macron’s address to the dignitaries was supposed to be a call for international multilateralism. He urged a “brotherhood” for the cause of world peace. He also made a pointed rebuke of “nationalism” as posing a danger to peace – a remark which seemed aimed at Donald Trump who recently boasted of his politics with that very word.

But, ironically, everything about the ceremony and Macron’s speech resonated with jingoistic French nationalism, not his avowed multinationalism. As the politicians sat under the Arc de Triomphe, Macron walked around its circular esplanade in a salute to assembled French military forces bearing assault rifles and bayonets. The French anthem – The Marseillaise – was played twice, once by an army brass band, the second time sung by an army choir. There was also a military plane flyover displaying the blue, red and white tricolor of the French national flag.

In his speech, Macron talked about soldiers coming from all over the world to “die for France” during the 1914-18 Great War. He even said at one point that the war was fought for “the vision of France” and its “universal values”.

This was fluent drivel, French-style. No wonder Russia’s Putin momentarily gave a look of boredom as Macron waxed lyrical.

The speechifying and commemoration was completely detached from current realities of conflict and international tensions.

Among the “brotherhood” whom Macron was appealing to were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose military forces continue to bomb and slaughter Palestinian civilians in illegally occupied territory. Also present was Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko whose armed militias continue to terrorize the people of eastern Ukraine with the blatant objective of instigating a war between the US-led NATO alliance and Russia.

Listening to Macron one would think that World War I erupted mysteriously from no specific cause and that an estimated 10 million soldiers were all killed in heroic battles for noble principles.

There was, of course, no mention by Macron of imperialist warmongering and the barbaric sacrifice of humans as slaves in the service of national capitalist power interests.

Grotesquely, as the world leaders donned solemn faces and mouthed pious platitudes for peace, the whole occasion was a triumph in burying reality and the ongoing causes of wars, as well as whitewashing the very culprits responsible for wars. Among the war criminals wearing a mournful black suit was former French President Nicolas Sarkozy who launched the NATO blitzkrieg on Libya in 2011.

While the empty, self-indulgent rhetoric was ringing out, one couldn’t help but recall some of the most glaring contemporary contradictions that were blocked out with awesome Orwellian efficiency.

Just this week, reports emerged of the horrific civilian death toll from the American air force bombing the Syrian city of Raqqa. The city was razed to the ground by US air strikes last year – supposedly to defeat the ISIS terror group. Some 8,000 bodies of civilians, mainly women and children, have now been recovered by Syrian government forces. And that’s only from clearing away a tiny area of rubble for the whole city.

What the Americans did in Raqqa was a monumental war crime, all the more criminal because US forces, along with their NATO partners Britain and France, are illegally present in and assaulting sovereign Syrian territory.

As Macron was telling world leaders about “the vision of France”, hundreds were being killed in Yemen in a battle to strangle the entire population by taking the port city of Hodeida. The genocidal war on that country – which is putting up to 16 million people at risk from starvation – has been fully backed by France, the US and Britain, from their supply of warplanes and bombs to the Saudi and Emirati aggressive forces.

We could mention other specific conflicts where the culprits are clearly identified. For example, the multi-million-dollar support from Washington for the Azov Battalion and other Neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine, which openly emulate the genocidal conduct of Hitler’s Third Reich to exterminate ethnic Russians.

We could mention how US-led NATO forces continue to expand towards Russian territory with outrageous provocation. The mounting earlier this month of the biggest-ever NATO war drills since the Cold War in the Arctic region adjacent to Russia’s northern border was a brazen threat of rehearsing invasion. The announced tearing up of yet another nuclear arms control treaty unilaterally by Washington is a reckless undermining of global security.

Washington threatens China with naval forces marauding near Beijing’s maritime territory in the South China Sea. Washington blockades Iran with illegal economic warfare and openly agitates for regime change. Washington declares Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba a “troika of tyranny” and reserves the right to threaten each of these countries with military invasion at any time.

Meanwhile, this weekend, Russia hosted peace talks in Moscow between the warring parties of Afghanistan. It was seen as a major breakthrough in trying to bring peace to the Central Asia country which has been wracked by 17 years of violence since US forces began their ongoing military occupation – allegedly to defeat terrorism.

Elsewhere, Russia has engaged with Turkey, Germany and France to convene a summit for peaceful reconstruction of Syria. The latest summit held in Ankara at the end of last month follows several other such meetings in Astana and Sochi, largely at the behest of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, to find a political settlement to the nearly eight-year war in Syria – a war that was fomented covertly by Washington and its allies for regime change.

France’s Macron talks about “multilateralism” for world peace, yet the two countries which have arguably supported and implemented multilateralism in practice are Russia and China in their calls and policies for global partnership and economic development.

And yet it is Russia and China that are being harassed with American and European sanctions, and US military provocations.

The unilateral, lawless imperialism that engendered World War I and 20 years later World War II is still alive and dangerously vigorous. We only have to look around the present world to realize that. But when the culprits indulge in a triumph of bullshit then we also know that the world is once again in very grave danger.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


German Bundestag MP, Petr Bystron, calls for an end to sanctions against Russia

Petr Bystron: I don’t think Germany should let itself be blackmailed by anyone, and should be free to get its energy supplies from wherever is best.

The Duran



Via the Centre for Geopolitcal Studies…

Interview conducted by Dragana Trifkovic, Director of the Centre for Geopolitcal Studies with the MP of the German House of Representatives (Bundestag), Mr. Petr Bystron

Dear Mr. Bystron, recently we have met at the International Conference on the Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow recently. In front of representatives of Parliaments from all around the world, international experts and journalists you held a well-received speech, calling for an end to sanctions against Russia. Why?

I demanded an end to sanctions because they have not achieved anything except harming German business. There’s no point to maintaining these useless sanctions any longer.

Photo: Petr Bystron

The Russian-German relations are very complex. On the political agenda, they are burdened with the sanctions which the EU countries imposed to Russia, but on the other hand, Germany and Russia cooperate on a strategic project such as North Stream 2. How do you see the prospect of developing further relations between your country and Russia, and also how the United States relations towards the possibility of greater convergence between Germany and Russia?

Of course German companies are still trying to do business with Russia. The sanctions mainly hurt the meat and fruit exporters, as well as the machine tool industry. Exports dropped as much as 60% in the early days of sanctions in these sectors. Naturally, German businesses want to maintain their traditionally good contacts to Russia. North Stream 2 is just one example of this. But it’s no secret there is a lot of pressure from the United States to stop this project. There was a bipartisan initiative in the U.S. Senate in March supported by 39 Senators, urging the government to do everything it can it stop the pipeline. President Trump has come out against North Stream 2 as well.

I don’t think Germany should let itself be blackmailed by anyone, and should be free to get its energy supplies from wherever is best. Even during the Cold War, Russia was a reliable supplier of energy, and there’s no reason to think that will change.

At the Moscow conference, we discussed about the perspective of Eurointegration of Balkan countries that are not yet members of the EU. You represent the view that the EU has no perspective and that EU candidate countries do not have much to hope for. What are in your opinion the biggest problems in the EU, and are they solvable? What kind of future can expect the EU, and can the EU be reformed and become a functional community?

There are two problems here: First of all, the EU is in no state to accept new members right now, with all its problems. The EU is in a deep crisis and is fighting for its survival. The main example is Brexit, of course: The first nations are leaving the sinking ship. If the EU doesn’t undergo far-reaching and fundamental reform, it is doomed to failure. The Euro currency system is not sustainable in its present form.

These problems have been exacerbated by the migration crisis, which was caused by Angela Merkel’s completely unnecessary and undemocratic opening of the borders in 2015. In a precarious situation like this, it is completely irresponsible to think about expanding the EU even further, especially with candidates who are not able to meet the most basic standards for joining the Union.

We already saw what problems it causes to accept members who don’t meet the criteria or even cheated to get in, as in the case of Greece. The EU now faces huge problems with Greece, Romania and Bulgaria for this reason. These are countries which shouldn’t have been accepted to the EU in the first place. Accepting the West Balkan countries in these circumstances would be tantamount to suicide.

If there is any country from this region which would qualify for membership, both economically and culturally, it is Serbia. Countries like Albania and Macedonia have huge problems in regard to corruption and economic development. And then there’s the problem with Kosovo, which is not recognized as a country by several European nations, Russia or China, for example. That’s a very unstable situation.

The EU wants very much to expand their influence in the Balkans. However, given the current state of the EU, it’s not even advisable for Serbia to want to join the EU, when countries like the UK, Italy and Eastern Europe are moving away from the broken monstrosity in Brussels. Serbia should be glad it is not in the EU, and stand up squarely for its own national interests.

You are particularly interested in the problem of Kosovo and Metohija. The territory of the southern Serbian province since 1999 and the end of the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia is under occupation. The Western powers want to resolve the problem of Kosovo and Metohija outside the framework of international law and UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Negotiations on resolving this issue are underway in Brussels, although Serbia is not a member of the EU and this community has no basis to deal with this problem. How and where, in your opinion, should the issue of Kosovo and Metohija be solved?

Kosovo is a powder keg with no solution in sight. It will remain a problem for many years. I’m convinced the current situation can not be maintained. This territory was part of Serbia for centuries, an I am very sure it will belong to Serbia again in the long run. The EU protectorate in Kosovo will be short-lived.

How well in the German public do you know the facts about what is happening in Kosovo and Metohija and how the so-called democracy in this territory works? Are there known facts about violence against Serbs in the presence of international forces UMNIK, KFOR and EULEX? How well do you know the results of these international missions?

The problem began with the way the EU treated the UCK. We should not be supporting a terrorist organization aiming to break up a country. A group like this would be immediately outlawed if it were trying to break up Germany, for example, and they would all be locked up. In the case of Yugoslavia, the EU and Germany for some reason supported this terrorist group, which was a tragic mistake. We are very concerned about the current situation, the human rights violations and the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.

An entity like Kosovo – which I refuse to call a country – based on injustice and terror, is not viable in the long term, which is evidenced by the continued need for KFOR peacekeeping forces to keep this creation alive.

Recently has been an a discussion in the German Bundestag about the continuation of the mission of German soldiers in Kosovo. At KFOR, there are currently about 400 German soldiers in Kosovo. The Bundestag supported German soldiers remain in Kosovo, thanks to the votes of the ruling CDU / CSU and SPD and the Greens and Liberals (FDP). Alternative for Germany voted against it. How do you assess the mission of the German army in Kosovo and why did you vote against continuation of mission in Kosovo?

This is one of the paradoxes of German politics: That the first German combat mission since WW II was ordered by the formerly pacifist Green Party and their Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer under the Socialist Gerhard Schröder, and they continue to support the KFOR mission. The AfD does not believe in sending German troops to the Balkans, especially not to prop up an artificial entity like Kosovo.

The US supports the formation of the Kosovo Army, although this is contrary to Resolution 1244. German instructors train Albanians to become part of the official army. How is it possible to prevent the taking of illegal actions and violations of the international law by the Western countries?

This is a difficult question and will be a difficult process. But in countries like Germany and the USA, governments and policies can change, thank God. So Serbia needs to be very patient, continue to stand up for itself over the long haul, and reach out to allies and supporters who will see it the same way.

Have you personally, or a delegation from your party Alternative for Germany, visited Kosovo and Metohija? Is there an opportunity for you to do so in the coming period and to make sure of the state of democracy on the spot as well as to evaluate the results of the work of international missions, as well as the the German Bundeswehr?

That’s a good idea. We should definitely visit Serbia and Kosovo with an AfD delegation, to find out more about the situation on the ground. We have already been to Syria, for example, where the situation is completely different from the way it is portrayed in the Western mainstream media, so I’m sure visiting Kosovo would be very interesting.

Petr Bystron is the Speaker of the Alternative for Germany party (AfD)on the Foreign Policy Committee of the German Bundestag.He came to Germany in 1988 as a political refugee and joined the Euro-critical AfD in 2013. He was chair of the AfD for the State of Bavaria 2015-2018. Under his leadership the party reached the best tally of all states in West Germany in the federal elections 2017.

In 2018, he pushed to grant imprisoned British Islam critic Tommy Robinson political asylum in Germany, and filed criminal charges against migrant NGOs engaged in people-smuggling in the Mediterranean. He is a leading political publicist who has won several prizes for his writing and edited a book for

University of Geneva with Polish Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Wałęsa. He is currently one of the 10 most popular German politicians on social media.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Russia & China Invest in Infrastructure; U.S. Instead Spends on Military

The United States isn’t going into public debt in order to finance building or maintenance of infrastructure, but instead to finance expansions of its military.

Eric Zuesse



Originally posted at

China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” is famous as an extension of their domestic infrastructure investments, but Russia is also investing heavily in infrastructure. Both countries need to do it in order to improve the future for their respective populations, and both Governments have avoided the Western development model of going heavily into debt in order to pay for creating and maintaining infrastructure. Both are, in fact, exceptionally low-debt Governments.

According to the “Global Debt Clock” at Economist, China has a public debt/GDP of 17.7%, and Russia’s is 8.0%. For comparison, America’s is 93.6%. (Others are: Germany 85.8%, Spain 91.2%, Italy 122.6%, Greece 147.1%, India 54.2%, Pakistan 47.0%, and Brazil 55.0%.)

The United States isn’t going into public debt in order to finance building or maintenance of infrastructure, but instead to finance expansions of its military, which is already (and by far) the world’s largest (in terms of its costs, but not of its numbers of troops).

While the US Government now spends around half of the world’s military expenditures and plans to conquer Russia, China, and all countries (such as Iran and Syria) that cooperate with those ‘enemies’ (and please click onto a link wherever you question the truthfulness of an allegation made here), Russia and China plan to improve their infrastructures, in order to boost their national economies and to minimize the impacts that (the mainly US-caused) global warming will have. These infrastructure projects are optimistic and long-term expenditures, which are being planned and built only because the countries that the US aristocracy are targeting to conquer, expect the US aristocracy to fail to achieve its clear #1 goal, of controlling the entire world and conquering them — of America’s rulers finally achieving the global fascist empire that, in World War II, Hitler and the other Axis powers had been hoping to become.

By contrast, US infrastructure is rotting; and, while every recent US President has promised to reverse that decline, none has done anything significant to repair this nation’s rotting infrastructure — it has always been just talk and empty promises. A nation that spends over a trillion dollars a year on ‘national defense’ can’t have much left over to spend on things that ‘can wait’ — such as repairing its bridges, roads, etc. — and so those repairs do wait, while even more money, than before, becomes devoted to purchases of new weaponry, such as the F-35 program.

Meanwhile, Russia and China prepare for their future, and hope it won’t be war.

On November 1st, Russian Television bannered “Russia, India & Iran want to create alternative trade route to Suez Canal – report” and described “The 7,200-kilometers long corridor [that] will combine sea and rail routes”:

The route will make it possible to deliver cargoes from India to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. Then, the goods will be transported by land to Bandar Anzali, Iran’s port on the Caspian Sea. After that, goods will be shipped to the Russian southern port of Astrakhan, from where they will move to Europe by rail. The new transport artery will potentially reduce the time and costs of shipping by up to 40 percent.

A linked news-report there headlined “Top of the world: Russia to build world’s northernmost railway in Arctic”, and another headlined “Japan turns to Trans-Siberian Railway to test potential connection with Russia, China & S. Korea”.

If the US Government’s plans to destroy Russia succeed, then any of these new or extended infrastructures will either be destroyed or else be taken over by the US and its allies. (If taken over, then presumably Japan’s aristocracy will be part of the new regime there that does so.) Consequently, building and extending these new infrastructures is Russia’s bet — and a concrete testimonial to the bet — that outright war by the destroyers can be avoided. The nations that America and its allies want to conquer are looking to the future, not to conquest or any type of war (though they must also be prepared for war, if the US does invade). Right now, the US and its NATO allies are holding the largest war-games in history, and these preparations to invade Russia are occurring all along and near Russia’s borders, in the countries that formerly were the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact military alliance. Though the US and its allies say that Russia and China are threatening to them, these massings of soldiers and of tanks and planes on Russia’s borders are aggressions, not defensive at all as claimed. How would we Americans feel if Russia were doing this along America’s borders? Would we feel that Russia is defending itself, then? Russians have sound reason to be terrified by the US and its allies. Americans were terrified by the Soviets when the issue was Soviet missiles located in Cuba only a hundred miles from the US This country then threatened: if you do that, then we’ll launch war against you. Russia isn’t responding similarly, even though America’s threat to them is much bigger than that threat to the US was in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All that today’s US Government wants is to conquer the world, which now especially means Russia, China, and countries that do business with those ‘enemies’. Iran is also a major target of the US, because the US aristocracy’s main allies are the Sauds and Israel, both of which hate and crave to destroy Iran. Though those three targeted countries want to avoid being conquered by the US Government, most of their expenditures are for their own domestic economies, instead of for defending against the US and its allies. (However, the US and its allies are clearly and consistently the aggressor since 1991, and expanded their NATO alliance up to Russia’s borders; Russia didn’t expand its Warsaw Pact alliance up to America’s borders, but ended the Warsaw Pact in 1991. None of Russia’s expenditures are for conquering foreign countries, such as the US alliance now is trying to do in countries such as Syria and Yemen, and perhaps soon in Iran, too; so, the US Government has no excuse whatsoever in this matter, but pure guilt in it, pure aggression.)

There really is a difference between “The West” and “The East” in our era, but it’s more like the difference between The Axis powers in WW II versus The Allies, than it is between democracy versus dictatorship; and, in fact, the US Government is the world’s only Government that has been scientifically analyzed to determine whether it is a democracy or instead a dictatorship, and it has consistently been found, in these rigorous studies, to be a dictatorship, against the public, by its billionaires, the aristocrats, and not a democracy, at all. Furthermore, the preponderance of the major outcome-indicators of the extent to which a given nation is a dictatorship or even a police-state, or is instead a democracy that’s ruled by its public, are showing that the US is a dictatorship or even a police-state, and that the nations it calls its ‘enemies’ are more toward the democratic side — serving their respective public, instead of any such narrow and exclusive elite as the owners of “the military-industrial complex.” (US-allied propaganda to the contrary alleging that the US and its allies are the ones which are ‘democracies’, like this piece from the US stooge-nations that constitute the EU, are always based on ranking — without clearly explaining how — the mere formalities of ‘democracy’, no authentic measures of democracy itself, but only the associated formalities, which often are mere fronts, behind which the given nation’s aristocracy control that given country.)

The US has emerged into the very model of the modern dictatorship, relying maximally upon a coordination between deceit and military power. This is the reason why it now spends half of the world’s military costs — to serve its aristocracy, who have perfected Joseph Goebbels’s system of calling good bad, and bad good, and of otherwise imposing what the novelist George Orwell subsequently called “Newspeak” in its ‘news’-reporting and commentaries, to serve the controlling aristocracy, “Big Brother.” It’s here, and now. On November 1st, Jonathan Cook at Global Research headlined “Bolsonaro: A Monster Engineered by Our Media” and he explained how even the “liberal” aristocrats in the US and its allied countries have brought back racist fascism, the ideology known as nazism, as a globally spreading plague now.

Here is how America’s master of Newspeak, Barack Obama, represented, to West Point Military Academy’s graduating cadets on 28 May 2014, the new, American, version, of Adolf Hitler’s beloved “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt”:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. [Every other nation is therefore ‘dispensable’; we therefore now have “Amerika, Amerika über alles, über alles in der Welt”.] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future US military leaders that they are to fight for the US aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] … In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.

Actually, his — Obama’s — regime, had conquered Ukraine in February 2014 by a very bloody coup, and installed a racist-fascist anti-Russian Government there next door to Russia, a stooge-regime to this day, which instituted a racial-cleansing campaign to eliminate enough pro-Russia voters so as to be able to hold onto power there. It has destroyed Ukraine and so alienated the regions of Ukraine that had voted more than 75% for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama overthrew, so that those pro-Russia regions quit Ukraine. What remains of Ukraine after the US conquest is a nazi mess and a destroyed nation in hock to Western taxpayers and banks.

Furthermore, Obama insisted upon (to use Bush’s term about Saddam Hussein) “regime-change” in Syria. Twice in one day the Secretary General of the UN asserted that only the Syrian people have any right to do that, no outside nation has any right to impose it. Obama ignored him and kept on trying. Obama actually protected Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate against bombing by Syria’s Government and by Syria’s ally Russia, while the US bombed Syria’s army, which was trying to prevent those jihadists from overthrowing the Government. Obama bombed Libya in order to “regime-change” Muammar Gaddafi, and he bombed Syria in order to “regime-change” Bashar al-Assad; and, so, while the “US Drops Bombs; EU Gets Refugees & Blame. This Is Insane.” And Obama’s successor Trump continues Obama’s policies, regarding not only Ukraine, but regarding also Yemen and Syria, and much else, except that Trump goes even more nazi than Obama did. The change from Obama to Trump was from soft nazi to hard nazi. That’s all. Trump is the US regime’s going wild.

Every day, the US regime murders lots of people in foreign lands. Today, as this is being written, on November 3rd, Syria News, which I’ve found to be far more reliably truthful about the situation in Syria than is for example the New York Times, headlined “US-Led Coalition Murders 15 Civilians in a New Bombing in Hajin”, and reported that, “Under the guise of fighting ISIS, the US and its cronies, are trying to establish a de facto barrier on the Syrian-Iraqi border which is run by ISIS and SDF, who both receive support from the US and both have occasional clashes [against each other] in between.” Aggression (and lying about it) is normal for the US Government.

On January 19th, US ‘Defense’ Secretary James Mattis said that “great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security,” and this means war by the US against both Russia and China, and perhaps also Iran; but if the people of Europe don’t rise up against that plan, then not only will they have even more refugees from America’s “regime-change” bombs, but they will soon have Russia’s bombs retaliating against Europe itself for being a part of America’s aggression, via the NATO military alliance, an alliance that should have ended when the Warsaw Pact military alliance did, back in 1991. Either End NATO Now, or else join the carnage that America’s aristocracy are clearly determined to impose upon the world in order to conquer it. The choice is that simple.

The only ways that the global public can effectively fight back against the US-and-allied aristocracies’ plan to enslave the entire world to their coercive and sanctions-laden ‘free market’ are:

(1) to boycott America’s brands and, as much as possible, conduct all international transactions in any other type of currency than the US dollar; and,

(2) to vote against any politician who has endorsed America’s invasions, such as of Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2015-, and US coups, including its coup that conquered Ukraine in 2014 and installed a nazi Government there. And,

(3) to organize marches, if possible, against any US military base occupying their nation. The occupying power needs to be expelled in order for the given nation’s public to control their own country.

Otherwise, the US aristocracy can simply continue with its pillage of our planet. The global public needs to do its part, not to leave it to the targeted countries alone to try to put down this global resurgence of fascism, by America’s oligarchs. This also means abandoning the two aristocracies that work the most closely with America’s: Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s (both of which target Iran and its allies, even more than they target Russia and its allies). The listed three steps are the only path toward a survivable planet: isolating and publicly shaming the nazis.

Also the Newspeak needs to end, right now, because without honesty, no type of progress is even possible.

All of these measures are not only morally right; they are necessary, because the present path leads to not only profound injustices, but a hellish global future.

Unfortunately, the UN cannot do any of these essential things. But only the global public can — and will, if there is to be continued life of this planet, and lives here that are worth living.

PS: For anyone who might consider odd that an American (the present writer) views Russia as a core ally of the American people, and views recent American Presidents (starting with George Herbert Walker Bush on 24 February 1990) as traitors to America — as being enemies of the American people and of the entire world — please consider the following historical facts:

According to Jan Ludvík’s  “The Poverty of Statistics: Military Power, Defence Expenditure and Strategic Balance”, in the January 2014 Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (p. 157), the relative expenditures in order to win World War I were Russia 24%, UK 22%, US 21%, France 20%, and Italy 13%. Russia spent the most of all the allies. In WW II, the relative expenditures in order to win were Russia 58%, UK 20%, US 12%, France 10%. Yet again — and this time overwhelmingly — Russia spent the most of all the allies, 58% of the total allied cost; and the only country that spent more on that war was Germany, which of course was on the losing (“Axis”) side, and which spent 37% more to lose that war than Russia spent to win it. During WW II, Germany spent 75% of its side’s entire costs; Japan spent 17%, and Italy spent 8%. So: WW I was mainly between Russia and Germany, and so was WW II. And that’s clear also from another calculation:

The same source (p. 159) indicates that Russia’s troops were 46% of those fighting on the winning side of WW I (and #2 on that was France with 20%), and were 55% of the troops fighting on the winning side of WW II. (France was #2 again in WW II, also 20%.)

Furthermore, in WW I, Russia’s troops were 38% more (in numbers) than both Germany’s and Austria’s put together; and, in WW II, Russia’s troops were 4% less than Germany’s, Japan’s and Italy’s combined, but were twice as many as Germany’s number.

So: by far the biggest contributions to the winning not only of WW II, but also of WW I, were made by one and the same country, both times: Russia. America’s contribution was much smaller, on both occasions. And, now, America’s leaders and their foreign allies have become nazis, heirs of Hitler’s tradition, who call Russia an “enemy,” for refusing to do what these nazis demand.

Of course, there were also other nations on each side of each of those wars (for example, Wikipedia lists over a dozen “Allies of World War I”), but Ludvik calculated the numbers only for these, the main ones, on both sides.

So: everyone who can should now become active on this!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter