Form: Quote Commentary

  • Dugin’s Book Says:

    DUGIN’S BOOK SAYS: The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution”. The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.“[9] Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia’s gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[9] The book states that “the maximum task [of the future] is the ‘Finlandization’ of all of Europe”.[9] In Europe: Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term “Moscow–Berlin axis”.[9] France should be encouraged to form a “Franco–German bloc” with Germany. Both countries have a “firm anti-Atlanticist tradition”.[9] The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9] Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be “donated to Murmansk Oblast”.[9] Estonia should be given to Germany’s sphere of influence.[9] Latvia and Lithuania should be given a “special status” in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[9] Poland should be granted a “special status” in the Eurasian sphere.[9] Romania, Macedonia, “Serbian Bosnia” and Greece – “Orthodox collectivist East” – will unite with “Moscow the Third Rome” and reject the “rational-individualistic West”.[9] Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics”. Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9] In the Middle East and Central Asia: The book stresses the “continental Russian–Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy”. The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization”. Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term “Moscow–Tehran axis”.[9] Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a “strategic base,” and it is necessary to create “the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran”. Armenians “are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds”.[9] Azerbaijan could be “split up” or given to Iran.[9] Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and “United Ossetia” (which includes Georgia’s South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia’s independent policies are unacceptable.[9] Russia needs to create “geopolitical shocks” within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9] The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including “the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)” and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[9] In Asia: China, which represents a danger to Russia, “must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled”. Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer China help “in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia” as geopolitical compensation.[9] Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9] Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[9] The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.” In the United States: Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke “Afro-American racists”. Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics”.[9] The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[9]

  • Any Sufficiently Complex Theory Will Be Indistinguishable from Magic

    —“Most people won’t understand the basis for [the Propertarian] legal theory, and it will need explanation in mythological terms. To the people who require this form of explanation it will essentially be a religion.”– Eric Orwoll You know, sometimes you just need someone to reframe it for you. Thanks Eric. That’s smart. You could ahve told me that three years ago and saved me six months… lol

  • Abrahamism: The Religions of The Enemy.

    by Alex Macleod –“You cannot have an enemy be the core of your culture.”– To put it very simplistically isn’t that what Judaism (goyim), Mohamedism (unbelievers) and Christianity (the devil) have? (Curt: Exactly. The abrahamic religions are the semitic pastoralist revolt against the agrarian metal workers. Thus explains the invention of organized religion as a resistance movement against transcendence [property].)

  • Abrahamism: The Religions of The Enemy.

    by Alex Macleod –“You cannot have an enemy be the core of your culture.”– To put it very simplistically isn’t that what Judaism (goyim), Mohamedism (unbelievers) and Christianity (the devil) have? (Curt: Exactly. The abrahamic religions are the semitic pastoralist revolt against the agrarian metal workers. Thus explains the invention of organized religion as a resistance movement against transcendence [property].)

  • Markets Serve the Demands of Complexity

    by Jim Leis So as a very simple example, complexity structurally demands trial. And also innately breaks up large populations in preference for smaller ones; large ant hills and wolf packs split at certain sizes. Actually, complexity demands it. So, on a very base level, globalism is too hierarchical and statist for complexity. Globalism, socialism, communism, will never work because it drives complexity out of a society. Which will kill it. Put another way, a king’s power is in upholding the rule of law. If he amasses too much power, regulating business, property, etc., he relegates his fellow citizens to robots and kills complexity, and then kills society.

  • Markets Serve the Demands of Complexity

    by Jim Leis So as a very simple example, complexity structurally demands trial. And also innately breaks up large populations in preference for smaller ones; large ant hills and wolf packs split at certain sizes. Actually, complexity demands it. So, on a very base level, globalism is too hierarchical and statist for complexity. Globalism, socialism, communism, will never work because it drives complexity out of a society. Which will kill it. Put another way, a king’s power is in upholding the rule of law. If he amasses too much power, regulating business, property, etc., he relegates his fellow citizens to robots and kills complexity, and then kills society.

  • Bottom Up, Top Down

    BOTTOM UP, TOP DOWN Sometimes operational before descriptive, and sometimes descriptive before operational. by Dan Fodor I sometimes get ‘operational’ before I get ‘descriptive’ : I can spend hours running “simulations” of the math problem I’m trying to solve in my head (simple ex: visualize a cube to deduce its properties). This gets problematic if I forget to eat or forego attention to various mundane details around me. Anyway, the point is, when getting descriptive (or when passing from operational to descriptive), I need the lenience to speak vaguely (even if only to myself) before I can speak clearly.I suspect this is true for any new concept. Something must first be thought of before it can be spoken of. (a subtle bit of genius)

  • Bottom Up, Top Down

    BOTTOM UP, TOP DOWN Sometimes operational before descriptive, and sometimes descriptive before operational. by Dan Fodor I sometimes get ‘operational’ before I get ‘descriptive’ : I can spend hours running “simulations” of the math problem I’m trying to solve in my head (simple ex: visualize a cube to deduce its properties). This gets problematic if I forget to eat or forego attention to various mundane details around me. Anyway, the point is, when getting descriptive (or when passing from operational to descriptive), I need the lenience to speak vaguely (even if only to myself) before I can speak clearly.I suspect this is true for any new concept. Something must first be thought of before it can be spoken of. (a subtle bit of genius)

  • “The kind of man is defined by the kinds of duties he possesses. The quality of

    —“The kind of man is defined by the kinds of duties he possesses. The quality of man is defined by the quality of his performance thereof.”— Zachary Miller


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 15:35:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1005835740910153728

  • “Complexity is not nature’s favorite form; it’s nature’s only form.”—Jim Leis

    —“Complexity is not nature’s favorite form; it’s nature’s only form.”—Jim Leis


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 13:29:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1005804074711834625