I am glad to see a measure of bi-polarity reenter the world, but I’m not an enthusiast of the Putin-as-Messiah theme being pushed, it seems, by some self-styled ultra-nationalist theorists like Alexander Dugin.
It is intended, I believe, to both mislead and misrepresent Christian traditionalists in Russia and the West who are sympathetic to Putin on Ukraine:
This is my idea and suggestion: let us hate the American political elite together. Let us fight them for our identities – you for the American, us for the Russian, but the enemy is in both cases the same – the global oligarchy who rules the word using you and smashing us. Let us revolt. Let us resist. Together. Russians and Americans. We are the people. We are not their puppets.”
The language of this is unmistakable to my mind: with its leftist rhetoric, it could come out of Occupy Wall Street (“the people” is a dead give-away).
When examined a bit more closely, Dugin appears to be neo-Sabbatean, i.e. a Kabbalist.
Shabbatai Zvi, from whom Sabbateanism takes its name, was an early modern Jewish mystic in the tradition of the medieval Kabbalism of Rabbi Isaac Luria (d. 1572), which is called Lurianic.
Denounced as a false prophet after his conversion to Islam, Zvi believed himself to be the Messiah during a time filled, like ours today, with end-time expectations.
This sense of impending doom, brought on by the collapse of Constantinople 1in 1453 to the Ottoman Turks, went along with expectations of world redemption, induced by the birth of humanism, the invention of the printing press, and the great voyages of discovery (or rather, rediscovery).
(“The Sabbatean Prophets,” Matt Goldish, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
Dugin’s philosophy is thus Jewish exceptionalism posing as Russian nationalism.
He substitutes for Orthodox traditionalism, rooted in pan-Slavism – the destiny of the Slavic people - a mystic Judaized Eurasian geo-politics apparently taken from Western theorists like Mackinder.
While spouting what are generally deemed “anti-Semitic” tropes, Dugin affirms repeatedly that the Jews are an exceptional people, unlike any other (surely a debatable point), and that both philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism imply as much, which is palpably untrue.
“As a whole, such antisemitic version is unconvincing, though it is a little bit closer to truth than the first one, as against that it recognizes the uniqueness of the Jews’ role in the historical process. It is curious, that such admission joins the anti-semites to the most conscientious and consequent zionists.”
Notice that Dugin’s anti-Semitism goes hand-in-hand with militant Zionism and Israeli exceptionalism:
The Evraziia movement is linked with two radical Zionist groups, Vladimir Boukharsky’s MAOF Analytical Group and Be’ad Artzeinu, controlled by Rabbi Avram Shmulevich. These two groups, situated to the right of the right-wing Israeli party Likhud, are led by two former Soviet citizens of Jewish origin who emigrated to Israel and are now committed to politicizing the Israeli Russians).
Notice that Dugin produces straw-man accounts of “anti-Semitic” theories.
Notice his meteoric rise to influence in the 1990s, after the end of the Soviet Union.
Notice that he is an economic leftist.
Note that he is an ideologue – again, a dead give-away that he is no conservative.
These and many other clues suggest that Dugin is simply posing as a man of the right to delude traditionalists, and that he is marrying traditionalism to occult and Nazi theories to tar it by association.
Dugin is a false-flag and the wall-to-wall hysteria over his ideas in the Western (Rothschild) press is the best proof of it.
Eurasianism ala Dugin works as an intellectually souped-up version of end-time eschatology, only with Putin as Messiah, instead of Anti-Christ.
Dugin sounds to me like an intelligence operative and Eurasian messianism a cover for the supra-nationalist blocs of the New World Order.
However, it isn’t yet clear to me how important (or not) Dugin is.
Recently dismissed from his post as head of Moscow University’s sociology department, he could also simply be a minor figure – in terms of influence on the Kremlin.
It’s possible that he’s being pumped-up in the West to discredit Putin, by association.
I’ll withhold judgement for now.
Meanwhile, on the economic interests at play in the West’s war on Putin, see below:
Ever since the nation’s 1992 independence, Ukraine has been siphoning Russian gas for its own needs without paying for it. And throughout those 23 years, Russia not only bore Ukraine’s thievery in order to fulfill its European contracts, but continuously offered Ukraine low rates for gas so that the country might actually be in a position to pay its bills.
Exceptions occurred in 2006 and 2009 when Russia locked horns with Ukraine over billions in arrears to Gazprom and reduced the flow for a handful of days in January of those years, thus temporarily putting the chill on Europe. It was the hiatus of supply during these two disputes, which allowed the U.S. to mount an effective public clamor regarding E.U. vulnerability.
There was no mention of a deadbeat Ukraine’s thievery of gas meant for Europe as being the source of the problem. Instead, Russia was portrayed as a bully, demanding billions from a sadly impoverished Ukraine. Western media was far too polite to mention that Ukraine’s energy arrears were accumulating while their government officials grew fat and sleek by buying Russian gas cheap and selling it dear, pocketing the difference.
Nobody commented that it was actually U.S sanctions on Iran which prevented the subservient E.U. from pursuing contracts with a competing supplier of gas; except Vladimir Putin that is, who did observe dryly that an independent E.U. could organize an additional supplier. Some years later, during the U.S. assault on Libya, no E.U. voices of concern were raised regarding those particular energy contracts with European nations, just one of which was to deliver a 50-year supply to Switzerland.
Once the E.U. absorbed the geostrategic message the U.S. was sending, Brussels developed a legislative and regulatory attack on Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline and the proposed South Stream pipeline. Both pipelines’ routing was designed to avoid the Ukrainian problem.
The E.U. response to Russia’s pipeline resolution has been three measures: the 2006 Energy Community declaration, the 2020 Climate and Energy Package (CEP) and the Third Energy Package (TEP). The effect of those measures is to force all of Europe, nations both inside and outside of the E.U., into a single energy market subservient to EU policy, which is one of reverse economic blackmail against Russia.
A perverse consequence of the TEP, for instance, would be to permit the EU’s anti-monopoly initiatives against Gazprom to kill Russia’s hefty investment in the South Stream and Nord Stream projects and even theoretically allow the EU to expropriate Russian assets to non-Russian companies. (For a thorough discussion of the E.U. initiatives and their likely consequences, see here.)
Once Ukraine’s elected government was eliminated, the U.S. went right to work developing further its contribution to the scam.
Hunter Biden’s earlier March appointment to the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, at first appeared to be a garden variety example of nepotism involving a US vice-president improperly arranging a no-work cash flow for his son. But, to the contrary, it turns out Hunter Biden has a full plate, insuring that the anticipated spoils of the US-led intrusion into Ukraine fall into the correct hands; big pairs of which will belong to the Biden family’s and the heist’s other multinational and congressional key players’ supporters.
In fact, Hunter Biden is an old Ukrainian hand. Prior to his appointment to Burisma’s board, Biden fils was a director of the U.S. State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy subsidiary National Democratic Institute, where he built up opposition parties first for the 2004 U.S.-engineered “Orange Revolution” and, later, the 2014 U.S.-engineered “Euromaidan” protests.
In the course of those ten years, Hunter Biden would have gotten to know steel and pipeline billionaire Victor Pinchuk, an enthusiastic supporter and financier of the Maidan protests earlier this year, who is also former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma’s son-in-law and is well-known for sponsoring an annual gabfest for international political and financial elite at a Tsarist-era palace on the Black Sea. Despite being a generous multimillion dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation, Pinchuk was smart enough to acquire allies on both sides of the aisle, developing a relationship with Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) when he was mayor of Nashville. Pinchuk then parlayed his Corker relationship into ones with various top shelf neocons, including Karl Rove and that ever present spitball of American imperialism, Senator John McCain.
This spring Corker rounded-up Senators McCain, Marco Rubio and Lamar Alexander and 23 others in support of Senate Bill 227, the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014. The bill is a veritable cornucopia of imperial dreaming, imposing as it does travel bans on and asset freezes of Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin and Sergei Medvedev, and corporate officers of prominent Russian banks and energy firms. It provides for a stepped-up program of broadcasting propaganda into countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, along with the transfer of U.S. intelligence to Ukraine.
The bill further targets Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldava for de facto if not de jure Nato membership with $100 million in lethal military equipment and assistance, which means Nato bases and joint military exercises. It increases funding for NGO fifth-column cover operations in targeted FSU countries and former “captive nations.” The bill also provides for a stop to nuclear arms reductions authorized by the 2010 New START treaty between the U.S. and Russia. And, of course, the bill bestows further gifts on the U.S. fracking and liquefied natural gas industries, the latter being a somewhat fanciful substitution for Russian energy in that decades of FedGov energy policies have insured that the U.S. has no liquid gas export terminals.”