Jewish Control of Russia and Why They Did 9/11.

[Michael K.]

Comment from Iraq-war.ru:

Very shortly:
by ILYANA_ROZUMOVA on 20.10.2011 [16:50 ]    
Because my hands and shoulders hurt so much that I can hardly write.
Jews running the Communist system newer cooperated with Jews running the US and vice versa. Although aim of both was and is to control the world.
To claim that they cooperated is a nonsense.
They are two different schools and each side is convinced that their ideology is right.

This statement is relevant to the thesis I am trying to write regarding the Communist and Capitalist factions of the Zionist Jews.  While it doesn't constitute evidence per se, it shows that at least from one Russian's perspective, there ARE factions which ARE at war with each other.

One question that needs answered is the 'faction explanation' for the Wall Street Jews' funding of the Bolshevik Revolution.  Which faction of Jews, if any, was opposed to the Communist Revolution at the time when prominent Jews in the US were fundamental in creating it?  How about the pro-Communist faction capitalist bankers and their lineage in the West today?  All interesting questions.

I am hoping that fellow researchers have links to documentary evidence about this subject, please post here.

I don't know why Israel can't be used as a base for both factions, and I think it must be.  But that is not the same as saying they cooperated.  However, the hypothetical existence of double- and triple-agents among the factions would facilitate 'cooperation' of an involuntary sort.

[Michael K.]

Christopher Marlowe wrote:

Holy crap CB4UW, why are you so cranky all the time? Who appointed you the judge of TIU? Can't people just post their opinions on a topic without having to justify their existence to YOU?

I think I have been fairly consistent in my views. Don't you keep a spreadsheet with all the people on this blog, so that you can mark their various views on topics? That way you can bring up some issue from another post and confront them on it!

There must be some explanation for this behavior.  Here's my hypothesis:

CIB4UWI is an ideological authoritarian.  He would censor everybody else whom he regards as "liberal" if he only had the power to.  And although he is opposed to "Jews" and "Zionism", he has his own definition of these terms which can not be generalized to cover all Jews or all Zionists.

Let's look at what I think is the closest approximation to CIB4UWI's philosophy, the work of Aleksander Dughin:

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=15000

The most felicitous and full definition of national-bolshevism will be as follows: "National-bolshevism is a superideology, common for all open society enemies". Not just one of the hostile to such society ideologies, but it is exactly its full conscious, total and natural antithesis. The national-bolshevism is a kind of an ideology, which is built on the full and radical denial of the individual and his central role; also, the Absolute, in which name the individual is denied, has the most extended and common sense. It could be dared to say that the national-bolshevism is for any version of the Absolute, for any "open society" rejection justification. In the national-bolshevism there is an obvious trend to universalize the Absolute at any cost, to advance such kind of an ideology and such kind of a philosophical program, which would be the embodiment of all the intellectual forms, hostile to the "open society", brought to a common denominator and integrated into the indivisible conceptual and political bloc.

The enemies of an "Open Society" are those, who advance (proclaim, put forward) variable (different) theoretical models based on the Absolute against the individual and his/her central role. The Absolute, even being instituted spontaneously and voluntaristically, instantly intrudes into the individual sphere, sharply changes the process of its evolution, violates (exercises coercion over) the individual's atomistic integrity, submitting it to some outer individual impulse. The individual is immediately limited by the Absolute, therefore the people's society loses its quality of the "exposure (openness)" and the perspective of free development in all directions. The Absolute dictates the aims and tasks, establishes dogmata and norms, violates (coerces) an individual, as (like) a sculptor coerces his material (stuff).

It was just the "right Marxism" that triumphed in Russia, which obtained the name of "bolshevism". But it does not mean, that only in Russia the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present in all communist parties and movements all over the world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It emphasizes once again, that just traditional, non-progressive, the least "modern" ("alienated from the Spirit") and, correspondingly, the most "conservative", the most "right" peoples and nations, have recognized the mystical, spiritual, "bolshevik" essence in the communism.

The irrational, unveiled by Popper in the center of enemies of Open Society doctrines, actually, is not less than, the axis of the sacred, the basis of the Tradition. If it is so, the various anti-liberalist ideologies, "left" revolutionary ideologies are included, should have some relation to the Tradition. If in case of "extremely right " and hyperconservatives it is obvious, in case of the "left", it is problematic. We already touched that matter, when we talked about the concept of "bolshevism". But there is and one more point: the revolutionary anti-liberal ideologies, especially communism, anarchism and revolutionary socialism, assume the radical destruction of not just capitalist relations, but also such traditional institutes, as monarchy, church, religious cult organizations. How should we combine this anti-liberalist aspect with the traditionalism?

To compare to this to CIB4UWI's expressed philosophy, we see many similarities:

1.)  The hostile rejection of any "open society" notion or progressive idea.

2.)  A version of the Absolute ("militant atheism," "White Nationalism," "National Socialism" and/or Anti-Jew/Zionism) which dogmatically trumps any individual's significance or potential contribution to history, the debate, etc.

3.)  An acceptance and embracing of the irrational when it is combined with the anti-liberalist aspect of traditionalism:

Example: Brandon Dean is called a "kike" for being 1/8 secular Jew-by-race on the grounds that he is identified as a modern liberal towards race; and every example of Christianity is Judaism and worse than useless, subversive to the cause of the Absolute (because it moves people toward universalism in values).  

Paradoxically,  The Jew Kapner, was raised a 100% Talmudic Jew in a Synagogue and remained so until his miracle conversion.  He is called neither a "kike" or a "Christard," which is IRRATIONAL and yet is a militantly defended idea.  The basis for this choice is not that CIB4UWI has an individual right to be irrational, but quite to the contrary, because it serves the ABSOLUTE to do so.

Thus CIB4UWI is living proof that National-Bolshevism is spreading among White Nationalists and skinheads, making them the opposite of patriotic-nationalists.  They are subversive internationalists.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

MK, Marlowe, the hypocrisy in all of this is the atheist himself. Atheists are liberal by nature. For an atheist to accuse others of fomenting Liberal poison is grossly hypocritical. Communist—the atheist may not be, but liberal they most certainly are. And Atheists do not embody the virtues of traditional Western Civilization. Atheism was born in the radical leftist movements from Jewish-dominated groups, such as the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. While atheists may oppose Marxism on a fiscal basis, atheists are fundamentally social Marxists and engage in cultural marxist ideologies. That is why atheists typically are all for things like gay rights, feminism, abortion etc—all for the very things Jews are for.

Atheists do no just form radical criticism of Christianity, they radically criticize Western Civilization as a whole. The pairing of atheism and white nationalism is about as common as peanut butter and onion on a sandwich.

[Michael K.]

TF:

I guess I pretty much have to agree that one rarely sees atheism with national patriotism, and as the saying goes,"there are no atheists in foxholes."

But, I still think that the more complete picture takes in the possibility that he is not really atheist, but takes in one of the many alternative "spiritual" paths, perhaps one which is idolatrous, and hence the bitter competition for space with Christianity, and also his exceptional zeal in criticizing my claims pertaining to witchcraft.  Real atheism would not hold any conversion story in anything but pity and perhaps contempt.

CIB4UWI: Put our minds at ease, explain this away and there will be no problem between us.

I think that the invisible dividing line is Christ' stringent mercy, maligned falsely as "liberalism."  

Look, I am warning you of the danger:  Dumping humanitarian behavior as "liberal" and therefore undesirable, being imperious to the meek, militaristic passions, demogoguuery, these are the lines not to cross.

[Christopher Marlowe]

To compare to this to CIB4UWI's expressed philosophy, we see many similarities:

1.) The hostile rejection of any "open society" notion or progressive idea.

2.) A version of the Absolute ("militant atheism," "White Nationalism," "National Socialism" and/or Anti-Jew/Zionism) which dogmatically trumps any individual's significance or potential contribution to history, the debate, etc.

3.) An acceptance and embracing of the irrational when it is combined with the anti-liberalist aspect of traditionalism:

Example: Brandon Dean is called a "kike" for being 1/8 secular Jew-by-race on the grounds that he is identified as a modern liberal towards race; and every example of Christianity is Judaism and worse than useless, subversive to the cause of the Absolute (because it moves people toward universalism in values).

Paradoxically, The Jew Kapner, was raised a 100% Talmudic Jew in a Synagogue and remained so until his miracle conversion. He is called neither a "kike" or a "Christard," which is IRRATIONAL and yet is a militantly defended idea. The basis for this choice is not that CIB4UWI has an individual right to be irrational, but quite to the contrary, because it serves the ABSOLUTE to do so.

Thus CIB4UWI is living proof that National-Bolshevism is spreading among White Nationalists and skinheads, making them the opposite of patriotic-nationalists. They are subversive internationalists.

Very interesting thoughts, MK. I really hadn't considered that very deeply.

Just a couple of posts back someone, (Whaler?) posted a link to a 2 hour Carolyn Yeager show, and it seems that she has changed her mind about Christianity: She is now saying that any nationalist movement must adopt Christianity as their religion because people need a common spirit of identity. (I think she is right, but I am not coming at it from that standpoint. I think people need Jesus Christ because they are sinners in need of redemption.) Carolyn said that the German national socialists were friendly to Christianity.

I'm glad Carolyn Yeager has taken that stance. It hadn't occurred to me that atheism was a big movement among white nationalists. There is a white nationalist named "Divine Fellowship" who is on youtube who did the "White People Are Cool" videos:
[youtube:3mzvghf3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvsOADA7P7Y[/youtube]3mzvghf3]

 http://www.youtube.com/user/DivineFello ... vsOADA7P7Y

He is a very spiritual person, but his views are rather unique: he attempts to relate hindu concepts to Christianity.
This is from his youtube site:

___
There are 3 sacred things to the White Europeans:

1) The procreative power (sex)

2) Anything that reminds us of the path back to God.

3) Duty to one's family and people.

These are the 3 sacred things.

Anybody or any people who attacks any of the three sacred things: The sacredness of sex and moral rules, the sacredness of God and religious remembrance, or the sacredness of our duty and natural bonds -- is our outright attacker.[!!]

My Views On Christianity:

I grew up Christian and never, in my mind, left it. But I sought for deeper understanding of it by studying Indian Vedanta and yoga (God-meditation). I believe that these contain the actual essential seed knowledge that powered Christianity. This is the original Aryan Yoga, and Christianity is actually an elegant European form of guru-yoga and bhakti-yoga. The essential elements of both Christianity and Yoga are: 1) Austerities for purification, 2) Chastity except in marriage, 3) Devotion for God (bhakti), and meditation for inner God-contract and mind mastery. When these things are re-clarified and firmed up again in Christianity, Christianity will again become the great unifer and prosperity insurance for the White Europeans as it was for 20 centuries past. Jesus Christ is the sat-guru of the White Europeans. White Europeans should study both the Aryan Yoga in the Upanishads, etc. plus go to churches of their choice and enjoy the bhakti-yoga, even if the minister is a flake. The luckiest thing about my life was that I went to Catholic mass and grew up near a beautiful church open 24-7 to sit in & pray.

I think a lot of white nationalist youngins would be better off listening to this guy.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Comment from Iraq-war.ru:

Very shortly:
by ILYANA_ROZUMOVA on 20.10.2011 [16:50 ]    
Because my hands and shoulders hurt so much that I can hardly write.
Jews running the Communist system newer cooperated with Jews running the US and vice versa. Although aim of both was and is to control the world.
To claim that they cooperated is a nonsense.
They are two different schools and each side is convinced that their ideology is right.

This statement is relevant to the thesis I am trying to write regarding the Communist and Capitalist factions of the Zionist Jews.  While it doesn't constitute evidence per se, it shows that at least from one Russian's perspective, there ARE factions which ARE at war with each other.

One question that needs answered is the 'faction explanation' for the Wall Street Jews' funding of the Bolshevik Revolution.  Which faction of Jews, if any, was opposed to the Communist Revolution at the time when prominent Jews in the US were fundamental in creating it?  How about the pro-Communist faction capitalist bankers and their lineage in the West today?  All interesting questions.

I am hoping that fellow researchers have links to documentary evidence about this subject, please post here.

I don't know why Israel can't be used as a base for both factions, and I think it must be.  But that is not the same as saying they cooperated.  However, the hypothetical existence of double- and triple-agents among the factions would facilitate 'cooperation' of an involuntary sort.

MK,

Still muddled.  You quoted a Jew above. I guess post Soviet Collapse... that thinking allowed people to sleep at night without another round of Pogroms or mass evictions to Israel. But people are ultimately lying to themselves about Jews.  I've seen nothing in your writing so far that makes me think you are on target. In fact you are missing badly but don't seem to notice.

George Soros promoted the "Open Society"... I don't know why you quoted it.

In fact there is good material on Soros instigating corruption via his "Jew" Shadow Governments as described in this VOR show:

http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads ... 111011.mp3

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

CM, of course the NAZIs were friendly to Christianity. They obviously saw it as a unifying force, especially against the Jew.

One important Nazi slogan was 'Kinder, Kirche, Kueche' ( Children, Church, Kitchen). Nazis used to award Iron Crosses for bravery.

Here is a picture of the belt-buckle that German soldiers wore. It says 'Gott mit uns' (God with us).



The Nazi Party was not an atheistic party.

Hitler was a creationist, at least as far as humans were concerned. We read for the night of 25 and 26 July 1942 in 'Hitler's Table Talk' 'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'

And the entry for 27 February 1942 says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

'That, which Man has over the animals, the probably most wonderful proof for the superiority of mankind is, that he has understood, that there must be a creative power.'

Hitler also said 'Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.'

'The Ten Commandments are laws for order, which are totally praiseworthy.'

Feedback on this article

Is there any evidence of persecution of Atheists by the Nazis?

Thanks

Tony Zahra-Newman

Hitler did invade the Soviet Union, which was an atheist state.

Hitler detested atheism. He wrote 'In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could not recognise the folly of their conduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist newspapers advocated the cause of one religious denomination or the other...' (Mein Kampf)

From the New York Times, May 14, 1993, page 2

ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED

Berlin

Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers

In Freethinkers Hall , which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree

Source: http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/belt.htm

NAZIs persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals, among others.. Why? Because they knew the JWs were a Zionist cult, started by Knights Templar founder Charles Taze Russell (Roesel), himself a Jew.

Many white supremacists are atheists because it allows them to justify their hate; whereas authentic Nazis had legitimate grounds for their extreme opposition to Jewry.

[Michael K.]

Christopher Marlowe wrote:

Just a couple of posts back someone, (Whaler?) posted a link to a 2 hour Carolyn Yeager show, and it seems that she has changed her mind about Christianity: She is now saying that any nationalist movement must adopt Christianity as their religion because people need a common spirit of identity.

She is promoting heresy, not Christ.  She says very clearly that the whatever religion she endorses has to be subordinate to the needs of the race and of course, she says, only Anglo-Saxon Protestantism offers the many custom racialist features she is looking for in her synthetic faith.  No conversion here, but subversion.  Hopefully, this is not the end of her search for God, but just the beginning.

(I think she is right, but I am not coming at it from that standpoint. I think people need Jesus Christ because they are sinners in need of redemption.)

You are right.  That is why heretics hate Catholics.

There is a white nationalist named "Divine Fellowship" who is on youtube who did the "White People Are Cool" videos:
He is a very spiritual person, but his views are rather unique: he attempts to relate hindu concepts to Christianity.
This is from his youtube site:

    There are 3 sacred things to the White Europeans:

    1) The procreative power (sex)

    2) Anything that reminds us of the path back to God.

    3) Duty to one's family and people.

    These are the 3 sacred things.

    Anybody or any people who attacks any of the three sacred things: The sacredness of sex and moral rules, the sacredness of God and religious remembrance, or the sacredness of our duty and natural bonds -- is our outright attacker.[!!]

No, he is not so unique, he is subversive.  Read the following quote by Dughin from "The Metaphysiscs of National-Bolshevism"

So, the philosophical policy of the national-bolshevism affirms the natural unity of the ideologies, which are based on the statement of the central position of the objective, which is conferred the same status as the Absolute, without dependence on how this objective character (outness) is interpreted. It could be said that the supreme national-bolshevism metaphysical maxim is the Hinduist formula "Atman is Brahman". In Hinduism "Atman" is the supreme, transcendent human's "Ego", being regardless of the individual "ego", but inside this "ego" as its most intimate and mysterious part, slipping the immanent grasp. The "Atman" is the internal Spirit, but the objective and over-individual one. "Brahman" is the absolute reality, embracing the individual from without, the outer objective character, elevated to its supreme primary source. The identity of "Atman" and "Brahman" in the transcendent unity is the Hinduist metaphysics crown and, what is above all, it is the base for the way of spiritual becoming. This is the point, common for all the sacred doctrines, without any exception. In all of them the question is about the main aim of human's existence, that is the self-overcoming, expanding beyond the bounds of the small individual "ego"; the way away from that "ego" either outside or inside brings to the same victorious outcome. Hence follows the traditional initiatic paradox, expressed in the famous gospel phrase: "who ruins his soul in my name, that one saves his soul". The same sense is contained in Nietzsche`s genius statement: "The human is what should be overcome". The philosophical dualism between the "subjective" and the "objective" affected throughout the history the more concrete sphere, the ideology, and then the politics and social order specificity. The varied versions of the "individualist" philosophy has gradually concentrated in the ideological camp of the liberals and liberal-democratic policy. This is exactly the "open society" macro-model, which Karl Popper wrote about. The "open society" is the final and the most complete individualism fruit, turned to the ideology and being fulfilled in the concrete policy. It is appropriate then to raise the problem of the maximum common ideological model for the "objective" approach adherents, of the universal political and social program for the "open society enemies". As a result we will acquire none other than the national-bolshevism ideology.

The merger of Hinduism with Christianity will result in Judaism.  Jews brought Hindu teachings to the west in the 1970's (ex. Ram Dass) in order to dilute and undermine Christianity, and to explore the radical roots of Babylonian Judaism, which are Hindu in origin.


CSR wrote:

Still muddled. You quoted a Jew above. I guess post Soviet Collapse... that thinking allowed people to sleep at night without another round of Pogroms or mass evictions to Israel. But people are ultimately lying to themselves about Jews. I've seen nothing in your writing so far that makes me think you are on target. In fact you are missing badly but don't seem to notice.

George Soros promoted the "Open Society"... I don't know why you quoted it.

I am neither "muddled" nor "missing badly," imo, because I am taking flak for what I intentionally wrote, and 'the flak is always heaviest over the target.'

First of all, "Open Society" with caps is clearly the Soros (a good Nazi, lol) brand.  Whatever bullshit that Nazi Jew is selling, it is not a real open society. Can it be that you have been conditioned already to respond to the words "open society" negatively?

The very core of what I am arguing about viz. both Monkey Throw Monkey Doo's and Dugin's (and the right communists) vision is all about open society and individualism.   They reject both, and I embrace both.  

That's because Christianity is about the individual's relationship with God through Christ.  Christianity started by rejecting the Jewish conception of salvation as a national or racial affair, but the Jews and crypto-Jews still hold just such a view.  

And Christianity is about an open society, because wherever there is Christ, there is an open door to salvation for all peoples and all races.  Both the black man and white man are equal when they partake of the communion.  And this spiritual reality can only exist in a society that is open to individuals acting freely of their conscience.

I am an American and great-grandson of immigrants.  If this country were not an open society, I would not be here.  And America is the only nation to have ever set the individual free, and it did so as an expression of faith in the liberty the individual has in Christ.  And our enemies hate our freedoms, and they are busy subverting them in the name of everything from the environment to race, but almost always in the name of law and order.

The enemies of America have set about to prove that our individualism and liberty are nothing but fantasies and self-deceptions.  And to that end they constantly are creating exaggerated mockeries of our values.  We say that a black man should have equality before the law with any other man, and so they give us drug-addict niggers armed with illegal guns and selling drugs imported by the CIA, and give them a frigging check, to boot.  This is a mockery.

It is all about conditioning people to accept the Jewish vision of national racial purity and spiritual destiny.  We show them the Christian way of doing it, and we create a prosperous nation where individuals invent amazing things because they are free to do so and own the results.  To mock us, they steal our inventions and use them to equip authoritarian regimes organized along the Jewish lines to crush us (the Soviets) or drain our economic strength (Communist China).

If anyone is against individualism and an open society, then he is the enemy of America.  And if he rejects them in the name of nationalism he is an even bigger fool than the Jewish ideologue.


Timothy Fitz. wrote:

CM, of course the NAZIs were friendly to Christianity. They obviously saw it as a unifying force, especially against the Jew.

Obviously, but with the wrong intentions.  They didn't really believe, they were heretics who wanted the credibility and strength that came from association with Christianity in Germany.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

heresy..   That is why heretics hate Catholics... they were heretics

 :lol: Burn any "witches" at the stake lately Michael K?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

The merger of Hinduism with Christianity will result in Judaism.  Jews brought Hindu teachings to the west in the 1970's (ex. Ram Dass) in order to dilute and undermine Christianity, and to explore the radical roots of Babylonian Judaism, which are Hindu in origin.

True. The swastika itself is a hindu symbol—and probably Kabbalistic.

Obviously, but with the wrong intentions.  They didn't really believe, they were heretics who wanted the credibility and strength that came from association with Christianity in Germany.

Well, I'd rather have a government that is overtly Christian, regardless of their motivation. Kicking Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals out of one's country is a damn good start to creating a progressive and moral society. But I agree with you that there are certainly better forms of theocratic states.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Although some might find it enjoyable to continually fight and call names, I propose that the different sides being expressed are not that far apart. It really is a question of degree.
I think everyone would agree that:

1. Russia, while it has instituted "reforms", is still run by criminal gangs in many instances. (I have spoken to people who came from Russia and they said that this is the case.)  But to What degree?  
2. Putin put one oligarch in prison (Is he really in prison?) yet the rest, (mostly Jewish), run free.
3. Putin was a KGB agent.
4. The Soviet Union was established by Jews for a criminal Jewish Syndicate.  Most of the oligarchs are Jewish, so it is reasonable to assume that the power structure in Russia is still largely criminal Jews.
-----------

The face of Russia that we see in the media is one of opposition to the West in re: global dominance by US/NATO. But are they sincere?  Russia voiced support for Palestine, and RT runs shows that question the official western view. BUT Russia didn't veto Libyan "no-fly zone".

Russia sells arms to Arab/Muslim nations. But is Russia really an ally of these nations, or does Russia just sell them enough arms to get their asses kicked by the west?  

The Russian Orthodox church has shown a revival of sorts, but certainly there has been some corruption in their leadership. e.g. MK has posted Russian Iconography with Stalin featured as a saintly figure.(?!?)

Putin is promoted as being a nationalist and independent.  But when the bomb exploded in the Moscow subway (after Russia voiced support of Palestine, and after Medvedev took a trip to Palestine, i.e. I think that it was the mossad...) Putin didn't do anything against the perpetrators.  The perps were said to be Chechnyans..... Similarly...

Putin publicly doubted 9/11 "conspiracy" theories. Either he is a f*ckwit, or he is not being honest. I have a hard time believing that Putin is that much of a f*ckwit. Therefore he is lying. Why? Is Putin biding his time to strike his enemies when they are weakest? Or is he just another oligarch pretending to be an independent nationalist?  Or is he just corrupt and apt to believe his own publicity?
----------
While I agree that Russia is not what it seems (free, democratic) I don't think it is totally under some secret communist rule. I think that Russia is largely controlled by a criminal gang, but that there are elements within the government and military that think they are working for a free state.  Again it is a question of degree.  

Is it possible that the Jewish forces in the military arranged it so that Russia planned to have war games on 9/11? Of course.  The oligarchs have so much money, that would be very easy to do. Is it possible that the oligarchs are all working for israel? No question.  

But are all the generals in Russia working for israel? No. I think the case over there might be similar to what has happened in the US.  Sabrosky of the US Army War College has said that many high ranking US Military KNOW that israel did 9/11.  But have you heard any active duty voice this fact? No. Because if they did, they would be fired faster than a LA Unified Substitute teacher who speaks the truth on TV. The generals probably figure (generals are probably very practical thinkers rather than idealists) that they can accomplish more by staying where they are. Case in point: the Attempt to smuggle nukes from Minot to Barksdale. Some high-ranking Air Force person sent the story to the Air Force Times and stopped that operation. Could it be possible that the Generals in Russia are of a similar mind?  Again, it is a question of degree: Some generals might be clever, some foolish. Some might be nationalist. Some might be totally corrupt and sold out to the Jewish power.  What percent?
---------

I agree with CM's comments above.  


My biggest problem with this entire Thread and the "Thesis" combines MK's idea that 9/11 and Russia are linked and then he goes and states -- Israeli Jewry, Russian Jewry and Western Jewry work independently. I read some of Dugin and was not impressed with any of his conclusions.  

This thread is headed to the "Nonsense-Disnfo" bin shortly unless other people want it to stay here.  Why? Because it overlooks basics on 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks:

1. PNAC
2. Shabbos Goyim
3. Anthrax (Russians behind it? No.)
4. Mossad-Dominic Suter-Israelis arrested on 9/11
5. Dept. of Homeland Security (run by an Israeli)
6. Media Jewry revving up propaganda for Afghanistan-Iraq.
7. Media Jewry and Shabbos Goys trying to contain the pro-PNAC agenda
8. Finally, was RUSSIA or RUSSIANS or NATIONAL BOLSHEVIKS actively engaged in 9/11 or the Anthrax attacks -- no. It's weak apologia for Jew Perfidy and Lies... --CSR

[Michael K.]

CSR wrote:

My biggest problem with this entire Thread and the "Thesis" combines MK's idea that 9/11 and Russia are linked and then he goes and states -- Israeli Jewry, Russian Jewry and Western Jewry work independently. I read some of Dugin and was not impressed with any of his conclusions.

So that's your biggest problem and you want to call my work nonsense?  How do you know whether or not there are Jewish factions?  Do you have some inside knowledge of how the Jews are organized.  Well then , show it.  Otherwise you are just presuming everything based on limited knowledge.  What you are saying is that I am challenging your belief system, so what?  

You read some of Dughin and weren't impressed with what, my conclusions or his?  How about you either don't have an intelligent answer to the issues raised by Dughin or are just to lazy or too much of a bigot to bother?  Either way you don't have a real, substantial rebuttal, just a slap-dash opinion.  And opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some stink.

This thread is headed to the "Nonsense-Disnfo" bin shortly unless other people want it to stay here. Why? Because it overlooks basics on 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks:

1. PNAC
2. Shabbos Goyim
3. Anthrax (Russians behind it? No.)
4. Mossad-Dominic Suter-Israelis in arrested on 9/11
5. Dept. of Homeland Security (run by an Israeli)
6. Media Jewry revving up propaganda for Afghanistan-Iraq.
7. Media Jewry and Shabbos Goys trying to contain the pro-PNAC agenda
8. Finally, was RUSSIA or RUSSIANS or NATIONAL BOLSHEVIKS actively engaged in 9/11 or the Anthrax attacks -- no. It's weak apologia for Jew Perfidy and Lies... --CSR

I didn't overlook the above and it's no apologia for any Jew, and I challenge you to find one apologetic line in the whole thing, that's a lie and a slander.  I worked my ass off on it, you are panning it from your keyboard commando easy chair.  You don't have a competent rebuttal, instead you are trying to hustle it away where nobody will see it.  You are acting like a right-gatekeeper, Amy Goodman's evil goy twin.  You haven't matched my effort or sincerity.  You just think that you have it all figured out to the exclusion of really discussing it, which is hubris.  

Why don't you just man up and tell me the rest?  Tell me where I can go and I will because I don't need the gatekeeper treatment or counterfeit debate aimed at a propaganda treatment of history and current events.  This can be a board where everyone pretends to see the same thing so that they can be one of the 'in' crowd.  You don't need my contribution here, you need to hear that you are right.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Your citing of Dugin's interview by a "Jew" Shlapentokh is pretty "Jewish" overall.  Just more Jew promoted nonsense.  I don't know why you want to entertain "Soviet" ideas so much or promote Jewish nonsense like "National Bolshevism" (an anachronism) ... I guess your background and pride are speaking above your reason.  You don't mention anything regarding the "JEWISH FACTOR IN 9/11"... in fact you apparently want to blame idealism rather than Jew Scams for most of the Soviet Union and 9/11.  Good luck to you... but don't ask me to grab a shovel for you when the Jews come knocking in the middle of the night.  You apparently would rather explain them away and their scams as a part of the "Soviet" system....  I don't have time for this kind of nonsense here at TIU. You are not J-wise and are apparently duped with post-Soviet Collapse Jew apologia.  Now I don't go this far to call out most people here at TIU... but in your case, you are so self-satisfied in citing Jew publications to certify your thesis, which doesn't hold clear water, I make an exception. Your thesis is obviously cloudy and obscures many crimes the world over caused by J-tribers set on scams and control.. in any country they politicize. Have you even read the Protocols...?  You probably will cough up some apologia for them too...I expect... cited by some obscure Russian intellectual that the Jews fancy who connects the "Protocolist Bolshevism"?     --CSR

-------
Vladimir Shlapentokh: «Bittersweet Life in Post-Stalinist Russia: Academic Campus in the 1960s»

(These autobiographical notes were first published as chapter 6 in An Autobiographical Narration of the Role of Fear and Friendship in the Soviet Union. Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press. 2004. The Russian version «Страх и дружба в нашем тоталитарном прошлом» appeared in 2003 in the magazine Zvezda).

Despite all its negative features, post-Stalin Russia did give me a possibility to express myself, especially at the Novosibirsk Academic campus where I moved not without difficulties due to the "Jewish factor" at the end of 1962 from Saratov . Mikhail Lavrentiev the President of the Siberian Chapter of the Academy of Sciences was an undisguised anti-Semite. Much later a famous physicist and the director of the Nuclear Institute at the Academic campus Andrey (Gersh) Budker told me very vividly in Koktebel' where Alik an I vacationed in 1972, that Lavrientiev subjected him to the most sophisticated humiliation. For example, he rejected his application to go to East Germany because he, Budker, despite his sixty years of age, still "could jump over the Berlin wall."

Abel Aganbegyan's attempts to persuade him to give me a decent position led nowhere and so I was offered a second rate position of an Associate Professor at the Novosibirsk University . Somewhat later Shubkin tried to give me a job at half the time at the Institute of Economics at the Academic campus but he could not do it. My transfer from the Academic campus to the Institute of Sociology was equally difficult. This time objections came from the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Fedor Burlatsky, who was deputy director of the newly established Institute, spent a lot of time persuading Grigoriy Kvasov, the chief overseer over Sociology at the Central Committee. It is against this background of discrimination and with a feeling of being at a second rate position (also because I lacked party membership) that my life went on at the Academic campus. Still, it was there, although not right away, that I received an opportunity to bring my capabilities at least partially to fruition.

...

My life in Moscow in the mid-1970s when the Jewish emigration was in full swing, seemed to me, despite some apparent successes, more and more pointless and my activity meaningless. However, at the micro level it satisfied me just fine. My friendship with Alik and very cordial and close relations with Tanya Yaroshenko and Lena Petrenko with whom I worked on the sociological sampling, as well as frequent get-togethers with many friends and colleagues in the evenings, neutralized the somewhat negative sides of existence. Fear before the unknown and the tolerable conditions of life in Moscow for a number of years weakened my determination to emigrate.

I must admit that our cultural life in the 1970s was interesting and intensive. Even though thick journals, including Novyi Mir, became much less interesting, occasionally there were pieces mainly by Western authors that caused lively debates at our gatherings. Certainly, the main course in reputable reading for us all was provided only by Foreign Literature. It continued to publish the cream of world literature then. (We still remain its subscribers to the present day). Updike was for us one of the literary stars in those days. I once explained, not without sarcasm, to my American friends, who had no idea about him, that Updike was so popular that in a Soviet film a ninth grade schoolgirl, wishing to test the intellectual level of her mother, demanded that she name the latest novel by Updike.

The role of the self-published underground literature declined considerably. However, books published in the West more and more often caught our attention. A big event for us was the publication of the Yawning Heights by Sasha Zinoviev. I knew him even before the publication of this book and I always admired his paradoxes and wit. I organized readings of some excerpts from that book at our apartment. The book was a source of limitless delight. I remember with what inspiration I read a chapter about the "Theater on Ebanka" (that is, Liubimov's "Taganka" Theater). Refined analysis of Soviet reality was combined with unheard of intellectual virtuosity and Swift like sarcasm. During those years I read many more authors in the original than earlier. It so happened that I read of lot of Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud and Philip Roth. It was in regard to these authors that a funny but indicative episode took place. At my Institute I was a member of the Board of Graduate Examinations on methodology of sociological research. A young woman, a graduate student came to take her exam. She was from the "Special Department," a part of the Institute where I never went because I did not have the security clearance. However, at the examination nobody could deny me the right to ask questions in regard to the dissertation research topic even of those graduate students who were from the closed part of the Institute. So I did that time as well. A pleasant person, who was quite well disposed toward me, she replied to my question, explaining that her topic was the writings of those three authors that I mentioned. "But why did you unite them all?" I asked, in full gullibility, which was not a compliment to my deduction. "Oh, Vladimir Emanuilovich," she cooed almost tenderly, "The things is, they are all Zionists, and it is our duty to expose them." "But wait a minute," I tried to object, as I had just finished a wonderful novel by Malamud called A New Life in which even the word Jew was never mentioned. "On what basis did you decide that they were Zionists?" "They are all Jews, all three of them!" she whispered timidly, that little fighter against Zionism. All I could do was finish the questioning, because the Kremlin was on the side of the graduate student. The Kremlin had long since substituted the term "Jew" with the term "Zionist." Certainly, I could not suspect that soon after that and in a different country I would come across a far more frequent substitution of one word with another. To be sure, those substitutions had noble and not mean motivations. ("Afro-American" instead of "black," or what was worse "Negro"; "senior citizen" rather than "pensioner" or "old person"; "a person of non-standard sexual orientation" rather than "homosexual"; and finally "a person in sexual services" rather than "a prostitute," and so on).

Fears in Moscow

During the 1970s, the feeling of relative security that I had had during the 1960s was disappearing. Looking back I think that it was probably linked to the mass emigration that had started and the fact that I was not prepared for my own departure. In the summer of 1977 Sasha successfully graduated from one of the best mathematical schools in Moscow. She applied to the Mechanical-mathematical department of the Moscow University. Just as other Jewish applicants she was failed at the entrance examinations. As we found out later they offered her a special type of questions that were called "dead-end problems." Now it sounds funny, but at that time, one of the most active members of the admissions committee was none other than Fedorchuk, the son of the former Minister of State Security of Ukraine and later of the USSR. This appeared to be rather ominous. (Nowadays, this Fedorchuk as well as other more prominent members of the powerful anti-Semitic enclave among Soviet mathematicians take part along with Sasha in various international conferences and symposia as if nothing happened, and pretend that there are no reasons not to communicate in most friendly terms). The intervention of three academicians did not help (Abel Aganbegyan, Leonid Kantorovich and Nikolai Fedorenko). The only college she managed to enter was a railcar manufacturing department at the Moscow Institute of Railway Transportation, which was an incredible insult and a humiliation. After that, Liuba, though not Mitya, became an ardent defender of departure. But I was somehow unable to make that decision even though I dreamed about it my entire life. Despite the fact that I promised to Sasha that we would leave if she did not enter the Moscow University, I decided to make one more attempt to rectify the situation. I decided to use my acquaintance with Aleksandr Zimianin, who was the editor-in-chief of Pravda at the time I was doing a public opinion poll for them. Zimianin was one of the Secretaries of the Central Committee. I sent him a letter about Sasha. His aide confirmed that he knew about my existence and he assured me that "Aleksandr Vasil'evich would personally read the letter." At least a dozen people were involved in writing the letter. Anatolii Rubinov, a well-known journalist was engaged particularly emotionally. I knew him for a long time as we worked together at the Literaturnaya Gazeta. The letter had to sound strong even aggressive but not to the extent that it could be considered an anti-Soviet document. It was also decided not to blackmail them with the emigration. A fear that the KGB would be triggered into action and that instead of emigrating westwards one could wind up going eastwards in chains did not leave for a moment the minds of those who took part in this quite humble action. About a month went by before I received, after inquiring phone calls to the Central Committee, an invitation for a meeting with the Chief of the Directorate Overseeing the Universities and a member of the Collegiums of the Ministry. Again a gathering of friends was debating the tactics of my communication with the chief. And as strange as it may appear some of them expressed hope that the authorities would not want to push me a leading sociologist out of the country because of possible "international complications." But we all miscalculated. My counterpart did not show any desire to discuss anything with me. He just pretended that he had no idea about the substance of my complaint. I was stunned by that unforeseen stance and sharpened the tone of the conversation and declared that anti-Semitism was reigning at the mechanical-mathematical department. The high-ranking official without raising his voice in a lazy manner asked if I had evidence for that. And when I started listing those, he refused to listen. The conversation reached its culmination when I said that what was going on prompted me to undertake some "serious decisions." But in response he just said: "Well, go ahead and realize those." What became apparent was that the decision to push me out was adopted at a fairly high level. At any rate, Zimianin who treated me always with great consideration knew about it. When I walked out of the Ministry Lena Petrenko, who together with Tanya accompanied me to that meeting in a fit of temper said: "In that case just emigrate."

At this point I could no longer avoid making this decision and I sent a telegram to Igor: "Urgently please send a book about the humming bird in Columbia ." The invitation arrived in October of that year.

This was when the KGB really stepped into action. I am sure that they overestimated my dissident potential and decided to use the invitation for softly pushing me out of the country. (This was usually done with people who were really active in the opposition movement). This is how I can explain a number of facts that took place then. To start with, the KGB began to follow me persistently and in such a manner that I would immediately know about it. This campaign started when Lena, Tanya and I went to Novosibirsk at the end of 1977. The hotel administration demonstratively controlled my presence in the room. They did it even more brazenly in the spring of 1978 in Tbilisi Georgia, where we went at the invitation of the Central Committee of Georgia to check the methodology of the first survey in the Georgia Center for the Study of Public Opinion, which had been created by Shevardnadze. We were given a VIP reception. That meant special cultural programs, banquets, excursions, etc. But as they were seeing us off at the airport with Champaign , one of the admirers who just showed up, informed me in confidence that the Moscow KGB asked the Georgian colleagues to check on me and that "our fellows" told them that "everything was fine" and that I "should not worry about anything."

The same thing happened in Kiev but in a different manner. I went there on 20 May 1978 for the birthday of my mother. Usually upon arrival I registered my business trip papers at the Institute of Philosophy . However, this time they refused to register my papers where everybody knew me and respected me. My friends when they saw me would avoid me. On the next day, one of them told me on the phone that there was an order from Moscow to follow me. And that caused a matching reaction in Kiev .

Upon my return my determination to submit the application to emigrate strengthened sharply. I told Alik about all these events but he did not see anything dramatic in them. With these facts I wanted to break the resistance of Mitya who did not want to leave for any reason at all. And he reacted with the phrase: "They have not arrested you yet, have they?" However, the next event puzzled Alik as well. A few weeks after Tanya Yaroshenko defended her dissertation, they summoned her to the KGB headquarters. They kept asking her to tell them what was going on in my house. She with her husband was a frequent guest at our get-togethers. They explained to her clearly that the approval of her dissertation by the All-Union Accreditation Agency depended on her willingness to cooperate with them. Those who summoned her understood that she would immediately tell me. This time it was not so easy for Alik to convince me to dismiss this episode as meaningless. He really did not want me to leave.




Conclusion: Parting with the Totalitarian Past

In 1979, when I was leaving the USSR , I thought that I was parting with my totalitarian past, but this turned out not to be the case. My Russian-totalitarian past has not left me for a minute. As a matter of fact I did not try to cast it aside unlike many of my former contemporaries. Many of them in the 1970s and 1980s, typically wanted to forget everything that they had left behind and pretended that they were not interested in Russia at all. Perhaps because I had a professional approach I understood that my totalitarian past was a very valuable form of human capital. This term was in vogue in the U.S. when I arrived here. (As a matter of fact, I met Mr. Schultz, an economist, in Chicago , who had received a Nobel Prize for his innovative works on human capital in contemporary society). My "human capital" was essential for me not only for continuing scholarly study of Russia , but also for understanding American society, as well as other countries of the world. I have paid a high price for that "capital" in the form of decades of discrimination, fears, unrealized opportunities, isolation, the humiliation of my children and many other things. However, whatever the origin of this "capital," I brought it with me from Russia . It passed though customs and as soon as I landed in Vienna , it was in my full possession.

My "totalitarian capital" showed itself in several ways. First of all, this was my professional baggage, both in general terms and in a narrow professional sense. It was necessary for the continuation of my sociological research. The general professional part of the "capital" was based on experience of life in a totalitarian society to which was added my life experience in the West. This part of "totalitarian capital" contributed greatly to the fact that the comparative analysis in my publications was much higher than that of the majority of my colleagues. It also strengthened my polemical possibilities at various debates and it raised the quality of my lectures at the university and elsewhere.

Surely, if I had been living in Western Europe rather than in the United States, my "totalitarian experience" would have been much more valuable than in America . Back in 1987-1988, I managed to organize two conferences, a national and an international one marking the fiftieth anniversary of the "Great Terror." Both conferences caused an enormous response. However, as soon as Russia ceased to be the country that threatened the United States, interest in it and its history declined sharply. As a result, the three conferences I organized that followed in 1990-2000 about Russian Diaspora, the new elite, and about fears in the former Soviet Union attracted much less attention, even though the intellectual stars of Russia were among the speakers.

Europe is quite different. Recently, in 2002, I found out that the British playwright Tom Stoppard wrote a trilogy about Russian revolutionaries of the nineteenth century under the title The Coast of Utopia. In its three parts "Voyage," "Shipwreck," and "Salvage," Herzen, Turgenev and Bakunin appear as the main characters. I wonder if he was aware of the fact that the Moscow theater Sovremennik (Contemporary) staged a three-part saga on the same subject in the 1960s. A famous London theater Olivier staged that trilogy as one eight-hour-long play. As a matter of fact at the end of the 1990s, Lev Dodin staged at the Malyi drama theater in St. Petersburg a play The Possessed also as an eight-hour-long play and, as I found out, the theater was full.

However, this play is about Russian history for the Russians. I cannot understand how it was possible for Tom Stoppard to attract viewers in Britain to a play about relations among Russian intellectuals 150 years ago. Also in Britain in 2002, another well-known author Martin Amis wrote a novel called Koba, the Dread. All the leading journals of the country responded to its appearance with reviews. Moreover, the main character of the latest novel by Julian Barnes, another famous British author, Love, etc., just cannot say enough about the unpublished story of Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Russian history likewise took root in the consciousness of the French intellectuals just as profoundly as among the British ones. One can hardly find a French novel with intellectual pretensions that does not contain metaphors relating to our totalitarian past.

None of this exists in America . The worth of my "totalitarian capital" went down noticeably in recent years and I get the opportunity less and less frequently to show my brilliance in knowledge of the Soviet system and of what preceded it. But even that cheapened "totalitarian capital" continues to serve me well and gives me an opportunity to understand better the society I wound up in at a rather advanced age. Quite unexpectedly I discovered many phenomena in American society that are quite similar to the Soviet system.

http://cdclv.unlv.edu/archives/Memoirs/shlapentokh.html

[Michael K.]

Your citing of Dugin's interview by a "Jew" Shlapentokh is pretty "Jewish" overall. Just more Jew promoted nonsense.

OK, first of all, the point was not to promote the interviewer's views, but to discuss Dughin's.  I don't see the subject of the interview as nonsense.  Do you have a nice gentile interview of Dughin that I can read?

I don't know why you want to entertain "Soviet" ideas so much or promote Jewish nonsense like "National Bolshevism" (an anachronism) ... I guess it is your background and pride are speaking above your reason.

I think I have made it pretty damn clear why I want to entertain "Soviet" ideas.  Why do you want to dismiss them?  Your background and pride?

"National Bolshevism" is not an anachronism, it is the core philosophy of Putinism.  That makes it relevant to now, not anachronistic.  That's another misrepresentation by you, and no apology for the slander above.

 

You don't mention anything regarding the "JEWISH FACTOR IN 9/11"... in fact you apparently want to blame idealism rather than Jew Scams for most of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

What, other than citing "Israel did 9-11: ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD" as credible evidence in the essay?  And making it explicitly clear that I think any "Russian" involvement is essentially Jewish.  You call that "not mentioning anything"  Did you actually read it?  Jew Scams, as you call them, are largely idealistic.  I don't see the two as separate.  Maybe you can actually prove they are or are not?

Good luck to you... but don't ask me to grab a shovel for you when the Jews come knocking in the middle of the night. You apparently would rather explain them away and their scams as a part of the "Soviet" system.... I don't have time for this kind of nonsense here at TIU. --CSR

Yeah.  No shit you don't have my back.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I bet $100 dollars that an ex-Soviet Jew intellectual came up with the term "National Bolshevism".... so here it goes.  Let's go binary:

Holohoax --> Goy or Jewish?  
9/11 --> Goy or Jewish?  
Multi-culturism --> Goy or Jewish?
Putin --> Goy or Jewish?

Jew speaking below which sounds faintly like yourself MK:

None of this exists in America . The worth of my "totalitarian capital" went down noticeably in recent years and I get the opportunity less and less frequently to show my brilliance in knowledge of the Soviet system and of what preceded it. But even that cheapened "totalitarian capital" continues to serve me well and gives me an opportunity to understand better the society I wound up in at a rather advanced age. Quite unexpectedly I discovered many phenomena in American society that are quite similar to the Soviet system.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's your intellectual thesis buddy and hero... a Soviet Jew that, like the ugly PNAC JEWS, managed to ingratiate  themselves into American Universities after their Scams... just like the Jews that fled Germany in the 1930s.  It is a Typical Jew IMHO -- i.e., go ahead and just "cite" your buddy Jew Shlapentokh until you get a clue:

=======

Biography

Vladimir Shlapentokh was born, raised, and educated in the Soviet Union. Before immigrating to the United States in 1979, he worked as a Senior Fellow in the Institute of Sociology, Moscow. He conducted the first set of national public opinion surveys in the Soviet Union. Before emigration, he published ten books and a number of articles on various social issues and methodology of sociological studies.

After moving to the United States, Vladimir Shlapentokh has published 14 books and dozens of professional articles. His columns appeared in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor. Since 1982, Vladimir Shlapentokh served as a consultant to the United States government, regularly reporting on social processes, ideology, and public opinion in Russia and other post-Soviet States. Vladimir Shlapentokh speaks English, German, French, Italian, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, and other Slavic languages.  

Early career

Vladimir Shlapentokh began his career in social science as a Soviet sociologist and was one of the founders of a new science which had been forbidden in the USSR until the 1960s. In the 1960s and 1970s, until his immigration to the USA, he was the leading expert on methodology of sociological studies, publishing a number of the first Soviet books on sampling techniques as well as on survey techniques. These publications served as textbooks for several generations of Russian social scientists. The first popular book on sociology in the USSR, Sociology for All (1970) was a best seller in the country and attracted many young people to the sociology profession.

The segmented approach

As Vladimir Shlapentokh's major contribution to social science, his segmented approach theory to the study of society is paramount. The segmented approach breaks with the principles of "system analysis," as formulated in the 1950s-1960s which continues to be generally unchallenged in social science. Shlapentokh contends that it is impossible to explain society with the contribution of just one theoretical model which supposes that the whole society functions according to the principles of a single system. In Shlapentokh's view, most societies are segmented and exhibit a combination of different universal social structures which existed in the past and still exist today. Shlapentokh comes up against the erroneous use of the historical approach in social analysis which supposes the permanent appearance of new social structures and the disappearance of the old ones. The term "combinatorics" is for Shlapentokh a key concept for understanding why mankind, with only a few types of social organizations, has been able to create such vast social diversity over time and space.

The most important social structures includes feudal, authoritarian, and liberal. Among other universal structures are religious, criminal, and anarchistic. The segmented character of society, with the coexistence and interaction of various social structures, demands the simultaneous use of multiple models of social organizations (or Weberian "ideal types"). The concrete elements of society that do not fit a given model should not be seen merely as "deviations" from the system but rather as empirical evidence that more than one model is needed for the analysis. The specifics of each society are determined by the relative role of each social organization and their interaction with each other.

Shlapentokh applies his segmented approach to the analysis of three societies: Soviet society, post-Soviet Russia and the United States. He was one of the first to study the processes of privatization during the post-Stalin era (see: Public and Private Life of the Soviet People 1989; Soviet Ideologies in the Period of Glasnost 1988). Among the private institutions of Soviet society, Shlapentokh paid special attention to friendship as somewhat of an antidote to the might of the Soviet state. In his book Love, Marriage, and Friendship in the Soviet Union (1984) as well as in his memoirs, An Autobiographical Narration of the Role of Fear and Friendship in the Soviet Union (2004), Shlapentokh showed how important friendship was to the everyday life of the Soviet people due to the affordances that it offered through its social network and social capital.

In a book written in collaboration with historian Mikhail Loiberg and economist Roman Levita, The Province Versus the Center in Russia: From Submission to Rebellion (1997), Shlapentokh analyzes the evolution of the feudal structure in Soviet society during the civil war and the Perestroika era when feudal tendencies were particularly strong. In his book, Contemporary Russia as a Feudal Society: A New Perspective on the Post-Soviet Era (2007), in addition to several articles first published in 1995, Shlapentokh describes three major sectors of post-Soviet Russia: liberal, authoritarian, and feudal, paying special attention to the role of the feudal segment as well to the role of the liberal sector. As he demonstrates in numerous publications on Putin's regime, the significant role of private property in post-Soviet authoritarian society makes Russia's transformation into a totalitarian regime impossible. In his other publications, Shlapentokh, with contributions from Woods, demonstrates how all three major sector models are necessary for the study of many developments in American society, such as the relations between corporations and the government, the impact of money on the election process, private security, and the impact of personal relations on politics, among others.

The nature of totalitarian society

Of the three major types of society, it was the authoritarian, and its extreme manifestation in totalitarian society, which has become the heart of Shlapentokh's research and writing. In his foremost book on the nature of totalitarianism, A Normal Totalitarian Society (2001), he endeavors to convey his vision of the Soviet Union's evolution from its origin to its end. In this book, Shlapentokh rejects the views of two warring camps in Sovietology: the faction that views the Soviet system only as a regime, which was imposed on the Russians by a band of ideological fanatics and adventurists, and the opposing group, or the revisionist camp, which tended to perceive the USSR as a type of pluralistic society that had ample participation from the masses within the government.

Instead, Shlapentokh regards the Soviet Union as a quite efficient "normal" totalitarian society with the state as its central institution. The Communist party, the main instrument of the state, through its network, was an efficient coordinator of activities pertaining to all branches of organizations throughout the country, and was able to quickly mobilize resources for military objectives. In fact, the Soviet Union was able to run all elements of society, which was particularly important in allowing Soviet society to reproduce itself. Shlapentokh denies the inevitability of the Soviet collapse in the early 1990s, and believes that if Gorbachev had not launched his ill- conceived reforms, the USSR, which was not endangered unlike tsarist Russia by foreign countries, could have continued to function for many years.

At the same time, speaking about his disgust of the Orwellian fear present in a totalitarian society, Shlapentokh suggested in his book Fear in Contemporary Society: Its Negative and Positive Effects (2006) the usefulness of Hobbesian fear for the maintenance of order even in such a democratic society as the USA. In his opinion, "positive socialization" and the internalization of positive values is simply not enough to sustain order in Western societies. Without the fear of sanctions, people would violate the law and disturb social order much more often than in a society where order is sustained only by internalized values, a view dominant in American sociology since Talcott Parsons.

Ideology and public opinion in interaction

Public opinion and ideology in authoritarian and democratic society is of special interest for Shlapentokh. Contrary to many contemporary American social scientists who do not use the term "ideology," but have rather replaced it due to the influence of postmodernists with the vague term "narration," Shlapentokh is inclined to see ideology, which is a set of values and beliefs, as a very powerful social factor which influences almost all types of social activity, particularly the opinions of people.

Shlapentokh differentiates between public (open) ideology and the closed (internal or "party") ideology of the elites themselves. He shows, for instance, in his book Soviet Public Opinion and Ideology: The Interaction Between Mythology and Pragmatism (1986), that the "internal ideology," or the ideology of the Soviet ruling elite, strongly differs from public ideology, which is comparable to how the oligarchic ideology of the corporate class is different from public ideology in the USA. The existence of two types of ideologies explains why in most societies there are two channels of information, one for the public and one for "the inner circle." Shlapentokh considers the Soviet public and party ideologies as complex and relatively flexible structures with distinct trends flowing through them, which consequently explains why, with each new leader, ideologies have tended to change substantially (see: Soviet Ideologies in the Period of Glasnost 1988).

Shlapentokh also discusses another mechanism of adaptation to the dominant ideology which he labels as "'values for me and values for others," which was initially published in the article "The Study of Values as a Social Phenomenon: the Soviet Case" (Social Forces 1982). In this theory, Shlapentokh claims that many people in various societies, which seemingly subscribe to the strong beliefs of the dominant ideology, actually expect others, but not themselves, to behave according to them. It can be contended that official values are regarded by many people as "gala values," as values not for them personally, but as values for others. These people also expect others, but not themselves, to be consistent in their views.

In studying the interaction between ideology and public opinion, Shlapentokh joined, in the early 1970s, phenomenologists Berger and Luckman who focused on the concept of "multiple realities," which supposes that people hold very different images of the same "objective reality." Later on, Shlapentokh analyzed the images of insiders as outsiders in his book, The Soviet Union: Internal and External Perspectives on Soviet Society (2008) written with coauthor Eric Shiraev. Among the insiders, special attention was paid to the ruling elite, the liberal intellectuals, and the average person. The outsiders included the Sovietologists, American media and American public opinion whose models of the Soviet society were in deep contradiction with each other. By all accounts, Shlapentokh with Shiraev made the first attempt in social science to show in a systematic way, with the use of available empirical data, how the same society, its political, economic, and social structures, as well as its culture and history, was perceived so differently by its residents and by foreigners. Shlapentokh rejects relativism in the social sciences, and operates under the concept of "hard reality," which is defined as a reality that can only be delineated by existing objective empirical data. This hard reality contains as its key component quantifiable information about the various perceptions of reality that is held by different people.

In the comparison of different models, or perceptions, of the same society, Shlapentokh supposes that those perceptions which are more critical of the actual society are closer to "hard reality" than the apologetic images of the society. Of course, we should dismiss critical views inspired by the blind hatred of society or those that are based solely in conspiracy, as these views are marred by a distorted view of reality and thus do very little for the true analysis of society.

Fear in society (after millions murdered by Bolshevik JEWS)  

In studying the nature of the Soviet totalitarian system Shlapentokh pays special attention to the existing repression as well as to the fear of potential repression. He suggests that fear of the authorities, party bosses, and political police, was a major underlying reason for the endurance of the Soviet system.

Paying the utmost attention to fear in authoritarian and, in particular, totalitarian societies, Shlapentokh organized three conferences dedicated to terror in the Soviet Union and in other repressive regimes. The first of his conference series, entitled "1984," was devoted to Orwell and took place at Michigan State University, appropriately enough in 1984. In Shlapentokh's opinion, being as an outsider, Orwell better understood the essence of Soviet society than many critical analysts inside the country. He insisted that the numerous authors who discussed Orwell ignored or underestimated the contribution that Orwell's 1984 had to the social sciences, such as the discovery of an efficient mechanism that allows people to adapt to any hierarchical organization, from a department at an American University to the Soviet totalitarian society. He also asserts that only "the love of Big Brother" guarantees the individual perfect conformity, which is discussed in Shlapentokh's essay "George Orwell: Russia's Tocqueville," published in a book of compiled scholarly essays on Orwell, George Orwell into the Twentieth Century (2004).

The second was a national conference called "The 50th Anniversary of the Great Terror," held in May 1986, and third in the series was an international conference named "State Organized Terror," held in November 1988 in East Lansing, Michigan. The materials of the last conference were published in a book edited by Shlapentokh and his colleagues, State Organized Terror: the Case of Violent Internal Repression (1991).

At the same time, speaking about his disgust of the Orwellian fear present in a totalitarian society, Shlapentokh suggested in his book Fear in Contemporary Society: Its Negative and Positive Effects (2006) the usefulness of Hobbesian fear for the maintenance of order even in such a democratic society as the USA. In his opinion, "positive socialization" and the internalization of positive values is simply not enough to sustain order in Western societies. Without the fear of sanctions, people would violate the law and disturb social order much more often than in a society where order is sustained only by internalized values, a view dominant in American sociology since Talcott Parsons.

The role of elites

Shlapentokh links the significant role of ideology in society to the role of the elites, particularly the political elites. For Shlapentokh, it is the elites, not the masses, which are the creators and the modifiers of ideology. The ruling political elite impose the values and norms of the dominant ideology on the population, which they are able to do by using their monopoly on media, education, and culture, as well as by means of coercion.

While attributing a rather passive role to the masses in ideological processes, Shlapentokh at the same time acknowledges that those cultural traditions and internalized feelings and beliefs held by the masses are important, as they are used by the elite for shaping and changing the ideological xenophobia and desire for justice. For example, the Russian Bolsheviks flawlessly exploited hatred of social inequality, while Stalin and Putin were able to exploit xenophobia with the same success. For Shlapentokh, the distinction between the elites and the masses plays a leading role in the analysis of describing any society to date, from Soviet to post-Soviet Russia, to American society. In his opinion, the many problems of post-Soviet Russia, beginning with the failure of democratization, should not be ascribed to the masses but to the new elites, which, having attained the means for personal enrichment, have in turn supported the authoritarian system so as to guarantee the stability of their own newly acquired wealth and status.

In his study of anti-Americanism in Russia and in other countries, Shlapentokh insisted that it was the elite and not ordinary people who inspired anti-Americanism, and that the anti-American sentiment of ordinary people was usually a product of the media which was controlled by the elites (see: The New Elite In Post-Communist Eastern Europe 1999. Edited by Shlapentokh et al.; "Moscow's Values: Masses and the Elite," in Nation Building and Common Values in Russia 2003; "Russian Civil Society: Elite Versus Mass Attitudes Toward Democratization" in Democratization, Comparisons, Confrontations and Contrasts 2008).

Empirical Sociology

Shlapentokh was the director of the first national surveys based on random samplings in the 1960s and 1970s, which were the first national scientific surveys in the history of the Soviet Union. The results of these surveys were included in numerous Russian publications, and were also translated into English. He furthermore employed his experience as an empirical sociologist in dozens of studies in the Soviet Union, as well as, much later, for the international project regarding world attitudes towards America in the aftermath of September 11 (see: America: Sovereign Defender or Cowboy Nation? Edited by Shlapentokh together with Woods and Shiraev, 2005).

The major mark of totalitarian society, the role of fear and ideology, makes clear why Shlapentokh made the focus in his methodological studies the empirical validity of sociological data. This issue had largely escaped the attention of American sociologists who overestimated the impact of the freedom of expression on the readiness of their respondents to be sincere in their surveys. Shlapentokh and several of his colleagues were sure that respondents in any society, but particularly those in authoritarian societies, were influenced by "desirable values," the desire of people to answer questions in accordance with the ideology dominant in their milieu.

No other expert on surveys in the USA has paid as much attention to the veracity of respondents as Shlapentokh has, developing his theories on this issue in two books published in Russian (see: The Empirical Validity of the Statistical Information in Sociological Studies 1973; The Quality of Sociological Information: Validity, Representativeness and Prognostic Potential 2006). Because of his belief in the strong impact that ideology and media had on respondents in sociological studies and polls, Shlapentokh was one of the first in contemporary polling practices, along with fellow sociologist Boris Grushin, to develop the technique of using many different procedures which helped in comparing data from various sources of information, in order to find the most reliable data.

 Institutions

Professor, Michigan State University

Senior Fellow, the Institute of Sociology, Moscow (until 1979)

[Michael K.]

I bet $100 dollars that an ex-Soviet Jew intellectual came up with the term "National Bolshevism"....

Dude, I could use the $100.  So just send a money order, you know the address.

so here it goes. Let's go binary:

Holohoax --> Goy or Jewish?
9/11 --> Goy or Jewish?
Multi-culturism --> Goy or Jewish?
Putin --> Goy or Jewish?

Jewish, Jewish, Jewish, and very Shabbos Goy.


Now, my $100 worth:

http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitem ... 10000.html

3 June 2011
Foundations of Russian Nationalism
Robert Steuckers
(translated by Greg Johnson)

Over the decades, this division became increasingly complex. Certain leftists evolved towards a Russian particularism, an anti-capitalist, anarchist-peasant socialism. The Slavophile right mutated into  "panslavism" manipulated to further Russian expansion in the Balkans (supporting the Romanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Greeks against the Ottomans).

Among these "panslavists" was the philosopher Nikolay Danilevsky, author of an audacious historical panorama depicting Europe as a community of old people drained of their historical energies, and the Slavs as a phalange of young people destined to govern the world. Under the direction of Russia, the Slavs must seize Constantinople, re-assume the role of Byzantium, and build an imperishable empire.

Against the Danilevsky's program, the philosopher Konstantin Leontiev wanted an alliance between Islam and Orthodoxy against the liberal ferment of dissolution from the West. He opposed all conflict between Russians and Ottomans in the Balkans. The enemy was above all Anglo-Saxon. Leontiev's vision still appeals to many Russians today.

Lastly, in the Diary of Writer, Dostoevsky developed similar ideas (the youthfulness of the Slavic peoples, the perversion of the liberal West) to which he added a radical anti-Catholicism. Dostoevsky came to inspire in particular the German "national-Bolsheviks" of the Weimar Republic (Niekisch, Paetel, Moeller van den Bruck, who was his translator).

Following the construction of the Trans-Siberian railroad under the energetic direction of the minister Witte, a pragmatic and autarkical ideology of "Eurasianism" emerged that aimed to put the region under Russian control, whether directed by a Tsar or a Soviet Vojd ("Chief").

The "Eurasian" ideologists are Troubetzkoy, Savitski, and Vernadsky. For them, Russia is not an Eastern part of Europe but a continent in itself, which occupies the center of the "World Island" that the British geopolitician Halford John Mackinder called the "Heartland." For Mackinder, the power that managed to control "Heartland" was automatically master of the planet.

Indeed, this "Heartland," namely the area extending from Moscow to the Urals and the Urals to the Transbaikal, was inaccessible to the maritime powers like England and the United States. It could thus hold them in check.

Soviet policy, especially during the Cold War, always tried to realize Mackinder's worst fears, i.e., to make the Russo-Siberian center of the USSR impregnable. Even in the era of nuclear power, aviation, and transcontinental missiles. This "sanctuarization" of the Soviet "Heartland" constituted the semi-official ideology of the Red Army from Stalin to Brezhnev.

The imperial neo-nationalists, the national-Communists, and the patriots opposed Gorbachev and Yeltsin because they dismantled the Eastern-European, Ukrainian, Baltic, and central-Asian glacis of this "Heartland."

These are the premises of Russian nationalism, whose multiple currents today oscillate between a populist-Slavophile pole ("narodniki," from "narod," people), a panslavist pole, and an Eurasian pole. For Aldo Ferrari, today's Russian nationalism is subdivided between four currents: (a) neo-Slavophiles, (b) eurasianists, (c) national-Communists, and (d) ethnic nationalists....

The Eurasianists are everywhere in the current Russian political arena. The philosopher to whom they refer is Lev Goumilev, a kind of Russian Spengler who analyzes the events of history according to the degree of passion that animates a people. When the people are impassioned, they create great things. When inner passion dims, the people decline and die. Such is the fate of the West.

For Goumilev, the Soviet borders are intangible but new Russia must adhere to the principle of ethnic pluralism. It is thus not a question of Russianizing the people of the periphery but of making of them definitive allies of the "imperial people."

Goumilev, who died in June 1992, interpreted the ideas of Leontiev in a secular direction: the Russians and the Turkish-speaking peoples of Central Asia were to make common cause, setting aside their religious differences.

Today, the heritage of Goumilev is found in the columns of Elementy, the review of the Russian "New Right" of Alexandre Dugin, and Dyeïnn (which became Zavtra, after the prohibition of October 1993), the newspaper of Alexander Prokhanov, the leading national-patriotic writers and journalists. But one also finds it among certain Moslems of the "Party of Islamic Rebirth," in particular Djemal Haydar. More curiously, two members of Yeltsin's staff, Rahr and Tolz, were followers of Eurasianism. Their advice was hardly followed.

http://www.yatedo.com/p/Aleksandr+Dugin ... b5037e643d

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a politologist and one of the most influential ideologists of Russian expansionism and nationalism, with close ties to the Kremlin and Russian military . He was the leading organizer of National Bolshevik Party, National Bolshevik Front, and Eurasia Party.

Anachronistic you say?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fascis ... 3-348.html

When in 2008, Moscow State's sociology faculty founded its new Conservative Studies Center with Dugin as its head, it apparently followed similar aims regarding Dugin's appointment--hardly beneficial to the academic reputation of the faculty. Though Dugin was born and has lived all of his life in Moscow, a city home to several prestigious universities, he received his education in provincial colleges. Dugin earned his Bachelor's degree equivalent in philosophy from the Novocherkassk State Melioration Academy, his Candidate of Science degree from the North-Caucasian Higher School Scientific Center at Rostov-on-the-Don, and his Doctor of Science degree from the Juridical Institute attached to the Ministry of Interior of the Russian Federation at Rostov. Even many Russians may have never heard of these South Russian educational institutions. Nevertheless, in 2010, Dugin became acting Chair of Sociology of International Relations at Dobren'kov's faculty thus becoming also an official professor (and not only researcher) at Russia's leading university.

In spite of Dugin's many violations of Russian political correctness throughout the 1990s, the leader of the International Eurasian Movement has, in recent years, become an influential political publicist and pundit. In 1998, Dugin first surprised students of the Russian extreme right when he managed to become an official advisor of Gennady Seleznev, then speaker of the lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma. There have been also rumors that, during the 1990s, Dugin had links to one of Putin's closest KGB buddies, Viktor Cherkesov. In 2001, Dugin became a full member of Moscow's political establishment when he created his Eurasia Movement (later the International Eurasian Movement), the founding of which was widely reported in the Russian media. Since then, Dugin has been temporarilly linked to many prominent Russian public figures, including Russia's former Minister of Culture Aleksandr Sokolov and the former head of the ideology department of Putin's United Russia party-- as well as a current officer in the Russian presidential administration--Ivan Demidov (23).

It could well be that these and other connections in the upper echelons of Russia's political hierarchy have made Dugin a politically attractive figure able to provide Dobren'kov with protection. It appears that the sociology faculty's Dean wants to make Moscow State University's Conservative Studies Center the focal point of anti-Western "metapolitical" activity in Russia, and to create, in this way, a constituency of support for himself and his colleagues among the powers that be.

Dugin too benefits from the appointment. His new position at Russia's leading classical university gives him academic clout--the absence of which has, until recently, been hindering the acceptance of his rabidly anti-American history and politics text books at Russian schools and colleges (24). Moscow State University's sociology faculty provides the chief "neo-Eurasianist" with a prestigious site for workshops, press conferences, and interviews.
Dugin has been working for years to shift Russian elite discourse to the right (25). He and similarly oriented figures have succeeded in inserting into the mainstream the idea that the US is Russia's main problem and that "the Americans" are responsible for the various mishaps in recent Russian domestic and foreign politics, including the Orange Revolution and the 2008 conflict with Georgia (26). Dugin is now working toward establishing his "neo-Eurasianist" ideology as Russia's new foreign policy doctrine (27). In doing so, he uses the term "conservatism" as a cover for the spread of an actually revolutionary neo-imperialist program that amounts to a blueprint for an armed confrontation with Russia's neighbours and the West. The Conservative Study Center will help Dugin to further smuggle neo-fascist ideas into the Russian mainstream. (Wow, he sure names the Jews!)

[youtube:1ury3pe2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TJfL7BM-JE[/youtube]1ury3pe2]

Just keep your money.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Look "National Bolshevism" clouds Jew Protocolist reality.  Goyim writers versus Protocolist Jews... in practice all of it is "Jewish-Protocolist"... and largely National Bolshevism is a term used by Soviets philosphers... some writers make a remark here or there but mostly Jews promoted Bolshevism until it was "all" Jewish, National or otherwise.  

Radek is the only one who proposed it for real... and he was a Jew. Niekisch used the idealism for it after the 1923 revolution was lost in Germany. But the reality of "National Bolshevism" is Jewish... like the word "Bolshevik" -- don't overlook the OBVIOUS MK... Trotsky popularized the world "Bolshevik". Some writers in Germany and Russia were duped by it, but essentially it is J-TRIBE 100% from day one that the idiot weasly Jew Trotsky opened his propagandizing mouth.  

You always seem to miss the obvious... Jews=Bolshevism (of all varieties as per the Protocols... with Goy dupes or without them.).
 
---------

The original National Bolshevik:

Karl Radek, the son of Jewish parents, was born in Lemberg in 1885. He joined the Social Democratic Party of Poland in 1902 and worked closely with Rosa Luxemburg, Felix Dzerzhinsky and Leo Jogiches. The authorities soon became aware of his political activities and he was forced into exile.

Radek later explained that after the 1905 Revolution he returned to Poland: "In 1905 the Russian Revolution broke out and I longed to go back to Tsarist Poland for grass-roots Party work. I approached Rosa Luxemburg with a proposal for a trip to Poland. The day arrived when I crossed the frontier with a false passport, not knowing a word of Russian. The first person I met was Felix Dzerzhinsky, the second Leon Jogiches. I was immediately assigned to the editorial staff of the central Party paper, participated in the publication of the first legal Party daily, Trybuna, and threw myself into propaganda work among the Warsaw working masses."

Radek was forced to flee from Poland and went to live in Germany. In 1913 he met Vladimir Lenin and Gregory Zinoviev. He joined them in their struggle with Clara Zetkin: "We established unity on all basic points; disagreement came only over the slogan for national self-determination. Daily contact with Lenin and discussions with him finally convinced me that the Bolsheviks were the only revolutionary party in Russia, and as early as the International Conference of Women in April, 1915, I helped in the struggle against Clara Zetkin's centerist policies."

In September 1915, Tsar Nicholas II assumed supreme command of the Russian Army fighting on the Eastern Front. This linked him to the country's military failures and during 1917 there was a strong decline support for his government. The country's incompetent and corrupt system could not supply the necessary equipment to enable the Russian Army to fight a modern war. By 1917 over 1,300,000 men had been killed in battle, 4,200,000 wounded and 2,417,000 had been captured by the enemy.

The High Command of the Russian Army now feared a violent revolution and on 28th February suggested that Nicholas II should abdicate in favour of a more popular member of the royal family. Attempts were now made to persuade Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich to accept the throne. He refused and on the 1st March, 1917, the Tsar abdicated leaving the Provisional Government in control of the country. Radek joined Lenin and 26 other Bolsheviks in the sealed German train which took them to Russia.

After the October Revolution Radek became a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee. He was initially a supporter of Leon Trotsky and argued that the the Soviet government should help the spread of world revolution. In 1918 he was sent to Germany and with a group of radicals who had been members of the Spartacus League, including Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Leo Jogiches, Paul Levi, Ernest Meyer, Franz Mehring and Clara Zetkin, helped to establish the German Communist Party (KPD).

Communists were heavily involved in the German Revolution that began on 29th October 1918. Luxemburg, Liebknecht and Jogiches played a prominent role in the Spartakist Rising in Berlin. After the assassination of Kurt Eisner, in Munich on 21st February, 1919, another communist, Eugen Levine, became leader of the Bavarian Socialist Republic. The revolution was crushed by the Freikorps and its leaders were executed. Radek, together with the Comintern member Dmitry Manuilsky, made an unsuccessful attempt to launch a second German revolution in October 1923.

Victor Serge wrote in Memoirs of a Revolutionary: "Karl Radek was a sparkling writer, with an equal flair for synthesis and for sarcasm. Thin, rather small, nervous, full of anecdotes which often had a savage side to them, realistic to the point of cruelty, he had a beard growing in a fringe around his clean-shaven face, just like an old-time pirate. His features were irregular, and thick tortoise-shell spectacles ringed his myopic eyes. His walk, staccato gestures, prominent lips, and crewed-up face."

Under pressure from Vladimir Lenin, Radek ceased to advocate world revolution but after the death of his leader, he supported Leon Trotsky against Joseph Stalin. In 1927 he was expelled from the party but after making public statements admitting to his "political errors" he was readmitted in 1929. Radek now became a loyal supporter of Stalin but in 1937 he was arrested and put on trial for treason. Sentenced to ten years imprisonment he died on 19th May, 1939. At first it was reported that he had been killed in a fight with a fellow inmate. However, it later emerged that he was murdered by a member of NKVD on the orders of Lavrenti Beria.[4]

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

So Ernest Niekisch and Dugin caused 9/11?  You have still have nothing but a deception (self-deception) by  over looking the PNAC Jews and Israeli operatives during 9/11.

Like I said originally... Russia=9/11 is cloudy. Israeli Scam Jews = 9/11 is pretty clear.  To speak of a movement that is incidental to Zionism and their aims is a massive diversion.
m
Did they call themselves "National Bolsheviks" or just "Bolsheviks"   I bet the latter... and what is the difference between them when the Jews run with the Protocols?

Oh you are concerned about this? This is the first time I've seen this that is apparently popular in Russia.

[Michael K.]

CSR wrote:

Look "National Bolshevism" clouds Jew Protocolist reality. Goyim writers versus Protocolist Jews... in practice all of it is "Jewish-Protocolist"... and largely National Bolshevism is a term used by Soviets philosphers... some writers make a remark here or there but mostly Jews promoted Bolshevism until it was "all" Jewish, National or otherwise.

I basically agree with those statements, but whether or not it "clouds" the reality of what the Jews are up to, it is very relevant to what we are investigating today and where the political world is going tomorrow.  Hence I favor a closer examination of NB as a subject matter of theJewish conspiracy, rather than as a replacement theory.  It illustrates how nationalism, fascism and anti-liberalism can be and ofter are Jewish inspired.

So Ernest Niekisch and Dugin caused 9/11? You have still have nothing but a deception (self-deception) by over looking the PNAC Jews and Israeli operatives during 9/11.

I didn't over look them, they are included in the thesis you didn't read.  But since it isn't another rehash of what we already know, they don't get top billing.  No kidding they are involved.

Like I said originally... Russia=9/11 is cloudy. Israeli Scam Jews = 9/11 is pretty clear. To speak of a movement that is incidental to Zionism and their aims is a massive diversion.

To speak of a movement that wants to kill your Saxon ass right now, and in the fulfillment of a Zionist plan to take the Holy Land, is a meaningful diversion.   I mean, what are we supposed to do, shut out information that doesn't fit into our pet theory?  How about opening up the floor to some new insights that relate directly to what we already know and believe, even if they are hard to take, hear and understand?

Oh you are concerned about this? This is the first time I've seen this Half-Jewish B.S. that is apparently popular in Russia.

Now you are getting where I am coming from a little better.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The word "Saxon" is mentioned... I smell "Henry Makow" or some other Half-Jew writer...  With Dugin, paint the picture in Binary form... how is he directly connected with 9/11? Did he meet with Netanyahu or was he trained by Talpiot... hey, is Dugin a crypto-Jew?  


Co-option of National Bolshevism

Ustrialov and others sympathetic to the Smenovekhovtsi cause, such as Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy and Ilya Ehrenburg, were eventually able to return to the Soviet Union and, following the co-option of aspects of nationalism by Stalin and his ideologue Andrei Zhdanov, enjoyed membership of the intellectual elite under the designation "non-party" Bolsheviks.[9] Similarly B.D. Grekov's National Bolshevik school of historiography, a frequent target under Lenin, was officially recognised and even promoted under Stalin, albeit after accepting the main tenets of Stalinism.[10] Indeed it has been argued that National Bolshevism was the main impetus for the revival of patriotism as an official part of state ideology in the 1930s.[11]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn vs Eduard Limonov

The term National Bolshevism has sometimes been applied to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and his brand of anti-communism.[12] However, Solzhenitsyn cannot be labeled a National Bolshevik since he was thoroughly anti-Marxist and anti-Stalinist, and he wished a revival of Russian culture that would see a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church, a withdrawal of Russia from its role overseas, and a state of international isolationism.[12] Solzhenitsyn and his followers, known as vozrozhdentsy (revivalists) differed from the National Bolsheviks, who were not religious in tone (although not completely hostile to religion), and who felt that involvement overseas was important for the prestige and power of Russia.[12]

There was open hostility between Solzhenitsyn and Eduard Limonov, the head of Russia's unregistered National Bolshevik Party. Solzhenitsyn had described Limonov as "a little insect who writes pornography", and Limonov described Solzhenitsyn as a traitor to his homeland who contributed to the downfall of the USSR. In The Oak and the Calf, Solzhenitsyn openly attacked the notions that the Russians were 'the noblest in the world' and that 'tsarism and Bolshevism ... [were] equally irreproachable', defining this as the core of the National Bolshevism to which he was opposed.[13]

[Michael K.]

The mention "Saxon" is mentioned... I smell "Henry Makow" or some other Half-Jew writer... Dugin paint the picture in Binary form... how is he directly connected with 9/11? Did he meet with Netanyahu or was he trained by Talpiot... hey, is Dugin a crypto-Jew?

Look, Dughin names the Saxon as enemy of the Slav.

No direct linkage to 9-11 found in Dughin, but evidence is scarce.  No direct linkage, but philosophical motive correlation above 95%.

Is Dughin a Jew?  It does say that he took all his education in Southern Russia, which is Khazaria and is also linked to Dan, but that is conjecture.  Nevertheless, we may reasonably suspect some Jewish blood would show up in a detailed genealogy if we take his overall picture into account.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Look, Dughin names the Saxon as enemy of the Slav.

No direct linkage to 9-11 found in Dughin, but evidence is scarce.  No direct linkage, but philosophical motive correlation above 95%.

All "real" pan-Slavs and pan-Arabs hate the "West" (Jewish controlled or otherwise)....do they want to see the "West" -- Hit and humiliated?  Yes.  If this is done by Mossad, is it correlated? No. Not necessarily.  I think the whole game for 9/11 was actually to launch Jewish control over the USA/Canada/Europe with the constant threats of "terrorism" more than physical domination over Israel's immediate enemies. Who did the Afghans threaten in 2001? No one. But the JEW joke went forward and is still laughing today.   The Israelis knew they could always "Strike" like they did at Iraq's Osirik reactor. For them, taking control directly of America is a gloating accomplishment.  Pan-Zionism is not the destruction of the West by revolution... but the co-opting and control of the USA/Canada whether "Left" or "Right"... and using the "Wests" arms with the Tanks, Carriers, Satellites, intelligence eaves dropping, and F-16s...along with concurrent media control... as a "power base"... they can launch at will on any physical threats.  The parasite on the country is the real "National Bolshevism" as per Trotsky--Jewish Control.  Anti-Saxon, pan-Slavism is only to be expected... but it is nevertheless Jew deluded... since the Jews murdered millions of Slavs... and would have continued to do so IF THE STATE OF ISRAEL WAS NEVER CREATED.  That is what stopped Jew Bolshevism in Russia...Israel.... from the murder of Stolpyin until the Arab-Israeli wars of 1973... it was full-on game-on for the Talmudic Protocolist Jews in Russia. Pan-Slavism is clear as a bell... always has been...like Pan-Arabism/Islam. It is not as deceptive like Zionism-Jews. It can be discerned.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

It illustrates how nationalism, fascism and anti-liberalism can be and ofter are Jewish inspired.

Riiight, that's why Jews have just been fighting tooth-and-nail against Gentile nationalism, Fascism, National Socialism, White Racialism, etc, for centuries via the Frankfurt School, International Marxism/Communism, dissemination of globalist multiculturalist propaganda, political correctness, "anti-racism" campaigns, etc.

You're a cultural marxist under a Christard guise.

[youtube:aqic2xfe]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-dFI3xjps[/youtube]aqic2xfe]

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I think the Jewish religion is a fraud: the Talmud is an evil book, but the rabbis hide the book and its meaning. The Jewish religion is a Jewish supremacist ideology, but it tries to hide that.

And you think the Torah is any better than the Talmud? The Talmud is explications and interpretations of the Torah, the first five books of the bible.

A few quotes from the old testament:
Isaiah 60:16 ~ "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings..."

Isaiah 61:5 ~ "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers."

Isaiah 60:5 ~ "the wealth of the nations shall come unto thee."

Deuteronomy 7:6 ~ "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

Deuteronomy 23:20 ~ "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

Deuteronomy 7:2 ~ "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them."

Yet you hold the book where these passages came from to be the "sacred word of god."  :up:

The Jewish religion is dishonest, and their major belief is that Jesus is not the Savior. In that regard, it is completely wicked and opposed to God.

The Christian religion is dishonest too because it makes claims that violate nature and presents them as truth.

I don't believe in the holohoax.

But you believe in the immaculate conception, resurrection, parting of the red sea, jonah lived inside a whales stomach for three days and "miracles". :lol: You're not applying your skepticism consistently across the board. You suspend disbelief when it comes to your Christ cult.

I don't hate Jews. I am a Christian, and Christ said that we should pray for our enemies.

Well considering that prayer doesn't work you're not accomplishing anything by "praying for your enemies". But, in essence, wishing your enemies anything but demise is insane, totally insane Christ cult crap. How can you claim to oppose Jews when you telepathically wish them well every night before you go to bed?

I have good friends who are Jews, and whom I love. I don't think they keep tabs on me or anyone else. None of them had anything to do with 9/11. They are kept ignorant by watching TV and movies, just like everyone else.  

Even if your Jewish buddies knew what was going on they'd keep silent about it because it's not politically or financially expedient to speak out on Jewish crimes. They'll do what's best for their tribe at the end of the day. I bet they're extremely reluctant to accept these truths about Jewish treachery, assuming you tried to educate them on it?

I feel sorry for people who close themselves off from loving other people because of the color of their skin. I imagine it would be difficult to decide how white a person would have to be before I could love them. What if I hated someone because they were Mexican, but then I found out they were Italian? Could I be their friend after that?

Who says anything about hating them? If you're a White Nationalist and are open about your views in that regard it is they who will hate you.

I believe that none of the problems the world faces will be solved politically or economically. All of our problems come from our sinful nature. We have to turn away from sin and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. He can help us to stop sinning. He is the Bread that came down from Heaven. He can give us eternal life. Jesus says "Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light."

So let's not try to solve the problems we face politically or economically, let's all just telepathically pray to an invisible man in the sky and hope he comes and fixes everything, which he could do with the snap of a finger if he actually existed.  :roll:

Get a grip on reality man, your head is in the clouds.  :crazy:

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

MK, some things to consider regarding your eschatology and the Russian Federation.

Gary DeMar (1996)
"Edwin M. Yamauchi, noted Christian historian and archeologist, writes that rosh "can have nothing to do with modern 'Russia,'" and "all informed references and studies acknowledge that the association with Moscow and Tobolsk is untenable."  (Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church, Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1996, p. 363)

Pate and Haines (1995)
"Historian Edwin Yamauchi notes that, even if one transliterated the Hebew ro's as a proper name (as the Septuagint does), it can have nothing to do with modern Russia.  Yamauchi writes, "This would be a gross anachronism, for the modern name is based upon the name Rus, which was brought into the reign of Kiev, north of the Black Sea, by the Vikings only in the Middle Ages."  Yamauchi goes on to analyze the nomenclature "Gog and Magog" and reaches the majority scholarly opinion, namely, that we simply cannot positively identify the antecedents of these historical names. However, the identifications of Meshech and Tubal are not in doubt.  Few scholars today equate them with Moscow and Tobolsk.  Rather, combined ancient testimony attests to the fact that Meshech and Tubal were located in central and eastern Anatolia (Asia Minor), respectively." (C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines, Jr., Doomsday Delusions: What's wrong with Predictions About the End of the World, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995, p. 62-63)

"The point we wish to make is that is seems difficult for those who predicted the Soviet Union would be the great enemy to the north that would swarm over Israel to acknowledge the fact that the empire is no more.  Instead, they amend their interpretations to fit the current scene."

"Lindsey offers a concluding remark: "Yes, the Evil Empire may be gone, but Russia's role in the endtimes scenario remains the same.  The mainstream media may not be tracking developments in Russia with much scrutiny and depth or giving them the attention they deserve, but, behind the scenes, there are momentous and profound events taking place in Moscow.  The great bear may not look dangerous as it once did, but looks can be deceiving.

Clearly, Lindsey is rationalizing the error of predicting.. He avoids dealing with the reality of the false prediction by saying now that the Soviet collapse was inevitable." (ibid., p. 138)

Keep in mind, MK, Hal Lindsey is a major Jewish agenteur.

Superb 70 Weeks scholar Phillip Mauro writes in The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (1921):

Third. After verses 36, 37, 38 and 39, which speak of the character and doings of "the king," we find the words, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at (or with) him; and the king of the north shall come," etc. (#Da 11:40). This and succeeding verses (where mention is made of Edom, Moab, and the children of Ammon peoples which have now long ago ceased to exist) afford clear proof that the prophecy is still occupied with the era of the wars between Syria and Egypt, which continued till the battle of Actium, B.C. 30. Fourth. Finally a conclusive reason for the view we are now presenting is found in the words of the angel recorded in (#Da 12:7). It will be observed that the prophecy continues without interruption to verse 4 of chapter 12, where it reaches its end. But then Daniel asked a question concerning "the end of these wonders" which the angel had been foretelling. To this question the angel gives a reply which makes it perfectly certain that the prophecy extends to the dispersion of the Jews at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and no further. For he said, "And when He (God) shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." We do not see how it can be contended, in the face of these clear words, that the prophecy has to do with events subsequent to the scattering of the national power of the Jewish people; and it is not open to dispute that that took place in A.D. 70. We shall refer to this at greater length later on.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS

     Hence these verses (#Da 11:40-43) have a parenthetical character. They read as follows:

"And at the time of the end shall a king of the south push at him (or with him); and a king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind with chariots and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land; and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape, but he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps."

      The events foretold in this part of the prophecy took place "at the time of the end;" that is to say they were coincident with the last era of Jewish history, the era of the Herods. At that time a king of the south (Cleopatra, the last to occupy the throne of Egypt, aided by Mark Antony) made a push with Herod, who was in league with them, against Syria, which had meanwhile become a Roman province. This was the beginning of the great Actian war.

     As to the manner in which that war began, we have a very clear account in Plutarch's "Life of Mark Antony," by which it appears that the fulfilment of the prophecy was marvellously exact, not only as regards the manner in which the war began, but also in respect to the sides on which the different parties were at first engaged in it, in regard also to the outcome, to the peculiar arms, "chariots and horsemen and many ships"--by means of which the victories of Augustus were achieved, and finally, in regard also to the rapidity of his conquest, which was effected within the space of a single year.

More from Mauro:

PLUTARCH'S DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIAN WAR

 

     The first move in the Actian war was made by Antony (at the urgency of Cleopatra), in which he was assisted by Herod. Says Plutarch:

"Antony, being informed of these things" (that is of certain disputes between Augustus and others in the Senate at Rome) "immediately sent Canidus to the seacoast with sixteen legions. In the meantime he went to Ephesus attended by Cleopatra. There he assembled his fleet, which consisted of 800 ships of burden, whereof Cleopatra furnished 200 besides 20,000 talents, and provisions for the army."

     Antony advanced to Athens, with constantly increasing forces, Augustus being wholly unprepared to meet him; for says the historian:

"When Caesar was informed of the celerity and magnificence of Antony's preparations, he was afraid of being forced into war that summer. This would have been most inconvenient for him, for he was in want of almost everything. * * * The auxiliary kings who fought under his (Antony's) banner were Bocchus of Africa," &c. a list being given--"Those who did not attend in person, but sent supplies were Polemo of Pontus, Malchus of Arabia, Herod of Judea, and Amyntas of Lycaonia and Galatia."

     Thus a king of the south was the first to make a push in this war, and he pushed with Herod. As showing the accuracy of the prophecy it should be noted that, as Plutarch records, the Senate of Rome declared war with Cleopatra alone, ignoring Antony, so that it was strictly between a king of the north, and a king of the south.

     Mr. Farquharson points out that the predictions of the prophet were strictly fulfilled also in respect to the character of the forces engaged in the war. For, notwithstanding that each side assembled large numbers of infantry, and notwithstanding that such are the arms usually relied upon to decide a war, yet in this case the infantry were not engaged at all, the issue being decided (as the prophecy indicates) by chariots and horsemen, and many ships.

    A strange feature of the affair is that, although Antony's footmen outnumbered those of Augustus, and although his generals urged him to bring the matter to an issue in a land battle, nevertheless (to quote again from Plutarch)--

"Such a slave was he to the will of a woman that, to gratify her, though much superior on land, he put his whole confidence in the navy; notwithstanding that the ships had not half their complement of men."

     This brought on the great naval fight of Actium, which ended in a complete victory for Augustus; and thus did a king of the north come upon a king of the south, with the effect of a whirlwind, with many ships. A more literal and exact fulfilment of prophecy could not be found.

     But that is not all. For Plutarch records that, after the disaster at Actium, Antony's infantry deserted him, so that the infantry were not engaged during the entire war.

     "But," says Farquharson, "when Antony arrived in Egypt, and endeavoured to defend it, to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet that the king of the north would come with chariots and horsemen, as well as with many ships--there were actions with cavalry." For Plutarch says, "When Caesar arrived he encamped near the hippodrome (at Alexandria); whereupon Antony made a brisk sally, routed the cavalry, drove them back into their trenches, and returned to the city with the complacency of a conqueror." It was the conduct of their fleets and cavalry that sealed the fate of Antony and Cleopatra, and left them without resource in their last retreat."

[Michael K.]

TF:

Your input about the eschatology is respected.  There is a good argument on either side, but consider the further evidence below.

CSR:  

Both factions of Jews (Capitalist Harlot and Communist Beast) have a stake in the State of Israel, both have elements in the Mossad and in each others' camps as double-agents.  The assumption that 9-11 was merely about seizing control of the West to aggrandize the territorial ambitions of bourgeois Jews is half-baked.  It has a deeper level, it is a ploy to genocide the Anglo-Saxons once an for all, to eradicate the one power that stands in the way of Bolshevik world domination.  This never ceased to be a goal in Russia.

Wake the F@ck up.  All this neo-Nazi Russian Putinism propaganda boils down to one thing: they name the Anglo-Saxon, not the Jew, as the problem in the world.  They are getting ready to kill you while "Brother" Nathanael the Jew soft-pedals Putin to you as 'the great white hope.'  

http://openrevolt.info/2011/08/19/the-h ... e-holster/

Whatever the type of aggression we would examine, from the very beginning we encounter definitions of two positions, two poles, two borders, between which ripens and bursts a lightning of violence, scorching fire of war. (By the way, the same Heraclitus believed exactly the fire to be the mystical foundation of cosmos).

For "Elements," the definition of our own and alien, friendly and hostile does not present any difficulties. From the very forst volume, we tirelessly drew a demarcation line between "ours" and "not ours," following the logic of Schmitt and Sartre's thesis on the "struggle of consciences." Obviously, nothing but aggression can exist between "ours" and "not ours." It is a different matter that this aggression can be actual or potential, expresses itself in direct death-dealing conflict or latently ripens amid seeming inaction. The truce may seem protracted. But sooner or later it will burst.

OUR:

"Our," from a spiritual point of view, is Tradition, organic society, inhuman Revelation, total superiority of the spiritual over the physical, hierarchy, qualitative differentiation, assertion of ethics of hero over ethics of dealer.

"Our," from a social point of view, is socialism, material equality, community, domination of the principle of fairness over the principle of profit and effectiveness, collectivism, and nationalism.

"Our," from a geopolitical point of view, is Eurasia, continental alliance, forces of land, giant bloc formed around Russia.

"Our," from the point of view of style, is movement, life, activity, overcoming, Love and Death.

NOT OUR:

"Not our," from a spiritual point of view, is the modern world, western civilization starting with Enlightenment, humanism, cartesianism and kantianism, individualism, materialism, domination of merchant society.

"Not our," from a social point of view, is capitalism, hierarchy based on material wealth, centrality of profit and interest, egoism, individualism, cosmopolitism.

"Not our," from a geopolitical point of view, is America and the West, forces of the sea, Anglo-Saxon world, atlantism and mondialism.

"Not our," from the point of view of style, is stagnation, conservatism, conformism, tranquillity, cowardice, cautiousness, coolness, indifference, and selfish fear of death.

Between these poles of "our" and "not our" springs up inexorable and terrible hatred. One excludes each other. In this case, the "struggle of consciences" is absolute, since all instances of disagreement within each camp are removed when faced with a totally alien, opposite, giant system of values. Anarchists, fascists, communists, left nationalists, nonconformists turn out in the same camp, despite all internal contradictions.

A new map of conflicts and battles, terrorist acts and polemics, attacks and strategic maneuvers is being drawn out. We are entering into a completely unique time of New Aggression, where all former opposites, feuding sides, opponents and enemies are sharply restructuring their ranks. Communists of yesterday are fraternizing with capitalists under the slogans of mondialism, fascists of yesterday are shaking hands with anarchists in diversionary headquarters of the struggle against mondialism.

"New World Order," "open society," world government, planetary market, human values, One World, universalization of the West and its model, liberalism, canonization of the idiot-commoner as a normal, average representative of humanity. This – is from one side, these – are "not ours'."

Eurasian Empire, "enemies of the open society" (look carefully at who is included in this category by Karl Popper in "Open Society and Its Enemies" – thats us), freedom of nations and peoples to maintain their originality, autonomy, spiritual hierarchy, national differentiation, superhuman values, for East and against West, exceptional right to be called human, alloted only to the hero, wiseman, devotee, soldier. These are "ours'."

Two positions which could not be brought together, two all-encompassing superworldviews, two mutually exclusive projects of the future of mankind.

Between them is only enmity, hatred, brutal struggle according to rules and without rules, for extermination, to the last drop of blood. Between them are heaps of corpses, millions of lives, endless centuries of suffering and heroic deeds.

Which of us will sum up History?

What will its end look like?

Who will say the last word?

Who will be the last to laugh?

Who will thrust the last bullet into the flesh of the fallen enemy?

Them or us?

"Ours" or "not ours?"

This will be decided by war. The "father of things."

This "binary" thesis by Dughin (who looks like a crypto-) is Jew bullshit, but that is where Russia is headed.  The Jews there never ceased to rule, plan and fight their battle.  All the rest is crap to suck Germans and Europeans in to their game.  Americans will be destroyed, it's Talmudic genocide they are openly planning, brother.  Join forces with this "Russian nationalism" and you are a traitor to God, your country, your family and your race.


http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/ar ... urope.html

Jean Thiriart, the Machiavelli of United Europe
by Edouard RIX

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Translated by Greg Johnson


Our picture: one of the last photographs of Thiriart alive, taken in August 1992 with Alexander Dughin in Moscow.

A diligent reader of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Pareto, the Belgian Jean Thiriart (1922–1992), founder of the pan-European Jeune Europe (Young Europe), is the theorist of a Greater Europe from Galway to Vladivostok.

Born in 1922 to a liberal family in Liege, Belgium, Jean Thiriart was a young militant in the ranks of the Marxist extreme left as part of the Unified Socialist Young Guard and the Socialist Antifascist Union. He greeted the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 with enthusiasm: "The most beautiful, the most exciting part of my life, I admit, was German-Soviet pact."[1] Because, for him, "National Socialism was not an enemy of Communism, but a competitor."[2]

 

From One War to Another

In 1940, at the age of 18, he joined the Amis du Grand Reich allemand (AGRA–Friends of the Greater German Reich), the association in occupied French-speaking Belgium of secular and socialist supporters of collaboration, not Rexists. He also belonged to the Fichte Bund, a movement based in Hamburg that emerged from the National Bolshevik current. Condemned to three years of prison after the liberation, he gave up all political activity.

He became reengaged only in 1960, at the age of 38, during the decolonization of the Belgian Congo, taking part in the foundation of the Comité d'action et de défense des Belges d'Afrique (CADBA—Committee of Action and Defense of the Belgians of Africa). Quickly, the defense of the Belgians of the Congo transformed into a fight for the European presence in Africa, including the French in Algeria, and CADBA turned into the Mouvement d'action civique (MAC—Movement of Civic Action). Thiriart, assisted by Paul Teichmann, transformed this Poujadist inflected group into a revolutionary structure that effectively organized Belgian support networks for the OAS [L'Organisation armée secrète, the Secret Army Organization—the French resistance to the decolonization of Algeria—Ed.].

On March 4th, 1962, at a meeting in Venice under the aegis of Sir Oswald Mosley, the leaders of MAC, the Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI—Italian Social Movement), the Union Movement, and the Reichspartei moved to found a "National European party centered on the idea of European unity." But nothing concrete came of it. Vowing to create a true European revolutionary party, in January 1963 Jean Thiriart transformed MAC into Young Europe, a transnational European movement under the sign of the Celtic cross. Although established in 6 countries, it never had more than 5,000 members in all of Europe, and this, even Thiriart admitted, "only by scraping the bottom of the barrel." Of the total, two thirds were concentrated in Italy. In France, because of its support of the OAS, Young Europe was banned, which forced the movement to remain semi-clandestine and explains its weak influence, its manpower not exceeding 200 members.

 

The National European Communitarian

In 1961, in Le Manifeste à la Nation Européenne (Proclamation of the European Nation), Jean Thiriart declared himself for "a united powerful, communitarian Europe . . . opposed to the Soviet and US blocs" [3]. He presented his ideas at greater length in a book published in 1964, Un Empire de 400 millions d'hommes : L'Europe (An Empire of 400 Million Men: Europe). Quickly translated into the seven principal European languages, this work—which was supplemented in 1965 by a booklet of 80 pages, La Grande Nation, L'Europe unitaire de Brest à Bucarest (The Great Nation, United Europe from Brest to Bucharest), deeply influenced the cadres of the European extreme right, particularly in Italy.

The originality of Young Europe lies in its ideology, National European Communitarianism, that Thiriart presents as a "European and elitist socialism," de-bureaucratized and given a spine by European nationalism. Challenging the romantic concept of the nation inherited from the nineteenth century, which falls under a determinism that is ethnic, linguistic, or religious, he prefers the concept of a dynamic nation: moving, becoming, corresponding to the nation/community of destiny described by José Ortega y Gasset. Without rejecting the common past completely, he thinks that "this past is nothing compared to the gigantic common future . . . What makes the Nation real and viable is its unity of historical destiny" [5].

Describing himself as a "Greater European Jacobin," he wanted to build a united nation and advocated the "fusion state," centralized and transnational, the political, legal, and spiritual heir of the Roman Empire, which will give all its inhabitants European omni-citizenship. In 1989, he summarized: "The main axis of my politico-historical thought is the unitary state, the centralized political state, and not the racial state, the nostalgic state, the historical state, the religious state." Nothing is more foreign for him than the "Europe of a hundred flags" of Yann Fouéré or the "Europe of the carnal fatherlands" dear to Saint-Loup.

Thiriart's nationalism is based solely on geopolitical considerations. According to him, the only nations that have a future are those of continental scale like the United States, the USSR, or China. Petty traditional nationalisms are obstacles, even anachronisms manipulated by the great powers. Thus to return to grandeur and power, Europe should be unified.

Unification would take place under the aegis of a European Revolutionary Party, organized on the Leninist model of democratic centralism, which would organize the masses and select the elites. A historical party, following the example of Third World experiments like the FLN in Algeria or the FNL in Vietnam, it would be an embryonic state developing into the united European state. It would have to carry out the national liberation struggle against the American occupation, its dedicated collaborators, thousands of "Quislings" from the System parties, and the colonial troops of NATO. Thus Europe would be liberated and unified from Brest to Bucharest, 400 million strong, and would then be able to conclude a tactical alliance with China and the Arab states to break the American-Soviet condominium.

In spite of their geopolitical lucidity, Thiriart's theses, rationalist and materialist to the extreme, are perplexing in their eminently modern character. As the traditionalist Claudio Mutti, a former militant of Giovane Europa, stressed: "the limit of Thiriart consisted precisely in his secular nationalism, supported by a Machiavellian worldview and deprived of any justification of a transcendent nature. For him, historical confrontations were resolved by brute power relations, while the state is nothing more than incarnated Nietzschean Will to Power in service of a project of European hegemony marked by an exclusivist, blind, and conceited pride" [7].

On the economic plane, Thiriart offered, as an alternative to "the profit economy"—capitalism—and the "utopian economy"—Communism—an "economy of power," whose only viable dimension is European. Taking as a starting point the economists Fichte and List, he recommended "the autarky of great spaces." Europe would have to leave the IMF, adopt a single currency, protect itself by tariff barriers, and work to preserve its self-sufficiency.

From Young Europe to the European Community Party

After 1963, dissensions in connection with Haut-Adige [South Tyrol—Ed.] caused a radical schism, which led to the birth of the Europa Front in Germanic countries like Germany, Austria, and Flanders.

However, the year 1964 marks the militant apogee of the movement, which played a leading role, thanks to Doctor Teichmann, in the strike of Belgian doctors opposed to the nationalization of their profession, and took part in communal elections in Quiévrain. Its working class members organized themselves as the Syndicats communautaires européens (SCE—European Community Trade Unions). In August 1964, the journalist Emile Lecerf and Doctor Nancy resigned because of ideological differences with Thiriart. Lecerf went on to head the Révolution européenne group, more or less aligned with the positions of Europe-Action in France, a "nostalgic" and "literary" movement according to Thiriart. The departure of this historic leader, followed in December 1964 by that of Paul Teichmann, caused the militant decline of the organization.

In 1965, Young Europe became the Parti communautaire européen (PCE—European Community Party). Doctrinal concerns then distracted it from militant activism. The theoretical review the European Community came out monthly while Young Europe's weekly publication became semi-monthly. After October 1965 the party's Cadre Schools took place across Europe, Thiriart having worked out a "physics of politics" based on the writings of Machiavelli, Gustave Le Bon, Serge Tchakhotine, Carl Schmitt, Julien Freund, and Raymond Aron.

Moreover, the party published, between 1965 and 1969, a monthly magazine in French, La Nation Européenne, and Italian, Nazione Europea, which offered a counter-current to the traditional extreme right by placing the continental unit above the nation, opposing NATO and promoting the autonomous deterrent force wanted by De Gaulle, denouncing in America as the new Carthage, sees in the regimes of Eastern Europe a kind of national Communism, and taking an interest in the liberation struggles of the Third World to the point of describing Cuba, the Arab countries, and North Vietnam as allies of Europe! The magazine, distributed by the NMPP in France, had 2,000 subscribers and printed 10,000 copies of each issue.

In June 1966, Jean Thiriart met in Bucharest with the Chinese prime minister Chou en Lai on the initiative of Ceausescu. Beijing then spoke about a "tri-continental" struggle. Thiriart  advocated a  "quadri-continental" struggle, proposing to foment a Vietnam within Europe. For that, he envisaged creating "European brigades" on the Garibaldian model, which, after having fought in the Middle East or in Latin America, would return to fight a war of liberation in Europe.

It should be noted that following this discussion, the Italian militants of Giovane Europa carried out united actions with local Maoists, unified by a minimal common program of hostility to the two superpowers, rejection of the Yankee occupation of Europe, anti-Zionism, and support for Third World liberation struggles). This fundamental collaboration was not without consequences. Various National European cadres ultimately joined the Maoist ranks. Thus in 1971 Claudio Orsoni, nephew of the fascist leader Italo Balbo and a founding member of Giovane Europa, would create the Center for the Study and Application of Maoist Thought. In 1975, Pino Bolzano, the last director of La Nazione europea, went on to lead the daily paper of the extreme left group Lotta Continua [The Struggle Continues—Ed.] Renato Curcio would join the Marxist-Leninist Italian Communist Party before founding . . . the Red Brigades!

Young Europe had supporters in certain countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Thus, on August 1st, 1966, Thiriart published an article in Serbo-Croatian, entitled "Europe from Dublin to Bucharest," in the official diplomatic review of the Yugoslav government Medunarodna Politika.  Ferociously anti-Zionist, the Belgian leader was in contact with Ahmed Shukeiri, predecessor of Arafat as the head of the PLO, and the first European to fall with weapons in hand at the side of the Palestinians was a French engineer and member of Young Europe, Roger Coudroy.

Thiriart also had ties to Arab secular-socialist regimes. In  the autumn of 1968, he made a long voyage to the Middle East at the invitation of the governments of Iraq and Egypt. He had discussions with several ministers, gave interviews to the press, and took part in the congress of the Arab Socialist Union, the party of Nasser, whom he met on this occasion. Disappointed by the lack of concrete support from these countries, in 1969 he renounced militant combat, causing the breakup of Young Europe.

The Euro-Soviet Empire

He would continue, however, his rich theoretical reflections. When Washington approached Beijing in the 1970s, he suggested a Euro-Soviet alliance against the Sino-American axis, in order to build a "very large Europe from Reykjavik to Vladivostok," which he thought was the only way to resist the new American Carthage and billion-strong China. This is what led him to declare in 1984: "If Moscow wants to make Europe European, I preach total collaboration with the Soviet enterprise. I will then be the first to put a red star on my cap. Soviet Europe, yes, without reservations" [8].

Thiriart's dream of a Euro-Soviet Empire, which he described as a "hyper-nation state equipped with a de-Marxified hyper-communism"[9], merges with Eurosiberia: "Between Iceland and Vladivostok, we can join together 800 million men . . . and find in the soil of Siberia all our strategic and energy needs. I say that Siberia is the economically most vital power for the European Empire" [10]. He then worked on two books: The Euro-Soviet Empire from Vladivostok to Dublin: After-Yalta and, in with José Cuadrado Costa, The Transformation of Communism: Essay on Enlightened Totalitarianism, which remained on the drawing board because of the sudden collapse of the USSR. He left his political exile only in 1991 to support the creation of the Front européen de libération (FEL—European Liberation Front). In 1992, he went to Moscow with a delegation of the FEL and died of an heart attack shortly after his return to Belgium, leaving a controversial but original body of theoretical work, which inspires to this day Guillaume Faye, the preacher of Eurosiberia, and Alexander Dugin, the prophet of Eurasia.

Notes

1. C. Bourseiller, Extrême-droite. L'enquête (F. Bourrin, 1991), p. 114,.
2. Ibid.
3. Nation-Belgique, no. 59, September 1, 1961.
4. J. Thiriart, La Grande Nation. L'Europe unitaire de Dublin à Bucarest (1965).
5. Ibid.
6. C. Bourseiller, p. 119.
7. Notes complémentaires de C. Mutti à G. Freda, "La désintégration du système," supplément to Totalité, no. 9 (1980).
8. Conscience Européenne, no. 8, July 1984.
9. Ibid.
10. J. Thiriart, "L'Europe jusqu'à Vladivostok," in Nationalisme & République, no. 9, September 1992.

 

Source : Réfléchir & Agir, no. 21, Fall 2005, pp. 44–47.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Michael K, your cock-eyed theories are kookier than David Icke's reptilian hypothesis

Take your Jew-shill propaganda back to the mental institution where it first originated.

[Michael K.]

http://www.forums.skadi.net/archive/ind ... 49552.html

Eurosiberia vs Eurasia

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006, 04:47 PM
For those who may call themselves pan-europeans as I do, there are nowadaya an opposing views in how should be established the limits of our beloved Europe.

In other words, in one side we have the project Eurasia promoted by Alexandar Dugin, a russian thinker who believes that Europe should unite in one same bloc with Asia, establishing an Empire. This project includes middle east too, that means Saudi Arabia or Israel. Not to mention that Dugin promotes Turkey entry in the UE. Eurasia project despise any type of racial or ethnic questions. This Project is mainly supported by some slavic people but mainly by some groups in Italy.

As for Eurosiberia, an idea promoted by the french thinker Guillaume Faye, it means that Europe should unite in a big federation with Russia, which would includes of course all the siberian region, and that would mean our terrtorial limits reached from Lisbon to Vladivostock. This project is based on ethno-cultural premises (racial homogenity) and believes that we, european people, could live alone in the so-called autarcy economy. This ideia has people from France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany supporting it, namely groups like Bloc Identitaire, Terre et Peuple, Thule seminar, Causa Identitária.

well, I leave it to you to decide, because I made my choice already.

I vote for Eurosiberia without any doubt!

http://eurosiberia.blogspot.com/

Alexander Dugin, the Issue of Post-Soviet Fascism, and Russian Political Discourse Today by Andreas Umland in Ukrayinska Pravda, 23 juli 2007.

The past two years witnessed a welcome sensitization of the Russian public towards skinhead attacks and ultra-nationalist propaganda. In view of escalating violent attacks and other actions against foreigners, the debate on Russian fascism is currently experiencing a new high in the Russian media. There was a similar debate in the mid-1990s, when the confrontation between President Boris Yeltsin and the "intransigent opposition," a state of near-civil war in Moscow, the ascent of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the appearance of neo-Nazi parties, and the first Chechen war, gave rise to the notion of a "Weimar Russia." Even though this construct has made only rare appearances in commentaries in recent months, the current media debate is also marked by alarmism.

It is to be welcomed that the increasing right-wing extremist tendencies within the Russian party landscape and youth culture, which had been largely ignored for many years, are now at least partially acknowledged by the Russian public, and countermeasures are being debated. Even the Russian judiciary which has been known for its pro-nationalist bias is beginning to submit to the pressure of public opinion (or the presidential administration), and now applies the Russian penal code's section on xenophobic crimes more frequently than was the case during the 1990s. Other promising developments include the sharp reactions of state officials to a xenophobic campaign advertisement aired by the Rodina (Motherland) alliance ahead of elections for the Moscow municipal parliament and the measures against the often deadly skinhead attacks on immigrants and visiting students. Official statements on such issues occasionally refer to the "anti-fascist" heritage of the Soviet Union and to the Russian people's alleged special deep-rooted aversion against fascism.

Despite such encouraging signs, the Kremlin-controlled mass media have kept an altogether ambivalent stance toward right-wing extremist tendencies. Although manifest anti-Semitism and violent racism are now heavily criticized and visibly stigmatized, other xenophobic patterns remain present, or are even increasing, in foreign news reporting and political commentaries. In addition to the traditional anti-Western, anti-Baltic, anti-Gypsy, and anti-Polish reflexes, this is increasingly true for prejudices against Ukrainians and Caucasians, recently, especially, against Georgians. Unquestionably, though, it is the US that holds first place among the "enemies of Russia," as projected by the Russian state media. The increasingly primitive and profound anti-Americanism seen, for example, in prime time political television shows like Odnako ("However", hosted by Mikhail Leontiev), Real'naya politika ("Real Politics", hosted by Gleb Pavlovsky), or Post Scriptum (hosted by Alexei Pushkov) is raised to the level of a Manichean world-view, where the US is made responsible for the majority of mishaps and failures in recent Russian, and indeed world history, and where US society mutates into the negative Other of Russian civilization. It is curious that Germany – the country that has caused Russia the most harm in recent history – is often excepted from this paranoid perception of the external world and stylized as a collective friend of Russia, probably not least because of Putin's personal preferences (a distorted view that has, however, been stoked by the unorthodox approach to Russia of former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder).

Finally, despite the increasing censure of certain right-wing extremist tendencies, the representatives of ultra-nationalist political groups regarded as close to President Putin have been excepted from the Kremlin's campaigns to discredit the radically nationalist camp. This is true, for instance, with regard to Zhirinovsky's so-called Liberal Democratic Party, although many statements made by Zhirinovsky and his entourage equally stir xenophobic hatred among the population (for example, his notorious pamphlet "The Last Leap toward the South"). Last year, Putin personally awarded the Order of Merit for the Fatherland to Zhirinovsky – a man who in September 1995 had physically attacked a female MP, Yevgenia Tishkovskaya, in the State Duma in front of TV cameras.

Besides such tendencies in the broader public, there are similarly contradictory developments in the discourse of the elites and political pundits. On the one hand, the political leadership is promoting integration of Russia into Western organizations such as the G8 and the WTO. On the other hand, the political discourse of experts, as well as intellectual life in general, are characterized by the spread of an anti-Western consensus often described as "Eurasian." Its essence is the assertion that Russia is "different" from, or indeed, by its nature, the opposite of the US. The Russian book market is experiencing a glut of vituperative political lampoons whose main features include pathological anti-Americanism, absurd conspiracy theories, apocalyptic visions of the future, and bizarre fantasies of national rebirth. Among the more or less widely read authors of such concoctions are Sergei Kurginyan, Igor Shafarevich, Oleg Platonov, and Maxim Kalashnikov (a.k.a. Vladimir Kucherenko).

Probably the best-known writer and commentator of this kind is Aleksandr Dugin (b. 1962), who holds a doctorate in political science (from an obscure Russian provincial institute) and is the founder, chief ideologue, and chairman of the so-called International "Eurasian Movement." This Movement's Supreme Council boasts among its members the Russian Federation's Culture Minister Aleksandr Sokolov, Vice Speaker of the Federation Council, Aleksandr Torshin, Presidential Advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov, several diplomats and scholars as well as other illustrious personages, including some marginal Western intellectuals and CIS politicians.

Among the latter are Nataliya Vitrenko, the well-known head of the so-called Progessive Socialist Party of Ukraine, and Dmitro Korchinsky, formerly leader of the Ukrainian fascist party UNA-UNSO and now chairman of the Bratstvo (Brotherhood) Party. Dugin's name was recently mentioned in Ukrainian mass media in connection with the scandal that arose when Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Mykola Zhulinsky was barred from entering Russia during a private trip to St. Petersburg this summer. This was interpreted as a retaliation for Ukraine's refusal to permit Dugin entering Ukraine shortly before. In June 2006, Dugin had been declared persona non grata in Ukraine until 2011 for violating Ukrainian law, and was thus deported back to Russia after he had arrived by plane at Simferopol airport in early June 2007 in order to attend the festival "The Great Russian Word" organized by the Russian Community of the Crimea. In spite of this conflict with the Ukrainian authorities, the youth organization of Dugin's Movement, the Eurasian Union of Youth, has an active branch in Ukraine, and is particularly visible in Sumy, Kyiv and the Crimea.

Dugin's increasing celebrity in the CIS is remarkable considering that the chief "neo-Eurasian" is not only among the most influential, but also one of the most brazen of Russia's ultra-nationalist publicists. While authors such as Kurginyan or Shafarevich are satisfied to promote a renaissance of classical Russian anti-Western sentiments in their pamphlets and subtly draw on Western sources, Dugin admits openly that his main ideas are based on non-Russian anti-democratic concepts such as European integral Traditionalism (e.g. René Guénon, Julius Evola, Claudio Mutti, etc.), Western geopolitics (e.g. Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer), the German "conservative revolution" (e.g. Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck), and the francophone New Right (e.g. Alain de Benoist, Robert Steuckers, Jean Thiriart).

Furthermore, during the 1990s, Dugin repeatedly hinted at his sympathy for selected aspects of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, such as the SS and its Ahnenerbe ("Ancestral Heritage") Institute, and has described the Third Reich as the most consistent incarnation of the "Third Way" that he explicitly advocates. In the chapter "Fascism – Boundless and Red" of the online version of his 1997 book Tampliery Proletariata (The Templar Knights of the Proletariat), he expressed the hope that the inconsistent application of originally correct ideas by Hitler, Mussolini, etc. would, eventually, be followed in post-Soviet Russia by the emergence of a "fascist fascism". In Dugin's apocalyptic worldview, global history consists of a centuries-old confrontation between hierarchically organized "Eurasian" continental powers and liberal "Atlantic" naval powers. Today, this confrontation is carried out between Russia and the US as the main representatives of the two antagonistic types of civilization, and its final battle is approaching (Dugin uses the German word Endkampf, which has Nazi connotations, without a Russian translation).

One might expect Dugin, and other extremely right-wing pundits offering similar pro-fascist statements, to be subjected to the same public stigmatization as neo-Nazi parties and skinhead groups are currently experiencing in Russia. However, this has not been the case so far. On the contrary, Dugin and others of his ilk, such as the well-known editor-in-chief of Russia's leading ultranationalist weekly Zavtra ("Tomorrow"), Aleksandr Prochanov, are popular guests in prime-time political television shows such as Vremena ("Times", hosted by Vladimir Pozner), Tem vremenem ("In the Meantime", hosted by Aleksandr Archangelsky), Voskresnyi vecher' ("Sunday Evening"), or K Bar'eru ("To the Barricade", hosted by Vladimir Solovyov), and are even invited to popular talk shows like Pust' govoryat ("Let Them Speak", hosted by Andrei Malakhov).

The fact that Dugin has so far been "spared" by the Kremlin-controlled media and his political opponents is not only due to his recent posing as a "radical centrist" and fanatical supporter of Putin as well as his ability to win sympathies of prominent members of the Russian legislative and executive braches. He has also managed to avoid the charge of promoting fascism by adapting his writings and public image to the distorted conception of fascism inherited from Soviet propaganda. In the post-Soviet discourse, the term "fascism" is equated with German National Socialism and its external trappings, such as the swastika or Roman salute. Occasionally, the propagandistic usage of the term "fascism" goes so far as to include all ideas regarded as "anti-Russian", and, paradoxically, becomes thus a rhetorical instrument in xenophobic agitation campaigns of Russian ultra-nationalists.

The example of Dugin illustrates that, as a result of the idiosyncratic conception of generic fascism in post-Soviet Russia, it is sufficient to rhetorically dissociate oneself from the worst crimes of Nazi Germany and to refrain from blatant copying of Nazi symbols in order to avoid public stigmatization as a "fascist". This approach would, at least, explain why, on the one hand, obviously neo-Nazi groups such as the Russkoe Natsional'no Edinstvo (Russian National Unity) of Aleksandr Barkashov or skinhead gangs are being vocally suppressed by the executive and judiciary, while on the other hand ultra-nationalist writers who, in terms of their rhetoric, are no less radical are not only tolerated, but have unhindered access to public platforms and state-controlled media, and are, sometimes, allocated an active role in PR projects of the Kremlin's political technologists.

Another factor in favor of Dugin and similar publicists is the return of the Russian leadership to quasi-Orwellian forms of organizing public discourse. Kremlin-controlled political reporting in the mass media has become a succession of national-patriotic happenings in which international developments of any kind – whether a Russia-China summit or Russian athletes' performance at the Olympics, the "Orange Revolution" or foreign success of a Russian fantasy movie – are exaggerated into either collective triumphs or shared humiliations of the Russian nation under its faithful leadership. The attendant superficiality and emotionality of public debates, which occasionally degenerate into bizarre shouting matches between participants of political television shows, replace serious analysis. Political commentaries are fixated on the "here and now" which, in the case of Dugin, may have contributed to that his well-known neo-fascist stance during the 1990s has been "forgotten". The mantra-like disparagement of the West that accompanies the agitational realignment of foreign news reporting increases the playing field for the propagation of anti-Western slogans which also furthers the spread of extremist ideas proposed by Dugin and theorists with similar leanings.

Will the newfound sensitivity towards nationalist tendencies lead to a sustained return to tolerant and liberal aspects of Russia's political tradition? Or is this new tendency no more than the latest episode in the Putin administration's fluctuating media campaigns? One can identify two contrary trends – one ideological, the other pragmatic – whose collision has restored a certain measure of controversy to the generally dull public discourse in Russia. On the one hand, the dualist worldview introduced by the Kremlin in the past few years – the simple, but honest Russians struggling for independence against a devious, soulless, imperialist West – fulfils an important role in legitimating the "tough" course of the resurging Russia under its new president. However, the officially approved paranoia also opens the floodgates for radical conclusions. Since the US model of society is presented as the antithesis of Russian civilization, one should not be surprised when youth gangs of violent thugs try to prevent an "Americanization" of Russian society in their way. The damage caused by such reactions to the international image of Russia is, in turn, incompatible with the equally strong tendency towards establishing the country as a respected partner of the Western countries and as becoming a part of the "civilized world" (the preferred Russian term for the economically advanced democratic states). Besides, the leadership of the Kremlin appears to be considering large-scale immigration as a way of replenishing the rapidly dwindling population of the Russian Federation, which would create new, potentially explosive, tensions. Finally, the fanatical anti-Americanism and pro-Iranian positions of Dugin and others are in contradiction to a number of security policies of the Kremlin and its efforts to join the international coalition against terrorism as a full member. Due to these and other challenges in the coming years, the particulars of the – at least partial – handover of power from Putin to his successor in 2008 will gain additional importance.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

MK wrote:

Wake the F@ck up. All this neo-Nazi Russian Putinism propaganda boils down to one thing: they name the Anglo-Saxon, not the Jew, as the problem in the world. They are getting ready to kill you while "Brother" Nathanael the Jew soft-pedals Putin to you as 'the great white hope.'

First of all, you don't have to be a neo-Nazi to be a white nationalist. Secondly, where do you get that Russian nationalists name only Anglos as the problem? Surely, Freemasonic anglos carry out the bidding of the Jews.

MK, all that white nationalism is, is the old concept of God and Country. That goes way back, long long before the Nazis.