I consider the “White nationalists” allies when they refuse modernity, the global oligarchy and liberal-capitalism...

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

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

Other urls found in this thread:

debateolavodugin.blogspot.com.br/
youtube.com/watch?v=aOWIoMtIvDQ
youtube.com/watch?v=TJ3Kx8FZ_wg
youtube.com/watch?v=XRtRCOqWZAo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

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

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

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

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

>because there is not and cannot be any common, universal measure by which to measure and compare the various forms of ethnic societies or their value systems

Successful colonization, Scientific and medical advancement. Culture, literature, music, art, law. There's lots of agreeable measures that show white Europeans are superior to say, Africans.

Where's the African CERN? Space Program? Shakespeare? Mozart? Van Gogh? Darwin? Newton? Da Vinci? Oh, but we're all equal to all the shitskins and equal? Nope.

>I can’t defend the concept of the nation, because the idea of the “nation” is a bourgeois concept concocted as a part of modernity in order to destroy traditional societies (empires)

The fuck am I reading?

This is Russian establishment propaganda asking us to become race blind and become pro-Muslim and pro-Communist.

The value of ethnic societies is incredibly easy to measure, simply look at crime rates, power projection, economic status, happiness levels, average IQ of people produced from the culture

The very ideology that is "based" Putin.

Putin isn't a communist

>pro-Communist

*pro-Communist apologists

Dugin is a faggot and pervert commie-scum.

Have you read the Fourth Political Theory? He condemns every ideology, including all forms of Marxism. That's why it's called the fourth political theory.

Read:

He is a non-communist who believes many of the USSRs policies were just and fair.

So he's an anarchist? Just as mindlessly bluepilled as the rest of them

But isn't he very influential on Putin?

Actions speak louder than words, Putin's Russia is very different to USSR, he probably says many of USSR policies are fiar to appease old timers that miss USSR.

>the one which produced modernity in its essential features
you mean jews

I'm okay with nationalists of other countries, I like watching them work quite a lot even
We'd do well to behave more like countries like Japan with respect to our history and culture

Nations are just the natural development of those distinct ethnic groups
You need to go bigger to accomplish modern industrial feats but the bonds between countrymen were still real enough that cohesive communities thrived, in contrast to modern globalism that just throws everyone in a blender
And as a result, opposition to immigration is only natural to preserve that cohesion, because your traditions and cultures are meaningless if you just let everyone come and go as they please - you will be outnumbered and erased

No if anything he's more of a fashy goy. Part of being a traditionalist is believing strongly in hierarchy. But he makes it clear that fascism and national socialism failed, and although we should look for a new theory we can certainly borrow the good things from the third way.

>But he makes it clear that fascism and national socialism failed, and although we should look for a new theory
He misses the entire point of why they failed though. Fascism and natsoc failed because they went to war. and because their leaders were incompetent. No fundamental flaw wit the ideology, but with the practice.

You're a total fucking idiot. You agree with nationalism and the protection of the people. But you also want everything to love eachother side by side.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

You can't have BOTH. God damn you're so stupid it is unbelievable.

He's a fascist, of sorts, by his own reckoning. He's an anti-modernist fascist though, which places him squarely at odds with mainstream fascism, which is extremely modernist.

Why not?
Is it that unfeasible for us to say
"we love japan and japanese culture, and we love our culture, these two cultures, in order to continue should co exist peacefully, yet seperately."

Its joke for plebs. But Putin is part of global left agenda, hi is ex-member of KGB, he is not conservative, its out-propaganda foe west coneservacucks.

Compare USSR to mainstream leftism today, it seems rather socially conservative, in my opinion.

As living in post-soviet, not out post-soviet, i say what is false.

If we begin with fascism and National Socialism, then here we must definitively reject all forms of racism. Racism is what caused the collapse of National Socialism in the historical, geopolitical, and theoretical sense. This was not only a historical, but also a philosophical collapse. Racism is based on the belief in the innate objective superiority of one human race over another. It was racism, and not some other aspect of National Socialism, that brought about such consequences, leading to immeasurable suffering on both sides, as well as the collapse of Germany and the Axis powers, not to mention the destruction of the entire ideological project of the Third Way. The criminal practice of wiping out entire ethnic groups (Jews, gypsies, and Slavs) based on race was precisely rooted in their racial theory — this is what angers and shocks us about Nazism to this day. In addition, Hitler's anti-Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union, which cost us millions of lives. It is also true that this resulted in the Germans themselves losing their political freedom and the right to participate in political history for a long time, if not forever. Today they are left only with their economy and, in the best case scenario, with a concern for ecology. The supporters of the Third Way were left in the position of ideological outcasts on the margins of society. It was racism — in theory and in practice — that criminalized all other aspects of National Socialism and fascism, causing these worldviews to become the object of cures and vilification.

(((Dugin)))

>You agree with nationalism

Nationalism is just a modern reactionary response to the French revolution. The traditional ideal is the empire.

This guy just mixed all anti-americanism ideologies in the world to justify a possible war against USA
look at this debate if interested debateolavodugin.blogspot.com.br/

youtube.com/watch?v=aOWIoMtIvDQ

This is the most based thing I've read all day.

The French Revolution IS modernist. Nationalism is the fruit of 1789.

modern technology has to go. Really the whole modernist paradigm is entrenched in every technology from the factories to electricity to the Internet.

There's no way to return to pre-1789 society without regressing technology, especially things like internet access to plebs like me and you. If there's any example of how modernism corrodes society, it's the Internet.

what an exhausting way to make the most basic point: people dun like racism, so we have to be seen rejecting it to be legitimate.

This says n-o-t-h-i-n-g about its rightness or wrongness, just its popularity, as if that isn't changeable and isn't the product of 60 years of conditioning by the winning side.

I hope this guy isn't regarded by anybody as anything but a windbag retard

He's right. "Nation" is a XVIII and XIX century invention

Yeah, that Putin and Dugin support for Trump is mind blowing, just seems that the Russia-China grand scheme is poking against the Globalists and is taking the opportunity to make more rightwing supporters worldwide.

Do you really think that a racist regime is going to be able to withstand the public opposing policies so strongly? Just think about how liberal all of the writers, poets, musicians, and artists are, and how much influence they have throughout history. In order to keep your population happy you'd have to silence all of them forever and go against your own cultures and traditions. I don't think that kind of state would be very desirable even if it could be achieved. Even if you could argue that it's for the greater good of society, is it ethical? And could it lead to disaster?

>cannot be any common, universal measure by which to measure and compare the various forms of ethnic societies or their value systems.

>Bzzzzt

Thanks for playing.

Russians are only halfway out of their Commie brainwashing, and like every Jewish plot that ruins peoples, one can never fully recover.

Nations are built on ethnicities That's why the Jews are working so hard to destroy the former. If they do that, then they can destroy the latter.

Scratch that, reverse it.

What is the common, universal measure then?

what a load of crap

The concept of nation existed even before classical period.

in-group preference is a more natural state of mind than the extremely modern raceless egalitarianism of the modern West, and is the default mode of just about every culture outside of it. Koreans or Japanese or Russians do not need to be violently reminded by the state that they prefer their countries to remain homogeneous.

Force and the rule of law is increasingly required to maintain the racial 'harmony' of mixed countries: legally protected classes, legally enforced minority quotas, hate speech laws, heavy policing and monitoring, stigmatizing skepticism, etc etc etc.

It's an outright lie to say that people naturally will not see race, and the differences of them, and that it's an artificial creation of looney-toon Nazis.

Dugin is based. We must redpill him on Jews. Does he have a twitter account?

shh, don't tell him about farming and how having a territory one is dependent upon to live creates a sense of connection to it and a localized network of people.

much more than that, it's language, culture, origin and organised civilisation

But it's also naive to believe that people are going to stand by and watch a holocaust, whether it's 6 million or 100,000 or whatever number, and not want some justice. People naturally value freedom.

as part of an empire, a greater traditional ideal

oh really, nobody tried to stop the last one. Saving Jews and gypsies was perhaps reason # 3,204 the Allies went to war. Pushing out competing populations has been a fixture of human development for tens of thousands of years.

If 50 million Brazilians were suddenly teleported to Japan, something tells me there'd be much more passion about getting them the fuck out as quickly as possible than there would be about their well-being and happiness. If people think their fortunes are being put at risk by interloping 'others', their lives are actively being made worse, there will be precious little sympathy for them, especially if the others are recalcitrant and combative. When it's openly a contest of self-interest, a population will happily go to bat for itself.

hitler agrees

youtube.com/watch?v=TJ3Kx8FZ_wg

It's the aftermath that is the problem. It's the memorials, it's the pulitzer prize winning photos, and the reflection a society has, and they start asking "How do we make sure this doesn't happen again?"

>im white, indo-European
>im proud to be Russian
What?

International National Socialist Laws for National Socilaist Nations
1: We do not hate other races as a default.
2: We do not tolerate any criminals or murderers in our community.
3: We do not tolerate anyone going against our Nationalist interest.
4: We demand racial purity for nations within our control.
5: We demand racial freedom and racial sovereignty for all races.
6: We do not tolerate the unauthorized to tell us what we have to do.
7: We do not tolerate hatred without jury to fellow comrades.
8: We do not tolerate persecution of National Socialists in any state, to do so is a declaration of war on all National Socialists.
9: We do not tolerate Marxism therefore Marxism must be exterminated from the world.
10: We demand respect for our will and interests, we do not desire conflict.

>purposely making your life hard by shunning modernity


maximum autism

As I said, a recent invention.
Before the revolutions of 48 no european state supported nationalism. No Prussia nor Austria wanted a unified Germany. No one wanted a united Italy.

The jews used the liberal nationalism(two faces of the same coin) to destroy the old order and impose a new. The Austria-Hungary pact was a example of it, despite the Austrian govenrment being.legit, the hungarians still tried to gain their independence, they didnt won but gained more rights, rights that were not rightfull.

Depend on what you consider nation.

In the OPs/Dugin text it's the liberal concept of nation

>purposely making your life hard by fighting for your king and family
maximum autism

Liberal concept of a government state, Nation is something that exists without centrality, it is a people which is not arbitrary a distinct tribe.

>purposely making your life hard by fighting the british government because of some tiny tax increase

That notion of nation is recent.

Before that it was more based on religion and blood rights than anything.

The idea of ethnic nations slreaded with the napoleônicas wars

>maximum autism

and that happened because the perpetrators lost a war, and the internationalist victors portrayed the Holocaust as the ultimate endgame of ethnic and national pride.

People like the bleat about the Reconquista today, another 'horrible example of ethnic and religious violence', but nobody would undo it and return Spain to the Muslims. Nobody can say with a straight face that it wasn't necessary to preserve and carry forward Spain's European character and its ethnic identity. Survival is ugly sometimes, but that doesn't make people, or a peoples, eager to die.

How do you think the whole of what is now the US would have turned out had it remained part of the British empire?

I'd think there'd be French and Spanish territories still here

Dugin would probably refer to that as ethnos.

>Furthermore, it is important to remember that Dugin clearly believes in the importance of ethnicity and culture and advocates ethnic separatism. Similarly to German Revolutionary Conservative and Völkisch thinkers, Dugin has unmistakably placed the Volk or ethnos as one of the highest values of his philosophy: “The subject of this theory [the Fourth Political Theory], in its simple version, is the concept ‘narod,’ roughly, ‘Volk’ or ‘people,’ in the sense of ‘peoplehood’ and ‘peoples,’ not ‘masses’” (quoted from “The Fourth Estate: The History and Meaning of the Middle Class”). Thus, it is clear that even if he does not value race, Dugin certainly does value ethno-cultural identity.

You must be new here.
Modernity isn't having an iphone, modernity is using the Iphone you have to isolate yourself from your environment and your community, to drown yourself in feminist propaganda and egalitarianism, and to set up a cucking with your wife and her new syrian-nigerian bull.

Read Julius Evolas "Revolt Against the Modern World", and report back.

ethnic nations never started, they have always been and exist today by people who have never seen or heard of any ideology, see tribes of Mesoamerica/Africa.

I'm curious: what is Dugin's view on the Internet?

does the Internet have to be destroyed to restore traditional order and eliminate globalism/capitalism/liberalism?

literally all of the same arguments you made apply to Sup Forums as well. This place's obsession with anonymity and privacy (and lack of shame/accountability) is very much the essence of modernity.

nations begin from families, and extend through extended families which are what your ethnicity is.

it's essence of not being hunted by political enemies who we have no legal protection from.

True, but the paradox is that at the same time, this place is isolating, addictive and antisocial. But you're right, most of us in the US don't have a real community in the first place, and this forum is probably a tiny bit closer to one than suburbia or the city

I would prefer having nothing to do with this capitalist exploiter society and would much prefer forming communions and work with fellow nationalists for a new order.

Dugin is trying to fight Spengler cicle with tradition.Wich is useless struggle,there is no more organic tradition,only cold logical globalism

I found this quote from wiki "I think that Internet as such, as a phenomenon is worth prohibiting because it gives nobody anything good." but the video is in russian with no subs so I'm not sure what the context was.

Tribalism is not the same as ethnic nation states

While the europeans really had tribes in the last, now it's long gone.
We had countries were the citizens are usually considered the same ethnicity, despite having more in commom with foreigns.

Germans are a example, south germans are mostly celts germanized, while in the North they're closer to nordics.

Then we have Italy that is something even more grotesque, but most of them do not claim a ethnicity, so the italian nationalism is basically dead.

US is not a ethnic nation too. Despite being created by anglos and some irish settlers, now it's.m ostly "german" and mexican

Pretty much this senpai

Spengler has been right about everything.
I don't think dugins validity is in maintaining the remnants of organic traditions that exist, but in providing us a rough, loose blueprint to establishing a new manifestation of traditional life after the fall of the empire.

>Tradition

take the good and leave the bad. some traditions are beautiful and have values but some are trash and can be abandoned. nobody wants to do the same shit over and over, the truth is to convince people what you believe is "progress". thats what the Jews did, and thats why they win.

Fall of empire is long ahead of us.Now is a time of Ceasars,powerfull individuals who swing masses in direction wich they see fit .Marius and Sulla are coming to us

Completely agreed. I hope one day we can meet as brothers, but i fear this will not happen. Peace and beauty to you and yours, if it can be found.

NS want to see their nation as racially pure and homogeneous as possible. Dugin has an idea that different races must unite to preserve the common culture. For example he thinks that Chechens and Armenians are the same as Slavs because Soviet Union and the Russian empire happened in the past.

"The very ideology of progress is racist in its structure. The assertion that the present is better and more fulfilling than the past, and continual assurances that the future will be even better than the present, are discriminations against the past and the present, as well as the humiliation of all those who lived in the past, an insult to the honour and dignity of our ancestors and those of others, and a violation of the rights of the dead. In many cultures, the dead play an important sociological role. They are considered to still be alive in a certain sense, present in this world, and participating in its life. This is true of all ancient cultures and civilizations. Billions of inhabitants on this Earth believe it to this day. In Chinese civilization, which was built upon the cult of the dead and upon their reverence alongside the living, being dead is regarded as a high social status, in some ways superior to the status of the living. The ideology of progress represents the moral genocide of past generations — in other words, real racism. Equally questionable is the idea of modernization, when it is taken as a self-evident virtue. It is easy to detect the obvious signs of racism in it."

>here is only one enemy: the global, liberal capitalist order supported by North American hegemony (which is also directed against the genuine American identity).
I think he really hits the spot with this.
Related: youtube.com/watch?v=XRtRCOqWZAo

(sorry for my english)
He actually he says that Civilisation allegance is more important than race difference
What he is wrong is that he thinks about united "russian civilisation" wich consist all former Russian empire .But you cannot say about India belonging West just because GB own it

Only Indians are not Christians like most Anglos and therefore have different believes that in abot society and government.

Never heard of this guy but he's bretty gud.

It is what i mean actually

It's easier to unite people under some nationalist idea than under religious one but then again it never worked in America.

It's impossible to unite under a religious ideal in the US because there are 30,000 different protestant sects.

>>tfw the whole West half of the US will be the Mormon empire after the collapse

But America is culturally divided on blacks, whites and others despite them being of the same religion and nationality.