Putin on All the Time

Whether you like him or not, you have to admit he's anti-liberalism.
Meaning he's anti-US (((elites))).
The way he handled the Russian "oligarchs" was Stalinesque.
Look up the heritage of the majority of these "oligarchs" and how they descended upon Russia, like locust, when Yeltsin was drunk out of his mind, unable to protect Russian interests after Gorbachev's perestroika collapse.
Everything becomes clear with some details.
Without details, all sort of lies can become believable to imbeciles across the globe.

Anyway....the man deserves a thread of his own. I've been enjoying his often subtle and mostly not so subtle America bashing for years.
Being engulfed in (((Hollywood))) and US 'free-media' mind-altering stenches for decades we all need a bit of fresh air.
If nothing else, he's a true Russian patriot looking after his people's interests. Something few current 'western' leaders do.
He's fucking with Americans...and that may be easy, but also dangerous. He has nukes...so he can get away with it.

Yockey was right.

And so what if he skims a bit extra from the top for himself?

Dugin, Alexander wrote:

A brief description of Heidegger’s concept is as follows: at the dawn of philosophical thought, people (more specifically, Europeans, and even more specifically, the Greeks), raised the question of Being as the focal point of their thinking. But, by making it their primary subject, they risked getting confused by the nuances of the complicated relationship between Being and thought, between pure Being (Seyn) and its expression in existence — a being (Seiende), between the human experience of being-in-the world (Dasein — being-there) and being in-itself (Sein). This failure had already occurred in the teachings of Heraclitus[36] about the phusis[37] and the logos.[38] Next, it is obvious that in Parmenides’[39] work, and, finally, in Plato, who placed ideas between man and existence, and who defined truth as that which corresponded to them — the referential theory of knowledge — reached its culmination in failure. This gave birth to alienation, eventually leading to ‘calculating thinking’ (das rechnende Denken) and then to the development of technology. Little by little, man lost sight of pure Being and pursued the path of nihilism. The essence of technology (based on the relationship between technology and the world) expresses this ever-increasing nihilism. In the New Era, this tendency reaches its pinnacle — technical development (Ge-stell)[40] ultimately displaces Being and crowns ‘nothingness’. Heidegger bitterly hated liberalism, considering it an expression of ‘the source of the calculative thinking’ which lies at the heart of ‘Western nihilism’.

The Fourth Political Theory

Where would Putin be without Dugin?

Dugin, Alexander wrote:

The third hypothesis is about forcing the phenomenological method and rushing several steps ahead: we may propose to consider Heidegger’s Dasein[74] as the subject of the Fourth Political Theory. Dasein is described in Heidegger’s philosophy at length through its existential structure, which makes it possible to build a complex, holistic model based on it, the development of which will lead to, for instance, a new understanding of politics. Many researchers have lost sight of the fact that Heidegger, especially, in his middle period between 1936 and 1945, developed a complete history of philosophy centred around Dasein, which, it has become apparent in retrospect, can form the basis of a full-fledged and well-developed political philosophy.
Thus, accepting the Dasein hypothesis immediately gives us a broad map in order to navigate the construction of history necessary for political theory. If the subject is Dasein, then the Fourth Political Theory would constitute a fundamental ontological structure that is developed on the basis of existential anthropology. We can map out the direction to describe this type of an approach:

• Dasein and the state;
• Dasein and social stratification;
• Dasein and power (the will to power);
• Being and politics;
• The horizons of political temporality;
• Existential spatiality and the phenomenology of boundaries;
• The Prince and nothing;
• Parliament, the choice, and ‘Being-towards-death’;
• Citizenship and the role of the guardians of Being;
• Referendum and intentionality;
• The authentic and the inauthentic in jurisprudence;
• Existential philosophy of jurisprudence;
• Revolution and the flight of the gods;
• Urbanisation and the house of Being.

Naturally, this is merely a cursory outline of the areas of interest for the new political science.

The Fourth Political Theory

Dugin, Alexander wrote:

Yes, there is. It is the idea of freedom. And not just the idea of ‘freedom for’ — that same substantive freedom rejected by Mill in his liberal program, which concentrated on the ‘freedom from’. We must say ‘yes’ to freedom in all its meanings and in all its perspectives. The Fourth Political Theory should be a
theory of absolute freedom, but not as in Marxism, in which it coincides with absolute necessity (this correlation denies freedom its very core). No, freedom can be of any kind, free of any correlation or lack thereof, facing any direction and any goal. Freedom is the greatest value of the Fourth Political Theory, since it coincides with its centre and its dynamic, energetic core.
The difference is that this freedom is conceived as human freedom, not as freedom for the individual — as the freedom given by ethnocentrism and the freedom of Dasein, the freedom of culture and the freedom of society, and the freedom for any form of subjectivity except for that of an individual. Moving in the opposite direction, European thought long ago came to a different conclusion: ‘man (as an individual) is a prison without walls’[97] (Jean-Paul Sartre); that is to say, the freedom of an individual is a prison. In order to attain true freedom, we must go beyond the limits of the individual. In this sense, the Fourth Political Theory is a theory of liberation, of going beyond the prison walls into the outside world, which begins where the jurisdiction of individual identity ends.
Freedom is always fraught with chaos, but is also open to opportunities.
Placed into the narrow framework of individuality, the amount of freedom becomes microscopic, and, ultimately, fictitious. The individual is granted freedom because the uses to which he can put it are extremely limited — it will remain contained within the tiny scope of his individuality and that over which he has direct control. This is the flip side of liberalism: at its core, it is totalitarian and intolerant of differences, and most especially opposed to the realisation of a great will. It is only prepared to tolerate small people; it protects not so much the rights of man, but, rather, the rights of a small man. This ‘small man’ can be allowed to do anything, but in spite of all his desire, he will be unable to do anything. Yet, beyond the small man, on the other side of ‘minimal humanism’,[98] one can just glimpse the closest horizon of genuine freedom.
However, it is also there that great risk and serious dangers emerge. Having left the limits of individuality, man can be crushed by the elements of life and by dangerous chaos. He may want to establish order. And this is entirely within his right — the right of a great man (homo maximus) — a real man of ‘Being and time’ (Martin Heidegger). And, like any order, this possible order, the coming order may be embodied in individual forms. Nonetheless, this is not individuality, but individuation; not empty rotations around that which has been received from the liberal authorities and which is meaningless, but the actual execution of tasks, as well as the taming of the restless and exciting horizons of the will.
The bearer of freedom in this case will be Dasein. The previous ideologies, each in its own way, alienated Dasein from its meaning, restricted it, and imprisoned it in one way or another, making it inauthentic. Each of these ideologies put a cheerless doll, das Man,[99] in the place of Dasein. The freedom of Dasein lies in implementing the opportunity to be authentic: that is, in the realisation of Sein[100] more so than of da.[101] ‘There-Being’ consists of ‘there’ and of ‘Being’. In order to understand where this ‘there’ is located, we should point it out and make a basic, foundational gesture. Yet, in order for ‘Being’ to flow into ‘there’ like a fountain, we must place all of this together — place this entire hermeneutic circle into the domain of complete freedom. Therefore, the Fourth Political Theory is, at the same time, a fundamental ontological theory which contains the awareness of the truth of Being at its core.
Without freedom, we cannot force anyone to exist. Even if we build the optimal society, and even if we force everyone to act appropriately and to operate within the framework of the correct paradigm, we could never guarantee such an outcome. This results from a man’s freedom to choose Being. Of course, most often, man gravitates toward the ‘inauthentic’ existence of Dasein, trying to dodge the issue, to succumb to gossip (Gerede) and to self-mockery. Liberated Dasein may not choose the path to Being, may hide in shelter, and may, once again, clutter the world with its hallucinations and fears, and its concerns and intentions. Choosing Dasein may corrupt the Fourth Political Theory itself, turning it into a self-parody. This is a risk, but Being is a risk, too. The only question is who risks what. You risk everything, or everything and everyone puts you at risk. Yet, only that which increases freedom will make the choice of authentic Being a reality — only then will the stakes be truly great, when the danger is infinite.

The Fourth Political Theory

Dugin proposes to use Heidegger's Dasein as a cornerstone of his "Fourth Political Theory".
The core ideas of 'dasein' is throwness, and being there.
A life does not choose to b born but once born it has choice, directing its movement, its momentum, according to its will.
Dasien describes ego/self one it emerges in the present, as presence.
The past is immutable. It is the sum of all causality that cannot be altered, and remain unknown - ergo Know Thyself motivates an emergent life to discover who and what it is by knowing and more importantly by understanding its past.
The past is also present, so the exploration of self begins in the present, through its presence, interpreted as appearance.
Appearance contains all the subtle details alluding to a past.
It's only in the present where man has some freedom - his will is dynamic only as presence - focusing its aggregate energies, its momentum, towards and away from.
This is what 'choice' is.  
Each choice determining future options available to the ego/self.

ego = lucid part of self - self that is conscious of itself.
self = sum of all past, stored as genetic memories.
ego/self is what we call the individual becoming conscious of self.

Both ego & self choose - one consciously, the other unconsciously.
Mind/Body.
To the ego the self's choices seem like an external will imposing itself upon it.

It would be interesting to learn how Putin came into power.
Was the country at such a low point that all the rats didn't want anything to do with the ship or how did the oligarchs lose out?

this is the Anglo-protestant version.

Yeltsin made him his successor. the west probably paid o attentino, after Yeltsin had sold out Russian resources to the (((oligarchs))).
They were busy greedily salivating over the billions they would make selling Russians endless resources.

By the way, this is more evidence that history repeats, but never in the exact same way.
Putin's dealing of foreigners rushing in to claim Russia's resources, after a period of turmoil, is almost exactly what happened during the Stalin era, that culminated with the assassination of Trotsky.
Same players.

Liberalism is now the US ideology - code word: freedom.
It reduces identity to a fashion, a consumer choice, accessible to every 'free-willed' individual.
Subjectivity is the code.
The method is divisive and a way of reducing resistance to tits hegemony.
It's easier to manage 'individuals' than self-conscious collectives.
To this Putin seems to have adopted Dugin's Fourth Political Theory, finding an ideology to rally resistance agaisnt American (Judeo-Puritan) Hegemony.

New World Order is Globalization, which is Americanism.
It's the coming of the 'Last Man'. The end of history, which is another way of saying the end of 'nature', 'heritage'...determinism.
Suppression and sublimation of genetics and the rise of the Cyborg - mechanical zombies -, i.e., robots, Russian for workers.
In this hard determinists, like pure nihilists and desperate degenerates, will be allies - their 'reasoning' will be that it's all part of some pre-determined divine plan, bringing about a coming Utopia - united man-kind, no wars, no hunger, no suffering etc.
Ironically, which is typical of nihilists, is that those worshipping 'freedom' will be supported by those denying freedom, because for both 'freedom' is not something pragmatic, and observable, but a theory, an idea/ideal - divine, spiritual. God.

Putin (Dugin) are proposing a multi-polar world, in antithesis to the American Hyper-Power model, speaking straight to each culture's sense of identity.

There's something very clever about it, which I cannot resit bringing to light.
Putin rests his strategy on an anti-liberalism myth, that of racial parity.
If it is true that races inherit different potentials in all traits, then a multi-polar world would quickly be dominated by the superior race - which is, for Putin, one.

Many liberals - despite what they say, secretly doubt their own romantic idealism, and so know that the only way to deal with racial disparity is miscegenation - merge and dilute superiority within mediocrity.
The identifying criterion will be emotion - this is why Abrahamism is invested in victimhood, presenting themselves as the victims of all victims - victims of the world unite has replaced the Communist call to workers.

Who dominates in this world-order....if not the king of all victims?
The victim of all victims.
Can you think of who this might be?

Satyr wrote:

Only the chosen can be victims of targeted ethnic genocide. The Serbs - others? POWs. Saying Jews are POWs though... Who'd be imprisoned

Besides, a targeted white ethnicity, or even the 'Aryan only', would dismantle the myth of 'Nazi' white nationalists.. They'd have to say KKK (unless atheists, in which case they have nothing but "racist")

Satyr wrote:

this is the Anglo-protestant version.
...

Thanks.
They are trying hard to make him look bad. But what makes sense is that Putin is himself wealthy and has connections to other wealthy and powerful people who he cooperates with. How else would any country be run. The question is what the vision of these elites is in regards to the people that they rule over and affect.
I've heard somewhere that there is a split between the - (in Russia) about those who support Putin and those who oppose him. I would be surprised if Putin's club were to be - only. Don't know how this is being balanced.

Satyr wrote:

Who dominates in this world-order....if not the king of all victims?
The victim of all victims.
Can you think of who this might be?

The annoying part about the king of victims is that he has such an annoying nasal voice eternally kvetching while he strikes you.

Anfang wrote:

Satyr wrote:

this is the Anglo-protestant version.
...

Thanks.
They are trying hard to make him look bad. But what makes sense is that Putin is himself wealthy and has connections to other wealthy and powerful people who he cooperates with. How else would any country be run. The question is what the vision of these elites is in regards to the people that they rule over and affect.
I've heard somewhere that there is a split between the Jews (in Russia) about those who support Putin and those who oppose him. I would be surprised if Putin's club were to be goys only. Don't know how this is being balanced.

From what I can tell it's the same disease; different 'flavor'. Neo-trad vs neo-soc. Same players. There is no ethnic loyalty only cultural/country (religious intensity: Orthodox). Hence gays suppressed: Orthodox. Neo-soc scared of Orthodox. One grows an immunity post-Communism, but loses the synthesis. Eventually Russia will need a frontier, and it will be war or Communist revival (generations, century or 2+). Keeping the populace in bread and circuses, as all superstates (Communism fails the bread part).

Anfang wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Who dominates in this world-order....if not the king of all victims?
The victim of all victims.
Can you think of who this might be?

The annoying part about the king of victims is that he has such an annoying nasal voice eternally kvetching while he strikes you.

the joke....a Jew is the one who strikes you and cries out in pain with every blow.

ISIS was wiped out only after the Russians got involved. Until then the US was pretending to be agaisnt organizations it had made possible, and some it still supports.
Bin Laden was a US product of their war agaisnt Russia in Afghanistan.
It's not clear what part he played in 9/11 and if this was not also part of the US restructuring of World Order. They needed an excuse, just as they had to attack Vietnam and before that Japan, Bin Laden became the scapegoat who gave them an excuse.