Anti-Communism And Anti-Fascism Are Tools Of Capitalism

In the post-Soviet period, communism went through several stages in our society. First, after the fall of the USSR, there were Marxist circles that still had inertia, which did not surrender, believing that the catastrophe was temporary. In this passive attitude, an indecisive and conformist nostalgia became a form of suicide and led to their disappearance. There were also radical communists in the 90’s who tried to get together – among them were passionate people who were not significant during the USSR itself, but in the 90’s they turned out to be honest people with integrity – but gradually they also ceased to really be. For a while in Russia, we were without communists.

Apportioned (distributed) Heartland

A Chinese Heartland is an altogether different question. If we recognize China as bearing the status of a Heartland, then we are emphasizing the conservative aspect of China - China as Land Power. But if China declares itself to be a Heartland against Russia, just as Hitler’s Germany declared itself to be Eurasia against Russia, then conflict will immediately arise. But in the case of an apportioned (distributed) Heartland, this acquires a completely different meaning.

Then it is possible to consider such Heartlands as a Russian Heartland, a European Heartland, a Chinese Heartland, and an Islamic Heartland (at least 3-4 empires from Turkey to Pakistan). The concept of an apportioned Heartland can be expanded to India, and projected onto Latin America and Africa as well.

Globalization And Liberalism Is On The Verge Of Collapse – But Who And What Comes Next?

All those who are sanctioned and banned today, all those who are blamed as rogue countries or “Putinists”, all those who are marginalized and criminalized — whites, populists, males, religious, social justice defenders, traditionalists, conservatives and so on — will most likely be the first to come up in the post-liberal period. But that is not sure and there is no plan or strategy for the future. It can be a Pyrrhic victory.

It may be that our instinctive rejection of liberalism is quite sane and logical but it is a kind of the reaction against pure evil that becomes too evident. When their rule ends nobody will be prepared for the next step. They have no future. But it may be that we also don’t have one as well.

We are too engaged in the struggle with the draining of the liberal global Swamp which is still huge and powerful, and we can discern nothing beyond that.


Putin is the compromise. If he is gone, there will be no compromise. It is clear that the elite is so resourceful and mean that it will try to adapt to another system, but this does not fundamentally cancel the fact that Putin cannot decisively influence the future. In a sense, he has already influenced it. And this influence is very positive: he showed that the 90s have an alternative, that it lies somewhere in the plane of patriotism (Second Chechen, Munich speech, “Our Crimea”, etc.), and this, in fact, is a grandiose accomplishment. But at the same time, Putin did not give the form and institutionalization of this patriotism, did not change the foundations of the state laid just in the 90s, did not carry out the rotation of the elites, ignored the popular demand for social justice. The established regime in the eyes of the people as a whole is much better than it was in the 90s (hence its legitimacy), but definitely worse than what is required. While Putin is in place, his merits cover the shortcomings. Once he leaves, a delicate and rather unnatural balance will collapse. By the way, Surkov is not right about de Gaulle: his legitimacy, relying on his role in World War II and the Resistance, lasted only until the early 70s, when he remained in power, and collapsed during the events of 1968, which abolished Gollist conservatism and established new socialist paradigm. Later, de Gaulle remained only nostalgia and simulacra.

Multipolarity, Unipolarity, Hegemony - Theories and Concepts

Ideological unipolarity entails the universalism of Western values and Human Rights ideology with the concept of human vs. citizen. The concept of human in Human Rights theory is against the nation-state and against the concept of citizen. If you say that the human being has the same rights as the citizen, you destroy citizenship. Migration and the defense of migrants are not purely humanitarian, but ideological. It is the idea to destroy the concept of citizenship, nationality, and the state. That is one of the main goals of the so-called human rights movement. It is purely ideological - as much ideological as Marxism or National Socialism. It is pure propaganda, nothing humanitarian. If you share human rights values, you are globalists on one side, sharing an ideology just like racism in National Socialism or communism and the proletarian position in classical Marxism. Human rights is a liberal ideology. It is not neutral. It is not self-evident. It is purely ideology, just as belongingness to the Aryan race or the capitalist or proletarian classes is. If you are in favor of human rights, you are already totally controlled by ideology.

Herman Wirth’s Theory of Civilization

Many aspects of Herman Wirth’s unjustly forgotten works deserve attention in the study of plural anthropology. First of all, his extremely fertile hypothesis of the cultural circle of Thule, which is usually discarded from the outset without any careful analysis of his argumentation, is so rich that it deserves serious attention in itself. If such an hypothesis allows for the resolution of such numerous historical and archaeological problems associated with the history of symbols, signs, myths, rituals, hieroglyphs, the calendar, writing, and the most ancient views of the structure of space and time, then this alone is enough to warrant thorough inquiry. Even though Wirth’s works contain many claims which seem either unequivocally wrong or highly controversial, we can set them aside and try to understand the essence of his theory which, in our opinion, is an extraordinarily constructive version that expands our understanding of the archaic epochs of the ancient history of mankind. The theory of the cultural circle of Thule need not be unconditionally accepted, but an assessment of its interpretive potential is necessary.

Geopolitics: Theories, Concepts, Schools, and Debates

Chaos strategy does not suggest creation or a new political system or order instead of the destroyed political systems. It is manipulated, moderated chaos - a new way of strategic thinking. If we carefully read Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard, it is written that they need a balkanized Eurasia, to transform it into a zone of permanent conflict between different groups - between Muslims, between ethnic groups, between Russians and Ukrainians, for example. This was Brzezinski’s idea. Chaos is already sown in Africa, so they don’t have to bother too much about that, while now the Russians and Chinese are coming here to bring another order, maybe not the best, but not bloody chaos as is the current situation. There are different points - smaller proxies, partly India, partly some pro-Western little states, and Israel for aggravating and make the chaos bigger. Smaller proxies, like Ukraine for example, are not allies in this concept, but just points in order to make chaos bigger. That is more or less how they understand the situation.

Shanghai Dugin's Lecture. Theory of Multipolar World 多极世界理论

China Institute, Fudan University 复旦大学 中国研究院
Multipolar approach (多极即) Theory of Multipolar World 多极世界理论 
Eurasianism 欧亚大陆
4th Political Theory 第四政治理论
Chinese school
Zhao Tingyang  (赵汀阳) - Tianxia Tixi - 天下体系 - Middle Empire
Yan Xuetong (阎学通) – 王道外交
Zhang Weiwei (张维为) China model (中国模式)
Qin Yaqing (秦亚青) – I Ching (易经 ) in IR Theory 关系理论 -- relations
European New Right  (Alain de Benoist)
Latin America school

Beijing Dugin's lecture BELT & Road initiative 丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路

One BELT One ROAD  一带一路 vs BELT & Road initiative 丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路
Geopolitical analysis from eurasian perspective Rimland Project Initially One Belt One Road Initiative was conceived as the project of the economic and GEOPOLITICAL integration of RIMLAND.
Both routes (land Belt and maritime Road) explicitly BYPASS Russian Federation – i.e. HEARTLAND. It is not openly anti-Eurasian it is simply NON-Eurasian Initiative. It is based on concept of Europe (Germany) being one of five UNITS (元). The main intermediary space is Middle East and above all Turkey. This project is supported by some fraction in liberal Global Government (as was the case with the Chinese reforms in 80-s). Any serious and solid Project of Russian-Chinese cooperation can be based ONLY in this Eurasian perspective of Multipolar (4 + Polar) World Vision

Shanghai Lecture 4 China in IR, geopolitics, globalization, hegemony 中国

Identity of China  中国的认同 China中国 is Civilization 文明(one of several, not unique) China中国 is Big Space 大空间 (one of several, not unique)

China中国 is Culture文化 (one of several, not unique)
China中国 is Power 权 (one of several, not unique)
China中国 is Pole 极 (one of several, not unique)
China中国 is Hegemony 霸权 (one of several, not unique)
China中国 is Empire 帝国 (one of several, not unique)
China中国 is Tianxia 天下 (one of several, not unique)
Identity of China

Relations are most important (constitutional)
Harmony should prevail
All oppositions are relative
Order is based on ethics
There is neither pure subjectivity nor pure objectivity

International Relations and Geopolitics. Lecture 1 - Theories, Paradigms, Concepts, Schools, Debates

International Relations deals with the State as such. This is very important. In the very name of this science, this discipline, there is the concept of “nation.” In the Western understanding, the nation is a political value. The West thinks of politics in terms of the “national State” that is normative since the Westphalian peace, and is the normative attitude. The Nation is the national State (Etat-Nation), it is not the people or an ethnic group. International Relations are relations between these States. What kind of State? Modern, Western States. This is the first, very important principle. When we are dealing with the concept of the State, we are dealing with historically Western concepts about how political reality should be organized and studied.

This is a modern paradigm. “Modern paradigm” means Western, but not in all the history of the “West”, but only in modernity. Modernity has transformed the Western mentality and has taken only part of the traditional Western mentality of the middle ages or antiquity and transformed it into a new kind, a new version. International Relations was born as a discipline in the beginning of the 20th century. It is Western and modern. Western modernity is different from Western pre-modernity. This is very important from an historical point of view.