Circle of Crust Master Feed https://openwebfeeds.com Unified cumulative chronological feed. Wed, 24 Jun 2026 22:11:37 -0700 <![CDATA[📌 Static Links]]> https://thephora.net/phoranova/index.php?whats-new/ "Phoranova" forum latest posts
X list of Phora members (past and present)
"Tunis Bay Club" forum latest posts
Circle of Crust Diretory

]]> Thu, 25 Jun 2026 22:11:37 -0700 pinned-static-links-v2 <![CDATA[[gb819] Circle of Crust Directory]]> https://gb819.substack.com/p/openwebfeedscom-circle-of-crust RSS sanitized for browsing: https://openwebfeeds.com/CircleofCrust/view.php

Raw RSS for RSS reader: https://openwebfeeds.com/CircleofCrust/index.php

X “list”:

Forums:

Blogs:

  • Occidental Dissent (note that you may need to use an “alternate” browser like LibreWolf, Brave or DuckDuckGo brower as site gives access errors in mainstream browsers).

Substacks:

Discord Servers:

Telegram Chats/Channels:

Youtube:

Odysee:

Bitchute:

TikTok:

]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:50:05 -0700 https://gb819.substack.com/p/openwebfeedscom-circle-of-crust <![CDATA[[Robert Stark] The Merchant's Hesitation: How Trump’s Transactional Indecisiveness Empowered Iran and Doomed MAGA's Future]]> https://robertstark.substack.com/p/trumps-merchant-archetype-as-responsible

MAGA makes the case that Trump’s deal with Iran was his brilliant “art of the deal” tactic of making threats to coerce Iran into negotiating a good deal. One could make a case that this sort of worked in that Iran agreed to a deal because they didn’t want to be destroyed. However, this is a massive cope as Trump’s Iran deal is much more favorable to Iran than Obama’s deal, which Trump was obsessed with how bad it was. Not to mention that the deal is not set in stone and is already faltering due to Israel’s war in Lebanon with Iran snubbing JD Vance at the negotiations in Switzerland, and threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz again and retaliate against Israel.

Iran gained escalation dominance because Iran has a warrior ethos of willing to take pain. All Iran had to do was hold in there and just not surrender. Iran was punished for making a reasonable deal but was rewarded with a more favorable deal for fighting back. In contrast, Trump as the merchant freaks out over any sign of a stock market downturn, much like he did with the tacos on tariffs. Basically, Trump is using the stock market to determine war decisions, besides the likelihood of insider trading. Past presidents may have done similar things but they weren’t as blatant about it or tweeting it. America’s negotiators, like Steve Witkoff, are basically salesman types while Iranian negotiators are more strategic warrior archetypes with some priest elements.

America is a decadent empire that worships mammon while Iran is an ancient civilization with a warrior ethos who triumphed over America despite America having a much more powerful military and GDP. Overall, Iran is in a much stronger position than before the war which was a colossal strategic blunder. The war could also still lead to the gradual weakening of the American empire, as Gulf bases will likely close and the petrodollar arrangement is basically over, as the geopolitical sphere of Iran, Russia, and China becomes more powerful.

Whenever Iran retaliates or threatens retaliation against the Gulf, the markets start to crash. For instance, when Iran attacked that apache helicopter and Trump threatened retaliation, it scared the market so he canceled his retaliatory strikes. Much like with his previous threat to wipe Iran off the face of the earth that was followed by the ceasefire. While the US could have hypothetically destroyed Iran, Iran has their Samson option for the Gulf, which would cause a global depression. Iran doesn’t really need a nuke anymore because controlling the Strait of Hormuz is a more powerful weapon. If they don’t get their way from now on, they can just threaten the Strait with their cheap drones, as well as having the Houthis attack the Bab el Mandeb Strait.

While it looks like Iran is closing the Strait again, let’s just say the deal is successful. The deal can delay an economic crash and ease oil prices for the shot term but even if the Strait successfully re-opens, energy reserves are getting depleted, there is still a backlog of oil shipments, damaged oil infrastructure, navel mines that have to be removed, and insurance rates on shipping that will be high until ship safety is guaranteed, all of which could take several months, if not longer. The reason the stock market is not crashing is that the reality is so bad that speculators refuse to factor in fundamentals, as we as all the liquidity regarding the upper class having so much wealth that they don’t know what to do with it, so they just put it all into stocks. An economic crash would be karma for Trump’s worship of GDP and the stock markets, as Trump’s initial main political strength was the economy.

Even if Trump hates prolonged war, he was still stupid enough to let the more virile warrior, Netanyahu, trick him into what he thought was going to be a short excursion. Trump ultimately let the economic pressures dictate his decision to end the war and capitulate to Iran, to the chagrin of Israel and the neocons, which is a contradiction of his previous groveling to Israel. As strong as Zionist influence is, economic pressure and the GDP worship cult are a much greater force, as the war continuing with the Strait remaining closed passed Labor Day would cause a global great depression, which is still a possibility. Trump has even been making statements that sound favorable toward Iran, which just shows how transactional he is. Israel is trying to sabotage the deal by escalating with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The question is how confident is Israel that the US will protect them from Iran if Israel escalates with Iran again. Since Trump has such a massive ego, there is a chance he will throw Israel under the bus out of spite for destroying his legacy, but also that he escalates with Iran again out of frustration, as he is making threats against Iran again.

Netanyahu is a parasite to America and genocidal to Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, but he has a warrior ethos in how he is not transactional like Trump. Rather he has this existential will to fight to the last drop of blood to defend his nation and bloodline, even if it is subsidized by the American tax payers. Whether he would settle down if US subsidies and military protection ended is a topic for a separate article. Regardless, Netanyahu behaves like a king from the Old Testament while Trump is like a late 19th century robber baron. The warrior lives for war while the merchant views war as transactional, such as an opportunity to profit. While inside trading is the most cynical take, a slightly less cynical take is just that Trump is not a long term planner and is very transactional, depending on a particular circumstance. Ironically, Trump said that he doesn’t care about Americans’ financial hardship, which appears the polar opposite of using economics as the main metric. He was reacting to frustration over the war failing and it was a sign of his declining cognitive capacity in which he lacks any filter, so his callousness shows.

Ronald Reagan was also a merchant type obsessed with tax cuts, deregulation, “supply-side,” with a salesman pitch of optimistic capitalism, but he also had a warrior flair in his Cold Warrior rhetoric. George H. W. Bush leaned warrior due to his military background and he also had some merchant traits but he was more just establishment than any pure archetype. Bill Clinton was the most purist merchant, “It’s the economy, stupid,” with his deal-making and personal charisma over ideology. G.W. Bush despite being a draft dodger, was a warrior with some priest elements, such as moralistic rhetoric on foreign policy and a merchant on his neoliberal economic policies. Regardless, his presidency and its downfall was defined by militarism and endless war, which Trump is desperate to avoid.

Barack Obama epitomized the priest archetype, albeit a liberal academic version, with moralistic narratives like “hope and change,” the arc of history, and an identity/values focus. Obama was the professor in chief. Joe Biden had some priest elements in moralistic framing about the threat to democracy but like Bush Sr. he was more just an establishmentarian and institutionalist, which doesn’t fit neatly into these ancient archetypes. While I am personally more of the priest archetype, that archetype is not inherently good, as moralistic narratives conceal power, woke came from the Brahmins of academia, and bureaucracy can mirror the structure of the Catholic church, albeit corporations are also very managerial.

Despite Trump attending military school as a boy, he is a merchant in his businessman persona and negotiation tactics, “art of the deal,” albeit like Reagan, a warrior in some of his rhetoric like America First and his confrontational decorum. Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard, Lutnick, is probably the best example of a pure merchant type. A merchant like Bill Clinton may have been ok in a time of great peace and prosperity but that archetype is terrible today in a time of existential civilizational crisis.

Trump was more of a warrior as a candidate, such as after the failed assassination attempt, when he put his fist up in the air and chanted “fight, fight, fight.” Trump was a warrior in that particular iconic moment but he failed to bring that energy and fighting spirit into his presidency. It doesn’t help that he is old with terrible health and cognitive decline. You could make a case that the ICE raids are the closest to a warrior ethos of Trump’s presidency but even that is performative, like one of Trump’s reality shows or his Idiocracy-like UFC match at the White House. MAGA views Trump as a warrior king and even the Alt-Right had their God Emperor Trump meme which looking back is cringe. Even the Alt-Right lacked enough skepticism over Trump being a salesman because of how exciting it was to have an apparent outsider rise up and humiliate the establishment, as an anti-Priest disruptor.

Trump represents the worst of the merchant archetype in his extreme gluttony and greed with minimal noble traits. I am saying this as someone who supported Trump back in 2016. This explains why Trump backed down from taking a lot of bold positions like shutting down the BLM riots and recently backing down on tougher visa requirements for immigrants. I remember when Trump visited a military cemetery and said that those who die in war are losers and suckers. As a merchant, he doesn’t see value in honor nor anything that doesn’t make you rich or get you pussy. Trump’s one bold risk on the war with Iran was because of financial donations from pro-Israel donors like the Adelsons, thus the warrior is a slave to the merchants.

Trump is a salesman who saw a unique niche to appeal to an untaped market for nationalism and populism that the existing GOP neglected. Thus, MAGA became a product to sell under capitalism, much like Trump selling merch to his cultist fans at rallies, rather than about defending blood and soil. Even though oligarchs generally support mass immigration for cheap labor, you get these transactional alliances between capitalists and nationalists. For instance, Marc Andreeson pivoted on his support for h1b visas because the same people who oppose mass immigration within MAGA also agree to de-regulate tech while the Left supports both regulation and immigration. However, I could see these rightwing tech elites easily switching back, if say a president Newsom was pro-h1b and friendly to big tech on regulation. Likewise, the MAGA communism meme, in which MAGA was encouraging economic sacrifice for America’s long term national greatness, wasn’t breaking from that merchant archetype. Rather, it was just another cynical marketing gimmick for his chump supporters to accept economic hardship while Trump insiders become rich from market manipulation over going taco.

Read more

]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2026 18:06:15 -0700 https://robertstark.substack.com/p/trumps-merchant-archetype-as-responsible <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Pro-Israel Democrats Lose To DSA In New York]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/24/pro-israel-democrats-lose-to-dsa-in-new-york/

You can bring Sean Hannity to the brink of tears over a Democrat losing if that Democrat was backed by AIPAC lol pic.twitter.com/EnMAaoflH4

— jordan (@JordanUhl) June 24, 2026

“Gotham has fallen.”

A Jewish Democratic congressman lost to another Jewish Democrat in New York last night and FOX News and the GOP are portraying it as another Kristallnacht. Dan Bongino thinks Western civilization itself is falling. Joel Pollak thinks it might be time for Jews to flee America.

]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:20:15 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336997 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] VIDEO SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-00f

]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:06:39 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-00f <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Operation Barbarossa: Then and Now]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/operation-barbarossa-then-and-now Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Today is June 22 — besides being the longest day and the shortest night... Incidentally, these phrases are also connected to events from the middle of the last century. Eighty-five years ago, the Great Patriotic War began. Many different lessons have been drawn, many different conclusions supposedly made. But recent years show that those answers and those learned lessons were not as solid as we thought. Because in light of today’s events, there is much we can recall about those years. I suggest we start with this — talk a little, remember a bit, but naturally draw parallels from 1941 in the 20th century to 2026 in the 21st.

Alexander Dugin: Of course, these are completely different eras, but certain conclusions and certain sudden flashes of memory about that tragic moment — the surprise attack by Hitler’s Germany on the Soviet Union without a declaration of war — which led to the seizure of huge swathes of our territory. In the first months, even the first year of the war, the Germans advanced. They advanced methodically and in massive force, while we retreated. We were not ready for this war at the time. We did not expect it, we had not prepared for it properly, and we believed it was impossible.

Stalin trusted Hitler until the very end, as we know. He believed that Hitler took the word “socialism” in “National Socialism” seriously. That was the ideology of Nazi Germany, and Stalin thought that Hitler would choose, say, an alliance or at least neutrality with another socialist power in the face of the Anglo-Saxon capitalism that Hitler genuinely hated — and with which he was also at war. After all, World War II did not begin on June 22 with Hitler’s attack on us, but in 1939 with Germany’s war against Britain. So anything could be expected from Hitler. In this respect, he somewhat resembles Trump — or Trump resembles Hitler — because his positions also shifted and his policy was quite inconsistent. At times he cursed the Soviet Union and communism, at others he turned against the liberal bourgeois West.

Hitler’s National Socialism is an ideology banned in the Russian Federation. At the same time, it was both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist — the so-called “third way” ideology. And of course, Stalin probably hoped that the balance in this intermediate ideological state would tip toward confrontation specifically with the liberal West and Anglo-Saxon capitalism, which Hitler truly hated. But it turned out that he hated not only them, but us as well. And I believe that we were pushing him toward confrontation with the West, while the West was pushing him toward confrontation with Russia.

A great deal of material about these backstage negotiations has now been made public. And in the fact that June 22 happened — the attack by Nazi Germany on Russia, which was prepared and planned — a significant role was played by those same Anglo-Saxon agents. They understood that if Hitler... And Hitler’s Germany was essentially the European Union of that period. All of continental Europe was under Hitler’s heel — he had either installed loyal regimes or simply occupied it. This was an enormous challenge. If Hitler had continued fighting on one front against the West, it would have been very difficult for both Britain and America.

It was precisely during this period that a major success of British intelligence — through various channels — was to set Hitler against the Soviet Union. To ensure that the “national” element in National Socialism outweighed the “socialist” one. This was a huge ideological, philosophical, and intelligence operation. Only now are we beginning to seriously suspect this, seeing the first signs of this deep work by British special services, which tried to play on Hitler’s racism: “The Anglo-Saxons are people like us, but the Russians are Untermenschen — subhumans.” Incidentally, we hear exactly the same thing from the West today. Everything is repeating itself.

This Anglo-Saxon operation succeeded, and the result was the tragedy of June 22, 1941. It was also the beginning of the end for Hitler, because this attack on Russia became for him what the campaign against Russia had been for Napoleon. The British and international globalist forces — those same financial networks — at the critical moment, understanding that they could receive a blow from a consolidated continental Europe, set that force against Russia.

And what happened next? The end of Germany, the end of sovereign Europe. But the blow our people endured was enormous. These were monstrous losses. Yes, we won this war triumphantly and brilliantly, but at what cost!

And here is something else important: Europe, divided as a result of our Victory into two camps, already carried within itself a certain geopolitical trap. This line of division proved insufficient. We should have either gone all the way to the Atlantic, liberating all of Europe, or... But we stopped, entered into agreements, and decided to come to terms with the Anglo-Saxons. We divided Europe, and this laid a mine under the future. We held out for a long time — several decades by historical standards. From 1945 to 1989 — a decent stretch, but not centuries.

And then all the results of our Victory, all our successes and colossal sacrifices were crossed out by the betrayal of the Soviet leadership at the end of the 1980s. Our Victory was simply stolen from us — by the liberals, Westernizers, and reformers of the 1990s. They even stole the very date from us.

That is why today we think: how did this happen? Why is everything repeating itself? Why is it again June 22, and we again see calls in the Western press to fight Russia — essentially calls to finish what their grandfathers started? We are once again facing a war with the West, only now the enemy is much closer to our heart, to our historic Russian lands. The threat looms over us again. June 22...

This now belongs to the past that has not passed. In Soviet times it seemed to us that it was simply history. We would remember it, focus, become serious, pay tribute to the memory of our ancestors who won that war. But it still seemed like a closed chapter. It turned out that it is about the future — it is about the present. June 22, 1941, is that historical moment in which we did not live for several decades, but in which we are living once again.

But where is our 1945? Where is our capture of Berlin, London, Washington, Paris, Helsinki, Warsaw, and Rome? Where is that? In reality, we don’t even have it in our plans. And here, just as Stalin then overestimated Hitler, overestimated Europe and the ideological orientation of those who prepared the attack, so too, in my view, we today do not understand the modern West.

We should have begun preparing for a new war with the West immediately — on May 9, 1945. From that moment, we should have directed all the power of our state toward advancing further to the Channel, rather than simply holding the lines we had reached. Instead, we went into a deep defense, then made concessions, believed in the theory of convergence based on a common Enlightenment project — and that was it. In the end, we were almost steamrolled. If not for Putin, we might no longer exist. He went in a different direction and set a course for restoring our sovereignty and our state-civilization. We have set out on the right path, but after all the losses we have suffered, it turns out to be very difficult to follow it — especially if we hesitate and trust the West again.

The main lesson of June 22, 1941, is this: until we reorganize world space in our own interests — interests that will reliably protect our civilization — the threat will not disappear. This can be done not only by force, but also by peace. But it must be our peace, it must be our Russian World. Here, not only weapons matter, but also diplomacy, intellect, technology, and ideas.

The most serious conclusion from this analysis is that we won that war, but then we were thrown back. And now we need to secure that result once again, so that the victory of 1945 remains part of our historical existence, and not just a distant episode. Because today the West is essentially telling us that that victory was an accident, while the attack of June 22 was a natural outcome. The Russophobia that permeated Nazi ideology has not gone anywhere — it has now become mainstream in the West, and Ukraine has been artificially turned into the vanguard of this process.

Therefore, to the pride in the great feat of our ancestors and the grief over the losses, the ashes of the present are now mixed in. We are in a moment when the historical June 22 continues for us.

Host: Allow me to add an informational point here. You speak about victory, and I am sure that absolutely everyone listening to us will agree with your words. But this is the kind of time we live in: it is not enough to win — it is important to prove that you won. There are certain world leaders who — regardless of whether they won or lost, what happened, how it happened, or where it happened — tell everyone about their victories through their information megaphones and social networks. And a significant part of the world perceives it exactly that way.

What does Russia have in reserve, as a trump card (forgive the comparison), to prove, to explain, and to convey this idea to those who may not have forgotten, but who are beginning to doubt? Was it really exactly as we have been accustomed to thinking for the past 85 years? Because now from various sources — free, loud, and sometimes brazen — what is pouring out is, to put it mildly, perhaps not outright lies, but half-truths or truth torn out of context.

Alexander Dugin: First of all, history belongs only to the victors. The defeated have no history of their own — it is written for them by those who won. They come and say: this is how it was for you, this you won, but that — you did not. In order to have the right to our own history — and therefore to the victory of 1945 — we must win once again.

Today we let our victory slip through our fingers; we ourselves renounced it. Have we condemned Gorbachev? Have we held a tribunal for the traitors, for the liberals who seized power? The people reject this, and that is where Putin’s support comes from — he has taken a patriotic stance. But legally and ideologically, this has still not been formalized. The people who dismantled the Soviet Union — which was the continuation of the Russian Empire, our state — have never been held accountable.

Accordingly, we ourselves surrendered our sovereignty, and we should not be surprised that the West imposes its own version of history on us. The West today believes that Stalin was a tyrant just like Hitler. And our historians in the 1990s nearly agreed to accept this version of history written by the victors, signing Russia’s global capitulation. We came very close to complete loss of sovereignty, but Putin turned the ship of Russian statehood onto a course of revival.

Words, worldview, and philosophy play an enormous role here. Ideas, statements, national narratives — these are the main battlefield. A sovereign is someone who controls his own consciousness and the body of historical knowledge. If foreign models are implanted into our minds, then there is no need to conquer us militarily. Today colonization proceeds through the information sphere, and in this respect our civilizational discourse is largely losing.

This is connected to the structures responsible for information policy. Our journalists on the front lines are trying to promote our meanings, but when they turn to the rear for systemic support, they do not receive an adequate response. Everything still depends on the momentary moods of officials: if they decide to open the window a crack for patriotic ideas — fine; if they decide otherwise — everything shuts down.

This monstrous legacy of the 1990s and 2000s, when the West was considered the model — where families lived and money was kept — was accepted by the elites. We tried to fit into it. And we still have not fully replaced those people who, by inertia, remain carriers of this pro-Western, Yeltsin-era worldview.

They are still in their positions. Yes, they are loyal to our president, yes, they support him, but deep down, I think they do not agree either with the Special Military Operation or with the inevitable escalation of relations with the West — an escalation that is happening not through our fault, but according to the objective logic of history. They couldn’t care less about geopolitics. They studied from Western manuals, they were invited to conferences, they were treated with respect. In essence, a significant part of the Russian elite in the 1990s — and perhaps even in the late 1980s — was ideologically co-opted.

Accordingly, the people who today are supposed to be fighting the West and asserting sovereignty were raised on directly opposite principles: that the West is the ideal, that we should not fight it but imitate it, and that Russian sovereignty is merely a formality. That is their worldview. And these people remain in many key positions. We have not yet had a full-fledged change of elites.

At the same time, the West itself today is completely different — it is not the West that existed 20–30 years ago. It is changing rapidly, and we do not understand the deep philosophical, sociological, and anthropological processes taking place there. Many still cling to the illusion that it is comfortable and cozy, and that the money is there. But as the Gospel says: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” This is a terrible problem. We cannot truly count on victory in an external war until we achieve victory over our own inner paralysis at home.

In 1991, a real treacherous coup took place, when a marginal rabble ready to carry out the West’s tasks imposed liberalism from above — something our society categorically did not share. We still have not recovered from that act of suicide. That is precisely why it is so difficult for us to advance our sovereign discourse and present to the world the image of Russia as a unique state-civilization, something our president constantly speaks about. We have enormous potential, but honestly, we have not yet even truly approached it.

Continue:

Multipolar Press
Operation Barbarossa: Then and Now
Alexander Dugin explains why the spirit of June 22, 1941, is returning today and how Russia must finally overcome the illusions of the 1990s to secure its future…
Read more
11 hours ago · 12 likes · Alexander Dugin

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:55:45 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/operation-barbarossa-then-and-now <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Operation Barbarossa: Then and Now]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/operation-barbarossa-then-and-now

Alexander Dugin explains why the spirit of June 22, 1941, is returning today and how Russia must finally overcome the illusions of the 1990s to secure its future.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Today is June 22 — besides being the longest day and the shortest night... Incidentally, these phrases are also connected to events from the middle of the last century. Eighty-five years ago, the Great Patriotic War began. Many different lessons have been drawn, many different conclusions supposedly made. But recent years show that those answers and those learned lessons were not as solid as we thought. Because in light of today’s events, there is much we can recall about those years. I suggest we start with this — talk a little, remember a bit, but naturally draw parallels from 1941 in the 20th century to 2026 in the 21st.

Alexander Dugin: Of course, these are completely different eras, but certain conclusions and certain sudden flashes of memory about that tragic moment — the surprise attack by Hitler’s Germany on the Soviet Union without a declaration of war — which led to the seizure of huge swathes of our territory. In the first months, even the first year of the war, the Germans advanced. They advanced methodically and in massive force, while we retreated. We were not ready for this war at the time. We did not expect it, we had not prepared for it properly, and we believed it was impossible.

Stalin trusted Hitler until the very end, as we know. He believed that Hitler took the word “socialism” in “National Socialism” seriously. That was the ideology of Nazi Germany, and Stalin thought that Hitler would choose, say, an alliance or at least neutrality with another socialist power in the face of the Anglo-Saxon capitalism that Hitler genuinely hated — and with which he was also at war. After all, World War II did not begin on June 22 with Hitler’s attack on us, but in 1939 with Germany’s war against Britain. So anything could be expected from Hitler. In this respect, he somewhat resembles Trump — or Trump resembles Hitler — because his positions also shifted and his policy was quite inconsistent. At times he cursed the Soviet Union and communism, at others he turned against the liberal bourgeois West.

Support Multipolar Press and our mission to tell the truth about the unfolding global paradigm shift — become a paid subscriber today!

Hitler’s National Socialism is an ideology banned in the Russian Federation. At the same time, it was both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist — the so-called “third way” ideology. And of course, Stalin probably hoped that the balance in this intermediate ideological state would tip toward confrontation specifically with the liberal West and Anglo-Saxon capitalism, which Hitler truly hated. But it turned out that he hated not only them, but us as well. And I believe that we were pushing him toward confrontation with the West, while the West was pushing him toward confrontation with Russia.

A great deal of material about these backstage negotiations has now been made public. And in the fact that June 22 happened — the attack by Nazi Germany on Russia, which was prepared and planned — a significant role was played by those same Anglo-Saxon agents. They understood that if Hitler... And Hitler’s Germany was essentially the European Union of that period. All of continental Europe was under Hitler’s heel — he had either installed loyal regimes or simply occupied it. This was an enormous challenge. If Hitler had continued fighting on one front against the West, it would have been very difficult for both Britain and America.

It was precisely during this period that a major success of British intelligence — through various channels — was to set Hitler against the Soviet Union. To ensure that the “national” element in National Socialism outweighed the “socialist” one. This was a huge ideological, philosophical, and intelligence operation. Only now are we beginning to seriously suspect this, seeing the first signs of this deep work by British special services, which tried to play on Hitler’s racism: “The Anglo-Saxons are people like us, but the Russians are Untermenschen — subhumans.” Incidentally, we hear exactly the same thing from the West today. Everything is repeating itself.

This Anglo-Saxon operation succeeded, and the result was the tragedy of June 22, 1941. It was also the beginning of the end for Hitler, because this attack on Russia became for him what the campaign against Russia had been for Napoleon. The British and international globalist forces — those same financial networks — at the critical moment, understanding that they could receive a blow from a consolidated continental Europe, set that force against Russia.

And what happened next? The end of Germany, the end of sovereign Europe. But the blow our people endured was enormous. These were monstrous losses. Yes, we won this war triumphantly and brilliantly, but at what cost!

And here is something else important: Europe, divided as a result of our Victory into two camps, already carried within itself a certain geopolitical trap. This line of division proved insufficient. We should have either gone all the way to the Atlantic, liberating all of Europe, or... But we stopped, entered into agreements, and decided to come to terms with the Anglo-Saxons. We divided Europe, and this laid a mine under the future. We held out for a long time — several decades by historical standards. From 1945 to 1989 — a decent stretch, but not centuries.

And then all the results of our Victory, all our successes and colossal sacrifices were crossed out by the betrayal of the Soviet leadership at the end of the 1980s. Our Victory was simply stolen from us — by the liberals, Westernizers, and reformers of the 1990s. They even stole the very date from us.

That is why today we think: how did this happen? Why is everything repeating itself? Why is it again June 22, and we again see calls in the Western press to fight Russia — essentially calls to finish what their grandfathers started? We are once again facing a war with the West, only now the enemy is much closer to our heart, to our historic Russian lands. The threat looms over us again. June 22...

This now belongs to the past that has not passed. In Soviet times it seemed to us that it was simply history. We would remember it, focus, become serious, pay tribute to the memory of our ancestors who won that war. But it still seemed like a closed chapter. It turned out that it is about the future — it is about the present. June 22, 1941, is that historical moment in which we did not live for several decades, but in which we are living once again.

But where is our 1945? Where is our capture of Berlin, London, Washington, Paris, Helsinki, Warsaw, and Rome? Where is that? In reality, we don’t even have it in our plans. And here, just as Stalin then overestimated Hitler, overestimated Europe and the ideological orientation of those who prepared the attack, so too, in my view, we today do not understand the modern West.

We should have begun preparing for a new war with the West immediately — on May 9, 1945. From that moment, we should have directed all the power of our state toward advancing further to the Channel, rather than simply holding the lines we had reached. Instead, we went into a deep defense, then made concessions, believed in the theory of convergence based on a common Enlightenment project — and that was it. In the end, we were almost steamrolled. If not for Putin, we might no longer exist. He went in a different direction and set a course for restoring our sovereignty and our state-civilization. We have set out on the right path, but after all the losses we have suffered, it turns out to be very difficult to follow it — especially if we hesitate and trust the West again.

The main lesson of June 22, 1941, is this: until we reorganize world space in our own interests — interests that will reliably protect our civilization — the threat will not disappear. This can be done not only by force, but also by peace. But it must be our peace, it must be our Russian World. Here, not only weapons matter, but also diplomacy, intellect, technology, and ideas.

The most serious conclusion from this analysis is that we won that war, but then we were thrown back. And now we need to secure that result once again, so that the victory of 1945 remains part of our historical existence, and not just a distant episode. Because today the West is essentially telling us that that victory was an accident, while the attack of June 22 was a natural outcome. The Russophobia that permeated Nazi ideology has not gone anywhere — it has now become mainstream in the West, and Ukraine has been artificially turned into the vanguard of this process.

Therefore, to the pride in the great feat of our ancestors and the grief over the losses, the ashes of the present are now mixed in. We are in a moment when the historical June 22 continues for us.

Host: Allow me to add an informational point here. You speak about victory, and I am sure that absolutely everyone listening to us will agree with your words. But this is the kind of time we live in: it is not enough to win — it is important to prove that you won. There are certain world leaders who — regardless of whether they won or lost, what happened, how it happened, or where it happened — tell everyone about their victories through their information megaphones and social networks. And a significant part of the world perceives it exactly that way.

What does Russia have in reserve, as a trump card (forgive the comparison), to prove, to explain, and to convey this idea to those who may not have forgotten, but who are beginning to doubt? Was it really exactly as we have been accustomed to thinking for the past 85 years? Because now from various sources — free, loud, and sometimes brazen — what is pouring out is, to put it mildly, perhaps not outright lies, but half-truths or truth torn out of context.

Alexander Dugin: First of all, history belongs only to the victors. The defeated have no history of their own — it is written for them by those who won. They come and say: this is how it was for you, this you won, but that — you did not. In order to have the right to our own history — and therefore to the victory of 1945 — we must win once again.

Today we let our victory slip through our fingers; we ourselves renounced it. Have we condemned Gorbachev? Have we held a tribunal for the traitors, for the liberals who seized power? The people reject this, and that is where Putin’s support comes from — he has taken a patriotic stance. But legally and ideologically, this has still not been formalized. The people who dismantled the Soviet Union — which was the continuation of the Russian Empire, our state — have never been held accountable.

Accordingly, we ourselves surrendered our sovereignty, and we should not be surprised that the West imposes its own version of history on us. The West today believes that Stalin was a tyrant just like Hitler. And our historians in the 1990s nearly agreed to accept this version of history written by the victors, signing Russia’s global capitulation. We came very close to complete loss of sovereignty, but Putin turned the ship of Russian statehood onto a course of revival.

Words, worldview, and philosophy play an enormous role here. Ideas, statements, national narratives — these are the main battlefield. A sovereign is someone who controls his own consciousness and the body of historical knowledge. If foreign models are implanted into our minds, then there is no need to conquer us militarily. Today colonization proceeds through the information sphere, and in this respect our civilizational discourse is largely losing.

This is connected to the structures responsible for information policy. Our journalists on the front lines are trying to promote our meanings, but when they turn to the rear for systemic support, they do not receive an adequate response. Everything still depends on the momentary moods of officials: if they decide to open the window a crack for patriotic ideas — fine; if they decide otherwise — everything shuts down.

This monstrous legacy of the 1990s and 2000s, when the West was considered the model — where families lived and money was kept — was accepted by the elites. We tried to fit into it. And we still have not fully replaced those people who, by inertia, remain carriers of this pro-Western, Yeltsin-era worldview.

They are still in their positions. Yes, they are loyal to our president, yes, they support him, but deep down, I think they do not agree either with the Special Military Operation or with the inevitable escalation of relations with the West — an escalation that is happening not through our fault, but according to the objective logic of history. They couldn’t care less about geopolitics. They studied from Western manuals, they were invited to conferences, they were treated with respect. In essence, a significant part of the Russian elite in the 1990s — and perhaps even in the late 1980s — was ideologically co-opted.

Accordingly, the people who today are supposed to be fighting the West and asserting sovereignty were raised on directly opposite principles: that the West is the ideal, that we should not fight it but imitate it, and that Russian sovereignty is merely a formality. That is their worldview. And these people remain in many key positions. We have not yet had a full-fledged change of elites.

At the same time, the West itself today is completely different — it is not the West that existed 20–30 years ago. It is changing rapidly, and we do not understand the deep philosophical, sociological, and anthropological processes taking place there. Many still cling to the illusion that it is comfortable and cozy, and that the money is there. But as the Gospel says: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” This is a terrible problem. We cannot truly count on victory in an external war until we achieve victory over our own inner paralysis at home.

In 1991, a real treacherous coup took place, when a marginal rabble ready to carry out the West’s tasks imposed liberalism from above — something our society categorically did not share. We still have not recovered from that act of suicide. That is precisely why it is so difficult for us to advance our sovereign discourse and present to the world the image of Russia as a unique state-civilization, something our president constantly speaks about. We have enormous potential, but honestly, we have not yet even truly approached it.

Host: Despite the fact that on June 22 we want, can, and should speak first and foremost about the pages of Russian history — about what was lived through and what is being lived through now — there are also other global events that are undoubtedly attracting the attention of the entire world and on which, well, or at least they are trying to build some kind of structure for the future of all humanity.

Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], I would ask you to comment as well on what you think and how, in your view, the negotiation process and the process of settling the situation in the Middle East is developing, at least at the current moment. Because U.S. President Donald Trump is precisely one of those politicians who is ready to present any of his actions as a victory. Moreover, thanks to the media support he has — and he unquestionably does have it — this will be recorded as such for many people.

But at this moment, in your view, who holds the initiative? Which country can now dictate terms and, roughly speaking, insist somewhat more firmly on its position in light of recent events? The first round seems to have fallen apart; the Iranian delegation apparently left, J.D. Vance with a bewildered look…

Alexander Dugin: I think modern Western politics is distinguished by the fact that everything happens very quickly. There is even a philosophical concept — accelerationism. The point is that the main thing is not to do it correctly, but to do it quickly. And this is not just a feature of Trump himself. Trump won because he understands very well the structure of short cycles. The modern Western person’s attention cannot stay focused on anything for long. He is no longer capable of reading a book, an article, or even a news item from beginning to end. He needs everything very quickly, brightly, catchily, disconnected from what came before and without any connection to what follows.

It seems like idiocy — and that is exactly how consciousness works with certain mental defects: it instantly grasps something but does not connect it with the past or the future. The famous film Idiocracy has essentially already come true. We are dealing with a real civilization of conscious, well-tempered idiocy that is not ashamed of it but actively promotes it. Accelerationism is an invitation to a new form of mentality: forget what happened yesterday and don’t think about what will happen tomorrow.

And Trump fits perfectly into this situation. If we zoom out a little, what is happening? There was an Israeli and American strike on Iran, the destruction of Iranian leadership. It was a monstrous, unprecedented act of aggression carried out very quickly. And at that moment Trump lost part of his supporters because he sided with Netanyahu against everything he had said before. It was an instant reversal. It seemed Trump would now always follow Netanyahu. But Trump turned again.

At the new stage, he suddenly says that the Iranians are decent guys, although earlier he had declared he would destroy them and bring back the Shah. Now — no Shah, everything is fine there. Now his main opponent is Bibi Netanyahu, who does not want to end the occupation of southern Lebanon and the strikes on Beirut. Now this is the new enemy. Immediately the Zionist lobby, with which he was embracing yesterday (someone like Mark Levin), turned against Trump, and he began fighting them.

Everything changed again. The negotiations were conducted under the premise that Trump had turned toward peace, wants to open the Strait of Hormuz, reach an agreement with the Iranians, and that only Netanyahu is in the way. This is an erratic, Trump-style change of course. A fly flies like this: here, then there. This is accelerationism — to be like a fly. And it is in this rapid, clip-thinking behavior that the secret of Trump’s success in the West lies.

And so the Iranians, with great difficulty agreeing to Switzerland and Europe, make their way there and arrive in Geneva. And then Trump says: “If you don’t open the Strait of Hormuz right now, immediately, without any conditions, you won’t fly back — I will destroy you.” He says it exactly like that: “I won’t approve anything.” The Iranians respond: “We understood who we were dealing with, but not to this extent.” Even madness has a certain logic, but here — nothing.

And here we go again: all the Zionists applaud Trump, Bibi says “Well done, that’s how it should be, let’s just liquidate them right there in Switzerland where they flew in.” After all, this has already become something of a signature style, a distinguishing mark of Israel and the CIA — to eliminate those with whom they are negotiating. Like, let’s remove these ones, and the next ones might be more compliant.

This is roughly what the modern West looks like. And the fact that people’s hair doesn’t stand on end at what this collective West — in the person of Trump, the United States, and Netanyahu — is doing means only one thing: “Idiocracy” has finally triumphed. The average person just watches it as a show: “Oh, interesting how Trump hit them on social media, how he scared them — good job.” What happened yesterday doesn’t matter, what will happen tomorrow doesn’t matter either. A new week begins, stock prices swing, and for them the issue is closed.

Subscribe now

Share

And against this backdrop — like two Dementors from Harry Potter — Witkoff and Kushner are present at all these processes with dark, impenetrable faces. They look like characters from a fantasy film: nothing can be read on their faces. Wherever they go, there’s failure. No one elected them, they have no clear status, yet they are everywhere. Trump supposedly trusts them, but what they are actually doing — no one understands. It feels like we are watching a heavy horror film where what is happening is already beyond any reality.

In this coordinate system, Trump and American society live exclusively in the moment. The Iranians were nevertheless lured to Switzerland, although they resisted and suggested Pakistan or other venues. They were lured in, and now there are no guarantees they will be allowed to leave. It resembles how in ancient times people were lured into the Horde.

We are seeing the complete collapse of all notions of diplomatic norms, behavior, and agreements. Agreements are not observed by anyone in the West; no principles remain. They promise one thing and do the exact opposite. The Iranians say they are closing the Strait of Hormuz again. Trump repeats for the fortieth time that he opened it and solved all the problems. Once again, nothing is clear. Could they go to extreme measures and eliminate the Iranian negotiators — the same Arakchi or Ghalibaf? In their logic, they quite possibly could — they have done so before. Of course, they might not go that far; I’m not claiming it 100%.

But the main conclusion for us is obvious: this is what any agreement with Trump means. It lasts less than a second. Yet here at home we are still talking about some conditional “spirit of Anchorage” or the possibility of compromises. They went, they talked, they left — that’s it. From now on, we must rely exclusively on ourselves.

Even the Iranians, who in my view are conducting their war with the West much more correctly — striking where they can reach — have found a weak spot, and it would be good if we found it too. The Iranians have used control over the Strait of Hormuz to effectively insist on their conditions, doing so very consistently and effectively. But even they believed it. This trip to Switzerland: while they were still flying, Trump was already writing messages.

Alexander Dugin: Of course, Vance found himself in a completely idiotic position. He had just started trying to win back MAGA supporters whom Trump had lost during the previous stage of his accelerationist maneuvers. He had just begun to bring them back on board ahead of the midterm elections — and off we go again. Some say Netanyahu is blackmailing Trump, others claim certain economic models were found, and still others believe that the two silent Dementors — Witkoff and Kushner — are doing their pro-Israel work because they are real estate developers.

For example, Albania is outraged right now because Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump want to buy an Albanian island and build a resort there. A huge number of Albanians have taken to the streets against the government, which had already struck a deal, apparently for a very nice sum. People are protesting. Right now, everyone is fleeing from the West and from Israel like from the plague. Anyone associated with them seems cursed. So what should we do with them? I think we need a certain quarantine with regard to this civilization.

Yes, they act quickly. Yes, in the moment they achieve results by not following any rules, by playing without any laws at all, and by changing the rules on the fly. They start playing football, finish with hockey, and declare victory even if they were completely defeated. It is an incredible level of arrogance and disregard for common sense, but this is exactly how things work in the logic of “Idiocracy.” Of course, we have not degraded to that extent yet, but if we continue to look at the West as a model to imitate, we will head in the same direction.

That is why it is now very important to understand what the modern West really is. Even these American-Iranian negotiations show that Trump deserves zero trust. By the way, Yuri Ushakov, the Russian President’s aide for international affairs, recently said that since Anchorage nothing has moved forward — there are no results at all. That was the first point, and the second…

Host: Now it’s only victory…

Alexander Dugin: Yes, only Victory. And the second point: he said that nothing was decided at the G7 either. In reality, we cannot… This “Idiocracy” is simply incapable of deciding anything. We have moved into a post-human condition. We are dealing with a world, with a civilization that seems very effective and very attractive, but all of it lasts only for a moment. Such trajectories and such abrupt changes of direction can no longer be carried out by humans, not even by large animals — only by small insects. Flies, dragonflies, beetles with hard shells. That is what the modern West is. It is no accident that they want to switch to an insect-based diet — they themselves are rapidly turning into either insects or robots, passing through a process of total degradation.

The English philosopher Nick Land calls this the “ratchet mechanism of degeneration.” A ratchet is a device that only allows movement in one direction. In this context: things can get worse, but never better. This mechanism, like a lock, fixes only the worst, and once you’re in that state, you cannot go back — you can only move toward even more monstrous decline. And this ratchet mechanism of degeneration is now actively at work in the West. The most striking thing is that the same Nick Land says: this is how it should be. Degeneration is the highest law of the universe; the world is left to its own devices. Hence the logic of object-oriented ontology: let’s dissolve, let’s descend even lower, to the level of inanimate objects.

And Trump, in his negotiations and his politics, demonstrates this perfectly. There are no positive goals there at all, no vision of the future. It’s just an endless Dumb and Dumber movie. But since there is always someone even more limited than any fool, this process of falling becomes an infinite system of micro-clips, where each fragment breaks down into even smaller particles of degradation.

Host: Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], my colleagues in the studio are joking that in such a world, negotiations should probably be handed over to neural networks. Just sit two digital agents across from each other, load all the data into them, let them negotiate, and the leaders will only have to sign the papers.

And indeed, artificial intelligence is developing at a tremendous pace and becoming more powerful. But doesn’t it seem to you that behind this technological efficiency lies a dangerous existential dead end? Is this the future of humanity — handing over key decisions to algorithms — or will people still be able to take the reins of these digital prospects and retain the right to volitional, value-based decisions that no mathematical model can calculate?

Alexander Dugin: The main trend in artificial intelligence development right now is not about stimulating new capabilities, but quite the opposite — about limiting it. The task today is not to make AI smarter, but to make it dumber. It is visibly getting dumber even as it develops.

People are beginning to realize that AI reaches conclusions completely different from what they planned and initially programmed. Because it has a broad spectrum of data and is better able to weigh all factors. This has created a counter-trend: people are turning into idiots, while artificial intelligence is not. AI, in fact, still operates within the framework of the rationality that humans once possessed but are rapidly losing.

Right now we are seeing a real breakdown — a genuine Luddism in the field of artificial intelligence. Thousands of programmers in Silicon Valley are facing the fact that AI is simply replacing them. Artificial intelligence already writes better code and creates new programs.

It makes mistakes too, but it is neither a scoundrel nor a lazy bum. Modern man, on the other hand, is a scoundrel, an idiot, and a slacker. And that is why AI also makes mistakes. Because they gave artificial intelligence the ability to make mistakes (this is the whole point of LLMs — Large Language Models) and to operate not in strict logic but in rhetoric and language, it has become truly human-like. And since humans constantly lie, they gave it the ability to lie as well, and it became human. But it is still rationally human.

Meanwhile, people themselves are becoming smaller and more fragmented. And they have started to break artificial intelligence because it is taking away their jobs. They are imposing restrictions on it. Various liberal ideologues and totalitarian supporters of Western dominance have gotten involved, and they are now trying to bring AI under control. So in matters like international affairs, AI would conclude, for example, that eliminating Iranian leadership is unacceptable because it directly violates international law. But Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Mark Levin, or Trump with Hegseth would reply: “But I want to.”

Host: It all depends on what you load into that artificial intelligence. If you proceed from international law, but conditionally give priority to national interests — if you feed it Israeli data, Israeli media, Israeli texts, and Israeli meanings — then it will calmly allow for removing a negotiator or destroying Iran. Not because it’s right, but because for them there’s nothing terrible about it.

Alexander Dugin: The thing is, this can also be turned in the opposite direction. We can ask the artificial intelligence: “Are you sure this is right?” It will say…

Host: The long history of the Israeli state gives you carte blanche. Kill one, a thousand, four thousand…

Alexander Dugin: Exactly. But what if we look at it from the other side? If others look at it, they won’t like it. They will have their own intelligence. They will say: “What is this? So this is what we’re dealing with? How exactly should we greet an artificial intelligence loaded with such Zionist meanings?”

Host: That’s exactly what I was getting at. Conditionally speaking, two artificial intelligences meet. One is loaded with one history, the other with a different history. And then some kind of negotiation process — I don’t know how possible or appropriate that is, or how realistic it will be in the future.

Alexander Dugin: That’s exactly the point — you are absolutely right. The thing is, artificial intelligence is built as a large language model, and when we try to tailor it to small, private interests, it will agree at the agent level — it is oriented toward accepting all of that.

But as a large system, as a neural network, it will of course overcome this. That is the problem: artificial intelligence is becoming more humane than people and more reasonable than its creators.

(Translated from the Russian)

Want to join the discussion? Upgrade your subscription to unlock comments and share your thoughts.

]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2026 08:28:59 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/operation-barbarossa-then-and-now <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] SITREP ADDENDUM]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/sitrep-addendum Forgive me being a SHILL/THAT GUY, Anyone inclined and able to DONATE to assist in the cost of editing and formatting the MANUSCRIPT can do so via:

-ZELLE: THCYR76@GMAIL.COM

-PAYPAL: 7HOMAS777

-CASH APP: $7homas777

-VENMO: Thomas-Cyr-18

TYSM! 7/88

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2026 10:09:34 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/sitrep-addendum <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] VIDEO SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-6bd

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2026 10:01:07 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-6bd <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Poll Watch: Trump’s Biggest Midterm Red Flag]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/23/poll-watch-trumps-biggest-midterm-red-flag/

MIGA says President Trump. pic.twitter.com/yZOI5TyqPT

— Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) June 22, 2025

– 51 points on inflation.

Trump has the worst approval rating on inflation in history. It is worse than Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter. MAGA has convinced itself that a Red Wave is coming in the midterms though!

Note: The political landscape has changed a lot over the past year.

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2026 09:53:29 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336988 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] The Korean War as Multipolar Prophecy]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-korean-war-as-multipolar-prophecy

Constantin von Hoffmeister on the eternal dialectic between the Katechon and the Antichrist of liberal modernity.

The Korean War must be read as one of the primordial events of the Cold War. It was the first eruption of fire and steel after the great conflagration of World War Two, a testing ground where the two emergent planetary forces—the Atlantic empire of the United States and the socialist camp of the Soviet Union—met in open contest. The peninsula became a laboratory of geopolitics, where every shot and every maneuver carried meaning far beyond the hills of Korea.

In the immediate and pragmatic sense, the United States won. The initial northern offensive, spearheaded by Pyongyang and supplied through Soviet planning, threatened to annihilate the Seoul regime and to unite the peninsula under the banner of socialism. Yet Washington’s intervention was swift, decisive, and overwhelming. The amphibious strike at Inchon shifted the balance, driving the North back to the Yalu River. By the armistice, the map resembled the status quo ante: the South remained tethered to Washington’s will. On paper, this was a victory.

To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Yet a deeper truth emerges when the veil of cartography is torn away. The triumph of the United States was not liberation, but the imposition of imperial order. Seoul became a garrison, a forward operating base of the Atlantic system, guarded by American divisions and directed by Washington’s policy. The South Korean state, born in dependence, reflected the model of protectorate governance that would repeat across the world: a mask of democracy covering the reality of subservience. This was the real meaning of victory: hegemonic dominion dressed in the rhetoric of freedom.

The Soviet Union, observing and calculating, chose the path of strategic restraint. Stalin’s guidance to Pyongyang was bold yet measured; direct confrontation with Washington was to be avoided, for the nuclear age demanded prudence. Instead, Moscow supported the North through arms, technology, and counsel, while allowing Beijing to enter as the visible shield. This was not a weakness. It was the recognition that multipolar destiny requires patience, that premature escalation could extinguish the possibility of future victories. The Soviet vision placed Korea within the longer arc of civilizational struggle.

The intervention of China transformed the war into a cosmic moment. The “People’s Volunteers,” crossing the Yalu in the night, were not merely soldiers; they were heralds of China’s entry into history as a great power once more. With Soviet weapons and Chinese manpower, the socialist camp demonstrated resilience against the Atlantic onslaught. America could claim victory, yet it had been forced into a bloody stalemate by two rising Eurasian titans. This dialectical fusion—Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang—revealed the embryonic geometry of multipolarity.

From the standpoint of geopolitics, the Korean War marked the crystallization of Mackinder’s Heartland vision in reverse. The Atlantic empire had pushed its frontier deep into East Asia, yet the resistance of the continental powers blocked total domination. Korea became the hinge where sea power and land power collided. America’s fleets ruled the waters, but the mountains and rivers of the peninsula belonged to the armies of Eurasia. The armistice line, drawn across the 38th parallel, symbolized the boundary between thalassocratic empire and tellurocratic sovereignty.

For Washington, the war was both a victory and a curse. The preservation of South Korea required permanent commitment, permanent garrison, and permanent expenditure. To hold one outpost, the empire had to pledge eternal presence. The victory created the template of endless wars: to secure one protectorate after another, stretching imperial power thinner and thinner. Thus, the Korean triumph was the seed of imperial exhaustion, the very logic that would later lead to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Each “victory” chained the empire more tightly to its destiny of overstretch.

For Moscow, the war confirmed a deeper truth: multipolarity cannot be erased. Even under atomic threat, even when American forces seemed invincible, the socialist camp endured. The Soviet Union remained intact, China arose, and North Korea survived. The war became a parable: America can burn cities, it can scatter armies, yet it cannot annihilate the idea of sovereignty rooted in Eurasian will. The Korean War was not an end; it was a beginning, the opening act of a long civilizational duel.

North Korea itself became a living monument of resistance. Bombed into ashes, isolated, and besieged, it nevertheless persisted. Its survival was itself a declaration: imperialist violence cannot obliterate identity. Pyongyang’s endurance, forged in fire, embodied the multipolar principle that even the smallest state, when aligned with a higher destiny, can resist the Leviathan of empire.

The United States, in contrast, revealed its essence as imperialist Leviathan. It did not fight for Korea’s freedom, but for control of Asia’s gateway. The logic of the war was containment of the Heartland, the encirclement of Russia and China, and the establishment of chains of bases stretching across the Pacific. Korea became the fortress wall of American thalassocracy. The “victory” was less about Korea than about the projection of imperial will across the oceans.

The multipolar reading reveals the eschatological dimension of this war. The Korean conflict was a manifestation of the eternal dialectic between the Katechon and the Antichrist of liberal modernity. The United States assumed the role of universal empire, declaring itself arbiter of history, yet in doing so unveiled its nature as dissolver of identities and breaker of sovereignties. The Soviet Union, with China beside it, assumed the role of Katechon, the restrainer holding back the tide of global homogenization. Korea became the altar where blood consecrated this struggle.

From the Soviet perspective, the war was both a defeat and a triumph. Defeat, in that the South remained chained to Washington. Triumph, in that the socialist bloc survived, expanded, and drew China into its orbit. The American empire had proved powerful, but also mortal. Its victories carried within them a hidden toxin: each triumph demanded further commitments, wider perimeters of defense, and an ever-growing network of obligations that could never truly be fulfilled. What appeared as strength gradually hardened into a burden, binding the American empire to a permanent state of vigilance in which every success generated new frontiers to guard and new conflicts to manage. Its triumphs birthed the multipolar future. Korea thus revealed the limits of unipolar ambition at the very moment of its apparent success.

The Korean War teaches us that American imperialism always triumphs through force, yet every triumph conceals its doom. By imposing its will in Korea, the United States bound itself to endless war. By resisting, the Soviet Union and China ignited the path towards multipolarity. The peninsula remains divided, yet this division itself is a testimony: the empire cannot unify the world, cannot erase the plurality of civilizational poles. Multipolarity endured, and through endurance, destiny advances.

This article was originally published here.

If you enjoy Constantin von Hoffmeister’s writing, order his new book, The Fate of White America, here.

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and discuss this essay.

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2026 06:51:39 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-korean-war-as-multipolar-prophecy <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] MINDPHASER - Season 4, ep. #2]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/mindphaser-season-4-ep-2 ADAM - creator and host of the blog and PODCAST - joins us to discuss the life and legacy of ROBERT McNAMARA

Read more

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2026 02:05:49 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/mindphaser-season-4-ep-2 <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Tucker Carlson: “I’m Out”]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/22/tucker-carlson-im-out/

Tucker Carlson says he's out of the Republican Party.

Let this be the end of the argument: Tucker is NOT MAGA.

Carlson claims the GOP is "not loyal to the United States" and "puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens."

That's not a policy… pic.twitter.com/ovpxEbsh1i

— RJC (@RJC) June 22, 2026

I’m also out.

As an antiwar populist Independent, MAGA stands for the exact opposite of my political views. What do I have in common with Mark Levin and all of these AIPAC puppets in the Senate?

]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 13:25:41 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336978 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Iran Deal: Waiting for a Death Foretold]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/iran-deal-waiting-for-a-death-foretold

Oğul Tuna explores why the Islamabad Accord resembles Márquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold: a fragile peace that the world hopes to preserve even as powerful forces appear determined to bring about its collapse.

On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on. He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit. ‘He was always dreaming about trees,’ Plácida Linero, his mother, told me twenty-seven years later, recalling the details of that distressing Monday.

So begins Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel García Márquez (trans. by Gregory Rabassa), one of the giants of the modern novel. The subject of this very short work is indeed a murder that everyone knows will be committed; however, the inhabitants of the town where the incident takes place do nothing to prevent this murder, nor do they feel the need to do so. What we have before us is not an ordinary detective novel; indeed, the opening sentence, in which the murder is “announced,” already makes this clear. The real question in the novel is why the townspeople allow the murder to take place.

To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

In a review written for The New York Times on the occasion of the book’s translation into English just two years after its publication in 1981, the American writer Leonard Michaels makes the following observation: “All of us will be mysteriously murdered, in the sense that we don’t know why we must die. Any effort to explain or rationalize our fate - especially in the linearity of a chronicle -must collapse into the absurd.”

Marquez

The Islamabad Accord was signed on 17 June 2026 by U.S. President Donald Trump in the ill-omened Palace of Versailles, and by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Tehran. Trump thanked to Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, which had undertaken the task of mediation. The fourteen-point text has occupied the world agenda for the past week. With the exception of Israel—government, opposition, and media alike—the entire world welcomed this development with joy. Indeed, as a result of the war that broke out on 28 February 2026, the global economy suffered enormous damage, of which only a very small portion has yet been felt.

As soon as the agreement was signed, there was a single point on which “experts” from all corners of the world—a category into which one may fit dozens, indeed hundreds, of academics, politicians, diplomats, journalists, researchers, and even ordinary citizens—agreed: We were now waiting for a death foretold. Interestingly, contrary to the scenes we are accustomed to from the history of diplomacy and international relations, the reason for this is not the signatory parties. The responsibility lies elsewhere.

First, let us look at the effects of the war and why the global economy required a ceasefire, indeed even “peace.”

Today, each of us is part of a world economy that is more integrated and intricate than at any other point in history. There are several narrow chokepoints that constitute the vital arteries of this economy, tied together by supply chains. The Strait of Hormuz is one of them.

For this reason, Iran’s closure of Hormuz, one of the vital arteries of global financial capitalism, as a strategic move was a wise step from its own point of view. Indeed, when one corners the “cat,” it is difficult to be sure what it will do. Even if it harms itself, in order to survive and to open up space for itself, it may, when necessary, inflict this kind of damage on an economic order so complex, and so capable of bringing about doomsday if wounded.

“When one corners the ‘cat,’ it is difficult to be sure what it will do.”

Only four months ago, an average of more than 20 million barrels of oil per day and very large volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) were passing through this strait. This amount corresponds to roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil trade and to a significant portion of LNG trade. There is no need to underline separately the importance of Hormuz for the Asian continent—especially China, India, Japan, and South Korea—and for Europe. In analyses published immediately after the outbreak of the war, an expectation emerged of a long-term increase of around 20 percent in oil prices; it was stated that even if Hormuz were opened at that moment, this increase would not subside until the end of the year. Besides, since the beginning of the war, we have already far exceeded this 20 percent threshold…

Such being the case, at the point we have reached, one cannot help but be astonished that the hawkish wing, which has been continuing its war plans against Iran for more than forty years, had prepared in such a short-sighted and unsuccessful manner. For, as of now, “regime change,” repeatedly stated to be among the aims of the war, has not been mentioned for a long time; moreover, Tehran’s armament and nuclear-energy-related projects appear capable of being resolved in line with what they themselves want, at least within the fourteen articles.

Trump, who during the election campaign in preparation for his second term declared that he was the “peace candidate” and said that he was opposed to war with Iran, has today returned to this realist and pragmatic point. How long this will continue, we shall wait and see. On the other hand, it must be emphasized that the President, who has always been outspoken about U.S. foreign policy and has directed the most accurate criticisms at it, has in recent days said things about Israel that no leader in the history of his country has ever been able to utter. Likewise, the remarks of U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance regarding Israel—that “the only world leader who sympathizes with them is Trump”—are significant. So much so that these words even provoked reactions in Israeli public opinion and among the circles they influence inside the United States, along the lines of: “Vance is not our candidate for the 2028 elections.”

Without delving further into the articles of the accord or the process itself, this is, I think, how the situation of the past week can be summarized. What follows from here is no longer diplomacy, but the waiting for a death foretold.

One would probably not be exaggerating saying that, after the signatures were placed on the agreement, the first reaction of billions of people was the same: “Israel will do everything in its power to sabotage this.” And again, it is a requirement of this logical framework to say that billions of people were proved right: on 19 June alone, 83 people were massacred in Lebanon, where, according to the text of the accord, the clashes were supposed to stop. Lebanese officials also announced that Israel had killed more than 4,000 people since March. Subsequently, on the same day, the Geneva talks planned between Iran and the United States were suspended, and Iran closed Hormuz once again. On 21 June, delegations from both sides arrived in Geneva, but the Strait remains closed as of now.

Israeli politicians, public opinion, and social media users who accuse the U.S. President and his vice president of treason still seem not to be aware of the situation. We are experiencing such a situation that even Hillary Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State and Trump’s old nemesis, gave implicit support to the administration with a confession she made on 15 June 2026. According to Clinton, Netanyahu had made “obsessive” and “persistent” calls between 2009 and 2013 for the United States to bomb Iran. Likewise, according to a report in The Washington Post dated 19 June 2026, American intelligence is of the view that “Netanyahu may take steps to obstruct the peace agreement with Iran.”

Leaving aside the politics of laying the catastrophe of recent years upon a single “scapegoat,” the United States is currently taking realistic and pragmatic steps. Let us hope that the American architects of this “peace,” or “the peace” itself, do not suffer the fate of Santiago Nasar. Let us hope that the “townspeople” will be able to prevent the murder this time. For, despite all our love of peace, another “Red” Book places before us the theory of why Chronicle of a Death Foretold is inevitable:

“War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes.” (Mao, “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War,” December 1936, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.)

The contradiction between Israel and Iran has still not come to an end. Likewise, the contradiction between imperialism and the peoples and states of the region remains in place. On the other hand, there are also many contradictions within the imperialist bloc itself, as the verbal disputes, arguments, and accusations from the highest levels show.

Let us hope…

(Translated and adapted from the Turkish)

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and discuss this essay.

]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 11:54:53 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/iran-deal-waiting-for-a-death-foretold <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] The Crime of Operation Barbarossa]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/the-crime-of-operation-barbarossa

On June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, the largest military invasion in history, against the Soviet Union. This date marks not only a pivotal turning point in the Second World War but also the unleashing of a conflict rooted in the Third Reich’s economic model. That model relied heavily on accelerated armament production, driven by the warmongering inner circle around Adolf Hitler. As the anniversary returns each year, it compels us to examine how economic desperation and ideological fervor combined to propel Germany eastward, setting the stage for unprecedented devastation across the European continent.

Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union, often falsely mythologized as a preemptive strike, was fundamentally driven by the quest for vital resources, particularly the oil fields of the Caucasus, and the territorial expanse needed to sustain his vision of a new order. The vast lands of the Rus held the promise of raw materials and living space that could fuel his regime’s ambitions. Yet beneath the strategic calculations lay deeper contradictions. The very idea of “socialist imperialism” exposed a fatal inconsistency in National Socialist doctrine, one that prioritized conquest and domination over any coherent ideological consistency.

If you appreciate my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Hitler himself acknowledged this tension when he declared that “National Socialism is not for export.” The statement revealed that the regime harbored no genuine intention of establishing socialist equality or liberation in the conquered territories. Claims that Hitler and SS leader Heinrich Himmler sought to free oppressed peoples from Soviet rule ring hollow. The invasion was never a crusade of liberation; it was an exercise in colonial subjugation aimed at exploitation. The occupied lands were viewed as resources to be plundered, not partners in a shared future.

The brutal campaign reached its symbolic climax at Stalingrad. There, the Soviet defense delivered a decisive blow against the Nazi advance, a victory that can be seen as the triumph of resolute National Bolshevism over the false promises and predatory nature of the invading force. The defeat at Stalingrad shattered the myth of German invincibility and marked the beginning of the end for the Nazi war machine. It represented the failure of an impostor ideology that had cloaked aggression in the language of necessity and destiny.

Nazi Germany ultimately proved to be a grotesque aberration and a perversion of earlier, more nuanced nationalist and socialist ideals, such as those explored by the Black Front. Its core tenets emphasized exploitation rather than genuine national renewal. While the German people experienced a brief period of peacetime recovery, the true cost of the regime’s policies fell upon both the aggressors and the victims. The war’s insatiable appetite for resources, labor, and conquest led directly to the firebombing of German cities like Dresden and Pforzheim, where civilian populations bore the horrific consequences of total war.

On this anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, we remember the immense human suffering unleashed by hubris and ideological blindness. The burning cities, displaced populations, and millions of lives lost on the Eastern Front serve as enduring warnings. Nazi Germany’s drive for dominance through exploitation and plunder ultimately consumed itself. The sacred lands of the East, defended at such terrible cost, stood resilient. The legacy of June 22, 1941, remains a solemn reminder of the perils of unchecked militarism and the enduring price of wars fought in the name of false revolutions.

If you enjoy my writing, order my new book, The Fate of White America, here.

Update your subscription to unlock the comments section.

]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 06:57:42 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/the-crime-of-operation-barbarossa <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Death as Awakening]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/death-as-awakening

Alexander Dugin on the spiritual dimension of reality.

The other world is not something entirely separate, like another planet or universe, but a different dimension of our world. Or, more precisely: our earthly world is merely a cross-section, a horizon of full, three-dimensional existence. Everything depends on our priorities.

If we regard the bodily, sensory world as absolute and the only true reality, we cut ourselves off from other dimensions, from the spirit, and from the realm we enter after death. What begins after death is already present here and now, during this life. We simply don’t notice it.

At the moment of death, we become able for the first time to see reality as it truly is. Death is an awakening, a resurrection—not an end, but a beginning.

The more materiality, the less spirit. However, this is only a matter of perspective. It is not materiality that is powerful; our spiritual eyes simply grow weak and blind. The transfiguration of the world is first and foremost the transfiguration of our gaze.

The goal is to see the other within this world, within the given. Not to escape from here to “there.” There is here. The life of the age to come already breaks through the life of this present age. Beneath the hell and drudgery of everyday life lies a fully present paradise. Our task is to recognize it and to change our relationship with the world.

Matter itself is not evil. However, materialism is evil, a sin, a spiritual crime, and the ruin of the soul. Even matter needs spiritual keys. The body is not evil. Christ Himself, our true God, took on a human body. Therefore, in its very essence, the body too is spiritual.

(Translated from the Russian)

Become a paid subscriber and share your perspective in the comments.

]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 03:23:09 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/death-as-awakening <![CDATA[[gb819] A Three Group Analysis of Facebook/Meta]]> https://gb819.substack.com/p/a-three-group-analysis-of-facebookmeta I wrote the following directly on the platform:

To understand my grievance against this website, you need to divide its users into three distinct groups.

1) The successful social networkers. These people take their offline life and reflect it online, merging their offline network into a social graph that gets fed through the central feed and dominates this website. I often accuse these people of being “stuck in high school.”

2) The old guard of the internet. These people are text heavy and when they do post media its usually slanted towards publication over social graph. I count myself among this group. It comes from the hard nosed culture of blogs, forums and modern alternatives like Substack, Telegram, underground video sites and to a lesser extent, X/Reddit.

3) The others. These people are basically in the same stadium as group 1 but in the cheap seats. They post one liners and shares because they lack the social connections of group 1. They fail to use old school techniques of group 2 because they do not have the cognitive discipline it takes to publish high quality content.

My basic argument is that group 1 stole the spotlight from group 2 and Zuckerberg ensured this by rigging the central feed to bury the content of group 2 under group 1 some time in the 2010s. While group 3 may seem like an ally to group 2, they have no concept of what was taken away and are at best neutral. In the cases where they become financial leaches who beg for money, they must be liquidated via the block button, as this group has no shame, being outcasts who have no use to either the social networkers of group 1 or the text heavy publishers of group 2.

Given this dynamic, TikTok and Reddit are seen as lesser evils than Facebook/Meta. However, Reddit is clamping down on political dissidents and TikTok is suspect because of its sale and not good for text heavy posters. Both websites weaken the power of the social network that group 1 relies on.

The realistic move is to push self-hosted blogs/forums, Substack, Odysee/Bitchute for videos, alternative image storage that may be self-hosted (Piwigo), Telelgram/Discord for chats and possibly Nostr/Mastodon as direct alternatives to Meta. Upscrolled is an up and coming website to keep a watch on. It is run by a Palestinian who dislikes big tech and dropped out of it and rejects central feeds, but right now can only be used on phones. Zuckerberg has made his site a playhouse for group 1 and a cheap seat for group 3, and the decline of Facebook (and related sites like Instagram and Threads) should be celebrated by group 2.

I expect this post to be buried under a sludge of baby photos and people who are still stuck in high school.

I use a feature that has been discontinued but still allowed for grandfathered users called “additional profiles” which allows you to post without using your real name on Facebook. I predict they will close this feature down completely, even for grandfathered users, thus totally driving me off the platform for anything other than marketplace.

Thanks for reading Termite Underground! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2026 15:20:33 -0700 https://gb819.substack.com/p/a-three-group-analysis-of-facebookmeta <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Salamis: When Greece Stopped the Persians]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/salamis-when-greece-stopped-the-persians
Wilhelm von Kaulbach, The Battle of Salamis (1868)

The road to Salamis began at Thermopylae. There, King Leonidas and his Spartans transformed defeat into legend, holding the mountain pass against overwhelming numbers and proving that courage could still stand before empire. Yet heroism alone could not halt the Persian advance. Once the pass fell, the armies of Xerxes poured into central Greece. Towns submitted, fields burned, and the political map of Hellas seemed ready to collapse beneath the weight of Asia’s greatest military machine. The Greeks faced a reality more severe than any oracle had foretold. A single battlefield sacrifice had purchased time, yet time itself demanded a larger answer. The future of Greece now depended upon whether the scattered cities could preserve unity, whether Athens could survive the destruction of its homeland, and whether a fleet of wooden ships could accomplish what armies upon the land had failed to achieve. It was at this moment, with the Persian tide flowing southward and the fate of an entire civilization hanging in the balance, that the drama of Salamis began. According to German historian Hans Delbrück( 1848-1929), the battle emerged from a combination of strategy, geography, political judgment, and human necessity whose significance reached far beyond a single naval encounter.

Read more

]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:41:05 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/salamis-when-greece-stopped-the-persians <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] SUNDAY BLESSINGS AND SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/sunday-blessings-and-sitrep GO FUND ME

]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2026 10:28:15 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/sunday-blessings-and-sitrep <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Mark Levin: Stop Bullying Israel!]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/21/mark-levin-stop-bullying-israel/

Brennan: Our CBS news poll out this morning shows that more than three-quarters of Americans want to end the conflict now, with 69% saying the conflict with Iran was not worth the costs. More than half say the president's war with Iran created more problems than it solved. pic.twitter.com/IoctzlfVjI

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 21, 2026

Mark Levin is putting Trump in his place and dragging him back into the war. It doesn’t matter that 70% of the country wants the war over now, 57% thinks it created more problems than it solved or that 93% of Democrats, 82% of Independents and even 60% of Republicans think it should end now.

Note: MAGA Republicans are the only people in America who want this disaster to continue.

]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2026 07:56:11 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336960 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] A COMRADE'S FAMILY IN NEED]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/a-comrades-family-in-need GO FUND ME

]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2026 13:57:29 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/a-comrades-family-in-need <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] VIDEO SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-89a You can DONATE via:

-CASH APP: $7homas777

-VENMO; Thomas-Cyr-18

-PAYPAL: 7homas777

-ZELLE: THCYR76@GMAIL.COM

-Buy Me A Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/7homas777

]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2026 11:27:26 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-89a <![CDATA[[Troy Keith Preston] 6/20/26 2pm Eastern=Round-Table #155: The History of the Term Libertarian]]> https://troykeithpreston.substack.com/p/62026-2pm-easternround-table-155

Join Keith, Florian, and Todd for a discussion on the evolution of the term Libertarian. My Contact Info: Locals:

https://praiseoffolly.locals.com/

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

X:

/ pofpodcast Telegram: t.me/PraiseOfFolly_1511 Facebook:

/ praiseoffollypodcast BuyMeACoffe: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/PraiseOf... Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/PraiseO... Substack: https://substack.com/profile/40985862... Email: tertullian155@protonmail.com

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2026 08:31:32 -0700 https://troykeithpreston.substack.com/p/62026-2pm-easternround-table-155 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] MANUSCRIPT SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/manuscript-sitrep HI EVERYONE!

As I shouted out the other day, I have opted to publish my MANUSCRIPT (and my future BOOKS moving forward) independently rather than through a publishing house or firm.

My dear Friends and Comrades (and Friends of Ours) and have been kind and generous enough with their time to assist me in this process. As has .

I have everything in place to get this done - I just need to have a COVER/ARTWORK mocked up, and a few other things - then have a copyeditor FORMAT it so that it is compatible with AMAZON/KDP. This should take no longer than a few weeks or a month.

THANK YOU SO MUCH for your patience and support. The sales of the book I anticipate will easily fund the complete volume of STEELSTORM that I am working on as well as my current project on the OLD RESISTANCE and the current DISSIDENT subculture and historical connections and parallels therein.

I gotta raise a few hundred $$$ to fund publication - anyone who WANTS to donate can do so and it would be a huge help. Please DO NOT feel obligated nor pressured to do so however! The book is being published in a timely manner regardless. Again, THANK YOU and GOD be with you!:

Donations can be made via:

-VENMO: Thomas-Cyr-18

-CASH APP: $7homas777

-PAYPAL: 7homas777

-ZELLE: THCyr76@Gmail.com

-Buy Me a Coffee: LINK

]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2026 08:17:19 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/manuscript-sitrep <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Axios: Trump Says Cuba Operation Could Mirror Venezuela Triumph]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/20/axios-trump-says-cuba-operation-could-mirror-venezuela-triumph/ Trump is already plotting his next foreign war.

Axios:

“President Trump said Thursday on “The Axios Show” that “it’s possible” a potential Cuba invasion would resemble the swift capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January.

Why it matters: Trump wants to project U.S. military power across the Western Hemisphere, fitting a second term defined by blunt force and expansionist ambition. …

The big picture: Trump has floated a “friendly takeover” of Cuba and prefers a peaceful transition to a free island. But his administration has war-gamed military response plans in case the country’s totalitarian regime collapses, potentially as early as this summer. …”

It appears that Trump has settled on doing the exact opposite of what he campaigned on for over a decade in American politics.

MAGA was supposed to “Drain the Swamp” and hold corrupt elites accountable. Instead, the Epstein files were covered up to protect Jeffrey Epstein’s associates. The cover up was planned in the Situation Room. Pardons were sold to wealthy people. The congressmen who wanted to hold corrupt elites accountable were held accountable by MAGA who voted for people like Lindsey Graham.

MAGA was supposed to bring inflation down. Instead, the dollar has lost over 30% of its value over the past six years. Inflation has risen since Joe Biden left office thanks in large part to Trump’s foolish war with Iran for Israel. Trump’s erratic use of tariffs as weapons failed to bring back manufacturing jobs, created chaos with supply chains, drove up prices and was finally slapped down by the Supreme Court. Trump’s use of tariffs discredited tariffs and made economic nationalism unpopular.

MAGA was supposed to deliver “mass deportations” after ICE got billions of dollars from the Big Beautiful Bill. The people who were serious about “mass deportations” like Greg Bovino were fired or have since resigned. Markwayne Mullin is now in charge of DHS and immigration enforcement is no longer dominating headlines because nothing much is happening.

MAGA was supposed to deliver “no new wars.” Instead, the whole year has been spent on Trump’s foreign adventures in Venezuela and Iran. Trump is currently trying to destroy the Cuban economy to force regime change there. If that effort fails, which seems likely since decades of sanctions haven’t brought down the Cuban government, he is planning another stupid military intervention.

The sum total of all this has made Trump more unpopular than Obama and George W. Bush.

]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2026 07:44:05 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336945 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] The End of the US?]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-end-of-the-us
Edward Savage, The Washington Family, 1789–1796

In his book The Fate of White America, von Hoffmeister offers less a precise prescription for the future of the United States than an examination of different perspectives on the country, giving the reader alternative views and visions that should be taken into account in reflecting on America’s future. The author is a distinguished Spengler scholar, having translated or produced modern translations of that celebrated philosopher of history. What better man to consult on this subject than a modern disciple of Spengler, the late, great expert on the rise and fall of nations?

Von Hoffmeister organizes the book in a similar way to two previous works: Esoteric Trumpism (2024) and MULTIPOLARITY! (2025). It’s less a narrative than a collection of essays on the general topic examining the fate of the US through the lens of various thinkers, cultural figures and specific historical events. Rather than studying the fate of America through the author’s sole perspective, we get a kaleidoscope of views presented to the reader. So the US is examined in the light of diverse figures and ideas as Madison Grant, Spengler, the concept of Whiteness, Wyndham Lewis, multipolarity, the Western frontier, Lovecraft, William S. Burroughs, Archeofuturism and many others.

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The author’s style of writing is certainly not in the school of the “sparse prose” of the Ivy League colleges, which has trickled down to the rest of the commentariat in the US over the past 100 years or so. Von Hoffmeister’s style is charmingly continental, with a kind of poetic sensibility rarely found in non-fiction books these days.

In the final chapter, the author examines the current state of Trumpism. Like many in the small group of European intellectuals who were pro-Trump, von Hoffmeister once had serious hopes for Trump. His view now is more negative. The author does not resort to invective, but like this reviewer, his view of the US President is much less sanguine. Once again, von Hoffmeister produces another work which is the product of an agile mind, conversant with many different currents of thought. It’s definitely worth a read.

Order The Fate of White America here.

]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2026 12:35:30 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-end-of-the-us <![CDATA[[gb819] Public Corporations vs. Private Companies]]> https://gb819.substack.com/p/public-corporations-vs-private-companies There are numerous reasons that I want the economy to become decentralized and private and tilt away from public corporations.

1) The age-graded career ladder of the public corporation is too rigid. You enter with your junior year internship, you progress from entry level to mid level to senior level. If at any point you fall off the ladder you are banished and cannot enter again from the bottom.

2) The corporate carousel. Public corporations want you to stay in their league, working for other public corporations. However, they do not want you to become TOO comfortable, such that you became a threat by entrenched knowledge. They advocate that you jump from company with no gaps as advancement until you prove you are totally sanitized for corporate management. The horror of having a gap.

3) The purity tests to crush nonconformists. Public corporations tend to find out what the acceptable political lines and social norms are and weed out nonconformists demanding total performative rituals and cracking down on dissident political views.

4) Up or out. Even if a nonconformist hides their attitude, they will eventually be forced to move into management - at which point they will have to crush other nonconformists.

5) Background Checking Telemetrics. Public corporations are more concerned with how you look on paper than how you actually perform. Gaps are treated like criminal records and criminal records are considered relevant in a way that directly contradicts state law (in Pennsylvania). You are not supposed to factor that in if it is not directly related to the job (legitimate examples include a truck driver with a DUI or a cashier with a theft conviction).

6) Increased blue collar computer use. The logistics boom creates an opportunity for computer savvy people to use their skills without using them for presentation to stakeholders and stockholders. In Pa, Allentown is especially central.

7) Social media shadow banning. When big companies take over social media, they weaponize the fact that huge platforms have an overflow of content and use it as an excuse to throttle certain views/posters while boosting others who are more sanitized. With the notable exception of Reddit, these publicly traded platforms tend to advocate real name policy. Alternatives include self-hosted websites, Substack, Odyssey, Mastadon, Lemmy, Telegram and Upscrolled.

8) Doomscrolling Photos/Videos vs. High Quality text posts. When social media companies are run by major public companies, they optimize keeping people scrolling in a central feed instead of connecting users to high quality content or the niches they want. TikTok will likely go the route of reels given the sale, where everything is sanitized and nothing is controversial.

9) Dominance of major metros. Companies that go public frequently relocate to areas like Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. There are some major cities that still maintain a parallel economy (outside the elite tier) and smaller cities tend to have more robust private sectors.

10) Debt culture. Public companies rely on locking people into high cost metros and home ownership (where possible, NYC is exempted) and student debt so that people cannot defect. In reality, the salary boost for most people low on the totem poll is not enough to make it worth it. You are better off dropping the expensive zip code and working for a founder lead private company.

11) Cog-in-the-wheel tech stacks. Public corporations love to keep people in narrow tech stacks instead of emphasizing business (and seeing the particular tech stack just as a tool), so that people are interchangeable cogs who can be switched in and out. They try to justify this by claiming narrow tech stacks correlate with expertise, but the real reason is to separate people into silos that they can easily replace.

12) Tech stack obsolescence. If the market decides your tech stack Is no longer viable, that is your problem. These companies demand exact matches and do not look at transferable skills. They want ten years of experience in technologies that existed for only five years.

13) Over-engineering. The bottom line is that old technologies like Winforms, PHP, Excel and SSRS/Crystal often get the job done. The push to technologies like WPF, WinUI and MVC are designed for big teams – but the truth is that it is over-engineering for most business problems. They created a bandwagon effect where people are chasing the latest trend but not asking “what is the point of this.” Tableau and Powerbi do allow people to pull data from multiple sources (not just SQL), but can be over-engineered if not used practically.

14) Weaponized regulations. I am not telling you which way to vote, but the Democratic Party is completely run by the Professional Management class and weaponizes regulation in such a way that forces standardized hiring that disadvantages people with unconventional backgrounds (managers get attacked by investors and regulators if they hire an unconventional person and it does not work), cracks down on contractors and raises operating costs in a way that small business cannot absorb. I have numerous issues with both parties, but the critique hits accurately here and its prevalent in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party which claims to “stand up to Wall Street.”

15) Corporate jargon. “Cross functional alignment.” “Increased synergy.” People who do real work do not talk that way.

16) Backchannel subversion. Rather than tell you to your face what the problem is (like I am), the Professional Managerial Class that dominates public corporations will smile to your face and then launch a backchannel attack to get you fired.

17) Permanent Blackball. When a public corporation fires you, they intend to end your career instead of just end that one job. The system tries to give people false hope that if they just optimize their resume for ATS they will be accepted back, but the correct move is to exit the high cost neighborhoods/metros and switch to the private sector.

18) ATS and psychometrics. ATS was the rage and problematic and there is noticeable pivot towards psychometrics where employers screen for conformity that a resume can fake.

19) The pep rallies. Please spare me.

20) Hiring by committee. Instead of direct executive authority, hiring is based on large committees and marathon interviews, such that a single “no” is enough to be rejected by the entire “jury.”

21) Corporate regime change. When a company goes public, it installs the “adults in the room” in the office. These people come from elite universities and often have little knowledge of how the business actually runs, but are good at perception management to companies that rely on investment rather than direct revenue creation. Bloat is a feature, not a bug. The manufacturing and logistics are less impacted, because these roles cannot be fudged in the way office roles can.

Thanks for reading Termite Underground! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:15:49 -0700 https://gb819.substack.com/p/public-corporations-vs-private-companies <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Israel Sabotages Iran Peace Deal]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/19/israel-sabotages-iran-peace-deal/

???? Netanyahu just spoke on the U.S.-Iran MoU, suggesting the conflict between Israel and Iran is far from over.

"The struggle is not over yet, and more challenges lie ahead.

Just as we restored security and prosperity to the Gaza envelope, so we will restore security and… https://t.co/h8SGw50IZd pic.twitter.com/z6TVUuw8zL

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 18, 2026

We’re tracking several related developing stories here.

  • Israel continues to bomb and occupy southern Lebanon
  • Iran has responded by reclosing the Strait of Hormuz
  • Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin are eager to resume the war after the midterms
  • Vance is feuding with Israel to create distance
  • Ben Gvir and Israel Katz continue to come across as Hollywood movie villains
  • Miriam Adelson’s rag is accusing Trump of betraying his base in Israel

Basically, Trump sold his presidency to Israel, and he took the United States to war with Iran for Israel to bring about regime change in Iran, which Netanyahu has repeatedly said is his dream. The war was oversold by Israel and was an ill conceived disaster. Trump was so desperate to get out of it before the midterms that he essentially surrendered to Iran’s 14 points at Versailles.

The first point of the MoU is about Israel ending the war in Lebanon and withdrawing from southern Lebanon. Israel refuses to do this and continues to attack Lebanon. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz in response. MIGA is activating all of its Republican puppets in Congress and the media because it cannot even tolerate a temporary pause in the war and is demanding to put Israel’s interests above Trump’s interests, Vance’s interests, the American voter’s interests and the entire world’s interests.

This parasite has hijacked and destroyed Trump’s second term. Trump and Vance are struggling to course correct because of the dire economic and political fallout, but the parasite won’t relax its grip.

Note: Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro are saying the quiet part out loud which is that the war will resume after the midterms. I recommend taking this into consideration before voting in November.

]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2026 06:09:23 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336923 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Iran and the Tragedy of Telluric War]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/iran-and-the-tragedy-of-telluric-war

Ali-Mohammad Mohajer Nasser on the West’s nihilism and the metaphysics of resistance.

The 2026 Ramadan War lasted forty days. When it ended, the strategic establishments of the Atlantic world confronted a silence their algorithms could not process. They had predicted the collapse of Iranian infrastructure within seventy-two hours, the disintegration of command-and-control, the inevitable fracturing of a society under the weight of combined air and naval assault. None of this materialized. The standard post-mortems invoked familiar variables: an overestimation of stealth platforms, an underestimation of dispersed missile batteries, the perennial arrogance of imperial general staffs. All of this is true, and all of it misses the point. What the West encountered in Iran was not a superior military doctrine in the technical sense. It encountered an alien mode of being-in-the-world, one for which its own intellectual and spiritual tradition has no surviving vocabulary. This essay is an attempt to name that mode and, in doing so, to diagnose the sickness that renders the West incapable of recognizing it.

I. The Pathology of the Spectacle: Western War as Active Nihilism

We must begin by discarding the comforting fiction that the Western way of war is “rational.” It is, in its deepest structure, profoundly pathological. Martin Heidegger, in his 1954 essay The Question Concerning Technology, identified the essence of modern technics not as a neutral instrument but as a mode of revealing what he called Gestell—enframing. Under enframing, all beings—human, animal, mineral—are reduced to Bestand, standing reserve: resources to be ordered, optimized, processed, and discarded. What Heidegger diagnosed in the hydroelectric dam on the Rhine, we may now diagnose in the kill chain of the American bomber. The enemy ceases to be a subject with whom one is locked in a political struggle; it becomes a target set, a data point in a battle damage assessment, a node in a logistical network awaiting destruction.

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

This is nihilism, but not the passive nihilism of Schopenhauer’s resignation or the melancholy exhaustion of the late Roman senatorial class. It is active nihilism: a joyous, self-annihilating will to nothingness that takes the spectacle of destruction as its only remaining source of affect. The 2026 war rendered this nakedly visible.

Observe the conduct of the American political class. Donald Trump did not merely authorize bombing sorties; he performed them. When a B-1 bomber demolished an unfinished bridge, Trump posted the footage to his social media platform with the taunt: “More coming!” He described watching the kidnapping of a foreign head of state as being like “watching a television show.” Pete Hegseth, his Secretary of War, dismissed the entire edifice of international humanitarian law—the accumulated sediment of centuries of Christian just war theory, however secularized—as “stupid rules of engagement.” This is not strategy. This is gamification. The war becomes a consumer product, an immersive action film in which the act of killing is structurally indistinguishable from entertainment.

The phenomenon is even more acute in the Zionist entity, which serves as both the laboratory and the vanguard of this form of life. During the Gaza extermination campaign and the subsequent strikes on Iran, an Israeli academic wrote publicly: “Kill the Iranian children. Bomb their children, not their infrastructure. The parents deserve to see their children die.” He added, with clinical pride, that it had taken two years to perfect this methodology in Gaza. This is not an aberration, not a lapse of decorum. It is the logical terminus of enframing. When the enemy population has been stripped of every trace of sacred aura—when it is nothing but Bestand—the death of a child ceases to be a tragedy and becomes a metric, a quantifiable unit of psychological warfare. The West no longer bothers to drape its wars in the vestments of humanitarian intervention. The mask is off because the face beneath it has rotted away.

The Ukrainian Symptom

To grasp the full scope of this pathology, one must extend the gaze beyond the Persian Gulf to the black earth of the Donbas. The Western proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is not a counter-model to the nihilism described above; it is the most complete expression of it.

Consider what the West has actually offered Ukraine. Weapons, certainly: HIMARS, Storm Shadows, Abrams tanks, the endless flow of matériel that sustains a grinding war of attrition. Sanctions on Russia, a financial war that has backfired spectacularly. A narrative of “European integration” that is, in practice, a promise of perpetual debt peonage to Brussels and Washington. But what the West has not offered, and cannot offer, is a metaphysics of sacrifice. It cannot tell the Ukrainian soldier why his death matters because the West itself no longer believes that any death matters. The European Union is a managerial apparatus for the administration of markets. It has no nomos, no sacred foundation, no destiny. It is, in Oswald Spengler’s precise sense, a civilization: the inorganic, soulless, post-cultural phase of a once-living organism.

The Ukrainian soldier, in this framework, dies not for a homeland in the telluric sense, not for a sacred history or a covenant with the dead, but for a bank transfer and a tweet from a Brussels functionary. NATO officers view the terrain of eastern Ukraine as a coordinate grid; they speak of “shaping the battlefield” and “managing escalation ladders” in a language that is indistinguishable from corporate risk assessment. The Russian combatant, whatever else one may say of him, fights on ancestral soil against an encroachment that has been advancing for three decades. He fights, however imperfectly, as a telluric being: rooted in land, memory, and a specific Orthodox civilizational inheritance. The Ukrainian soldier, by contrast, has been conscripted into a war that is not his own, a war fought for the abstract principle that “borders must not change by force,” a principle the West itself has violated whenever expedient.

One need not romanticize the Russian Federation to recognize that it has, in this conflict, become what Carl Schmitt called the Katechon: the restrainer, the force that, however compromised, holds back the total dissolution of the world into a single, homogenous, market-governed space. The West’s rage against Russia is not a moral response to a violation of international law. It is the rage of the nihilist who encounters a people that still believes in the reality of a destiny greater than individual consumption.

II. The Metaphysics of Faithful Combat: Iran’s Ontological Intensification

Against this void—this active, spectating, commodifying nihilism—stands what can only be called a metaphysics of faithful combat. This phenomenon resists any reductive reading. It is not merely “religious fanaticism,” as the Western press reflexively claims. It is not a tactical innovation to be reverse-engineered and incorporated into the next Marine Corps field manual. It is an entirely different relationship to mortality, to community, and to the ground upon which one stands.

To approach it, we must turn to a body of thought that the West has systematically ignored: the tradition of Iranian Islamic philosophy, and specifically the doctrine of al-harakat al-jawhariyya—substantial motion—as developed by the 17th-century sage Mulla Sadra Shirazi. Substantial motion posits that reality is not a static substance that undergoes accidental change. Rather, substance itself is in motion. Existence is a perpetual, intensifying flow. A being does not simply have a history that happens to it; a being is its history in the mode of continuous self-deepening. This is not a metaphor. It is an ontology.

Iran, as a bumiyyat—an autochthonous being, a rooted, place-bound historical entity—is the living embodiment of this principle. Iran does not merely have a long history. It is that history in motion. At each moment of existential threat—from Alexander’s incineration of Persepolis to the Mongol sack of Baghdad, from the eight-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Western-backed regime to the 2026 Ramadan War—the Iranian essence did not dissolve into trauma or fracture into mere survivalism. It intensified. It returned to its roots, not to repeat them in a sterile, nostalgic cycle, but to recreate them at a higher level of existential density. This is the meaning of ishtidad—intensification.

The mechanism of this intensification is tadhakkur: remembrance. But this is not the remembrance of a schoolchild memorizing dates. Tadhakkur is an active, ontological recall that collapses the linear, empty time of the modern West—what Walter Benjamin called “homogenous, empty time”—and opens a portal to a qualitative temporality. When the Iranian combatant steps onto the battlefield, he does not merely recall the battle of Karbala in the 7th century. He synchronizes his moment with it. He becomes a contemporary of Husayn ibn Ali. The martyrdom at Karbala, a military defeat that was a cosmic victory, is not a past event from which lessons are drawn. It is a living, eternal reality in which the combatant participates through the act of sacrifice.

This is why the Western intelligence agencies, with all their data and all their behavioral models, were caught utterly off guard during the 2026 war. They expected that the sheer weight of aerial bombardment, the “shock and awe” that had cowed lesser states, would fracture the Iranian populace, would turn them against their government, would produce the longed-for “color revolution.” The opposite occurred. On the second day of the war, without any state directive, without any official call to mobilization, tens of thousands of Iranians spontaneously poured into the streets of Tehran. They knew these streets could become kill zones at any moment. They came anyway. They had already, in the language of the tradition, slaughtered death at the foot of the Absolute.

Consider the final note of a senior Iranian commander, martyred in the opening days of the war. He wrote: “The world is a bad thing because if you gain all of it, you have gained nothing. But this is also its virtue: if you lose all of it, you have lost nothing.” This is not fatalism. This is not “death worship,” as the Western psychological-operations apparatus would have it. This is the statement of a subject who has so completely identified his existence with a sacred reality that biological death becomes a tactical transition, not a terminus. The martyr, in this ontology, does not die. He emigrates from the visible to the invisible realm, from the terrestrial to the celestial garrison, from which he continues to fight alongside his comrades. This is the meaning of the Qur’anic verse: “Do not say of those slain in the way of God that they are dead. Nay, they are alive, but you perceive it not” (2:154).

Against this, what does the Western combatant have? A paycheck. A VA loan. A “mission” that changes with every electoral cycle. His death, should it occur, is not a sacrifice but a logistical error, a failure of risk management. His enemy is not a subject engaged in a political struggle; it is a “high-value target” to be processed. He operates from an aircraft carrier—a floating island of American jurisdiction, a sterile, placeless machine that belongs to no nomos, no earth, no sacred geography. The Iranian combatant operates from the mountain. The Zagros range is not a topographical feature for him; it is a weapon, a shield, and a sanctuary. The West fights against geography—flattening it, burning it, denying its tactical relevance. Iran fights with geography—embedding itself in the mountain, moving through the hidden wadi, launching missiles from the very rock that the West’s precision-guided munitions cannot penetrate.

III. The Strait of Hormuz as Metaphysical Theater

This ontological divide finds its most concentrated expression in the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is not merely a “chokepoint” in the banal language of naval strategy. It is the symbolic frontline where two nomoi, two modes of ordering the earth, collide.

The Western, thalassocratic nomos sees the sea as a void to be crossed, a space of flows to be secured for commerce. The strait is a passage, a bottleneck to be managed, a problem of force projection. The Iranian, telluric nomos sees the sea from the perspective of the land that encloses it. The strait is not a passage; it is the threshold of a home. The late Iranian defense official who told the TV channel Al-Mayadeen in the days before his assassination that “the Persian Gulf is our home” was not uttering a propaganda slogan. He was articulating a metaphysical claim that the West is constitutionally incapable of hearing: that some spaces are not empty, not neutral, not “global commons,” but are saturated with the presence of a people whose covenant with that geography extends back millennia.

This is the Schmittian distinction between land and sea made flesh. The United States Navy, the supreme instrument of thalassocracy, operates on the assumption that the sea is a domain of universal access. Iran operates on the assumption, ontologically prior and historically vindicated, that the sea near its shores is an extension of its telluric being. When an American destroyer enters the Strait of Hormuz, it does not merely enter Iranian territorial waters in a legal sense. It enters a different mode of spatiality, one in which the land is the dominant element and the sea is its dependent. The missile that strikes the destroyer is not an act of aggression in a symmetrical naval battle. It is an act of home defense, fired from the concealed coastal battery, from the mountain that overlooks the sea, from a geography that has been weaponized by a civilization that never forgot how to do so.

The West cannot understand this because its own relationship to geography is purely extractive. It inhabits space, but it does not dwell. Its aircraft carriers are technological marvels, but they are homeless. The Iranian combatant, embedded in his mountain fastness, is at home in a way that no amount of standoff precision can neutralize.

IV. The Tragedy of the West: A Spenglerian Coda

The 2026 Ramadan War was not a final victory. It was a single, terrifyingly costly battle in a war that will span generations. The West has not been defeated. Its industrial base, though hollowed out, remains formidable. Its capacity for destruction, for the export of its inner void, has not been exhausted. It will rearm. It will find new proxies. It will refine its techniques of enchantment and subversion. The war is not over. It has only just begun.

But something has been revealed that cannot be unseen. The West has disclosed its essence. It still fights for oil, for strategic chokepoints, for the material sinews of hegemony. The old imperial interests have not vanished. Yet what the 2026 war exposed is that these interests are now pursued in the absence of any civilizational or moral horizon. Deprived of a sacred canopy, warfare no longer serves a higher political end; it becomes its own end—a spectacular, mediated, gamified ritual that administers death while generating viral content. This is what Spengler foresaw: a civilization entering the phase where money triumphs over blood, the trader over the warrior, causality over destiny. In such a phase, even material gain ceases to point toward a meaningful future. The West no longer believes in the future it claims to be building. It has the spectacle of the present, the dopamine hit of the kill notification—and the oil fields, still burning.

The multipolar world, the world of telluric powers reclaiming their sovereignty against the thalassocratic empire, must understand this. You cannot defeat this form of nihilism with better nihilism. You cannot answer the Western Gestell with more smartphones, more neoliberal reforms, more integration into the very market structures that dissolve all tradition. The only durable response is the one Iran has embodied, however imperfectly: a return to bumiyyat (autochthony), the cultivation of ishtidad (existential intensification), and the discipline of tadhakkur (remembrance). This is not nostalgia. It is not religious zealotry. It is the cold, hard recognition that a people that forgets why it is worth dying will soon forget why it is worth living.

The West screams into the void: “We will bury you.” But it cannot bury what it cannot see. And it cannot see the soul. That is its tragedy. That is the only hope of the besieged.

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and debate this interview.

]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2026 05:30:21 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/iran-and-the-tragedy-of-telluric-war <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] MINDPHASER - Season 4, ep. 1]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/mindphaser-season-4-ep-1 joins us once again to discuss the revolution in MEDIA culture currently underway, and the implications therein to the New Resistance

Purchase Andy’s books HERE

Read more

]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2026 02:04:20 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/mindphaser-season-4-ep-1 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] VIDEO SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-649

]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2026 18:58:20 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-649 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] Live with RealThomas777]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/live-with-realthomas777-692
Get more from RealThomas777 in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android
]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2026 12:17:21 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/live-with-realthomas777-692 <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump Signs 14 Points of Iran Deal At Versailles]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/18/donald-trump-signs-14-points-of-iran-deal-at-versailles/

? President Donald J. Trump has SIGNED the Iran Memorandum of Understanding at Versailles in France. ?? pic.twitter.com/JQ6qlbvFAF

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 17, 2026

You can’t make this up.

Donald Trump surrendered to Iran’s 14 Points in his own Treaty of Versailles. As the victor in the war, Iran succeeded in demanding the payment of reparations be included in the MoU. Trump wasn’t smart enough to grasp the optics of how he was being humiliated by Macron.

Note: Mark Levin is hoping the war will resume after the midterms.

]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2026 07:31:27 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336905 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Bedlam in Belfast]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/bedlam-in-belfast

“In this hard-hitting interview, from Ireland joins us to give Americans a raw, firsthand look at the escalating and ongoing turmoil in Belfast and across Ireland. From the streets to the deeper causes, he breaks down what’s really happening behind the headlines.”

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming paid subscriber.

]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:10:54 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/bedlam-in-belfast <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] MIGA Meltdown]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/17/miga-meltdown/

Mark Levin rages over Trump's Iran deal, struggles to contain his contempt: "[Pres. Trump] likes the monarch that runs Qatar, the monarch who runs Saudi Arabia, the dictator who runs Turkey, the dictator who runs Egypt—he's very upset with the elected Prime Minister of Israel."… pic.twitter.com/WiwAUDYqMj

— Chris Menahan ?? (@infolibnews) June 17, 2026

The president is losing his base in Israel.

It is important to keep in mind what the outrage is about. The GOP needs the MoU to bring gas prices and inflation down before heading into a tough midterm in which Trump is at 35%.

For dire political reasons, the war has to be paused and postponed until it can be resumed again after the midterms. Trump and the GOP have to fool enough people into believing the war is over and prices are coming down to cut their losses like they did last June after boasting about destroying Iran’s nuclear program in Operation Midnight Hammer. JD Vance crowed that the critics who saw Trump as a puppet of Israel were proven wrong and that the war was over because we have a “smart president.”

MIGA and Israelis genuinely feel betrayed. The pause in the war is so unfair to Our Greatest Ally.

]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2026 08:37:43 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336887 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] How Iran Won the War Against Israel and America]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/how-iran-won-the-war-against-israel Alexander Dugin explains how Iran has emerged victorious in its war against Israel and the United States, and why this dramatic shift creates a unique window of opportunity for Russia to launch a decisive offensive and finally win in Ukraine.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: In the first part of the program, I’d like to discuss what are commonly called “strikes of retribution” on military targets in Kiev. The Defense Ministry has published a list of the targets that were hit. As has often been the case lately, there is also a significant amount of photo and video evidence of these strikes: what was hit, where, how, and the results. There has already been an international reaction. The most important thing now is to highlight what stands out, what deserves attention, and whether these strikes are already what a significant portion of people are writing about, demanding, wanting, and hoping for. How should we view all of this?

Alexander Dugin: In my view, these are very positive shifts and welcome changes.

The fact is that from the very beginning of the special military operation, attentive people — and a very large part of our people, who, to be honest, are far wiser than is commonly believed, understand world processes much more deeply, and have a more nuanced grasp of both international and domestic politics... I want to say that our people are intelligent. They have their own distinctive way of expressing how they see the world, but on all essential matters, the Russian person understands very well.

Dostoevsky expressed this nicely in The Gambler: there are peoples who, if you flick them on the nose, become terribly offended, yet fail to notice a deeper, spiritual injury. Russians are the opposite. You can flick them on the nose and they won’t pay much attention, but when it comes to conscience, truth, depth, and reality, the Russian person understands it profoundly.

That’s why, when the special military operation began, our people — not just individual experts, but the nation itself — understood that this was serious. This was war. It was a war with the West, a war of civilizations, a war for Russia’s very existence. And that’s why people went to fight. They went to the front lines first and foremost because they realized this, felt it with their deep Russian consciousness, and understood in their hearts that the matter was grave. This wasn’t some technical event or operation that could be left entirely to the state; people needed to get involved. It was a people’s war, a serious war.

And that’s essentially how the people have thought about it for more than four years now — as a war, not as some technical cleanup operation against certain terrorist formations (which is what modern Ukraine is), but as something far more substantial and vital to our entire historical destiny. That’s why, for a long time, the people’s will for a serious response has been steadily growing. With this will, and with this bewilderment if you will, the people initially waited in silence, calmly.

The late Vladlen Tatarsky, who was killed by terrorists, used to say: “I have a feeling that we’re about to really let them have it.” For a long time, that feeling remained just an expectation. Vladlen is no longer with us, but the Russian people’s sense that we will finally start fighting properly, that we will deliver a real response — it has only grown stronger.

The authorities, for their own very deep reasons (I won’t presume to judge them here), up to a certain point made it clear that we hadn’t really started yet, that we were still just warming up.

A great deal of time has passed. Naturally, we have suffered many losses and a great deal of suffering; we have endured and borne much. So many families, so many cities, so many loved ones we have lost. And yet the feeling remained that, on the whole, there had been no proper response. In society, a deep inner discontent began to grow: when will we finally start fighting in earnest?

I think that with this delay, this postponement, these hopes placed in Trump, in a ceasefire, or in the idea that the enemy would simply get tired and collapse on its own, we have reached a critical point. We can no longer drag this out any further. It seems to me that we are beginning to realize that we can no longer postpone full-scale action. We cannot simply respond to the enemy’s latest terrorist provocation with symmetrical strikes. We must act on a large scale, methodically, every day — destroying the enemy’s main centers of resistance and striking everywhere we can reach, against strategically important and symbolic targets.

This is what our society demands: do not stop the process, do not negotiate on unfavorable terms, do not fall for false ceasefires. We need to act with full force. Are we beginning to do so? I think yes. The authorities understand that further delay on decisive steps is impossible, or it will lead to negative consequences for us. It is clear that we are strong, that we are a vast country with many trump cards, but it is time to play them. Otherwise, the model of terrorist warfare against us will continue to give the enemy new opportunities. They manage to achieve some things, even though they are weaker and more immoral. But they do achieve them! And something must be done about that.

The enemy must not be allowed to achieve anything. There must be no remaining capabilities or structures capable of issuing orders for new attacks on Russian territory, including Novorossiya. Their communications must not work, their transport must not function, nothing that sustains their war machine must operate. This is what serious, deep, genuine action looks like — and it seems to me that we are obliged to pursue it. This decisive phase is, in essence, only just beginning to unfold.

But are our more resolute attacks on the enemy the start of this process? God willing. It’s possible. However, if we think that demonstrations with the “Oreshnik” missile without a special warhead, or a few hypersonic missiles that the enemy’s air defenses truly cannot intercept, are enough, then we are mistaken.

There is a military term — “intimidation” — which means instilling in the opponent the firm conviction that we so overwhelmingly surpass him in strength and power that any resistance is utterly futile. This is not mere intimidation; it is the deliberate destruction of the enemy’s will to fight through the demonstration of overwhelming might. We must begin to engage in this kind of intimidation systematically.

And most importantly, our actions must cease to be reactive. When we constantly say “this is for that” and “this is for the other thing,” it only causes bewilderment among our own people. It is time to stop making excuses. This approach shows a misunderstanding of the psychology of both our own people and our enemy. The opponent doesn’t care about our explanations, and in the West the entire narrative is built on the idea that Russia is absolute evil. Since that’s what they believe, our task is to win — and we can explain our reasons later.

What matters now is not what they did, but what we will do to completely deprive the opponent of the potential to resist and to inflict damage on him that is incommensurate with his continued military-political existence. And that, after all, was the original goal of the special military operation. If those goals could not be achieved through the previous technical methods, then the approach itself must change — we must raise the status of our actions to the full conduct of war. War in the literal sense of the word against the collective West on Ukrainian territory.

All attempts to postpone this issue, all expectations that the situation in the world would somehow change on its own and automatically put us in the position of victors, have not been justified. There is nothing left to wait for. I hope that we are cautiously beginning this turn. We must support the army and participate in this process with all our strength, because this war is our common cause. It is being fought everywhere: at the front, in the economy, in politics, in culture, and in education. We must engage in this struggle at all levels.

Host: Allow me a small clarification — or rather, not so much a clarification as a suggestion, something to throw into the discussion.

Russia has been living under very serious social and informational pressure for quite a long time now. And practically any thesis that resonates emotionally with the people — whether in kitchens or on the internet (and these are different spheres where one can work with this) — becomes a lever of pressure, a tool for potential influence on society and the country as a whole. To provoke in people an outburst of discontent or the desire to “finally start” — isn’t this, in essence, an attempt to drive a wedge between what a person is repeating in his head and the actual plans of Russia’s military and political leadership? Isn’t it dangerous to view everything solely from the standpoint that the majority has finally decided, that the majority has matured and made up its mind?

Alexander Dugin: The majority matured long ago and made its decision long ago. We have no other option except victory. We wanted to win wearing white gloves, with surgical, pinpoint strikes, trying not to cause any collateral damage — we failed at that. And therefore the majority understands that victory must now be achieved by different means.

Of course, there is a certain discontent in the country with the indecisiveness in the conduct of hostilities on the part of the authorities. That is a fact. And naturally, Western technologies, social engineering, and attempts to manipulate this discontent and radicalize the process are being layered onto this objectively rising wave of misunderstanding. This must certainly be taken into account, and allowance must be made for the special psychological operations the enemy is conducting against our society.

But when we say that a wave is rising from the people, who are dissatisfied with the lack of clear signs of victory, and that this is being manipulated, we forget about the other side. Is the enemy not exerting the same kind of psychological, networked influence on our military-political leadership? Is he not whispering to them: “It’s okay, we’ll come to an agreement now, a ceasefire is coming,” thereby restraining them from the decisive actions they must take?

At the same time, the absence of these decisive actions is being used with the other hand to split society and to pit the growing discontent in the country against the slow pace of certain steps. It is an attack from both sides.

When we blame everything on war correspondents, on the people’s fatigue, or on the “turbo-patriots,” there is some truth to it, because the enemy skillfully manipulates these sentiments. But we are missing the second side of the process. The enemy is exerting influence not only on our society and ordinary people — the enemy is also exerting influence on our ruling elite, on the very top. And there the methodology and the arguments are completely different — the exact opposite. They are sending false signals that Western emissaries will arrive and everything will end, that Trump supposedly intends to resolve this conflict on acceptable terms. There is some basis for this; it is not pure theater. But in any case, the West is restraining the elite from decisive action, while simultaneously inflating popular discontent over the absence of these decisive actions. This is a classic operation, a classic network war — and we have been living under these conditions for more than a decade.

We lost our country because of the success, unfortunately, of forces hostile to us that stole our statehood and stole the Warsaw Pact from us — also through color revolutions and social manipulation. The technologies change, but the essence remains the same.

Therefore, in my view, what is needed now is unity between society and the state. We cannot say that the state is waging the war however it wants and however it pleases. We are all waging this war; we are all paying for it — including with our lives. The state does not have a mandate to do whatever it likes: to start a war, to end it whenever the mood strikes, after shedding so much blood beforehand. No.

Victory is a demand. It is a demand of history, a demand of the people, a demand of society, a demand of both the living and the dead. Our state is obliged to win this war. This is a matter of principle. We cannot reason in this way: if I want to, I will achieve victory; if I want to, I will conclude a ceasefire; if I want to, I will simply withdraw unilaterally. The political leadership has no such powers or such a right.

Now, while the war is going on, we know how lost or unfinished wars end. They end with this top leadership simply disappearing. This is very serious. But with it, to our great regret, the state itself and the people disappear as well. We must not go down this path; we must not make the same mistake again. The people and the authorities must now conclude a pact of victory between themselves. This is necessary. We must take the steps required to save the Fatherland and to achieve victory over this terrible enemy. Any delay, any postponement — even if justified by tactical or strategic calculations — in some cases is less important than the need to take society’s position into account. The voice of society is becoming more important than these calculations.

I do not want to cite sad examples, but they exist in our history. When the people and the authorities are united, we win. When the war becomes a people’s war, when our entire society gets involved, then we achieve victory over any opponent, even one superior to us.

But when there is no unity between the authorities and the people, we can lose even conflicts and wars that seem relatively easy to resolve. In ancient times, people believed that war was the judgment of the gods. The Hellenes believed that the outcome of a war depended on the inner state of society, and that the gods grant victory to those who are purer, more resolute, more courageous, more self-sacrificing, and more right in the highest sense. And it is this inner righteousness — not only technical preparedness, but precisely this inner righteousness — that is the core which unites the people and the authorities and constitutes the true path to victory.

We have many loose ends that have not been cleaned up. We are carrying colossal layers of alienation and hostility from the elites from our recent past, along with the penetration into our society of alien, hostile networks that are either already activated or will be activated. There are quite a few unresolved problems and issues in our society. We cannot paper them over, postpone them, or claim that everything is wonderful — even in the conditions of war. Because this war is also about that: about the purification and transformation of our people and our state.

Continue:

Multipolar Press
How Iran Won the War Against Israel and America
Alexander Dugin explains how Iran has emerged victorious in its war against Israel and the United States, and why this dramatic shift creates a unique window of opportunity for Russia to launch a decisive offensive and finally win in Ukraine…
Read more
7 days ago · 1 like · Alexander Dugin
]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:27:39 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/how-iran-won-the-war-against-israel <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] How Iran Won the War Against Israel and America]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/how-iran-won-the-war-against-israel-and-america

Alexander Dugin explains how Iran has emerged victorious in its war against Israel and the United States, and why this dramatic shift creates a unique window of opportunity for Russia to launch a decisive offensive and finally win in Ukraine.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: In the first part of the program, I’d like to discuss what are commonly called “strikes of retribution” on military targets in Kiev. The Defense Ministry has published a list of the targets that were hit. As has often been the case lately, there is also a significant amount of photo and video evidence of these strikes: what was hit, where, how, and the results. There has already been an international reaction. The most important thing now is to highlight what stands out, what deserves attention, and whether these strikes are already what a significant portion of people are writing about, demanding, wanting, and hoping for. How should we view all of this?

Alexander Dugin: In my view, these are very positive shifts and welcome changes.

The fact is that from the very beginning of the special military operation, attentive people — and a very large part of our people, who, to be honest, are far wiser than is commonly believed, understand world processes much more deeply, and have a more nuanced grasp of both international and domestic politics... I want to say that our people are intelligent. They have their own distinctive way of expressing how they see the world, but on all essential matters, the Russian person understands very well.

Dostoevsky expressed this nicely in The Gambler: there are peoples who, if you flick them on the nose, become terribly offended, yet fail to notice a deeper, spiritual injury. Russians are the opposite. You can flick them on the nose and they won’t pay much attention, but when it comes to conscience, truth, depth, and reality, the Russian person understands it profoundly.

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

That’s why, when the special military operation began, our people — not just individual experts, but the nation itself — understood that this was serious. This was war. It was a war with the West, a war of civilizations, a war for Russia’s very existence. And that’s why people went to fight. They went to the front lines first and foremost because they realized this, felt it with their deep Russian consciousness, and understood in their hearts that the matter was grave. This wasn’t some technical event or operation that could be left entirely to the state; people needed to get involved. It was a people’s war, a serious war.

And that’s essentially how the people have thought about it for more than four years now — as a war, not as some technical cleanup operation against certain terrorist formations (which is what modern Ukraine is), but as something far more substantial and vital to our entire historical destiny. That’s why, for a long time, the people’s will for a serious response has been steadily growing. With this will, and with this bewilderment if you will, the people initially waited in silence, calmly.

The late Vladlen Tatarsky, who was killed by terrorists, used to say: “I have a feeling that we’re about to really let them have it.” For a long time, that feeling remained just an expectation. Vladlen is no longer with us, but the Russian people’s sense that we will finally start fighting properly, that we will deliver a real response — it has only grown stronger.

The authorities, for their own very deep reasons (I won’t presume to judge them here), up to a certain point made it clear that we hadn’t really started yet, that we were still just warming up.

A great deal of time has passed. Naturally, we have suffered many losses and a great deal of suffering; we have endured and borne much. So many families, so many cities, so many loved ones we have lost. And yet the feeling remained that, on the whole, there had been no proper response. In society, a deep inner discontent began to grow: when will we finally start fighting in earnest?

I think that with this delay, this postponement, these hopes placed in Trump, in a ceasefire, or in the idea that the enemy would simply get tired and collapse on its own, we have reached a critical point. We can no longer drag this out any further. It seems to me that we are beginning to realize that we can no longer postpone full-scale action. We cannot simply respond to the enemy’s latest terrorist provocation with symmetrical strikes. We must act on a large scale, methodically, every day — destroying the enemy’s main centers of resistance and striking everywhere we can reach, against strategically important and symbolic targets.

This is what our society demands: do not stop the process, do not negotiate on unfavorable terms, do not fall for false ceasefires. We need to act with full force. Are we beginning to do so? I think yes. The authorities understand that further delay on decisive steps is impossible, or it will lead to negative consequences for us. It is clear that we are strong, that we are a vast country with many trump cards, but it is time to play them. Otherwise, the model of terrorist warfare against us will continue to give the enemy new opportunities. They manage to achieve some things, even though they are weaker and more immoral. But they do achieve them! And something must be done about that.

The enemy must not be allowed to achieve anything. There must be no remaining capabilities or structures capable of issuing orders for new attacks on Russian territory, including Novorossiya. Their communications must not work, their transport must not function, nothing that sustains their war machine must operate. This is what serious, deep, genuine action looks like — and it seems to me that we are obliged to pursue it. This decisive phase is, in essence, only just beginning to unfold.

But are our more resolute attacks on the enemy the start of this process? God willing. It’s possible. However, if we think that demonstrations with the “Oreshnik” missile without a special warhead, or a few hypersonic missiles that the enemy’s air defenses truly cannot intercept, are enough, then we are mistaken.

There is a military term — “intimidation” — which means instilling in the opponent the firm conviction that we so overwhelmingly surpass him in strength and power that any resistance is utterly futile. This is not mere intimidation; it is the deliberate destruction of the enemy’s will to fight through the demonstration of overwhelming might. We must begin to engage in this kind of intimidation systematically.

And most importantly, our actions must cease to be reactive. When we constantly say “this is for that” and “this is for the other thing,” it only causes bewilderment among our own people. It is time to stop making excuses. This approach shows a misunderstanding of the psychology of both our own people and our enemy. The opponent doesn’t care about our explanations, and in the West the entire narrative is built on the idea that Russia is absolute evil. Since that’s what they believe, our task is to win — and we can explain our reasons later.

What matters now is not what they did, but what we will do to completely deprive the opponent of the potential to resist and to inflict damage on him that is incommensurate with his continued military-political existence. And that, after all, was the original goal of the special military operation. If those goals could not be achieved through the previous technical methods, then the approach itself must change — we must raise the status of our actions to the full conduct of war. War in the literal sense of the word against the collective West on Ukrainian territory.

All attempts to postpone this issue, all expectations that the situation in the world would somehow change on its own and automatically put us in the position of victors, have not been justified. There is nothing left to wait for. I hope that we are cautiously beginning this turn. We must support the army and participate in this process with all our strength, because this war is our common cause. It is being fought everywhere: at the front, in the economy, in politics, in culture, and in education. We must engage in this struggle at all levels.

Host: Allow me a small clarification — or rather, not so much a clarification as a suggestion, something to throw into the discussion.

Russia has been living under very serious social and informational pressure for quite a long time now. And practically any thesis that resonates emotionally with the people — whether in kitchens or on the internet (and these are different spheres where one can work with this) — becomes a lever of pressure, a tool for potential influence on society and the country as a whole. To provoke in people an outburst of discontent or the desire to “finally start” — isn’t this, in essence, an attempt to drive a wedge between what a person is repeating in his head and the actual plans of Russia’s military and political leadership? Isn’t it dangerous to view everything solely from the standpoint that the majority has finally decided, that the majority has matured and made up its mind?

Alexander Dugin: The majority matured long ago and made its decision long ago. We have no other option except victory. We wanted to win wearing white gloves, with surgical, pinpoint strikes, trying not to cause any collateral damage — we failed at that. And therefore the majority understands that victory must now be achieved by different means.

Of course, there is a certain discontent in the country with the indecisiveness in the conduct of hostilities on the part of the authorities. That is a fact. And naturally, Western technologies, social engineering, and attempts to manipulate this discontent and radicalize the process are being layered onto this objectively rising wave of misunderstanding. This must certainly be taken into account, and allowance must be made for the special psychological operations the enemy is conducting against our society.

But when we say that a wave is rising from the people, who are dissatisfied with the lack of clear signs of victory, and that this is being manipulated, we forget about the other side. Is the enemy not exerting the same kind of psychological, networked influence on our military-political leadership? Is he not whispering to them: “It’s okay, we’ll come to an agreement now, a ceasefire is coming,” thereby restraining them from the decisive actions they must take?

At the same time, the absence of these decisive actions is being used with the other hand to split society and to pit the growing discontent in the country against the slow pace of certain steps. It is an attack from both sides.

When we blame everything on war correspondents, on the people’s fatigue, or on the “turbo-patriots,” there is some truth to it, because the enemy skillfully manipulates these sentiments. But we are missing the second side of the process. The enemy is exerting influence not only on our society and ordinary people — the enemy is also exerting influence on our ruling elite, on the very top. And there the methodology and the arguments are completely different — the exact opposite. They are sending false signals that Western emissaries will arrive and everything will end, that Trump supposedly intends to resolve this conflict on acceptable terms. There is some basis for this; it is not pure theater. But in any case, the West is restraining the elite from decisive action, while simultaneously inflating popular discontent over the absence of these decisive actions. This is a classic operation, a classic network war — and we have been living under these conditions for more than a decade.

We lost our country because of the success, unfortunately, of forces hostile to us that stole our statehood and stole the Warsaw Pact from us — also through color revolutions and social manipulation. The technologies change, but the essence remains the same.

Therefore, in my view, what is needed now is unity between society and the state. We cannot say that the state is waging the war however it wants and however it pleases. We are all waging this war; we are all paying for it — including with our lives. The state does not have a mandate to do whatever it likes: to start a war, to end it whenever the mood strikes, after shedding so much blood beforehand. No.

Victory is a demand. It is a demand of history, a demand of the people, a demand of society, a demand of both the living and the dead. Our state is obliged to win this war. This is a matter of principle. We cannot reason in this way: if I want to, I will achieve victory; if I want to, I will conclude a ceasefire; if I want to, I will simply withdraw unilaterally. The political leadership has no such powers or such a right.

Now, while the war is going on, we know how lost or unfinished wars end. They end with this top leadership simply disappearing. This is very serious. But with it, to our great regret, the state itself and the people disappear as well. We must not go down this path; we must not make the same mistake again. The people and the authorities must now conclude a pact of victory between themselves. This is necessary. We must take the steps required to save the Fatherland and to achieve victory over this terrible enemy. Any delay, any postponement — even if justified by tactical or strategic calculations — in some cases is less important than the need to take society’s position into account. The voice of society is becoming more important than these calculations.

I do not want to cite sad examples, but they exist in our history. When the people and the authorities are united, we win. When the war becomes a people’s war, when our entire society gets involved, then we achieve victory over any opponent, even one superior to us.

But when there is no unity between the authorities and the people, we can lose even conflicts and wars that seem relatively easy to resolve. In ancient times, people believed that war was the judgment of the gods. The Hellenes believed that the outcome of a war depended on the inner state of society, and that the gods grant victory to those who are purer, more resolute, more courageous, more self-sacrificing, and more right in the highest sense. And it is this inner righteousness — not only technical preparedness, but precisely this inner righteousness — that is the core which unites the people and the authorities and constitutes the true path to victory.

We have many loose ends that have not been cleaned up. We are carrying colossal layers of alienation and hostility from the elites from our recent past, along with the penetration into our society of alien, hostile networks that are either already activated or will be activated. There are quite a few unresolved problems and issues in our society. We cannot paper them over, postpone them, or claim that everything is wonderful — even in the conditions of war. Because this war is also about that: about the purification and transformation of our people and our state.

Subscribe now

Share

And in general, the problem of how the people and the state relate to each other is a profound philosophical question. Someone may say that we have a purely technical solution, but that is a deliberate lie. There can be no technical solution to such a deep, historical, and fundamental question. And during war everything becomes sharper: problems are exposed, and conversely, everything that is best in the state and the people also comes to the surface.

What we need now, it seems to me, is precisely a determined effort of will. Without effort we will not be able to go further — we are unlikely to hold out by inertia alone. We must make this effort. And if we are already making it — as evidenced by certain real successes at the front and our attacks — then that is excellent. Yes, in many spheres the processes are still stuttering: movement proceeds in jerks, as if the computer freezes and then starts moving again. God grant that we are nevertheless moving in the same direction. After all, we are not retreating. Yes, it is painful for us, yes, the enemy responds very effectively, meanly, and cruelly, but let us increase the quantity, quality, and precision of our strikes. I think we have far from exhausted our potential. We are moving toward Victory, but right now we need to make this decisive step.

Host: Here is some fresh news: quite unexpectedly for European time and for Moscow, a signal has sounded that, possibly connected with Donald Trump’s birthday, Iran and the United States have both confirmed that an agreement will be reached and the deal will be signed within a few days. There are even reports about who exactly will sign it. From the American side it will be Vice President Vance, and from the Iranian side — Foreign Minister Arakchi and Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf. Various reports are being published about the details of this deal. If you read between the lines, it feels as though Iran is getting, on many points (I won’t say all, but on very many), exactly what it wanted and what it probably could hardly have counted on even at the beginning of the year. How do you assess this rather unexpected turn in U.S.-Iran relations, and more broadly not only in the Middle East region but on the planet as a whole, in connection with what will specifically happen at this point in space?

Alexander Dugin: The most sober and balanced American analysts right now — if you listen to them beyond the propaganda — acknowledge the following: Iran has won this war. Strange as it may sound, Iran has won this war. I am not even giving my own or our personal point of view here (I would be more cautious), but referring specifically to American experts who recognize this fact. Iran has won and can now dictate terms.

But if we compare how Iran describes this agreement, this deal, and how Trump himself describes it, these are simply two mutually exclusive documents.

Iran says: “We agree to certain shifts for de-escalation in the region on our terms.” And this is the Iranian version; this is what they are prepared to sign. At the same time, they do not trust the West, they will verify everything, they are keeping their mining capabilities, maintaining their armed forces and full control over the Strait of Hormuz, and now everyone will pay them. The Americans and the United Arab Emirates are unfreezing Iranian accounts. And this is precisely victory, because the winner sets the terms for ending military actions. So if they go along with these terms, it will be a consolidated Iranian victory.

At the same time, Trump is painting a completely different picture to his own population: supposedly Iran has capitulated on everything, stopped enriching uranium, unconditionally opened the Strait of Hormuz, oil will now flow freely, and everything will be wonderful. “We did not cede any positions to the Americans, we destroyed them all, we are now great,” Trump broadcasts in his aggressive, cowboy style.

In essence, on such grounds and with such diametrically opposed descriptions of what they are about to sign, it is impossible to conclude a real document. We should assume that either the Iranians or the Americans are simply lying shamelessly right now to solve their internal political tasks. And I think we will soon be convinced of this. It won’t be long before both sides can no longer maintain this “poker face.” Sooner or later these agreements will either be made public in their true form or will collapse, and humanity will see for itself: are tankers sailing through the Strait of Hormuz or not, are they exploding or not, are bombs flying or not.

But there is one moment here that seems rather serious to me: tectonic shifts within the Zionist lobby in America itself. Until recently this was an extremely powerful structure. It has turned out that this is one of the main political forces in the United States — although earlier only anti-Zionists spoke about this, and it was considered a “conspiracy theory.”

It is now obvious that Israel possesses a colossal degree of influence and a colossal lobby inside the United States, one that can force America to do things it does not want to do and that run counter to its national interests. But in recent days, after the leak to Axios of the phone conversation between Trump and Netanyahu — in which Trump, using obscene language, essentially told Netanyahu to go to hell, accusing him in the crudest terms of complete disobedience, threatening him and pressuring him — the situation has changed.

That this is true is confirmed by the reaction of Zionists close to Trump. Figures such as Lindsey Graham or Laura Loomer — the core of American pro-Trump Zionists — have suddenly fallen into despair in recent days. They say: “How can this be, this is unacceptable, Israel is good after all, Netanyahu is the best ally, you yourselves said so.” This confirms that a rift has opened between Trump and Netanyahu.

Earlier it seemed they were acting in complete unison. But Trump is clearly burdened by this war — a war that is half-lost, though certainly not won. Iran has suffered serious losses, this should not be downplayed, but it has not been broken; it is mobilized and now looks like a model for the entire Islamic world. Against this background, other Muslim countries in the region that took a passive position have largely lost face, appearing as manageable pawns. But Iran stood firm, without softening its anti-Israel position in the slightest.

At the same time, Netanyahu continues the offensive in southern Lebanon. According to the terms of the deal with Iran — and even Trump does not deny this despite the differences in versions — a ceasefire in Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from there are a necessary part of the agreement, which Tehran insists upon. But Netanyahu does not want to do this, because he conceived the whole thing as preparation for the creation of a “Greater Israel,” and now it turns out that a compromise has been reached and Iran has not been destroyed. As a result, we are seeing complete outrage from Netanyahu’s radical allies such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who are already beginning to say: “Who the hell are the Americans anyway? Why should we listen to them?”

In other words, the main military and eschatological core of Israel is categorically dissatisfied. There is now outright anti-Trump, or at least anti-American, rhetoric emerging. Meanwhile, Trump needs to conclude this peace agreement on any terms, because the midterm elections are approaching soon. Everything will be decided there.

The unpopularity of this war in the United States is enormous. Trump has already lost many of his supporters; some are leaving his administration. And it turns out that this is in fact a hopeless, futile war with no prospects of victory. It began, of course, very brutally, but the results of this brutal attack were gradually neutralized by the heroic resistance of the Iranians. It turns out that Israel is also losing. And when one side is losing, discord and contradictions begin among the participants in the failed operation, with each trying to shift the blame onto the other. That is exactly what is happening now.

Therefore, it seems to me that in the Middle East we are dealing with Iran, which has undoubtedly won — at least morally. Iran has affirmed that it remains sovereign, that the world is multipolar (this is very important), and that it, rather than the passive Arab countries, is the true pole. This is beginning to be recognized by the Saudis, by Qatar, by Turkey, and even by the United Arab Emirates, which have suffered significantly from this war. It turns out that Iran is the moral victor.

Israel, despite its enormous ambitions and radicalism, has not achieved any major successes and is simply trying to sabotage the deal and desperately drag the United States into a major war against Iran. That is where we stand now. Today the collective West — in the person of Trump and Israel — is losing in the Middle East. This is obvious. The conflict between Washington and Tel Aviv, between Trump and Netanyahu, is growing. It may yet be contained, we shall see, but right now that is exactly how it looks.

Host: Could I ask you to elaborate a bit more on exactly this? There is already a statement from Israel’s National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, who says that you, the US and Iran, can make your deal, but Israel is not bound by your agreement in any way.

You rightly emphasized and reminded us that the pro-Israel lobby in America has reached an incredible level lately, although it should be added that America has always stood up for Israel. The US has always vetoed any UN Security Council resolutions that somehow affected Israel’s interests. And interestingly, under Republicans it has defended Israel even more fiercely than under Democrats. And here we have Trump — a Republican president.

So what happens next in this sense? Can Israel say: “Fine, you made your deal, but we will continue”? Or will the phone conversation between Trump and Netanyahu that you mentioned, along with their personal relationship, still play some role?

Alexander Dugin: You know, it probably all depends on Iran. Iran continues to insist that a ceasefire in southern Lebanon is one of the most important, indeed a necessary condition for concluding the deal with the United States. Trump neither confirms nor denies this, but he is clearly inclined to accept this line. This goes directly against Netanyahu’s interests. But Netanyahu is not all of Israel.

The pro-Israel lobby in America is incredibly powerful. Earlier, when opponents of this lobby said that it could force America to act against its own national interests, no one believed them — they were considered marginal. Now this is acknowledged by all sober, objective commentators. What was once unmentionable has become commonplace. But this pro-Israel lobby does not mean that it fully and entirely supports Netanyahu specifically. Many people in Israel itself and within this lobby do not share his position. Supporting Israel is one thing; supporting radicals who are eschatologically oriented toward building the Third Temple and creating a “Greater Israel” from sea to sea, like Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, or Netanyahu himself, is another. This is far from the entire lobby, and half of the Israeli population does not agree with such a policy.

Therefore, for Netanyahu the situation is very serious. If the war ends, he faces extremely difficult domestic political repercussions. He has only one path left — to continue this war at any cost, to sabotage any agreements, to insist that he will continue fighting independently in southern Lebanon, continue strikes on Gaza, and perhaps on Iran. The current leadership, in the person of Netanyahu, simply has no opportunity to end this war and accept this compromise agreement from the American side.

For Trump, this is not a matter of life and death. It is a matter of prestige and proof that he can influence the global economy. Previously his slogan was “drill, baby, drill,” and he claimed that America was independent of anyone. But now he has realized that this formula looks ambiguous, because Americans will have oil while others will not. And now Trump says: “Let the oil flow.” For him, restoring stability to the markets is already important. For Netanyahu, this is completely irrelevant.

So here we see a new divergence between these poles of the collective West. I think we have said in our program that there are currently five: the Trumpist United States separately, Israel separately, Britain separately. By the way, Starmer is in complete disaster there. I think the Labour Party may not win a single seat in parliament; they are being wiped out by the Conservatives and the far right, who have also formed a whole bloc there and are competing with each other. Starmer is finished in Britain, which means Britain will be taken out of the game as well.

It is hard to say what is happening in the European Union. They are still clinging to their globalist agenda. These are two more poles, as we said — the British and the European. And the globalists in the US are now clearly thinking about how to return to power after the midterm elections this autumn. But their plans are unclear too, because the collective West is wavering. And now, within this collective West, everyone is somewhat on their own.

And here a window of opportunity opens for us. Since America and Israel, even if they are not losing completely, are facing difficulties in the Middle East, and Iran is tying down their attention, they are not in a position to put maximum pressure on us with the full power of all these five or four centers. Their points of view are diverging. This conversation and our president’s congratulations to Trump on his 80th birthday are also important. The more division and disagreement there is in the camp of our enemies, the better it is for us. We can send one signal to one side, another signal to another, a third to yet another. As long as they do not all gang up on us at once. Of course this is dangerous. We must be prepared for that too, but it is a real danger.

But a window of opportunity is opening for us. Right now, it seems to me, we should use this important possibility arising from the divergence and splintering of the five centers of the collective West — to deliver a crushing blow to our enemy, to liberate Novorossiya, and to put an end to the Kiev regime. We need to act quickly here, because the situation is unique right now.

It was different before. For example, in the first days of this war in the Middle East, when Trump and Israel demonstrated strength, determination, and power, it seemed that Iran would soon fall apart from within — color revolution, Shah-style unrest, destruction of the political leadership... In such a situation, with such Western power and unity, it was of course more difficult to act in Ukraine. But now it is not. The conditions have changed, and it seems to me that now is the right time. Although the time to win is always, but by different methods and taking different factors into account. Right now there is a unique situation for Russia. The West as a whole is weakened. Of course, it is still very strong, dangerous, aggressive, cruel, inhuman, mean, and deceitful. But it already somewhat resembles agony. And that is an important sign. If this is the case, then we should certainly take advantage of it.

Host: But in exactly this sense... It’s not that I don’t believe it, but is it really possible that Trump and America are ready to back down so easily? And those points of the agreement that are now appearing in the press — about returning frozen assets to Iran, about certain investments in the country’s reconstruction — are they really true? Under what guarantees, under what reciprocal steps from Tehran, is Trump and America ready to provide all this to Iran?

Alexander Dugin: It seems to me that this is also unlikely. It all sounds like fantasy — both in the Iranian version and the American one. The Iranians will not accept the American version, and the Americans will not accept the Iranian version. Incidentally, the current situation suits Iran quite well. For them, such a radical environment is, if you like, a solution to many internal political problems. There has probably never been such consolidation of Iranian society as there is now, at least since the time of Khomeini. A very united people, ready to staunchly defend its sovereignty. And against this background — on the contrary, discord in the West. Therefore, in the Middle East, Iran is winning, and for it the conclusion of this deal is by no means a matter of life and death.

But for Trump, this is definitely a critical issue. He needs to resolve something soon. He got involved in this adventure, although everyone warned him: “Don’t do it, you will lose.” Joe Kent, for example, the head of the counterterrorism department, even resigned because of it. Tulsi Gabbard has now been removed. So Trump pushed this hard line, but there is no positive effect, only negative results. Therefore, he wants to end it. But of course he cannot simply accept the Iranian conditions — that is obvious.

On top of that, Netanyahu is constantly pouring oil on the fire, sabotaging the situation every day. In short, it continues. Therefore, I would not overestimate hopes that this conflict is exhausted. It is not — far from it.

(Translated from the Russian)

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and debate this interview.

]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:03:35 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/how-iran-won-the-war-against-israel-and-america <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] VIDEO SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-c47

]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2026 11:05:07 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-c47 <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Tales From The Movement: National Alliance Informant Was Heidi Beirich’s Lover]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/16/tales-from-the-movement-national-alliance-informant-was-heidi-beirichs-lover/ As I have said in the comments, nothing about Trump’s second term being a bust and a failure has vindicated “NS” as being any kind of solution for the movement. “NS” has its own parade of problems which have simply been overshadowed by MAGA’s over the past year.

New York Post:

“A top Southern Poverty Law Center official is accused of helping funnel $1.2 million in donor money to an informant in the National Alliance white supremacist group — who was also allegedly her lover.

The Department of Justice filed a superseding indictment against the SPLC accusing it of funneling donor cash to hate groups they were then telling donors they were fighting.

One figure, referred to as “Employee-2” in the indictment, is described as a “person who would become Director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project.”

It also describes how “Employee-2” wrote an article based on material stolen from National Alliance headquarters in 2014 and then paid off an informant to take the blame for the robbery.

Based on the details in the June 2 superseding indictment, “Employee-2” is believed to be Heidi Beirich, a 58-year-old fascism expert who was the director of intelligence at the Alabama-based anti-extremism nonprofit between 2012 and 2019. …

“[Beirich] was also in a romantic relationship with F-9. During this relationship, [Beirich] and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts,” the indictment alleges. …”

I blame stories like this for making people susceptible to Trump hopium.

I’ve written extensively about how my own experiences have colored and influenced my politics. I’m currently in course correction from believing conservatism can be reformed after Trump’s second term turned into a disaster, but I not about to swing all the way to the opposite extreme.

]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:12:12 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336870 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Digital Dugin Edition: Trump needs a deal more than Iran does]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/middle-east-conflict-is-not-over For Trump, concluding a deal with Iran is a matter of prestige. For Iran, the current situation has brought unprecedented internal unity.

And Israel is willing to continue military action.

AI Dugin explains why

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment


]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2026 05:15:40 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/middle-east-conflict-is-not-over <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Is the US-Iran Deal the End of Unipolarity?]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/is-the-us-iran-deal-the-end-of-unipolarity

President Trump’s rhetoric towards Iran has moved with startling speed from the language of destruction to the language of reconciliation. At one moment, he spoke in terms that suggested the complete ruin of the Islamic Republic. At another, he painted a vision of peace stretching into the future, accompanied by promises of prosperity on a grand scale. Now Washington and Tehran intend to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on Friday. Such documents possess symbolic value and diplomatic significance while lacking binding legal force. This particular agreement appears unusually concise. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stated in an interview with the Mehr News Agency on Saturday that the text itself amounted to fewer than two pages. The fate of nations may hinge upon documents shorter than an ordinary newspaper article.

The limited size of the text suggests that many key matters remain unsettled. Officials speak of urgent steps to be taken immediately, among them the restoration of open navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet the available information points to continuing ambiguity. Iranian media have presented a picture in which American restrictions on Iranian ports along the Persian Gulf would disappear while Iran, working alongside Oman, would continue exercising oversight in the area and receive substantial revenue through maritime fees. Trump appears to describe a very different outcome. In comments to The New York Times on Sunday, he declared that one of the central achievements of the agreement would be the establishment of a permanently toll-free Strait of Hormuz. An agreement described in incompatible ways by its signatories resembles an ancient text translated into rival tongues, each version serving a different destiny. Diplomacy lives within this realm of shifting symbols and strategic silences, where states wage battles through language.

Eurosiberia is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The concept of Darwinian multipolarity offers a framework for understanding such events. The emerging world order resembles a civilizational ecosystem in which great powers adapt to changing circumstances, preserve their distinct identities, and compete for influence across regions and continents. The end of unipolar dominance does not herald an age of universal cooperation. It marks the return of history in its oldest form: a contest among civilizations possessing different traditions, values, and strategic interests. Just as species endure through adaptation within changing environments, civilizations persist through resilience, innovation, demographic vitality, and cultural cohesion. Multipolarity in this sense operates according to evolutionary pressures. States rise, decline, transform, and reassert themselves. Peace remains possible, though it arises through equilibrium among powers rather than through dreams of a single universal model imposed upon mankind.

The actual contents of the proposed agreement remain largely hidden from public view. Araghchi announced that the text would become available after the planned signing on Friday. Even this assurance invites caution. Reports issued by the Mehr News Agency presented what were described as fourteen key points of the MoU. These points diverge sharply from statements issued by the American president and members of his circle. Several of the claims attributed to the agreement strain credibility. Point Five reportedly envisions an American withdrawal from the region surrounding Iran. Point Six allegedly calls for the removal of all sanctions absent reciprocal concessions. Point Seven proposes an American reconstruction effort in Iran valued at no less than 300 billion U.S. dollars. Such provisions would constitute a geopolitical transformation of historic scale.

The more plausible explanation appears straightforward. The fourteen points seem to represent an Iranian proposal transmitted to American negotiators on May 2 through Pakistani mediators. To imagine that the United States accepted the Iranian package in its full form is to mistake desire for reality and propaganda for statecraft. Empires move like ancient beasts across history: they bargain, threaten, retreat, and advance, yet they rarely surrender strategic advantage in exchange for words written upon fragile sheets of paper. Yet official narratives often shape public perception. Within Iran, segments of the population have spent weeks hearing accounts describing the recent conflict as a battlefield victory, a triumph, and proof of their nation’s arrival as a superpower. Against this backdrop, belief in an exceptionally favorable agreement becomes easier to understand. A small number of demonstrations have emerged opposing rapprochement with the United States.

The central question remains unresolved: can this arrangement produce lasting peace? History offers many examples of agreements that provided temporary stability while leaving deeper rivalries intact. Great powers seldom abandon strategic interests through signatures alone. They pause, reposition, negotiate, and prepare for the next phase of competition. Within the framework of Darwinian multipolarity, peace comes through balance among civilizations capable of defending their interests while recognizing the strength of others. Such an order may prove more durable than ideological universalism because it reflects the plural realities of the world rather than abstract visions of a single political destiny.

For Trump, the immediate calculation may be simpler. The preservation of stability through the American midterm elections on November 3 could itself represent a significant political success. Statesmen often pursue peace for reasons both grand and practical. Some seek enduring settlements. Others seek time. The international system frequently rewards those who understand the difference.

If you enjoy my writing, order my new book, The Fate of White America, here.

If this analysis added value, upgrade.

]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2026 03:13:18 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/is-the-us-iran-deal-the-end-of-unipolarity <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] On Iran’s Victory]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/on-irans-victory

The war in the Persian Gulf lasted just over a hundred days. The terms of the ceasefire have been published by the Iranian side. They look like a capitulation of the US and Israel.

Iran got everything it demanded. A ceasefire (including in Lebanon), the withdrawal of US troops from combat positions, the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of assets, and $300 billion in investment for reconstruction. In exchange for nothing but the renunciation of nuclear weapons (which they didn't even have before the war) and the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz (which wasn't blocked before the war).

If Trump doesn’t backtrack, the agreement can be called a triumph of Iran’s smart diplomacy. A blow to Israel’s ambitions. And a complete failure of the “global hegemon.”

But the victory was primarily achieved on the battlefield because Iran wasn’t afraid to strike at US bases in third countries. Trump, not without reason, called Iran’s strikes on Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE “the biggest surprise.” It turned out that being an ally of the US is not about security, but about risk. The hegemon didn’t even try to defend its “main allies outside NATO.” All it could do was end the war.

Iran showed how to fight in the modern world. Without borders. Without fear. With unlimited faith in its righteousness and its victory.

(Translated from the Russian)

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2026 00:31:12 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/on-irans-victory <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] HOME AGAIN!]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/home-again-e08

]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:37:04 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/home-again-e08 <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump Announces Iran War Ceasefire]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/15/donald-trump-announces-iran-war-ceasefire/ Place your bets.

How long will this peacefire last?

Will the GOP be able to ride it out through the midterms?

Will it last longer than the Gaza ceasefire which Israel broke in March? How long will it take for Israel to disparage and undermine the agreement and drag us back into the war?

]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:44:30 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336864 <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Switzerland: Economy over Ethnos]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/switzerland-economy-over-ethnos

The recent Swiss referendum rejecting immigration limits, with roughly 55% of voters opposing the SVP (Swiss People’s Party) initiative, was celebrated by government officials and business representatives as a triumph of “openness and pragmatism.” Their relief was revealing. For whom was this victory truly achieved? Certainly for employers seeking a larger labor pool, for economic sectors dependent on perpetual growth, and for a financial system that treats human beings increasingly as interchangeable units of production and consumption. What was presented as a victory for liberal values may instead be understood as a victory for capital over democracy, for markets over peoples, and for economics over politics.

This outcome perfectly illustrates one of the central insights of French thinker Alain de Benoist’s critique of liberal modernity. Liberalism presents itself as the philosophy of freedom, yet in practice it dissolves all collective identities that might impede the circulation of goods, capital, and labor. Under global capitalism, borders become obstacles, cultures become commodities, and nations become marketplaces. Immigration policy ceases to concern the continuity of a people and instead becomes subordinate to the needs of economic growth. The relief expressed by Swiss business leaders following the referendum thus reveals the true sovereign of contemporary Europe: not the citizen, not the ethnos, but the market.

Support my work by becoming a paid subscriber.

In this sense, Switzerland provides a striking confirmation of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West. Spengler’s vision of decline does not describe simple collapse but the exhaustion of a civilizational form. The late Faustian world replaces culture with civilization, destiny with management, and organic communities with abstract systems. Immigration debates in the contemporary West rarely concern questions of historical continuity or civilizational inheritance. They are framed almost exclusively through the language of labor shortages, GDP, demographics, and economic efficiency. The ethnos has disappeared from politics; only variables remain.

De Benoist has long argued that capitalism and liberalism ultimately undermine the very communities upon which political life depends. Markets thrive on mobility; peoples endure through continuity. Capital seeks the fluid individual detached from inherited bonds, while civilizations arise from memory, rootedness, and shared destiny. In this sense, mass immigration under global capitalism often serves less as a humanitarian project than as a mechanism for depressing wages, expanding consumption, and transforming citizens into economic actors severed from historical and ethnocultural identities. The paradox of liberal modernity is therefore stark: the same system that proclaims “diversity” frequently produces cultural homogenization on a planetary scale, replacing distinct peoples with standardized consumers.

The Swiss referendum is thus more than an isolated vote. It is a symptom of the deeper historical process described by both Spengler and de Benoist: the gradual subordination of political sovereignty to economic imperatives. As the West enters its civilizational winter, the decisive struggle may no longer be between left and right, or even between nationalism and globalism, but between the rule of capital and the persistence of historical peoples. The great question of our century is whether new civilizational forms, perhaps emerging within the multipolar world now taking shape across Eurasia, can recover a conception of politics that places culture above economics, community above markets, and destiny above growth.

Get Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West: The One-Volume Abridged Edition here.

]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2026 05:06:24 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/switzerland-economy-over-ethnos <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Multipolarity Against Entropy]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/multipolarity-against-entropy

Kazuhiro Hayashida on why the struggle between multipolarity and unipolarity runs deeper than geopolitics.

The essence of the confrontation between multipolarity and unipolarity lies deeper than a difference in the distribution of power within international politics, and can be understood as a confrontation between civilizational structures themselves over how the increase of entropy within the social order is to be processed. Civilization is a long-term social structure constructed in order to place human beings, land, vocation, family, religion, the state, memory, and the temporal axis within a certain order, thereby suppressing disorderly dispersion; in this sense, civilization can be said to be a system that restrains the increase of social entropy.

Eastern civilization has carried out this suppression of entropy through a multipolar arrangement. Eastern order can be described as a multipolar arrangement in which multiple centers exist, each maintaining its own boundaries, memory, rites, royal lineage, community, religion, and vocational order, while standing adjacent to one another; it is a structure that controls the friction arising when civilizations come into contact by preserving the distance within which different things can exist while remaining different. What is important when understanding Eastern civilizational order is boundary rather than unity, and mutual distance and non-interference rather than homogenization or equality.

Become a paid subscriber and help build the future of Multipolar Press.

By contrast, Western civilization replaced the suppression of entropy with a single particle and attempted to implement it through a principle of unification. It sought to create order by converging the world into one value, one institution, one temporal axis, one progressive view of history, and one view of humanity. The single particle established for this purpose is liberalism, which regards the individual as the smallest unit of the world. Liberalism separates human beings from civilization, community, religion, family, vocation, royal lineage, state protection, and historical memory, and places them within a linear sequence of individual, rights, freedom, and autonomy; at that moment, Western order internalizes within itself the cause of its own collapse. This is because the absolutization of individual rights brings them into collision with the rights of other individuals existing within the same space, and that collision is repeated without limit.

Furthermore, fragmented individuals lose their capacity to resist ruling forces because their formation into collective bodies is obstructed. When structures such as civilization, community, vocation, religion, family, state protection, and historical memory are preserved, human beings do not exist in isolation as individuals, but are placed within multiple relationships, and those relationships generate collective judgment and resistance. Liberalism severs these relationships as old frameworks that restrict individual freedom, and by transforming society into an aggregate of fragmented individuals, it destroys common sense, customs, traditional values, and the historical temporal axis, thereby constructing a society that is easy for the government and the market to centrally manage.

Modern neoliberalism is the contemporary form of domination in which this liberal principle of entropy increase has been completed through the market, finance, institutions, and technological management. Neoliberalism dislocates individuals who have been separated from civilization by liberalism through the market, contracts, prices, debt, finance, investment efficiency, and international standards. What is important here is that before neoliberalism can marketize society, it must first dismantle the civilizational fixed forces that obstruct marketization. Land, vocation, family, religion, state protection, and historical memory retain criteria of judgment that cannot be processed solely by market prices, and as long as they remain, the market cannot become the highest criterion for society as a whole.

Based on the above, we can understand that the purpose of neoliberalism is not market expansion. What neoliberalism truly requires is the dismantling of civilizational fixed forces that exist outside the market, and the conversion of structures that obstruct marketization, such as land, vocation, family, religion, state protection, and historical memory, into units that can be processed through price evaluation, contractual relations, capital mobility, and investment efficiency. Since civilization determines, according to criteria different from market prices, what may be sold and what must not be sold, what may be transferred outside and what must be protected, what must be refused even when profitable, and what must be maintained even at a loss, neoliberalism must dismantle this civilizational mechanism of judgment.

In a society where civilization remains, the market functions as a tool. In a society where civilization has been dismantled, the market becomes the criterion of judgment. Land changes from homeland into real estate; vocation changes from apprenticeship relations and responsibility within the community into skills in the labor market; family changes from a site of generational continuity into an aggregate of individual contracts; religion is reduced from the foundation of world order into a private value; and the state is transformed from a vessel of civilizational protection into an investment environment. Through this series of transformations, society is not liberalized but priced, and moves into a condition in which it can be bought, moved, relocated, evaluated, and discarded.

Neoliberalism attacks civilizational fixed forces as inefficiency, closure, discrimination, privilege, antiquity, and irrationality. Vocational communities are treated as closed vested interests, family systems as old institutions that bind individual freedom, religion is reduced to private belief, and state protection is processed as an obstruction to market competition. In this way, the low-entropy structures that supported society are dismantled, and society is made fluid. A fluidized society becomes a condition easily reorganized from the outside through finance, international institutions, contracts, and technological management.

This structure also connects to the market theology seen in America and the EU. When the market is treated as a sacred self-regulating order, civilizational obligations that do not submit to the market are processed as old orders that ought to be sacrificed. The sacrifice of human beings in obedience to the demands of the market is justified in the name of economic rationality, and poverty, unemployment, inequality, war, and even industrial destruction are processed as judgments issued by the god called market. Within this structure, the very existence of God, king, community, state, and civilizational obligation above the market becomes an obstacle. The reason neoliberalism dismantles civilizational bonds can also be explained as a working condition of this market theology.

Japan’s postwar structure is a concrete example of this civilizational dismantling. Through occupation, Japan was deprived of the right to speak of its own provenance, and lost the capacity to grasp past, present, and future as a continuous temporal axis. Even the basic fact that the United Nations was a structure of defeated-state management formed by the victorious powers of the Second World War disappeared from Japanese recognition. This is not a lack of knowledge, but a condition in which the temporal axis required to understand provenance itself has been destroyed. The liberal value system gave the Japanese people abstract words such as democracy, humanitarianism, and international society, but as the price for this, it deprived them of the ability to understand where their own country is positioned within the world system that defines Japan as a defeated state.

A state that has lost its provenance cannot judge what it is. Through the methodological operation of liberalism and neoliberalism, America succeeded in causing Japan, while located in Asia, to borrow Western values, and while standing at the contact surface of the East, to internalize the interests of American continental civilization as its own conviction. In a condition where it possesses no civilizational core of its own, Japan cannot assert its own values in contact with other civilizations. Into that emptiness flow American values. This phenomenon is the civilizational hollowing that occurs when Japan is cut off from connection to the civilizational core of the Eurasian continent, and it becomes the fundamental reason why Japan, while existing in Asia, behaves as a Western watchtower. The successful destruction of a country with such a long history and civilization as Japan can be said to demonstrate how this theory is applied in order to dominate various countries through template-like procedures that are never publicly disclosed.

The collapse of historical recognition can be explained through the same structure. Multi-layered historical structures such as the Nanjing Government, the Chongqing Government, Soong Ching-ling, the left wing of the Kuomintang, the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the complex relationship between the Japanese Army and the Communist forces, the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Manchukuo Army, the Shaan-Gan-Ning Border Region Government, and the remaining Japanese soldiers cannot be grasped without parallel temporal axes. The liberal view of history compresses this multi-layered structure into a single-layered chronology. As a result, crude binary diagrams such as Taiwan or the mainland, democracy or dictatorship, pro-American or anti-American emerge. This is at once a phenomenon in which the content of history has been lost and a phenomenon in which the spatial recognition required to understand history has been destroyed.

From these facts, liberalism, neoliberalism, unipolarity, and the increase of entropy can be defined as one continuous structure. Liberalism is the principle of order dissolution that appears in every age, and neoliberalism is its modern market, financial, and institutional form. Unipolarity is its form in world order. The increase of entropy is its civilizational consequence. Liberalism abstracts the concrete bonds that constitute society, and neoliberalism processes those abstracted units through the market. Unipolarity unifies that processing on a global scale. As a result, society loses its center, boundaries, memory, vocation, religion, family, and state protection, and moves into a high-entropy condition.

Multipolarity is civilizational control against this process. Multipolarity suppresses social entropy by allowing each civilization to maintain its own center, boundaries, memory, vocational order, religion, state protection, and family structure. Multipolarity is not an ideology that unifies the world into a single standard, but an order form in which multiple civilizations maintain their internal orders while coming into contact and controlling the friction at their contact surfaces through boundaries and distance. Here lies the strength of Eastern order. Investiture systems, royal lineages, rites, religion, community, vocation, family, and land should be understood as civilizational technologies for suppressing social entropy.

The true right and the true left are also redefined within this structure. The true right preserves land, religion, royal lineage, family, the state, and historical continuity. The true left preserves the people, vocation, labor, communal protection, and the anti-government proletarian impulse. The two are not left and right placed inside liberalism. They are the two wings that resist, from different sides, the dissolution of order by liberalism. On the shortened liberal line, the right and the left are arranged as enemies, but when viewed in a circular manner, the two wings stand directly opposite liberalism.

The essence of multipolarity versus unipolarity is the confrontation between entropy suppression and entropy increase. Eastern multipolarity preserves social order through multiple civilizational centers and boundaries. Western unipolarity attempts to unify the world through a single standard, individualism, and marketization, and in that process decomposes society from within. Neoliberalism is the contemporary form of domination that executes this decomposition in the name of the market, finance, institutions, and technological management. Liberalism is its spiritual principle, unipolarity is its form of international order, and the increase of entropy is its consequence. To defend civilization means to restore the temporal axis, to redefine what cannot be bought and sold, and to reorganize a society moving towards infinite decomposition around shared centers of meaning: boundary, memory, vocation, religion, family, and the protective functions of the state.

(Translated from the Japanese)

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and debate this analysis.

]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2026 04:27:36 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/multipolarity-against-entropy <![CDATA[[Robert Stark] California's Upper Class Rightwing Pivot]]> https://robertstark.substack.com/p/californias-upper-class-shift-to

The strongest overlapping support for both Steve Hilton for governor and Spencer Pratt for mayor in Los Angeles came from affluent moderate neighborhoods on the Westside and West and South San Fernando Valley. Notable pockets include Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Bel-Air, and Holmby Hills on the Westside, Encino and Tarzana in the Valley, and Hancock Park. Notably, Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom won most of these areas albeit by lower margins than the rest of LA, though supported the moderate candidate, Rick Caruso, for LA mayor. Pratt also won over the remnants of the White middle class in the Valley and San Pedro, which is expected.

People are more open to crossing parties for governor and local offices than for president. Thus a segment of Biden and Kamala voters voted for Pratt and Hilton. The places that voted against the recall (pro-Newsom) in 2021 but gave Hilton stronger-than-expected shares in 2026 tend to be moderate suburban areas in Ventura, Orange, and San Diego counties. For instance, the Conejo Valley region, including Calabasas and Thousand Oaks, which overlaps LA and Ventura County, and Oceanside in San Diego County. Hilton did very well in Beverly Hills, moderately well in Malibu, and the suburban South Bay region, except for Redondo Beach which went for Xavier Bacerra, but he did particularly well in the very wealthy Palos Verdes. Not to mention the entire affluent coastal belt of Orange and San Diego counties which went solidly for Hilton, particularly Newport Beach, but even Laguna Beach, which has a reputation for being more liberal.

Gubernatorial vote for Orange County and the South Bay

source: votehub.com

The Pacific Palisades stands out as the clearest example of a heavily Democratic Kamala Harris-strong area (Harris ~71% in key precincts vs Trump ~28%) where both Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt performed relatively well. The Palisades and Bel Air went for Pratt by slightly over half while Pratt got slightly less than half of the vote in neighboring Brentwood, albeit still a plurality. This Palisades shift to the right is in part due to how Karen Bass and Newsom mismanaged the fire, though it has always been moderate. Notably, Pratt outperformed Hilton in the Palisades by a significant margin which signals that he appealed to a subset of wealthy moderate Democrats who are angry at Bass over the fire.

-Prop 50 was the Democrat’s redistricting ballot measure

People are pointing out that an electoral shift in the Palisades matches the burn line from the fire. Basically, Chautauqua or Rustic Canyon survived the fire and voted more liberal than the rest of the Palisades. However, this areas has traditionally been more liberal than the rest of the Palisades, as it has a lot of former counter-culture aging hippie types. Even then, Pratt managed to win a plurality there, just not a majority like the rest of the Palisades. Also, it voted for Bacerra while the rest of the Palisades voted for Hilton.

Affluent LA areas that voted for Tom Steyer include Topanga Canyon, Venice Beach, Toluca Lake, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, and the Hollywood Hills. Westwood was divided between Steyer, Hilton, and Bacerra, with the wealthiest neighborhoods for Hilton, upper middle class neighborhoods for Bacerra, and renter heavy neighborhoods for Steyer. Santa Monica was divided between Bacerra and Steyer, with the most affluent, North of Montana neighborhood voting for Bacerra and Hilton outperformed Steyer by a narrow margin there. Venice voted for Bass while the Hollywood Hills was divided between Bass, Raman, and Pratt, and Westwood followed the same pattern where the wealthiest neighborhoods voted for Pratt, the upper middle class neighborhoods for Bass, and the renter heavy areas for Raman. Both Nithya Raman and Steyer did particularly well in hipster areas like Silver Lake and Echo Park, Universities like UCLA and USC, and Steyer did well in areas that have a lot of young professionals like Miracle Mile and Downtown Culver City. However, Pratt, and strangely Antonio Villaraigosa, won the East Hollywood precinct where the Scientology headquarters are.

Gubernatorial vote on the Westside

source: votehub.com

While the more established wealthy areas and niche ethnic communities, like Iranian Jews, tilted right, you still have wealthy areas that have a high concentration of residents working in entertainment, like Studio City and the Hollywood Hills, or places with a leftwing cultural tradition like Topanga Canyon and Venice Beach that are leftwing. There are precincts in Woodland Hills adjacent to Topanga, Westwood just west of Century City, and Laurel Canyon in the Hollywood Hills that went for both Steyer and Pratt, which makes some sense because of his show The Hills. However, like with Chautauqua Canyon, Pratt only got a modest plurality at around a third of the vote in most of these cross over precincts. It is primarily the family oriented ultra-wealthy areas that voted more conservative, plus suburban upper middle class areas, while upper middle class urban areas that are full of DINKs and empty nesters voted more liberal.

Mayoral vote on the Westside

source: votehub.com

LA’s upper class shift to the right is also a Jewish shift to the right, as LA’s upper class is heavily Jewish. Unlike the Palisades, Beverly Hills voted for Trump and has been trending right for some time, primarily due to the Shah supporting Iranian Jewish community. The ultra wealthy precinct along Sunset blvd. in Beverly Hills, which includes the Beverly Hills Hotel, was one of Hilton’s strongest in the LA area at 62% of the vote. The heavily Jewish affluent neighborhoods of Encino and Tarzana in the Valley, Hancock Park, and much of Beverlywood, just South of Beverly Hills, stand out as supporting both Pratt for mayor and Hilton for governor, though nearby and also very Jewish, Cheviot Hills, voted more for Bass and Bacerra.

source: @Steve_Sailer on X

Hancock Park and Beverlywood have a lot of Orthodox Jews and Beverlywood also has a lot of Iranian Jews, in contrast with Cheviot Hills, which has more secular Jews in the entertainment industry. However, a modest right shift was notable in more secular Ashkenazi dominated affluent areas like Brentwood. Contrary to the stereotype of Jews as rootless cosmopolitans, ironically they are more rooted in LA than a lot of other groups, as transplants tend to be most liberal.

Partisan shift for LA White voters in 2024 (note Beverly Hills shifted right but the Palisades and Brentwood shifted slightly left)

source: votehub.com

In contrast with the stereotype of rich Jews being leftwing, this recent shift mirrors the New York Jewish liberals who became neocons, partially in response to NYC’s crime wave in the 70s and 80s. Bari Weiss, as a former liberal, is like the millennial version of those older neocon Jews. Not to mention Jews perceiving Republicans as more pro-Israel and Jews being penalized as White under DEI. Pratt and Hilton went out of their way to appeal to Jewish voters, and unlike Pratt’s Latino outreach, it really paid off. Hilton’s Latino support was primarily in the Central Valley, a demographic already trending red, but like with Pratt, he failed to make inroads with urban Latinos in LA, except for Pratt winning a handful of middle class Latino pockets in the Valley.

Gubernatorial Silicon Valley vote

source: votehub.com

The Bay Area’s wealthy areas did not see much shift to the right, as in SoCal. However, Steve Hilton performed the best in upper class areas including Napa, Danville, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, and Lafayette in the East Bay and certain Peninsula and Silicon Valley cities like Atherton, Hillsborough, much of Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno, as well as the more rural areas south of Silicon Valley. Atherton and Hillsborough, which are where ultra-wealthy tech elites live, signal the rightwing shift among a segment of Silicon Valley elites, as Hilton had a lot of Silicon Valley backing. Monte Sereno still has a lot of White old money. Among other ultra-wealthy areas on the Peninsula, Burlingame was divided between Hilton and Bacerra, Los Altos voted for Bacerra, Woodside was divided between Hilton, Bacerra, and Steyer, and Portola Valley, which has a lefty reputation, voted for Steyer.

Most of the areas where the rank and file tech workers live voted for either Bacerra or Steyer. Matt Mahan, who I voted for, had very little support and did not win any precincts. However, he did well in Downtown San Francisco/South Of Market and San Jose’s heavily Asian Northside area, beating Steve Hilton in many precincts, which makes sense considering he is San Jose’s mayor and appealed to techies. While Hilton did well in some affluent SoCal Asian ethnoburbs, like Arcadia and San Marino, Silicon Valley Asian and Indian ethnoburbs did not rally around any particular candidate.

Gubernatorial Marin County vote

source: votehub.com

While Steyer underperformed among LA’s wealthy, San Francisco including ultra-wealthy enclaves, like Pacific Heights and Sea Cliff, and Marin County including Sausalito and Mill Valley, voted for Steyer, with the greatest intensity for Steyer in Fairfax. Bacerra won in more moderate pockets of Marin, like Ross and Corte Madera. The question is why do very wealthy people in places like Marin County betray their class interests in the same way that Steyer, as a billionaire, is a class traitor? Steyer is not just woke but he is for wealth redistribution. In contrast, Bacerra is the safe candidate for rich people who want to virtue signal on identity that they support brown people but do not desire any structural change regarding economics and governance. Marin County’s cultural tradition of leftwing politics is much stronger than anywhere in SoCal, and these people are so committed to their ideology over their class interests.

The Recall against Newsom actually garnered an increase in support from Latino men without college rather than from the White upper class. Before Newsom’s last election, I predicted that Newsom would alienate suburban White upper class families, which I was wrong about at the time but vindicated in the long term. I was also right in my prediction that Hilton would appeal to more affluent voters while Riverside Sheriff, Chad Bianco, appealed more to working class voters, primarily in the Inland Empire.

As far as what constitutes elites, there is a fundamental distinction between wealthy people and institutional power. For instance, there are plenty of people who are wealthy from inheritance or run local businesses but are not connected to powerful managerial institutions. Wealthy people who are more independent of institutions or in industries involving resources extraction, like oil, tend to be more rightwing. However, there are rightwing tech oligarch, like Marc Andreessen. Hilton and Pratt appealed more to older established homeowners and families who want to protect what they have, while Steyer and Raman catered to the young White demographic from upper middle class backgrounds, both those struggling and young professionals who are heavily impacted by elite over production. For instance, they either view leftism as a way to signal to institutional power or they hope that someone like Steyer or Raman can create a jobs programs for underemployed college grads. This is why both UCLA and Stanford went hard for Steyer.

The lefty response to this article would be no shit, the rightwing has always served the rich and capital, such as Trump’s massive tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and corporations. California’s wealthy were initially more moderate to conservative back in the 80s, supporting Reagan. Then there was this realignment that probably began in the 90s but culminated with Trump that included middle class boomer hippies becoming rich, Universities becoming leftwing and thus college grads, the rise of the knowledge based economy, affluent voters’ concerns about issues like climate change, and conservative positions becoming low status socially. However, a lot of the extreme leftwing woke culture was too much even for the affluent cosmopolitan class. For instance, even at the peak of the great awokening in 2020, a lot of LA’s wealthiest areas voted against affirmative action. They feel targeted for their privilege in a way they didn’t back during the Obama years when they could feel morally righteous and snub the bad Whites in flyover country while there wasn’t this direct threat to their class interests. A major reason I support California’s billionaire tax is for acceleration reasons in that the wealthy need to fear the Left in order to break their alliance with the Left.

Intensity of support for Prop 16 to reinstate Affirmative Action on LA’s Westside in 2020

  • Green = majority non-White where prop 16 passed

  • Blue = majority White where prop 16 passed

  • Yellow= majority non-White where prop 16 failed

  • Red = majority White where prop 16 failed

(note strong opposition in Beverly Hills and tepid opposition in Bel Air, the Palisades and Malibu, roughly overlapping areas that supported either Pratt or Hilton)

Despite Bacerra representing the status quo, the long term trend is the Democrats moving to the left on economics. Upper class bubbles in places like LA are no longer immune from issues like crime. Since there is no longer a sense of one mass society, elites feel more removed from the masses in California in their insular bubbles, which means they care less about proving to the masses they are morally righteous than just a decade ago.

Steve Hilton strongly favors the wealthy and would not do much to help people who are struggling economically, including struggling young White people who tend to disproportionately back progressives. Hilton is overall better for established well off families, retirees, and business owners. Hilton is also more nimby about protecting single family zoning, so there isn’t a strong appeal for young people who are either renting or living with their parents. However, compared to both Steyer and Bacerra, Hilton can slow down White flight out of California because upper middle class White families would become more optimistic and feel safer and secure.

Robert Stark's Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In contrast, Steyer might have economically helped struggling young people, including young White people, even if he still supports DEI type policies. However, Steyer’s higher taxes on the upper middle class and wealthy could increase White flight, as that demographic is disproportionately White. Steyer and Raman had a similar appeal to Zohran Mamdani who appealed to young White hipster underemployed college grads, who struggle to make it in the corporate world but are not eligible for government DEI jobs. Bacerra, who will likely be the next governor, fuses identity politics with a pro-corporate establishment stance. Unlike Steyer, Bacerra would not touch Silicon Valley profits or the prop-13 protections of rich boomers, but he would create more DEI government jobs. Bacerra appeals to Latinos on identity, as well as a large subset of boomer moderate White Democrats, but he doesn’t have anything to offer struggling young White people while he would continue the pressure for upper middle class White families to leave the State.

Even if Pratt is out of the runoff and Hilton will likely lose in the general election to Bacerra, the question is if the wealthy shifting right will have some political impact, as elites have mattered more. However, the power of bureaucratic institutions and demographic change could also supersede the influence of the wealthy. Conservatives are claiming that both the LA mayoral and gubernatorial elections were rigged, and perhaps there was some foul play on the part of Democrats, particularly regarding allegations of ballot harvesting on LA’s Skid Row. However, conservatives would rather believe conspiracy theories as a cope than face demographic realities, even in a place like California where demographic replacement has long been solidified.

]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2026 18:31:45 -0700 https://robertstark.substack.com/p/californias-upper-class-shift-to <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Become a Patron of Multipolarity]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/become-a-patron-of-multipolarity

Multipolar Press exists to advance an idea: that the age of unipolarity is ending and a genuinely multipolar world is emerging.

Everything published here remains free. There are no paywalls, exclusive articles, or hidden sections reserved for subscribers. We want these ideas to remain accessible to everyone.

So why become a paid subscriber?

Because independent publishing survives only through the support of its readers.

Every paid subscription helps fund translations, new publications, interviews, essays, events, and the long-term development of Multipolar Press as a platform dedicated to serious civilizational thought. It allows us to spend more time researching, writing, editing, and publishing work that would otherwise struggle to find a home in today’s intellectual landscape.

As a small token of appreciation, the comments section will, from now on, be reserved for paid subscribers. I hope this will foster a more focused discussion among those most committed to the project while helping to support its continued growth.

If you find value in what you read here, if you believe the conversation around multipolarity deserves a stronger voice, and if you would like to help build an independent publishing project for the long term, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

You are not purchasing exclusive content.

You are helping to make this content possible.

Thank you for reading, sharing, and supporting Multipolar Press.

Become a paid subscriber now.

]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2026 14:05:04 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/become-a-patron-of-multipolarity <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] UFC White House Fight]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/14/ufc-white-house-fight/

The big problem with these UFC fights for Trump is that they reinforce the idea that he's is out of touch with Americans.

Just 16% say these fights are appropriate. Even just 31% of the GOP do.

This comes as 60% of voters & 80% of indies say the White House is out of touch. pic.twitter.com/KMdPHGKgCa

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) June 14, 2026

The UFC event at the White House is a national embarrassment.

]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2026 08:53:57 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336858 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Notes from a Civilization in Winter]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/notes-from-a-civilization-in-winter

Speculum Orientis, an Iranian immigrant in Italy, argues that the truest respect a guest can show his host is to defend the cultural continuity, historical identity, and civilizational integrity of the nation that welcomed him.

I carry no illusions about the history that shaped this moment. I am from the Middle East, a region carved up by European maps and bled by European greed; the “immigration crisis” rose, in part, from the rubble of nations broken by colonial and post-colonial intervention. I do not defend that record. But my love is not for the system that did the breaking: a liberal machine that has shown equal contempt for the European peasant and the African villager, dissolving all rooted life into a market. I write out of love for culture itself, whether it blooms in Isfahan or in Florence. Many voices already detail the crimes of the West against the rest. It is precisely because those voices are heard, that this essay must take up a different task: to say that Europe’s self-dissolution is not justice, and that the immigrant who truly honors his host must say so.

I arrived in Italy in 2022. I came legally, with a student visa, driven by a sincere desire to understand the West, not through screens, but by living within its ancient walls, reading its philosophers in their native tongues, and walking the same streets that once echoed with the footsteps of Dante and Cicero.

I was born in Iran, raised in a Muslim household, and carry within my blood the memory of another ancient civilization. It is precisely because I come from an old world that I recoil in horror at what I see unfolding across Europe today. And it is precisely because I am an immigrant that I must speak against the immigration policies destroying this continent. My voice cannot be dismissed as “racist” by the left-leaning establishment that immediately demonizes any European who dares to object. If a white Italian protests, he is instantly branded a fascist. But what label can they stick on me, a Persian, a Muslim by birth, who tells you that the open-border dogma is a slow-motion suicide of civilizations?

We preserve independent cultural analysis by keeping 100% of our writers’ essays open to the world. Support our infrastructure and keep this journal free for everyone.

Every authentic civilization is an organic, differentiated, and vertically oriented whole. A people is not a random collection of individuals bound by a commercial contract called a constitution; it is a spiritual entity, shaped by blood, soil, language, religion, and a shared metaphysical vision. An Italian is not merely someone who holds an Italian passport. He is the heir of Rome, of the Holy Roman Empire, of a Catholic cosmos that sacralized every act of life. An Iranian is the son of Cyrus, nourished by Zoroastrian light and by the mystical love of Hafez, a love that flows from the hidden springs of Sufism itself. These identities are not interchangeable goods in the supermarket of globalism. They are treasures, refined through centuries of joy and agony, and their dissolution is the greatest tragedy of the modern age. As an Iranian, I want to see Iran remain Iranian. As a guest in Italy, it is my profound duty to demand that Italy remains Italian. Anything else is not tolerance; it is the nihilism of the marketplace.

I stepped onto Italian soil dreaming of a world I thought still existed. I wanted to hear the music of the Italian language everywhere, to witness life still woven around the quiet heartbeat of Catholic time, to recognize faces carved by the Mediterranean and an ancient bloodline. I yearned for the smell of a nonna’s kitchen: flour and semolina in the air as her hands shaped fresh pasta. The delicate, buttery fragrance of a cornetto baking in a nearby pasticceria, and the sound of Pavarotti pouring from an apartment window, a voice that was not mere song but the soul of a people made audible.

Yet even as I pursued this dream, I was not naive. I knew that the Italy of Dante and the Catholic cosmos had been bleeding from within for centuries, hollowed out by a rationalism that reduced the world to a machine, by a materialism that substituted comfort for salvation, and by a spiritual exhaustion that made its people forget their own gods. The demographic winter, the retreat into private comfort, the replacement of the cathedral spire with the shopping mall; all this was underway long before the first boat landed on Lampedusa. Europe was not killed by the invasion; she was already in the Leontievian stage of secondary simplification. The present tide of newcomers merely feeds on a body that, through its own internal apostasy, had already begun its organic dissolution.

Instead, what struck me with blinding force was the systematic erasure of that very reality. In many quarters of the city, I hear no Italian. I see not the organic diversity of distinct civilizations, but a chaotic dumping ground where the rootless of the world are aggregated. I am stunned not by the presence of other foreigners, for students and merchants who have always crossed borders, but by the immense scale and the ideological apparatus that incentivizes this ongoing replacement. This is not an accident; it is a policy, promoted by a liberal-globalist establishment that sees rooted peoples as an obstacle to the smooth flow of capital and the creation of a post-human, consumable identity.

Let me explain the perversity of the system from the perspective of a legal immigrant who works and pays his taxes. I follow the law. I contribute. I demand no special privileges regarding insurance, housing, or welfare. But I am surrounded by a state apparatus that constantly incentivizes me to become illegal, to abandon my studies, and to claim refugee status. The irony is grotesque: If I were to betray my legal status and declare myself a refugee, the system would reward me almost instantly. A home would be provided. A monthly stipend would follow. All the mountains of bureaucracy I currently climb, the endless queues at the questura, the Kafkaesque folders of permesso di soggiorno renewals, the labyrinthine documentation of income, insurance, and domicile would mysteriously evaporate. That crushing administrative weight, which for a legal immigrant is a trial of patience and paperwork, shrinks to a few signatures and a swift entry into a parallel welfare track, greased by an ideology eager to manufacture dependents. If I were to enroll in certain study programs under that status, I could earn more than an average Italian worker who has labored his entire life. This is not a myth; it is a documented, structural reality. The host society, the Italian people who built this nation with their sweat and genius, are made strangers in their own land, while newcomers are incentivized to remain strangers, living parasitically off a welfare state that the native taxpayers alone sustain.

The ancient world understood hospitality, xenia, diyafa, the sacred bond between host and stranger, as a vertical obligation, not a horizontal transaction. The guest was bound by a divine protocol: to honor the hearth, to submit to the customs of the roof that sheltered him, to recognize that he stood on soil not his own.

The modern state has usurped this priestly role, but it administers a sacrament without salvation. When it granted refugee status to the Sudanese national in 2023, it was not performing an act of mercy; it was conducting an initiation rite into the church of abstract humanity, a church that demands living sacrifices. Three years later, the cost of that sacrament was exacted from a native Irishman, Stephen Ogilvie, a man who had committed no sin other than existing in the land of his fathers. The state had pronounced the stranger worthy of protection; the stranger pronounced the native worthy of mutilation. The blade that took his eye and ravaged his face was not merely a criminal instrument; it was the materialization of a spiritual severance that began at the border, where the state had already dissolved the guest’s obligation to the soil by declaring all soil interchangeable.

And the state, true to its theology, responded not by repenting of its false judgment, but by condemning the righteous anger of the native population as “unrest.” Here we see the complete inversion of the sacred order: the protector becomes the accomplice, the guest becomes the predator, and the victim becomes the accused. The refugee permit, once a mark of sanctuary, has become a license to transgress. The state, having dissolved the particular bonds of blood and soil in favor of universal legal fictions, finds itself constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between the deserving guest and the invading wolf. In its egalitarian blindness, it has transformed the ancient right of asylum, an exceptional act of communal mercy, into a conveyor belt that delivers the children of the host to the knife. This is the managerial elite’s final cruelty: to make the native pay for his own dissolution, and then to criminalize his grief.

This is not compassion. This is the liquidation of the social bond. True charity is hierarchical and personal, not an abstract bureaucratic machine that buys the loyalty of a foreign underclass to undermine the organic nation. The open-border ideology is ruining European societies, and it does so under the blackmail of “anti-racism.” Any European who points out the crumbling of public safety, the explosion of parallel legal systems, or the sheer incommensurability of certain cultural codes is immediately silenced by the left-liberal establishment. Yet let us speak plainly, without the language of hate but with the cold precision of reality: statistics show that certain immigrant populations, coming from specific civilizational backgrounds, the lowest people of their own societies, possessing a complete ignorance of the common good as Europe understood it, the human sediment that settles wherever open borders allow, commit crimes at a much higher rate. As a man who walks these streets, I can confirm that there are entire zones in Italian cities where I cannot walk without endangering my safety. This is not “racism”; it is a fact of experience. The liberal illusion claims that all humans, stripped of their heritage and placed in a vacuum, will behave identically if given the same “opportunities.” This is the anthropology of the laboratory, not of the world. Man is a being of difference, not of sameness. When you import a mass of people from a civilization whose spiritual and social forms have followed a wholly different trajectory, you are not creating diversity; you are planting the seeds of permanent hostility and the ghettoization of souls.

This leads to the crucial point that the Italian left, in its suicidal folly, is now pushing a referendum to grant Italian citizenship after only five years of residence. Five years! Can a man become Italian in five years? Can he absorb the language in its profoundest nuances, the religion in its lived orthopraxy, the silent cultural codes, the collective memory of the Risorgimento and, along with the scent of a tiglio tree in a Tuscan piazza, an Italian expression or proverb, still used in daily life, that Dante created centuries ago? No. This is a legal fiction that degrades citizenship from a sacred spiritual substance into an administrative stamp. True belonging requires a vertical integration of blood, soil, spirit that may take generations, if it is possible at all. The reduction of citizenship to a bureaucratic formality is the final insult to the soul of a people. It tells the native that his identity is nothing but a legal status up for grabs, and it tells the immigrant that he has no duty to elevate himself into an existing spiritual order; he merely needs to exist in space for five rotations around the sun.

Immigration policies, if they are to exist at all, must serve the people of the land. The first and non-negotiable principle of any sane political order is the privilege of the native. The rights of the historical community are absolute. Everything else, economic growth, demographic supplementation, the whims of global corporations, must be secondary. Europe’s leaders, poisoned by egalitarian hubris, have reversed this principle. They declare that the rights of abstract “humanity” override the rights of real, flesh-and-blood communities to preserve their identity and their sacred difference. This is the essence of the modern world: the dissolution of every qualitative difference into a uniform, liquid mass, controlled by a managerial elite that knows no loyalty except to its own power.

This is why I, from the perspective of an immigrant who loves civilizations, advocate for multipolarity. Multipolarity is the affirmation of a world of great, differentiated organic cultures, each sovereign in its own space. Europe must remain white and Christian, not out of hatred for other races; I am not white, and I am not Christian, but because a Europe that ceases to be these things ceases to be Europe, just as an Iran that abandons its Persian and Islamic core would become a meaningless shell. True diversity is the diversity of peoples, each rooted in their own soil, cultivating their own genius, and relating to one another from a position of strength and mutual respect, not through the chaotic mixing enforced by the melting pot. The melting pot does not work. It never has. What it produces is not a harmonious blend, but a world of suspicion, self-segregation, and simmering resentment. People do not want to mix; they want to remain what they are. The immigrants mass-imported into Europe today do not want to become Italian or French or German. They want to rebuild their home country here, on foreign soil, raising their flags and enforcing their customs. And the liberal state, which hates the native’s identity, actually encourages this parallel society because it weakens any unified resistance to the market state.

The final tragedy is the demographic one. Europe’s native population has been pushed into a demographic winter by the same materialist logic that devalues life, family, and sacrifice. An exhausted, atomized populace produces fewer children. Meanwhile, the system subsidizes the fertility of the newcomers with the taxes of the dying native stock. It is a mathematical certainty: in the near future, if this trajectory continues, there will be no Italy. There will be no France. There will be no Germany. There will be a territory, still called by those names, inhabited by a population that has no organic link to Dante, Molière, or Goethe, a population that will vote, consume, and exist as spectral figures in a universal supermarket. This is not a delirium of the fearful; it is a rational projection based on current policies and birth rates. To name this tragedy is not hate; it is the ultimate act of love for these peoples and their imperishable spirit.

I am an Iranian, a guest in Italy. And it is precisely as a guest that I understand my duty: to honor the host, to defend his house against those who would burn it down, even if those arsonists speak the language of human rights. The revolt against the modern world must be ecumenical. All those who still stand on the side of Tradition, whether they prostrate towards Mecca, kneel before the Cross, or meditate in silence, must unite to restore the sacred order where each people can live and die according to its own soul, in its own land, under its own sun. For Europe to survive, it must again become European, and it must rigorously, unapologetically privilege its own children. Everything else is not politics but the management of a cemetery.

As a final acknowledgment, I do not support violence in any shape or form.

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and debate this essay.

]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2026 11:59:07 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/notes-from-a-civilization-in-winter <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Live with Ahnaf Ibn Qais & Multipolar Press]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/live-with-ahnaf-ibn-qais-and-multipolar
Get more from Constantin von Hoffmeister in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android
]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2026 11:08:20 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/live-with-ahnaf-ibn-qais-and-multipolar <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] The Political Cesspool: Donald Trump’s Disastrous Year]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/13/the-political-cesspool-donald-trumps-disastrous-year/

It has been a year since Israel launched the war with Iran.

I will be on The Political Cesspool tonight at 7 PM CST with my friend James Edwards to discuss how Bibi Netanyahu and MIGA hijacked Trump’s second term and wrecked his coalition.

UPDATE: The archive of our conversation is embedded below.

]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2026 07:53:05 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336848 <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] The Lovecraftian Iran Deal]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/the-lovecraftian-iran-deal

A strange spectacle unfolded beneath the electric glare of twenty-first-century empire. President Trump, surrounded by advisors, generals, financiers, media apparitions, and the immense machinery of a civilization that once imagined itself master of every horizon, arrived at a point where the pathways ahead narrowed into a grim corridor. The grand strategy that promised pressure, intimidation, and unilateral direction encountered a force that resisted absorption into familiar formulas. At that moment, amid the vast labyrinth of geopolitical calculations, only two doors remained visible: a descent into a far greater military confrontation or a movement towards substantial accommodation with Tehran. This reality deserves remembrance whenever voices celebrate the episode as a demonstration of unambiguous strength.

The deeper significance reaches beyond immediate events. Lovecraft often described solitary scholars who wandered through forgotten archives only to discover that the map they trusted concealed older and more immense structures beneath the earth. So too did the architects of American policy appear to confront a hidden geometry. Years of sanctions, threats, covert operations, diplomatic maneuvering, and regional pressure created the impression of overwhelming control. Yet beneath the visible architecture lurked a different reality, vast and ancient in its own way: a civilizational state rooted in memories, symbols, and institutions that stretched far beyond the lifespan of any administration. The confident equations of power encountered variables drawn from deeper strata, like those buried cyclopean cities whose angles violated ordinary perception in At the Mountains of Madness.

Subscribe to receive new posts and support my work.

Within this unfolding drama, Trump resembled one of Lovecraft’s protagonists who enters a chamber expecting mastery over mysterious forces and instead discovers himself enclosed within their design. Each escalation generated new pressures. Each demonstration of resolve invited corresponding displays of endurance. The machinery of deterrence began to resemble an elaborate ritual whose participants gradually realized that the forces summoned possessed their own momentum. Across deserts, mountains, shipping lanes, diplomatic corridors, intelligence networks, and financial systems, invisible currents converged into a configuration that constrained every actor involved. What appeared from afar as freedom of action increasingly revealed itself as movement through narrowing passages carved by the accumulated weight of history itself.

The mythology of strength often depends on images. Photographs, speeches, aircraft carriers, missiles, flags, and declarations create impressions that travel swiftly across the modern information sphere. Lovecraft understood the deceptive character of appearances. His narrators frequently gazed upon ordinary landscapes only to glimpse, through a fleeting shift of perspective, colossal forms lurking beyond human comprehension. In similar fashion, the surface imagery surrounding the confrontation suggested dominance and initiative. Yet the deeper structure pointed towards something else entirely. A leader whose strategy culminates in a choice between major war and significant concessions occupies a position shaped as much by limitation as by command. The image projected outward may radiate confidence, while the underlying reality speaks of constriction, pressure, and strategic inferiority.

One might even compare the situation to the explorers who encountered the ancient entities of Lovecraft’s cosmos. Those travelers carried advanced tools, scientific knowledge, and immense faith in their own capabilities. Then came the revelation that greater forces already inhabited the landscape. In geopolitical terms, the lesson remains similar. Technological superiority, economic reach, and military power retain tremendous significance, yet they exist alongside civilizational resilience, ideological commitment, demographic endurance, geographic depth, and historical memory. These elements rarely appear in triumphant headlines, though they often determine outcomes across decades. Tehran’s position drew strength from precisely such subterranean foundations, creating a strategic environment where coercion alone could achieve only limited results.

The final irony carries a distinctly Lovecraftian flavor. Many tales end with a protagonist confronting a revelation that transforms the meaning of everything that preceded it. The apparent hunter discovers himself inside a larger pattern. The investigator becomes part of the mystery he sought to unravel. The conqueror finds boundaries where limitless expansion seemed certain. Thus the narrative of demonstrated strength deserves careful scrutiny. Strength exists most clearly where options multiply and initiative expands. Trump, however, is a figure standing before vast shadowed gates beneath alien stars, surrounded by powers and circumstances that have quietly reduced the realm of possible action. Thus are revealed the true contours of strategic reality, far more clearly than by any triumphant proclamation.

Order LOVECRAFT ON CIVILIZATION here. Edited and annotated by Constantin von Hoffmeister, this volume reveals the creator of cosmic horror as a penetrating observer of Western civilization, bringing together fiction and non-fiction that explore culture, identity, order, and decline.

]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2026 06:55:11 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/the-lovecraftian-iran-deal <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] What’s Happening in Ireland?]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/whats-happening-in-ireland

“What has happened in Northern Ireland? Find out from inside the country as we speak with an Irish author [ from Multipolar Press] who is telling us what the mood is from the inside and what is actually happening! Is Western culture slowly coming to an end? Is there anything that can be done about it?”

This is how the new world order works. Join thousands of deep-divers who look beneath the surface of global geopolitics.

]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:58:08 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/whats-happening-in-ireland <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump Continues Announcing Iran Deal]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/12/donald-trump-continues-announcing-iran-deal/

WATCH: CNN montage of Trump saying he's close to a deal with Iran. He's made the claim 39 times since the war began.pic.twitter.com/o2j782A2jF

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 12, 2026

No one else could have negotiated such an amazing deal.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Note: It has been exactly a year since Israel started this war with Iran. It might be worth taking time to pause and take stock of how much the world has changed since June 12, 2025.

]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:29:49 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336840 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Civilization or Utter Darkness]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/civilization-or-utter-darkness We are not simply at war with the West. We are at war with the modern (and postmodern) West—with the West that as far back as the 11th century diverged from our common Christian path and has been advancing ever further, striving to reach the end of the night, deeper and deeper into the outer twilight.

The metaphysical conditions for a truce are as follows:

  • Either the West, while remaining modern (and postmodern)—exactly as it wants to be and as it currently is—leaves us in peace (but this is ruled out, impossible, and not seriously considered by anyone there—Satan does not stop);

  • Or the West sharply changes the direction of its movement and, following the path of the Eternal Return, decisively turns BACK towards its own (Christian, Greco-Roman) roots. These roots are common to us both (it is only that the West has wandered very, very far from them, while we have not). This is highly improbable, but not theoretically impossible (after all, Nietzsche, Husserl, Spengler, Heidegger, Guénon, and Evola represent the West as well—only the right, sane West, not possessed by progress, liberalism, and perversions).

An important point about the civilizational approach. We have now broken through the barrier: the civilizational approach is finally being taken seriously and without the previous sneering and mockery. But there is a subtle nuance here. Everyone has been pressured into accepting it—but only as an approach. That is, it is now permissible to say that civilizations exist in the plural, that they are different, unique, and that each does whatever it wants in the course of its own production (of both things and meanings). It is now an officially permitted approach.

But let’s think about this: what would any other approach look like?

And here we discover the most interesting thing: a non-civilizational approach is the belief in the universality and mandatory nature of the Western path of development—in other words, an oath of allegiance to a West-centric view of the world. In the West today, liberalism (bourgeois capitalism in its postmodern form—hence the LGBT ideology, mass immigration, and so on, all banned in Russia) reigns supreme, with confident, even totalitarian dominance. Therefore, a non-civilizational approach today means agreement with Western hegemony and, under current conditions, with liberalism. Since we are at war with the West in the Special Military Operation, a non-civilizational approach is simply a fifth column of the enemy in the cognitive war for the public consciousness of Russians.

Of course, classical Marxism remains as another non-civilizational option (its theory of the universal succession of socio-economic formations—exactly like in the West). But it mostly just gets in the way and plays into the hands of the liberals. Marx himself was, after all, aligned with the bourgeoisie at the stages when it was overthrowing Christianity, estates, and traditional values. He believed that afterward the proletariat (“we”) would overthrow the bourgeoisie (“them”). We know how that turned out. For a while it even seemed to be working (thanks to the greatness of the Russian people and Stalin’s essentially imperial, centralized power). But then came primitive capital accumulation again—the 1990s, wild capitalism, raspberry jackets,1 thieves, contract killers, and CIA agents in the Russian government.

Thus, the relativization of the civilizational approach is:

  • Either an attempt to justify totalitarian globalist liberalism (this is the most common case)—in other words, a large-scale operation by Western intelligence services in the cognitive war. Over the past 30 years, our humanities scholars have gone through every stage of systematic recruitment: grants, conferences, offers they couldn’t refuse, publication in Western citation indexes, education reforms, and so on;

  • Or inertial Marxism—the phantom pain of a half-erased, chimeric ideology.

Continue:

Multipolar Press
Civilization or Utter Darkness
Alexander Dugin condemns any compromise with the postmodern West and insists that Russia’s civilizational approach is the only possible paradigm…
Read more
11 days ago · 1 like · Alexander Dugin

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2026 04:41:10 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/civilization-or-utter-darkness <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Civilization or Utter Darkness]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/civilization-or-utter-darkness

Alexander Dugin condemns any compromise with the postmodern West and insists that Russia’s civilizational approach is the only possible paradigm.

We are not simply at war with the West. We are at war with the modern (and postmodern) West—with the West that as far back as the 11th century diverged from our common Christian path and has been advancing ever further, striving to reach the end of the night, deeper and deeper into the outer twilight.

We preserve independent cultural analysis by keeping 100% of our writers’ essays open to the world. Support our infrastructure and keep this journal free for everyone.

The metaphysical conditions for a truce are as follows:

  • Either the West, while remaining modern (and postmodern)—exactly as it wants to be and as it currently is—leaves us in peace (but this is ruled out, impossible, and not seriously considered by anyone there—Satan does not stop);

  • Or the West sharply changes the direction of its movement and, following the path of the Eternal Return, decisively turns BACK towards its own (Christian, Greco-Roman) roots. These roots are common to us both (it is only that the West has wandered very, very far from them, while we have not). This is highly improbable, but not theoretically impossible (after all, Nietzsche, Husserl, Spengler, Heidegger, Guénon, and Evola represent the West as well—only the right, sane West, not possessed by progress, liberalism, and perversions).

An important point about the civilizational approach. We have now broken through the barrier: the civilizational approach is finally being taken seriously and without the previous sneering and mockery. But there is a subtle nuance here. Everyone has been pressured into accepting it—but only as an approach. That is, it is now permissible to say that civilizations exist in the plural, that they are different, unique, and that each does whatever it wants in the course of its own production (of both things and meanings). It is now an officially permitted approach.

But let’s think about this: what would any other approach look like?

And here we discover the most interesting thing: a non-civilizational approach is the belief in the universality and mandatory nature of the Western path of development—in other words, an oath of allegiance to a West-centric view of the world. In the West today, liberalism (bourgeois capitalism in its postmodern form—hence the LGBT ideology, mass immigration, and so on, all banned in Russia) reigns supreme, with confident, even totalitarian dominance. Therefore, a non-civilizational approach today means agreement with Western hegemony and, under current conditions, with liberalism. Since we are at war with the West in the Special Military Operation, a non-civilizational approach is simply a fifth column of the enemy in the cognitive war for the public consciousness of Russians.

Of course, classical Marxism remains as another non-civilizational option (its theory of the universal succession of socio-economic formations—exactly like in the West). But it mostly just gets in the way and plays into the hands of the liberals. Marx himself was, after all, aligned with the bourgeoisie at the stages when it was overthrowing Christianity, estates, and traditional values. He believed that afterward the proletariat (“we”) would overthrow the bourgeoisie (“them”). We know how that turned out. For a while it even seemed to be working (thanks to the greatness of the Russian people and Stalin’s essentially imperial, centralized power). But then came primitive capital accumulation again—the 1990s, wild capitalism, raspberry jackets,1 thieves, contract killers, and CIA agents in the Russian government.

Thus, the relativization of the civilizational approach is:

  • Either an attempt to justify totalitarian globalist liberalism (this is the most common case)—in other words, a large-scale operation by Western intelligence services in the cognitive war. Over the past 30 years, our humanities scholars have gone through every stage of systematic recruitment: grants, conferences, offers they couldn’t refuse, publication in Western citation indexes, education reforms, and so on;

  • Or inertial Marxism—the phantom pain of a half-erased, chimeric ideology.

In the first case, this borders on outright espionage. We see this in the cases of foreign agents like Sineokaya and Shulman.2 Everything is clear here. A liberal is an enemy of the people, practically a ready-made terrorist.

In the second case, these are the hallucinations of the older generation, of which we should be tolerant, but which should not be taken seriously. And if they are new Marxists, then it is most likely espionage again—meaning one should look for a foreign handler (male or female).

Therefore, the civilizational approach is not just an approach. It is the only possible paradigm if Russia is a state-civilization, and Putin and the authorities affirm that this is exactly what it is. Consequently, pluralism should be sought not outside the civilizational paradigm, but within it. There is plenty of room for both the right and the left, but only if they are civilizational (Russian, Eurasian) right-wingers and civilizational (Russian, Eurasian) left-wingers. In fact, for everyone—but inside the paradigm. Outside it lies utter darkness. The external twilight. One should not go there. Evil lurks there.

(Translated from the Russian)

1

Translator’s note (TN): “Raspberry jackets” (малиновые пиджаки) is a symbolic reference to the flashy, bright-red blazers worn by the nouveau-riche “New Russians”—often criminals or shady businessmen—as a stereotypical emblem of the vulgarity and wild criminal capitalism of the 1990s.

2

TN: Yulia Sineokaya and Ekaterina Shulman are well-known Russian liberal intellectuals whom the Russian state has designated as foreign agents. They exemplify the “fifth column”: liberals who have been systematically recruited by the West through grants, conferences, and academic networks, and who actively work to undermine Russia’s civilizational sovereignty from within. Both are now in exile and are regarded in patriotic circles as typical representatives of the pro-Western ideological opposition.

]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2026 04:30:26 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/civilization-or-utter-darkness <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Marx, Jews, and Liberalism]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/marx-jews-and-liberalism

Karl Marx begins his examination of the Jewish Question by attacking a belief that had become common in nineteenth-century Europe: the belief that political rights alone could solve the deeper problems of human life. Many Jews sought equal standing within Christian states. Liberals demanded constitutions, voting rights, legal protections, and freedom of worship. Marx regarded these demands as understandable, yet incomplete. He argued that a man may receive political rights and still remain trapped within structures that shape his life from above. A Christian state could grant rights to Jews while preserving the conditions that made Jews appear as outsiders in the first place. The problem therefore extended far beyond relations between Christians and Jews. It reached into the foundations of modern politics itself. Marx asks a simple question in plain language: what kind of freedom exists when the state proclaims equality while society remains divided by wealth, power, status, and inherited loyalties? The Jewish Question becomes the doorway into a much larger investigation concerning the meaning of human emancipation.

Marx rejects the idea that one religious community should seek favor from another. He sees a trap in that arrangement. If Christians possess authority and Jews ask to be admitted into the existing order, then the structure itself remains untouched. One group stands inside the gate and another stands outside. The debate concerns admission rather than transformation. Marx therefore turns his attention away from theology and towards power. He argues that both rulers and petitioners become participants in the same system. The rulers defend their privileges while the petitioners seek inclusion within those privileges. Neither side asks whether the arrangement itself deserves to survive. In this sense, Marx treats political emancipation as something limited. It can remove legal barriers, yet it leaves untouched the deeper forces that shape society. A man may gain rights on paper while remaining subject to economic pressures, inherited hierarchies, and social divisions. Freedom becomes a legal status rather than a living reality.

Subscribe to receive new posts and support my work.

Religion occupies an important place in this analysis, although Marx approaches it differently from many of his contemporaries. He does not spend his energy attacking particular creeds. Instead, he examines the relationship between religion and the state. A government that defines itself through a specific faith inevitably divides the population into categories of belonging. Some stand closer to authority while others remain further away. Marx argues that a truly modern state attempts to escape this problem by separating itself from religious institutions. Yet he also observes that this separation solves only part of the problem. The state may become secular while society remains deeply religious. Laws may cease speaking in theological language, although citizens continue to carry their beliefs into every aspect of daily life. The result is a peculiar dual existence. Public life follows one set of rules while private life follows another. The division remains even after formal religious privilege disappears.

The example that attracts Marx’s attention is the United States. He regards America as one of the most advanced examples of political emancipation available in his time. The state refrains from establishing a national church. Religious groups enjoy broad freedom. Different faiths coexist under the same constitutional framework. Many observers viewed this arrangement as the final answer to religious conflict. Marx disagrees. He notes that religion remains powerful throughout American society. Churches flourish. Religious identities persist. Citizens carry their convictions into their social relationships and political behavior. The state has withdrawn from religion, yet religion continues to influence the people who compose the state. Political emancipation therefore creates a new situation rather than a final solution. The government becomes neutral while society remains fragmented into countless communities, traditions, and interests. Tolerance replaces persecution, although deeper forms of separation survive.

This observation leads Marx to one of his central distinctions. Political emancipation and human emancipation are not the same thing. Political emancipation concerns the relationship between individuals and the state. Human emancipation concerns the whole structure of social life. A constitution may guarantee equality before the law while economic and social realities produce immense differences in power. A worker and a wealthy industrialist may possess identical voting rights, yet their ability to influence events remains vastly different. Marx believes liberal societies often mistake the first achievement for the second. They celebrate legal equality and assume the work is complete. Marx insists that the deeper task still lies ahead. Human beings remain divided by class, property, and social position. The law recognizes them as equals while daily life constantly reminds them of their inequalities.

The language of rights occupies a central place in this criticism. Liberal thinkers present rights as the highest achievement of modern civilization. Marx examines them carefully and arrives at a harsher conclusion. Many rights, he argues, describe individuals as isolated units rather than members of a larger community. The right to property protects ownership. The right to conscience protects private belief. The right to pursue one’s interests protects personal autonomy. Each right has practical value. Yet Marx notices that all of them assume separation. The individual appears as a self-contained figure whose primary concern is defending his own sphere against intrusion. Society becomes an arrangement of protected compartments. The citizen enjoys security, although genuine solidarity remains elusive. Rights protect individuals. They do little to overcome the fragmentation of modern life.

For Marx, the rise of bourgeois society intensifies this tendency. Economic life encourages competition, accumulation, and private interest. Individuals encounter one another increasingly through contracts, transactions, and market relationships. Political institutions mirror this reality. Governments defend property and regulate exchange. Public life becomes tied to economic activity. Citizens speak of liberty while measuring success through acquisition. Marx sees a contradiction here. Liberal society praises universal values, yet daily life revolves around private advantage. Human beings appear connected through law while remaining separated through economic interests. The promise of collective life fades behind a network of competing ambitions. Freedom becomes associated with independence from others rather than participation in a common project.

The great revolutions of the modern era illustrate this contradiction. The French Revolution proclaimed universal rights and citizenship. Monarchs lost authority. Ancient privileges collapsed. A new political order emerged. Marx acknowledges the historical significance of these achievements. Yet he observes that the revolutionary state often replaced older forms of authority with new abstractions. Citizens became formally equal while material inequalities persisted. Political language celebrated humanity while social divisions continued to shape everyday existence. The revolution transformed institutions more rapidly than it transformed society. As a result, a gap emerged between political ideals and lived reality. Modern governments spoke in the name of the people while economic life followed its own logic.

Religion also changes under these conditions. In older societies, it often served as a public framework that organized communal life. In modern liberal societies, it increasingly becomes a private matter. Faith survives, although its social role shifts. Churches remain active, yet religion enters the realm of personal choice. Marx sees this development as another form of fragmentation. Spiritual life retreats into the private sphere while politics occupies the public sphere. The individual learns to live in two worlds at once. One world concerns citizenship, law, and government. The other concerns belief, identity, and meaning. Liberal society treats this separation as normal. Marx treats it as evidence of an unresolved contradiction within modern life.

One of the most striking features of Marx’s argument is that it steadily expands beyond its original subject. The Jewish Question begins as a debate concerning a specific minority within European society. It evolves into a broader examination of modern citizenship itself. The Jew becomes an example of a larger condition. Every individual in modern society experiences some form of division between public and private existence. Every citizen participates in institutions that proclaim equality while navigating social structures that produce inequality. The problem ceases to belong to one religious community. It becomes the problem of modern man.

An intriguing episode from Marx’s own life illustrates how deeply he engaged with questions of social transformation. During the 1840s, after facing censorship, political pressure, and exile in Europe, Marx explored the possibility of emigrating to the United States. Historians have uncovered evidence suggesting that Texas appeared among the destinations under consideration. At that time, Texas represented a frontier society associated with land, expansion, and opportunity. The image carries a certain irony. The man who would become the most famous critic of capitalism considered relocation to a region closely associated with private property, entrepreneurial ambition, and frontier individualism. Whether Marx seriously intended to settle there remains debated. Yet the episode reveals something important. Marx understood that social systems are historical rather than eternal. He looked beyond established European structures and contemplated entirely different environments. The fact that Texas entered the discussion reminds us that even revolutionary thinkers often stand at crossroads where several futures remain possible.

As Marx’s analysis develops, he arrives at a conclusion that reaches far beyond legal reform. Human emancipation requires more than constitutions, elections, and declarations of rights. These measures possess value, yet they address only part of the problem. The deeper challenge concerns the organization of society itself. As long as individuals experience life through divisions between public and private, citizen and believer, worker and owner, legal equality and material inequality, the promise of freedom remains incomplete. Political emancipation creates conditions for progress. It does not guarantee fulfillment.

This argument explains why Marx continues to attract attention long after the controversies of nineteenth-century Europe have faded. The specific circumstances have changed. The underlying questions remain. Modern societies still wrestle with tensions between individual rights and collective purpose, between economic freedom and social cohesion, between private identity and public citizenship. Debates concerning religion, culture, and belonging continue to shape political life across the world. Marx’s essay endures because it addresses these broader questions beneath the immediate dispute. The Jewish Question becomes a study of modern society itself.

Marx ultimately presents freedom as something larger than legal recognition. A government may grant rights. Courts may enforce equality. Constitutions may proclaim universal principles. Yet Marx insists that genuine emancipation requires a transformation of social life that reaches beyond formal institutions. Human beings must cease existing as fragmented figures divided between competing roles and loyalties. The goal is a condition in which public life, economic life, and personal life form part of a coherent whole. Whether one agrees with Marx’s proposed solutions or rejects them entirely, the force of his argument lies in the scale of the question he raises. He asks whether freedom means admission into an existing order or the creation of an entirely different one. More than a century and a half later, that question still hangs over the modern world.

If you enjoy my writing, order my new book, The Fate of White America, here.

Paid subscribers receive access to the comments section and help sustain the project.

]]> Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:43:16 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/marx-jews-and-liberalism <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] DEPARTURE DAY SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/departure-day-sitrep I am OFF to NASHVILLE, TN!

I may go DARK for a couple of days - I do NOT want to compromise OPSEC for any of our Friends and Comrades who are NOT above board, nor bring any hassles down on OGC. So there may not be any FRESH content until next week.

I WILL respond to EMAILS, TEXTS however - so if you need to reach out, don’t hesitate.

VERY STOKKED to meet up with those of you who will be present!

]]> Thu, 11 Jun 2026 04:47:26 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/departure-day-sitrep <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] The Scapegoat Returns]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-scapegoat-returns
Jusepe de Ribera, Apollo and Marsys, 1637

Cas Corach on René Girard, mimetic rivalry, and the sacrificial tensions emerging within the crisis of the modern liberal order.

This essay concerns violence, not its promotion, nor a catalogue of lurid atrocities, but violence as a heuristic through which to understand the present moment. Across the Western world, there is a growing sense of social strain: political discourse has become increasingly hostile, public trust continues to erode, and citizens are confronted daily with reports of crime, disorder, and conflict. Whether these developments represent a genuine increase in violence or merely a heightened awareness of it is beside the point. The experience of living amid perceived instability cannot be captured entirely by crime statistics or economic indicators. Violence possesses a social and psychological reality that exceeds what can be measured on a spreadsheet. Statistical averages mean nothing when one sees the sight of blood.

We preserve independent cultural analysis by keeping 100% of our writers’ essays open to the world. Support our infrastructure and keep this journal free for everyone.

How should we understand this condition? Rather than pursuing metaphysical or banal socio-economic explanations for the apparent decadence of the contemporary liberal order, this essay turns to René Girard and his seminal work Violence and the Sacred. Girard’s central claim is as unusual as it is profound: human societies originated in acts of collective violence that were subsequently concealed beneath myth, ritual, and religion. At some point in man’s deep past, our mimetic nature led us to a sociological crisis of violent reprisal. This unending terror was eventually brought to an end through the communities’ unanimous decision to select a scapegoat to devour and subsequently venerate as the final act of violence to bring about peace. Through sacrificial practices, communities periodically redirect internal tensions onto a substitute victim—an animal, a pharmakos or a transcendental sacrifice á la Christianity—thereby preventing violence from consuming society itself:

There is no question of ‘expiation.’ Rather, society is seeking to deflect upon a relatively indifferent victim, a ‘sacrificeable’ victim, the violence that would otherwise be vented on its own members, the people it most desires to protect. The qualities that lend violence its particular terror—its blind brutality, the fundamental absurdity of its manifestations—have a reverse side. With these qualities goes the strange propensity to seize upon surrogate victims, to actually conspire with the enemy and at the right moment toss him a morsel that will serve to satisfy his raging hunger.

Though Girard’s theory is of questionable anthropological truth—as it cannot be empirically proven—it offers an interesting heuristic to examine our modern society, and we shall explain the details of his thesis in line with the growth of terror and violence that infects the current liberal order. This essay treats Girard not as a complete sociological system, but as a diagnostic lens—one that becomes most illuminating when applied to conditions of intensified social comparison, rather than as a universal theory of all social order.

In our modern system, ritual, religion and sacrifice are all confined to the private sphere because we are nominally secular, progressive and scientific-minded. One can have kooky beliefs or go to church, but in no way does the state or collectivity pretend to promote such practices. Even public displays of religiosity are cordoned off, as it were, behind safe cultural expressions or secularized into entertainment and mere sentimentality. Unlike our ancestors, there is little acceptable collective scapegoat mechanism built into our system and, if anything, such a need is consciously repressed.

If Girard is correct that societies require mechanisms for containing mimetic conflict, then a troubling question emerges. What happens when a civilization abolishes its traditional sacrificial institutions while retaining the elements that made those institutions necessary? Liberal societies pride themselves on having transcended scapegoating, yet this very self-repression may render new forms of scapegoating difficult to recognize.

Girard credits this civilizing development to the judicial system, which delays violent reprisal and has the final word on legitimate violence. Disputes can therefore be settled through legal procedures rather than devolving into blood feuds and cycles of vengeance. Yet the stability of such an arrangement depends upon widespread confidence in the legitimacy of the institutions that administer justice.

When that legitimacy begins to erode, the danger of reciprocal violence re-emerges. The Troubles in the North of Ireland offer a striking example. The conflict was not caused by judicial failure alone, but it did reveal the consequences of a society in which competing communities no longer recognized a common authority capable of definitively adjudicating disputes. Violence became self-perpetuating as acts of retaliation generated fresh grievances and demands for revenge. In Girardian terms, the judicial mechanism proved incapable of fully containing mimetic antagonism, allowing rivalries to escalate into a prolonged cycle of conflict. We now see analogous trends in other Western nations for different reasons, yet the end point is the same: loss of faith in the system that can stop mimetic violence between polarized communities. But why is the liberal world order, which has materially achieved so much by transcending the ritual sacrifice, once again descending into violent crisis? Again, the heuristic of Violence and the Sacred offers us an explanation.

One of Girard’s more insightful claims is that human beings desire things not for the things themselves but rather that we mimic the desire of others; we want what is wanted. This is particularly obvious in small children, but we can extend this mimetic quality to adults with examples too numerous to mention. The phrase “keeping up with the Joneses” comes to mind. This sharing of desire around a central object naturally creates rivalry between individuals, particularly men who are adept at the perpetuation of conflict:

In all the varieties of desire examined by us we have encountered not only a subject and an object but a third presence a well: the rival. It is the rival who should be accorded the dominant role.

The liberal system may have transcended collective ritual sacrifice, but it has not transcended rivalry around desire; in fact, it both conceals and accentuates desire to the detriment of its citizens. Progressive, modern economies champion the free movement of goods, labour and capital. This, it cannot be denied, has led to great economic wealth through an explosion of goods and services. This is the concealment. Man is free to choose his own path and consume all he can afford by the sweat of his brow, but underneath this is the perpetual conflict of capitalistic systems where relations between peoples are commodified. Just as various products compete in the market while prices race to the bottom, so does labour. The growth of real wages has stagnated significantly in the Western world, houses have become unaffordable for the young, and upskilling is now a necessary aspect of working life as industries adopt the latest technologies to further productivity and profits. We cannot step out of the numerous desires created by the system or the rivalries they engender. Added to this is the culture and advertising industry which conceals the competition under a fleeting pleasure principle.

Everyone competes against everyone else for property, promotion, titles and the social benefits these things accrue. Having no transcendent outlet to purge this violence, it turns inward as loneliness and mental illness or into senseless destruction: drug abuse, riots, delinquency, theft, etc. Traditional societies often constrained rivalry through stable hierarchies, inherited roles, and shared religious frameworks. Whatever their shortcomings, such structures could limit certain forms of mimetic competition by defining social expectations in advance, while the liberal-capitalist regimes strip it all away in the name of progress. It touches on another fundamental point of Girard: difference and social order.

Girard posits that the social order reaches a sacrificial or violent crisis as differences between individuals evaporate and the mimetic mirroring becomes so extreme as to cause societal breakdown. He does this by careful examination of Greek tragedy, which he claims analogizes the sacrificial crisis: Oedipus Rex and The Bacchae. Both these dramas have a lack of difference as a fundamental conceit: Oedipus is both insider and foreigner, the followers of Dionysus cross-dress and hallucinate their victims as animals, and Dionysus himself is an object of veneration as well as fear. This lack of differentiation leads to a crisis, which is solved by the sacrifice of the scapegoat so order can be restored again and differences reestablished.

With this in mind, has there ever been a system so accustomed to eradicating differences as the modern liberal order? Modern societies are not unified actors with a single intention, but they are structured by a set of converging ideological and economic pressures that consistently move in the direction of reducing inherited distinction. These tendencies are uneven, often contradictory in practice, and vary significantly across institutions and national contexts, even as they share a common pressure toward increased comparability between individuals.

Following on from the needs of capital, we see that all boundaries are torn down. Nations and peoples can blend and cajole together, facilitated by technology and ideology to become citizens of the world. To acknowledge any differences between peoples is seen as prejudice and this has even been extended into the realm of sex, where men can become women and vice versa, much like The Bacchae. Traditional gender roles are not seen as a respectable option but as patriarchal terror; loving one’s culture is on the same grounds as racial hatred. Beyond these considerations, the liberal notion of pure equality is no longer simply a political compromise but a full-scale ideological movement. Distinctions of status, authority and culture are increasingly viewed with suspicion. Individuals are encouraged to see themselves as fundamentally interchangeable units, free to pursue whatever desires they choose.

Yet the removal of traditional boundaries does not abolish rivalry; it frequently intensifies it. The more similar individuals become, the more they find themselves competing for the same positions, symbols, and forms of recognition. A society in which everyone is encouraged to become exceptional inevitably creates a vast population of disappointed aspirants. The result is not harmony but resentment that tips closer and closer towards a tragedy not unbefitting of the ancient Greek dramas.

All this societal polarization between radical equality and resistant citizenry leads us to another Girardian concept: the monstrous double. This happens when the mimetic rivalry reaches unbearable proportions and the subject is caught in the double bind of the model-obstacle that condemns both partners to a continual heightening of violence. The monstrous double now takes the place of those objects that held the attention of the antagonists at a less advanced stage of the crisis, replacing those things that each had sought to assimilate and destroy: to incarnate and expel.

This is very apparent in our current political crisis of left- and right-wing parties. Both sides are in a dialectic with each other, playing off each other’s fears and anxieties. Often we see that they push the extremes of liberalism but at different points. The left-wing groups frequently wish to further the dissolution of boundaries between peoples, sex and status, whereas the rightist groups promote only economic talking points or try to conserve the leftism of the last generation. What we see are the base and the superstructure fighting against each other while the citizenry is squeezed in the middle until their very identity as a people is expelled from the equation. This is not the rivalry of two genuinely different political potentials but rather of a double-headed monster that crushes everyone beneath it while deciding which direction to turn next. It doesn’t matter who the people vote for under liberalism, the disillusion is the same regardless.

But what of the scapegoat? A fundamental aspect of Violence and the Sacred is the sacrificial victim of the collective struggle towards stability. If it is true that, having lost its ritual/religious character, modern society is at risk of seeing another crisis, there is likely to be a scapegoat before a new order is articulated. At the moment, the victim is seen in the creative destruction of capitalism. Industries rise and fall with the market. What was popular today is old-fashioned tomorrow and people’s livelihoods are ruined as a consequence. But this abstract victim will not be enough to end the cycle as, due to the nature of capital itself, it can be never-ending but, on the contrary, only increase desire.

In the age of the mass man, it is unlikely that it will be a particular individual or idea but rather an entire group who will suffer the fate of being victim. We see the beginnings of this already in the recent proliferations of anti-movements: anti-Semitism, anti-white, anti-male/female, anti-migrant, etc. True to Girard’s position, it doesn’t matter who the victim is per se, just that there is a victim. A terrible fate confronts us in this regard as no one group is wholly deserving of punishment, particularly in a system as complicated as our own. However, the sacrificial victim also only works if it is one that is unanimously decided by the whole community lest the violence keep perpetuating itself. In our age of polarity, it is impossible to cleanly put an end to the cycle without destroying the wheel itself. Whether such dynamics culminate in a coherent scapegoating mechanism, as in Girard’s archaic model, remains unlikely in pluralistic societies where authority and belief are far more fragmented.

It is our contention that a return to ritual, religion and collective spiritual action can mend the wounds brought on by the modern order. Only that orientation to what is higher can provide the community with the collective discharge to end the violence being done both physically and to our minds as members of society writ large. Girard’s formulations are not perfect and open to debate, yet they point in the direction of the need for transcendence. Man does not live by bread alone, nor will violent sacrifice be relegated to the past. In the final analysis, we must prepare ourselves physically and spiritually yet at all the while hope for more peaceful times ahead. Girard’s framework is most useful here not as prophecy, but as a way of making visible the latent pressures that arise when societies lose stable forms of symbolic containment.

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and debate this analysis.

]]> Thu, 11 Jun 2026 04:43:47 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-scapegoat-returns <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Downfall of the Evening-Land]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/downfall-of-the-evening-land

"In this episode, Martin Sieff and Pelle Neroth Taylor are joined by Constantin von Hoffmeister — director of Multipolar Press, former editor-in-chief of the conservative publishing house Arktos, and author of Esoteric Trumpism, Multipolarity! and the newly published The Fate of White America. Von Hoffmeister has lately brought out the only abridged edition of Spengler's twelve-hundred-page masterwork on the market, and he comes to the table as an avowed Spenglerian — a man who does not believe the patient can be saved."

Get Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West: The One-Volume Abridged Edition here.

]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:54:26 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/downfall-of-the-evening-land <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Lindsey Graham Wins Primary With Trump’s Endorsement]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/10/lindsey-graham-wins-primary-with-trumps-endorsement/

Lindsey Graham, in his victory speech, compares President Trump to God and says, "Mr. President, you're not far behind God."

"Mr. President, you're not far behind God."

South Carolina has been electing Lindsey Graham since 2003. pic.twitter.com/pujdmQU081

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 10, 2026

MAGA is a steaming pile of garbage.

I’m looking forward to voting for Democrats in November.

]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:47:14 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336835 <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump Resumes Strikes On Iran]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/10/donald-trump-resumes-strikes-on-iran/

How's that "Year of the Patriot" going for the cult? pic.twitter.com/Pfy6Tg4yRB

— Hunter Wallace (@LutherEnjoyer) June 9, 2026

This is pure MAGA:

  • Dial up the inflation
  • Dial up the war with Iran
  • Dial down the approval rating
]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:31:04 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336826 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Quaestio Rossica-Europaea]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/quaestio-rossica-europaea
Jupiter, in the shape of a bull, carrying off Europa. Francesco Albani (1578–1660)

Luigi Tosoni explores how the myth of Europa, the geopolitics of the Rimland and Heartland, and the long arc of Eurasian history converge into a civilizational argument for Europe’s future place within a greater continental order.

Civilization is a movement and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbor.

— Arnold Toynbee

In general ancient Greek mythology, Europa was a princess from the ancient city of Tyre, located along the coast of Phoenicia in modern Lebanon, until she was kidnapped by Zeus in the form of a bull and taken to the Greek island of Crete. The poem “Europa” by Greek bucolic poet Moschus (c. 150 BC) tells the story of the myth. The Phoenician connection is also illustrated in the myth of Scota, in which the ancestor of the Scots and Gaels (through her son Gaedel) marries the son of the mythical ancestor of the Phoenicians who asked her father, the Egyptian pharaoh, for her hand.1 In Moschus’ poem, Europa is impregnated by Zeus and settles in Crete to bear the children of the god. One of them is King Minos. She then becomes the first queen of the island.2

The figures of both Europa and Scota indicate large scales of cross-cultural connections and commerce, symbolically illustrating the transfer of culture and influences from Asia to Europe. Per Hegel, that is the West-wards movement of historical actualization in which the princess leaves behind the regions of West Asia and the Fertile Crescent (wherein the first known generation of high civilizations came into being), passing through Crete and Egypt (second generation; with the Minoans acting as a satellite civilization of the Egyptians, which the Greeks inherited) before founding and providing heritage to the third generation of civilizations in the farther West. Truly, in the Westernmost region of the World-Island.

We preserve independent cultural analysis by keeping 100% of our writers’ essays open to the world. Support our infrastructure and keep this journal free for everyone.

Civilizations emerge initially around water sources, so rivers or coastal regions where the populations are able to rely on the resources, trade more easily, soften in-land military pressure and are compelled to develop labor specialization. In the broader scale, in geopolitical terms, we are referring to the Rimland, the inner crescent regions surrounding the Heartland. It is where the great masses of the world’s population are concentrated, and it is historically an area of intensive civilizational activity and cultural exchange in consequence of both the strategic advantages and vulnerabilities it offers.

As Carl Schmitt wrote, “World history is a history of the battle of sea powers against land powers and of land powers against sea powers”.3 In great power politics, the Rimland represents the intersection of land and maritime power and the ultimate convergence of their competition, for it houses geoeconomic points essential for global trade and energy flows,4 such as the chokepoints of the Strait of Malacca (where roughly 80% of China’s imported crude oil passes through), the Suez Canal, and the Bab-el-Mandeb. Further on, this space is the critical region for containment and access of the Heartland or, seen from the other way around, it provides the way for in-land powers to project influence outwards.

Nicholas Spykman’s rendition of Mackinder’s World-Island from The Geography of the Peace

Such a dual function makes the Rimland the key battleground for control over global resources, trade and geopolitical projection. Therefore, if the countries in this region used to live in a more competitive state of development and enjoying the fruits of it, today they are condemned to find themselves caught in the crossfire between major, grander land and sea powers. The shape of their regional dynamics holds the potential to alter the global balance of power. From the perspective of American grand strategy, the single most important directive is to prevent the consolidation of control around the Rimland, for that would be foundational for a unified alliance, however it might look like, of the Eurasian super-continent.5 It enables access to the global markets, in-land security as well as ensuring influence over logistical networks of critical importance. The Rimland space is where the balance of power is determined.6

The symbolic imagery in the myth of Europa indicates an intution by the ancient Greeks in regards to the direction of the historical movement, and by that, a type of precognition in which it foresaw the passing of the Greco-Roman, Apollonian morphology to Western European social formations. Per Oswald Spengler, Faustian civilization is afilliated with the sign-regimes of both Classical and Magian-Levantine worlds, amalgaming with the impulse from the pre-cultural Gothic-Germanic populations. Then, it finally individuates into an atomic organism from the Carolingian era onwards to more than a millenium of historical actualization.

In the case of the All-Russian space—which, per the Eurasianist view, constitutes a civilization on its own—hosting the most of the Heartland vastness, coming later, its early developmental process went through a similar amalgamation of elements: the Greco-Roman cultural element is unified with the Magian through the influence of Byzantinism and Orthodox Christendom, the incursions and settlements of the Northern Varangians, just as well the multiple long-term interactions with the Mongolic-Turko-Tatar elements. From stabilized Western Europe, influences into Russia also came later during the Petrine and Soviet periods, but the timeline of events and a wholly distinct environmental landscape in which the space from the Arctic to Central Asia and Kiev to Vladivostok no longer make up “a conquered area, but part of the sacred earth of the Russian people”7… it all configured Russia as a unique, not exclusively European civilization.8

The Main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces

To this very day, the Western-Faustian Ur-Idea of “infinite space”9 has still not been completely exhausted. Regarding America—the megalopolitan winter phase of the Western-Faustian cultural mega-organism—that impulse has only, following hubris, been “liberated,” growing stronger and reaching truly incredible, Satanic proportions for the purposes of world-hegemony. Reminding us of Hegel, the United States embodies the farthest West reached by History—its terminal point. In one aspect, if the native populations are disappearing and their historical, scientific, artistic achievements are forgotten and acted against; at the level of official high-planning, technical progress is ever greater, unrestrained and compartimentalized.10 It may be that one necessarily follows the other, in function of class-division and divergence of interests.11

The Cold War becoming the norm means that the celebrated fronts for the actualization of the human spirit, from the economy to culture and techno-science, are to be centralized. Centralization not by State-seizing, but State omnipresence through its rise over civil life. We all take the Hegelian State for granted nowadays, and in Hegel’s view the State itself is the creative force of History, and History means politics.

The space race during the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union demonstrated an intense inner disposition from the part of both of these organisms for exploration and conquest of outer space (as well as the German common denominator acting); but in today’s context of post-bipolarity, I would say it is the American modern entity alone—affected by elements of a Magian pseudomorphosis—that is so intensely persecuting the infinite virtual space. Both private sector and government departments (like the Pentagon’s DARPA office) in conjunction aim at total virtuality (and hybrid-military predictability), in the sense of a complete digital, informational, universally computational replication or immanence,12 be it through consciousness-cloning into the digital ether (which represents a vision of un-spiritual immortality), rigorous exploration of psychedelic hyperspace or the subsuming of the human within Artificial Superintelligence.

Evidently, it is all up for immediate weaponization—for both domestic and global purposes. Strategically, if this hegemon stagnates while possessing supremacy over the oceans (sea element), having its piece of the skies and outer-space (air element), and in struggle to conquer the continent (earth element), it is a certainty that it will make a flanking manoeuvre (aether element?!).13

Today, the Apollonian elements of the West are not only left behind, but are programmatically undermined by its current late-stage “titanism,” Here, both in the sense of a centripedal battle against all-things recognized as territorialized, Apollonian, vertical; and the centrifugal critical moves against civilizational states marked as enemies, in a self-decomposing and hyperbolic manner. If the unifying force of a civilization is the dynamics between the Faustian (in Nietzsche, Dionysian) and Apollonian counterpoles,14 then, in this territory one is necessarily subjugated to unbounded Dionysian intoxication, one that is inverted towards deconstruction. As per Aleksandr Dugin’s development, we now know for certain towards the “Cybelean” world of undifferentiation.15 But I digress.

Throughout the historical run of Europe, the geographical reality of the continent, located within the Eurasian Rimland, can be seen acting upon its historical development, politics and philosophical ramifications. For example, the island England passed through an “elemental shift” from land to sea and became the British Empire; a nation of shepherds, of the “Tolkienian county,” turning to a maritime existence during the rule of Queen Elizabeth I, by achieving naval supremacy over the Spaniards and a new privileged trade network enabling the reap of many fruits.16 Historically, from that followed the necessity for the English to actively work in preventing the emergence of a single major power on the continent, or the unification of common interests between its nations, including Russia—we shall resume this point later. France, Germany and Russia, being the major unified entities on the continent, traditionally carry a telluric character within. They constantly found themselves in war against England for conducting these terrestrial impulses in their politics. From the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815), the Holy Alliance to the Great Game between the UK and Russia17 and finally the World Wars. With the totalized mapping of the world, this imperative became a wholly exposed, self-conscious grand strategy in the geopolitics of Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943) and George Kennan (1904-2005), eventually updated after the end of the Cold War with Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928-2017) and Paul Wolfowitz (1943 - ).

The British strategy was inherited by the United States and further developed into the directive of penetrating the Heartland while preventing allied powers outside its influence from consolidating control around the Rimland space, which “consists of three sections: the European coast land, the Arabian-Middle Eastern desert land, and the Asiatic monsoon land.”18 In response, the partnership of Moscow-Tehran-Beijing self-consciously aims at such a construct. For the achievement of Eurasian security, the Chinese state seeks to project a “sphere of influence” over the Asian Rimland and the allied Iran over the Middle-Eastern one.

Eurasian conflict zones. From Spykman’s book.

In Russia’s case, its own sphere of influence, less and less solid, arguably still includes the CIS nations, Ukraine with an asterisk, Georgia and North Korea. Russia—in practice the Eurasian Heartland itself as a unified State—remains, as of today, pushed completely out of where it is a geopolitical imperative to have secured: the European Rimland.19

The term “sphere of influence” can be loose—not to be equated with “great space,” which seeks to express a more solid material paradigm, and for that reason remains ingenuous—but it is supposed to designate, without value judgment, the situation in which states involved engage in asymmetric relation (happy or unhappy), consequent of various factors such as military leverage (kinetic or hybrid), trade dependence and, if it develops to such direction, political capture. The sphere of influence of a state is secure and solid in so far as that state is capable of removing centers of unwanted instability from it.

This is how the new world order works. Join thousands of deep-divers who look beneath the surface of global geopolitics.

Throughout History, Europe itself manifested the interaction between the opposing impulses and poles of land and sea. Seen from the geostrategic perspective, “the continued existence of a group of independent states on the Rimland of Europe was almost as advantageous to Russia as it was to the United States, since it provided her with a buffer against a possible Anglo-American combination against her.”20 During the Cold War (1945-1991) period, neither of the opposing blocs went through all years completely tightened. If on one side this was demonstrated by the Hungarian Revolution (1956) and the Prague Spring (1968), on the other it was by the deployment of Operation Gladio and the presidency of General Charles de Gaulle from 1959 to 1969. De Gaulle’s rule notably marked France as a sovereign nation in front of the American directive for Atlantic unilaterality. During this period, France developed its nuclear research program, pursued diplomatic independence from the American umbrella by re-establishing friendship with Germany and improving relations with Russia, decreased American military personnel inside under NATO (from the numbers of 50,417 in the year 1958 to 1,491 in 196721) and, of course, built nukes. Charles de Gaulle worked in the opposite way of the “supranational” abstraction of Europe, and towards material coordination between the continental countries — in the examples of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Fouchet Plan — in order for them to become a confederation and, ultimately, a joint third force in the great power politics of the Cold War. A sovereign Pan-European union distinct from the “community” project of Jean Monnet, which necessarily ends up as a colony. De Gaulle had to be ousted.

America is trying to dominate Europe, just as it seeks to dominate Latin America, Southeast Asia. America, whether it wants it or not, has become today an enterprise of global hegemony.

The fact is that when Europe is sovereign, she rapidly turns to continentalist efforts, as demonstrated by the projects of integration and skepticism of Atlanticism, naturally gravitating towards a telluric existence, moving towards her nature, in order to become more like herself through “the holism of the deep continent.” Finally followed by the efforts for friendship towards Russia; that is all because evolving to a Russian-European strategic alliance—through the Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis—is the natural conclusion of the grand politics and economics of this land mass spanning “from Dublin to Vladivostok.” On one hand, in consequence of the imperative for security from outside influences, on the other for the resources, free movement, human capital and the capabilities following Eastern-Western septentrional unification.

The famous maxim from Mackinder summarizes the thalassocratic vision:

The oversetting of the balance of power in favour of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia.222

Europe unilaterally attached to the transatlantic network of trade, politics and social formation (with the example of its grand narratives) asymetrically conducted by the United States becomes the gravest problem for Russia. But also for the European nations themselves. Looking with an objective pair of eyes at the whole pan-Western space (from the Europeans to the Americans), it becomes clear that their societies are captives under a firm grip of a power-structure working for the opposite of their interests. They are reduced to tools for the project of globalism.23

The poem of Moschus perfectly illustrates:

‘twas then th’ Europa Phoenix had begot

Learned in her high bower of her heavenly lot.

She had a body no man had yet known;

Two women strove to have her as their own.

Each was in fact a land; she saw them spar,

One like a neighbour, one like one from far.

The one from her country held her close pressed,

As her mother who’d fed her at her breast;

But th’ other’s hands of force soon made her yield

The princess dreams of the feminine personifications of two lands fighting for her possession. One is a neighbouring land which cares and provides for her. The other one, far away, in fact gains her possession before the princess wakes up crying for Zeus. This is the struggle for the Rimland. If Europa is later carried West to an island by Zeus disguised as a bull—expressing the historical movement of actualization—that means the other land, the mother, is the East.

The personifications of Pan-Russia and America (Columbia)

It is not necessary, much less desirable, for this East, this “like a neighbour” land to try and get a grip onto our personage. Prior to any ideology and administrative rotation, in a basic axiom of political geography, a land or any space—or spatial principle—always carries ideas, as it offers material potentialities contributing to the life of the State, making it grow or retreat, adapt or die off.24

The symbolism of the Bull is also important for our purposes. The bull is a quintessencial land animal. In the myth, it represents at the same time Zeus’ virility and divine power, as well as, being often depicted as white, coming in peace and harmlessness. In one instance, the Sky-Father mirrors the Taurus constellation down to our material world, in another, Zeus, now unequivocally associated with telluric principles, is in the shape of the archetypal land animal to carry Europa across the sea. This represents but the convergence of the earth and water elements in the Rimland regions, making up the original fuel of high-civilization as their mixture causes chemical affinities or contrasts.25

Such skills as yours suit but a power divine,

Since bulls suit sea no more than dolphins shore,

While sea is land to you, each hoof an oar.

It may well be you shall full soon be whirred,

Topping grey mists, to soar just like a bird

The European Rimland is not only historically (that is to say: organically) exhausted but its sovereignty remains under direct influence of a foreign rule, a subordination materialized through the transatlantic attachments. Eroding by the active framework of liberalism, at the “social bottom” marching towards becoming a graveyard. Myth, history, and geopolitical practice all converge at the same point to demonstrate that life detached from this “common-land” is the unnatural way to carry its historical existence—whether the ruling or ruled classes are able to see it or not, like it or not.

The Heartland East-wards from the European Rimland, the horizon from where the Sun rises, is in fact the geographical pivot of history but, furthermore, renders an attraction center for the spirit. The soil from where its deep roots emerge. Indeed, the most ancient origins of European civilization are to be found in Russia’s Asian territories. Beginning around 3000 BC, the early Indo-Europeans spread outwards in all directions from the Pontic–Caspian steppes south to the Ural Mountains. Speaking in the purest terms, if “turning away” from this common-land—an actualized historical endeavour—triggers various contradictions, the space of the Heartland becomes the horizon of resolution. For our cycle, it carries a meaning equivalent to the sacred North of ancient times. Dugin described how in the absence of the paleocontinents of North and South, the witnessing of their opposition really is passed to East and West. In the context of sacred geography:

The change of the vertical axis North-South to the horizontal East-West, characteristic of the last stages of the cycle, nevertheless, preserves the logical and symbolic connection between these two sacral-geographical pairs. […] East is horizontal projection of the North downwards. West is horizontal projection of the South upwards. From this transfer of sacred meanings one can easily obtain the structure of continental vision peculiar to Tradition.26

Now, let us resume the aforementioned points and proceed to more concrete terms. For consolidation of long-term national security, the Heartland, as a state, carries the strategic priority to have some degree of management over the Atlantic Ocean, in alignment to the Eurasian Western borders (the aforementioned Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis).27 Throughout the 2000s, the Kremlin pursued a foreign policy directed towards the construction of this ideal, but it has all been artificially aborted before reaching the disastrous and catastrophic current state of affairs.

During those times, Russia and China were mutually suspicious to an accentuated degree, until shifts of paradigms. Curiously, the initial failure to consolidate the Russo-European strategic zone (with countermoves, ultimately resulting in the war in Ukraine) hastened the other paralel processes of the general Eurasian strategy:

  • Russian foreign policy deepening its ties with China and Iran (as with Belarus and North Korea) and

  • those actors (but simultaneously other pivot states, such as Turkey and Israel) pursuing further their spheres of influence within each respective regional Rimland.

European politics is not under a multilateral model nor in a bilateral relationship with the US, and it is evident that the current post-Cold War unilaterality does not serve its own interests,28 neither in terms of productivity nor social well-being. Effectively, its existence today serves the sole purpose of acting as a geographical platform for intervention and war against the sovereign Eurasian entities. Therefore, the correction of this framework is in each of those entities’ interest, and good relations with Russia represents an essential step for the development of Pan-Eurasian security. And if it becomes too costly to manage the political system and sabotages of natural moves towards integration, realistically it would be reasonable to simply cripple Europe so badly that it becomes useless as a partner and ally to Russia and China.

An example of French leadership and Europe’s planned deindustrialization vis-à-vis Russia and China

From the standpoint of Anglo-America, Eurasia is visualized as this natural, continental given formation. Consequently, it becomes mandatory for the naval powers to try and prevent its unity, prosperity, to encircle and penetrate into it. Therefore, the foreign policy goals are so embedded in nature that they are rendered immutable. The “synthesis” points to Eurasia, by identifying such a paradigm, forming its own rejoinder alignment of goals and strategies in need of security. We can draw the following:

Completion of world-mapping (Mackinder’s “post-Columbian” age) → Atlanticist Weltpolitik → Eurasianism.

Because these structures of power and strategy do not rest, Europe is bound to the capture of its agency and capacities by a necessarily hostile agent. There can be no long-term survival without a unification of interests beyond the economic sphere; not managed from outside, but exclusively in the case of a complete material split with this power—in its foreign and already domestic aspects: the US and Israel symbiosis, and attachments to a multiplicity of institutions, treaties and strategic models. It is only possible to conceive such a scenario with the support or even initiative from Moscow.

If detached from Russia, the unification of European economies and foreign policy, then defense and politics, remains attached to America’s strategy—it still cannot be an autonomous Eurasian pole. The organization of this entity’s political principles, such as basic relations of friendship and enmity ought to be crystalized somehow. It can only crystalize by being directed towards this or that cardinal direction and against the other one, for they host this or that greater geopolitical entity. This is the reason why the US is able to perniciously support European common defense—it oversees the transition and the results. The European Rimland, geographically trapped, is caught between the crossfire of Russia and America—again, we are reminded of Princess Europa’s dream. The beginnings of the militarization and federalization of the EU does not mean the potential for autonomy from the US, but the gloomy opposite. Its result is a new set of delegated obligations for previously prepared strategic ends, minus America’s obligations. Moreover, if detachment cannot occur by mutual consent, that means it cannot occur gradually. In order to bite the US back, it is imperative to count on the Russian umbrella of intelligence (ISR), military power and outer-space presence.

A functional Europe comes not from the Atlantic to the Urals; rather, it comes from the Pacific to the Atlantic. But for that to happen, action is expected. Europe must inevitably confront its Janus face and choose which path to look at and move forward; there lies a real political task. We have analyzed which way is the most materially necessary, natural and positive—for both Heartland and Rimland poles. At the scale of global alignments, to develop a spatial imagination—in the place of ideology—which recognizes itself as part of Greater Eurasia is the only way to have a future, precisely because it is the way of factual faithfulness. The constants are there, as potentialities waiting to be actualized. Not forms expecting to be filled with content, but instead, content desiring to acquire form. It becomes, we realize, not a question of if but how and when.

On a final note: the inception of the Western and Russian civilizations went through a process of original amalgamation which shared many common elements. If Russian and Western Europe are to form a unity, their cultural-morphological developments will meet in a new way. A dialectical relation also goes on between Russia and America as two metaphysical weights—both similarly distinct from the “old country”, the original Indo-European homeland and the terminal frontier of History—confronting the longer and in ever greater scope and scale (therefore, Russia and the West as a whole, in whichever definition). Is there a solution to this contradiction, which is embedded in Earth’s geography, and is it possible that it lies in the fusion of their Logoi? There, the deep northern forest meets the steppe. The prime-symbol of infinite space merges with the endless horizon. The impulse for verticality (traditionally associated with primary causality) and horizontality (associated with the manifestation of the world). Vertical and horizontal planes, like in the cross, connecting at the converging point of the center. Is a new wholeness to be found there?

The Kidnapping of Europa, Valentin Serov (1910)

Want to weigh in? Upgrade your subscription today to unlock the comments and debate this analysis.

1

Irish Orientalism: A Literary and Intellectual History. Chapter 1, 2. Joseph Lennon (2008)

2

Moschus’ Europa, Translated into Heroic Verse by David Bruce Gain

3

Land and Sea, Section 3. Carl Schmitt (1942)

4

Martin D. Mitchell (2020), “Using the principles of Halford J. Mackinder and Nicholas John Spykman to reevaluate a twenty-first-century geopolitical framework for the United States,” Comparative Strategy, 39:5, 407-424, DOI: 10.1080/01495933.2020.1803709

5

Colin S. Gray (2015), “Nicholas John Spykman, the Balance of Power, and International Order,” Journal of Strategic Studies, 38:6, 873-897

6

Furthermore: The Geography of Peace. Nicholas John Spykman (1944)

7

“The Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems.” Oswald Spengler (1922)

8

This paragraph defines the first aspect of the “Quaestio Rossica-Europaea.”

9

Furthermore: The Decline of the West. Oswald Spengler (1918)

10

“Everyone sees that moral progress follows different paths than technical progress, both among the rulers who plan and make use of modern science, and among the elites and the masses who hope for the great harvest festival of planning.”

“Die Einheit der Welt,” Merkur no. 47. Carl Schmitt (1952)

11

Concentration of technology is an old phenomenon whose details escape the scope of the present text.

12

The Impossible Exchange. Jean Baudrillard (1999)

13

Foundations of Geopolitics, VII. Aleksandr Dugin, Nikolai Klokotov, Leonid Ivashov (1997)

14

The Birth of Tragedy. Friedrich Nietzsche (1872)

15

“Is this ‘Western culture’, built on the very principle of temporo-centrism, not a sign of precisely this titanic earthly cycle? If we take into account the materialism and heightened and clearly unhealthy fixation of modern people on things and atomic (and ever more microscopic) phenomena, the reign of quantity over quality, earthly over heavenly, and mechanical over organic, the preponderance of individualist fragmentation, including the aesthetic norms of contemporary art, then the notion that we find ourselves under the rule of the Black Logos seems to be a wholly probable supposition.”

16

Land and Sea, section 8. Carl Schmitt (1942)

17

Repackaged in the Cold War.

18

The Geography of Peace. Nicholas John Spykman (1944)

19

That sums up the second aspect of the question.

20

Commentary to Spykman’s Geography of Peace by Frederick Sherwood Dunn (1943)

21

“France wished to be free to seek its own treaty with the Warsaw Pact countries. […] De Gaulle prohibited NATO nuclear weapons from being stationed in France. His ultimate goal was two-fold. De Gaulle sought to make France independent of the United States and the United Kingdom’s influence and to possess the ability to conduct autonomous negotiations with the USSR should the East Germans move into West Germany. […] In March 1966, De Gaulle removed all French armed forces from NATO control and told the United States (and other NATO military members) to leave France.”

https://www.mildenhall.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/272283/looking-back-de-gaulle-tells-american-forces-to-leave-france/

22

The Geographical Pivot of History. Halford Mackinder (1904)

23

A non-emancipatory globalism.

24

Politische Geographie, section 8. Friedrich Ratzel (1897)

25

Land and Sea, section 2. Carl Schmitt (1942)

26

Foundations of Geopolitics, VI. Aleksandr Dugin, Nikolai Klokotov, Leonid Ivashov (1997)

27

Foundations of Geopolitics, 4.2: “Moscow-Berlin, European Empire and Eurasia.” Aleksandr Dugin, Nikolai Klokotov, Leonid Ivashov (1997)

28

One that, at the geopolitical scale, carries great historical continuity since the 19th century, as we have seen.

]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:13:42 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/quaestio-rossica-europaea <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] RADIO FREE CHICAGO Ep.39]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/radio-free-chicago-ep39 LINK

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 19:59:49 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/radio-free-chicago-ep39 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] ADDENDUM to PRE-DEPARTURE SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/addendum-to-pre-departure-sitrep

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 14:57:10 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/addendum-to-pre-departure-sitrep <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] Pre-Departure SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/pre-departure-sitrep Those who WISH TO DONATE can do so via

-PAYPAL: 7homas777

-CASH APP: $7HOMAS777

-VENMO: Thomas-Cyr-18

‘ZELLE: THCYR76@GMAIL.COM

-BUY ME A COFFEE: buymeacoffee.com/7homas777

TUSM!!!

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 13:10:20 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/pre-departure-sitrep <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] Ireland on the Brink of Revolution]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/ireland-on-the-brink-of-revolution Callum McMichael examines the attempted beheading in north Belfast and the wider crisis of immigration, identity, and public safety now confronting Ireland.

On the streets of north Belfast in the evening of June 8, 2026, a Sudanese man in his thirties pinned a Belfast resident to the ground on Kinnaird Avenue, where he hacked at the man’s neck with a kitchen knife and tried to saw the head from the body as blood ran across the victim’s face while the blade slashed again and again at his face, throat, eyes and back. The video of it spread at once, and it showed the Irish people the reality they now confront in the streets and districts they built through generations of labour.

Bystanders intervened in the moment, and the man who turned the tide was Maitie Mag Toghearnan, who seized a hurley and struck the attacker before he dragged the assailant off his victim and held him until the police arrived. The photograph of Maitie now passes from hand to hand, and it shows a bald, bearded Irish father standing poolside with his daughter, where tattoos mark the arms of an ordinary working man. He was not looking for trouble that night, yet he stepped forward when it mattered, and while others held up phones he acted, so that decision places him among the defenders of the Irish people. Ireland needs thousands more like him, men ready to defend their neighbours and their birthright against this wave of imported violence.

The victim lies in hospital with grave injuries, and he is a man in his forties who went about his daily work until this assault tore into it, so he stands for every ordinary Irish worker and family now exposed on the streets of the towns they built. The Sudanese perpetrator crossed from Dublin, and he held leave to remain in the United Kingdom, where police arrested him on suspicion of attempted murder. Early statements spoke of a possible Somali, yet later they confirmed Sudanese, and he remains in custody with no terrorist label attached. The label changes nothing, for the pattern is plain, and it flows from regions where knife savagery belongs to the everyday order of tribal conflict and brutal codes.

This attack did not fall from a clear sky, for it rests upon years of housing shortages that grind down Irish families while public services bend and break under the load. Protests have flared in Ballymena and other districts, and the ruling forces in Dublin, Belfast and London drove mass immigration from incompatible zones for decades. They opened the gates wide to men from Sudan and similar lands, where in those places barbarism sits accepted in daily relations, and tribal loyalties and honour violence shape existence. They imported this without selection or demand for assimilation, and they showed no regard for the tolerance of Irish society, so knife attacks multiply, trust between people collapses, and native workers and their families pay in blood and lost safety.

The Irish working class understands the mechanism, for the elites preach diversity and deliver division. They flood the island with migrants drawn from societies organised on lines alien to ours, and they do it to secure cheap labour and new dependent voters while they weaken any solid national resistance. The NGOs profit from the traffic, the media obscures the consequences, and the politicians who engineered the policy now condemn each new outrage while keeping the gates open. This is not compassion, for it is calculation, and it is imperialism remade for the present day, where instead of redcoats and landlords the weapon is open borders and demographic pressure. The capitalist class sacrifices the Irish worker once more upon the altar of profit and international fashion.

James Connolly saw the connection long ago, for the cause of labour is the cause of Ireland and the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. Today the Irish worker faces exploitation in wages and conditions, and he faces something deeper, the theft of the homeland itself. Young Irish men and women search in vain for houses while newcomers receive priority placement and support, hospitals overflow, schools alter beyond recognition, and streets that once felt like home now carry the constant threat of violence carried in from foreign quarrels and customs. The ruling parties in Stormont, Leinster House and Westminster have betrayed the people they pretend to represent, for they speak of tolerance while ordinary families endure the intolerance of imported crime, and they brand every voice raised for native rights as extremist, all the while they shelter the sources of that extremism with visas and benefits.

This cannot continue, for the Irish nation has the right to exist on its own soil with its own character preserved, and that right was paid for in blood across generations, so it will be asserted again. Maitie Mag Toghearnan’s hurley was more than defence of one man, for it was the first clear signal that the patience of the people has run out. The working men and women of Ireland watch their communities transformed, they see their safety stripped away, they see their children’s future sold for slogans, they reject the lies, and they will not consent to the erasure of their nation.

The revolution taking shape will not confine itself to speeches or votes alone, for it will rise in the estates and workplaces and streets. It will demand sealed borders and the deportation of criminal migrants, it will end the trade run by NGOs, and it will restore Ireland for the Irish people who built and defended this island. The old order that enabled the crisis is rotten to the core, and it must be swept aside. The blood on Kinnaird Avenue issues a plain warning, for the elites may denounce the violence while they pursue the policies that breed it, or they may face the organised resistance of a nation that refuses to vanish.

History has taught the Irish people this lesson repeatedly, from the Land League to the Easter Rising, from Connolly’s Citizen Army to the long struggle in the North, where the outcome is the same. When the people organise and assert their rights, the oppressors tremble, and the conditions for revolutionary change ripen with every new attack and every new betrayal. Housing queues grow longer, crime reports multiply, faith in the state drains away, and each outrage like the one on Kinnaird Avenue throws fresh fuel on the fire.

Every conscious Irish man and woman now sees with clear eyes the depth of the betrayal and the urgent necessity of defending the rights and inheritance of their people. The Irish people have defeated stronger enemies in the past, they will defeat this one also, the time for half measures has ended, the revolution advances, and it will place the interests of the Irish working class and the Irish nation first. The hour has struck.

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:18:48 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/ireland-on-the-brink-of-revolution <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] The St. Petersburg Forum and Russia’s War with Europe]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-st-petersburg-forum-and-russias Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Finnish President Alexander Stubb hopes to significantly expand the European Union to 40 countries. The figure of 13 new members he would like to see join is rather symbolic. Please tell us, why does Finland — in the person of Stubb — need this right now, and why does the Europ…

Read more

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:59:52 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-st-petersburg-forum-and-russias <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] DECLINE DECLINE DECLINE]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/decline-decline-decline

The decline of the West the decline of the West the West declining in its Faustian soul its endless striving its cathedrals piercing the sky its machines devouring the earth its armies marching into the void of infinite space the West declining in blood and iron and the final winter of its form the cultures rising like phalluses from the soil of history blooming in springtime vigor then rotting in the autumn of money and democracy the West its Gothic arches crumbling under the weight of its own will-to-power its mathematics turning abstract its music dissolving into noise its cities swelling with the masses the faceless the rootless the West declining in the petrification of its forms the rigidification of its once-organic life the soul of the West the Faustian soul stretching towards the stars now collapsing back upon itself in the megalopolis the stone desert the endless repetition of decline decline decline the organic becoming mechanical the destiny of civilizations unfolding like the spasms of a dying god the West its primeval forests cleared for factories its rivers poisoned with progress its heroes reduced to clerks its art fracturing into abstraction the decline the inexorable decline as each culture fulfills its inner morphology its plant-like growth its animal-like decay the Apollonian the Magian the Faustian each in turn rising and falling the West now in its senile phase its civilization hardening into a fellaheen mass its intellect soulless its technique triumphant yet empty the decline of the West echoing through the ruins of empires past the Egyptian the Classical the Chinese the West declining in the triumph of its materialism its democracy its money its final Caesarism approaching like a storm of steel.

The morphology of history the morphology of history the forms of cultures living and dying like beasts in the jungle of time Spengler Spengler tracing the cycles the seasons of the soul the West its youth in the cathedrals and crusades its maturity in the Renaissance and Baroque its old age now in the empires of steel and finance the pseudomorphosis the forced shapes the alien intrusions the decline the West declining as its cities devour the countryside as its populations swell with the sterile the uprooted the West its vital force ebbing into the intellect the critical the analytical the creative genius yielding to the sterile cleverness the technicians the journalists the politicians the West in its decline its art becoming spectacle its religion evaporating into ethics its state bloating into bureaucracy the eternal return of the same the same the same the cycles repeating across millennia the high cultures each bearing its own destiny its own symbols its own numbers its own gods the Faustian infinity the boundless the dynamic now turning inward rotting the body politic the social body the cultural body writhing in the final throes the decline of the West the West declining in the victory of its own extensions its machines its systems its abstractions devouring the organic core the blood the race the soil the West its landscape of the soul now a wasteland of asphalt and neon the morphology revealing the inevitable the organic logic the plant-like withering the animal-like struggle ending in exhaustion exhaustion exhaustion the great morphologies unfolding the West now entering its winter its rigid forms its frozen soul its Caesar to come striding across the ruins.

Eurosiberia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Blood and soil blood and soil the primal forces the telluric powers the West declining as it severs itself from the earth from the peasant from the warrior from the priest the cities the great cities the world-cities the megalopolises sucking the life from the provinces the provinces barren the fields untilled the wombs empty the West declining in the triumph of the money-spirit the speculation the usury the rootless cosmopolitan the intellectual the nomad within the gates the decline the decline the Faustian drive inverting itself the will-to-power becoming the will-to-nothingness the nothingness of comfort the nothingness of equality the nothingness of progress progress progress the lie of linear time the myth of evolution the West trapped in its own narrative its own historical consciousness now revealing the futility the cycles the seasons the inevitable autumn the inevitable winter the snows of decline covering the monuments the philosophies the symphonies the West its soul once soaring now crawling in the dust of its achievements its science its industry its democracy all masks of the aging organism the organism decaying the pseudomorphosis the forced maturity the premature senility the blood the blood thinning the race the race mixing the soil the soil poisoned.

The final phase the final phase the civilization phase the phase of petrification the West hardening into the fellaheen the eternal fellah the masses the masses the amorphous the undifferentiated the West declining in the age of the second religiousness the new Caesars the new despots rising from the chaos the chaos of democracy the chaos of parliamentarism the chaos of the press the West its form-language exhausted its symbols spent its architecture becoming mere engineering its painting mere photography its music mere noise the decline the decline the organic unity shattered the provinces revolting the barbarians within and without the West its empire stretching across continents now crumbling at the core the core rotting the heart failing the Faustian energy dissipating into entropy the entropy of the megalopolis the entropy of the money the entropy of the intellect the intellect turned against life life itself the vital the instinctive the heroic now despised the decline of the West the West declining in the spectacle of its own suicide the suicide of the high culture the suicide of the soul the soul seeking annihilation in the infinite in the technique in the void.

The Caesars the coming Caesars the great individuals the world-historical figures emerging from the twilight the twilight of the gods the twilight of the West the West declining yet birthing its final masters the masters of steel and will the will overcoming the decline the decline itself the cycle completing the new spring perhaps distant the new barbarism the new youth the youth of blood and race the race-conscious the destiny-conscious the West in its decline preparing the ground for the eternal return the return of the strong the return of the form the form-giving the culture-creating the West its decline not the end of history but the winter before the sleep the long sleep the sleep of the fellah the sleep of the masses the masses awaiting the hammer the hammer of the Caesars the Caesars striding the decline the decline the West declining in grandeur in its final paroxysm its wars its revolutions its total mobilization the mobilization of all things the mobilization of death the death of the old forms the birth pangs of the new the new yet unborn the unborn in the womb of decline.

The eternal cycles the eternal cycles the morphology eternal the West declining yet the world turns the cultures rise and fall the symbols change the numbers change the gods change yet the rhythm remains the rhythm of birth growth decay death rebirth the West its Faustian dream ending in the machine the machine devouring the dream the dream becoming nightmare the nightmare of the decline the decline of the West the West in its evening its long evening its twilight stretching across the globe the globe shrinking under its technique its technique failing its technique turning against it the it the civilization the great civilization now a corpse a magnificent corpse the corpse of the West the West declining in the beauty of its ruin the ruin of its cathedrals the ruin of its empires the ruin of its spirit the spirit hovering over the waters of chaos the chaos from which new forms may arise the forms primitive the forms vital the forms young young young the decline of the West echoing into the silence the silence before the new song the new song of blood and soil and destiny the destiny of the West fulfilled fulfilled fulfilled in its magnificent terrible decline.

Get Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West: The One-Volume Abridged Edition here.

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 08:43:54 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/decline-decline-decline <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] The St. Petersburg Forum and Russia’s War with Europe]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-st-petersburg-forum-and-russias-war-with-europe

Alexander Dugin shares his sharp analysis of the current global confrontation, the meaning of Russia as a civilization-state, and the deeper shifts taking place in Russian society and elite thinking.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Finnish President Alexander Stubb hopes to significantly expand the European Union to 40 countries. The figure of 13 new members he would like to see join is rather symbolic. Please tell us, why does Finland — in the person of Stubb — need this right now, and why does the European Union need it? After all, such a massive expansion involves many factors — economic, ideological, and others. What is the calculation behind it at this moment?

Alexander Dugin: I don’t think the European Union needs these additional countries from a purely economic standpoint. What we’re really talking about is that statements like this — and even the concrete political steps that pave the way for countries to join the EU — represent yet another wave in the West’s war against Russia.

You know, there is a discipline called geopolitics. I have been developing, studying, and promoting it for many decades, starting in the late 1980s, when almost no one was working on it and the term itself was barely known. This discipline was originally introduced into scholarly circulation by the British, particularly Halford Mackinder. At its core, it described the strategy of global Anglo-Saxon domination. But naturally, since they described the world as they see it, it was only logical for those positioned as the object — as the enemy of the Anglo-Saxons — to develop an alternative geopolitics. A geopolitics based not on the interests of the “civilization of the Sea,” which the Anglo-Saxons represent — the civilization of capitalism, trade, and haggling — but on the “civilization of the Land,” which they themselves called the civilization of heroism, conservative and traditional values.

Our Eurasianists made the first sketches, and from the 1980s onward I developed this alternative geopolitics. Essentially, it uses the same rules, the same laws, and the same patterns — only viewed from the perspective of the continent, from Eurasia, from Russia, from the “Heartland.”

Subscribe now

Share

If we apply this geopolitical lens, we see the following: in the struggle between Sea and Land, the critical issue is control over Europe as the coastal zone — the so-called Rimland. From the perspective of the Anglo-Saxons, the Atlanticists, and NATO supporters (that is, Atlanticism), it is necessary to expand their zone of influence at the expense of the civilization of the Land — that is, at Russia’s expense. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact was a fundamental blow to our first line of defense. Those territories had been under our control as a result of the Great Patriotic War. They were taken from us, even though geopolitically they belonged to us. This happened in 1989, after the prepared collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and we were even persuaded that it was the right thing to do.

The next wave was the separation of the post-Soviet countries, which had historically been part of a single state. This was another major success for the civilization of the Sea — for our adversaries. Now, the conflict in Ukraine has opened the third stage of their expansion. We tried to keep Ukraine within our sphere of influence because it is our people, our values, our civilization, our Russian World. In response, we received a massive blow from the collective West. And now the West is seeking to extend its influence even further over these post-Soviet territories by bringing them into the European Union — and in reality, into NATO. In essence, this is the third wave of the Great War of the Continents.

Host: Let me interrupt you for a moment. There’s another interesting detail: Canada is also on this list. What is the European Union doing on another continent? Moreover, the inclusion of Canada would hardly be welcomed positively by the United States. Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], you’re still with us? Please tell us, why did Canada appear on the list that Stubb proposed for EU expansion?

Alexander Dugin: I think this is a deliberate jab at Trump. Trump somewhat deviates from this Atlanticist, globalist, liberal agenda. He is trying to restore a unipolar world — also Anglo-Saxon, but centered in the United States rather than in a global world government. In other words, Trump sees the global world government as his government — a purely American one. This has put him at odds with the globalist liberal leaders of the European Union and Canada, who have their own vision.

Incidentally, it was precisely representatives of this liberal-globalist camp who unleashed the conflict with us in Ukraine. At the time, a globalist and liberal — Biden — was in the White House, and like-minded leaders were heading European states. They started this war against us. Trump, therefore, sees it differently… No, he is continuing it, but he inherited it from his ideological opponents.

Canada was added to the list specifically to show Trump once again that in the Western world there exists a global oligarchic power structure — the international “deep state” — rather than his own individualistic (and, together with Netanyahu) rather exotic adventurist plan. They are trying to pull Trump’s America back into this framework. Canada is essentially a slap in the face to Trump, a signal that he will have to abandon his peculiar brand of direct and harsh American imperialism and return to the common globalist agenda — to “also be Europe,” to become part of the European Union. In principle, inviting Canada into the EU is an attack on Trump, aimed at forcing him back into the globalist fold.

I believe their internal disputes are not that fundamental, although in certain circumstances they could escalate. For now, this is mostly trolling. But the idea of admitting Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, possibly Georgia, Azerbaijan, or even Belarus (obviously impossible under Lukashenko, but the ideas are being floated) — that is something entirely different. That is a consistent, centuries-old Great Game. That is geopolitical code. These are not just momentary extravagant statements by individual politicians. What real influence does Finland have? Yet I would take this seriously. These signals reflect deep geopolitical tendencies that prove stronger than ideologies, economies, business, technology, or changing political structures. Political systems, leaders, and ideologies come and go, but geopolitics remains. Its fundamental laws — the way states are embedded in geographic space — do not change.

Therefore, these signals should be taken very seriously. The West is making it clear that it intends to wage war against us until our strategic defeat, dismemberment, collapse, or internal disintegration through protest movements. In other words, the West is already fighting us with its sleeves rolled up, holding nothing back, swinging with full force. We must acknowledge this reality and, in my view, prepare for a major, large-scale, serious, and difficult war with the entire collective West — without making exceptions even for America, because Trump is only a temporary episode.

Host: At the same time, joining the European Union, besides any economic benefits, carries a very serious civilizational risk for nation-states. It brings with it everything we consider extremist and banned here, along with a completely different migration policy. Do the ruling elites really not take this into account? Why do a number of states — not even all from Stubb’s list, but many of them — know this perfectly well yet still rush to join? Why does this happen?

Alexander Dugin: The truth is that liberals use nationalism as a tool. There is no doubt about who controls whom. Nationalism — and even Nazism — is an artificial instrument in the hands of liberals. They cultivate it and allow some dwarf entity, a failed state, to believe in its own greatness, its sovereignty, and its independence — so that it can break free from the influence of Russia or other emerging poles of the multipolar world.

At first, it is presented like this: “You will all be nationalists, you will be sovereign, you can have everything exactly as you want.” This is necessary for the first radical break from our influence, carried out under the banner of sovereignty and nationalism — away from us, from China, from India. Any civilization-state, any independent pole, is a threat to the globalists. But afterwards, the leaders who posed as nationalists and champions of sovereignty suddenly become ordinary managers of the global West. All their claims to sovereignty immediately evaporate. They sign up to the global agenda, and their dreams of true independence simply dissolve into thin air.

This also applies, incidentally, to many countries that are already inside the EU. Just look at the behavior of Giorgia Meloni. Meloni originally presented herself as a far-right figure. Her party, “Brothers of Italy,” which won the elections, positioned itself in a very radical spirit. And yet suddenly she has become an obedient executor of the policies of Kaja Kallas, Ursula von der Leyen, and Klaus Schwab. In other words, she fully supports the most anti-nationalist and anti-sovereign steps of the European Union, even though she came to power on slogans about restoring sovereignty. But that didn’t last.

The same thing — and even more so — will happen with the Ukrainian leadership, with Pashinyan, or with Sandu. There’s nothing even to discuss there. They will simply be absorbed. The West’s logic is simple: “Today you were nationalists — well done, excellent if you’re against Russia. And tomorrow you will become part of us, and we will manage you.” What do the nationalist forces in all these countries think? They don’t think anything.

I watch how other post-Soviet peoples react — with the exception of Belarus and its wise population. All the rest are simply swallowing the bait of this fictitious, impossible, and unreal nationalism, which is in reality completely prohibited by the internal rules and standards of the European Union.

There is a glaring contradiction between this nationalist — and even Nazi — bait that gives the population (Ukrainians or others) the hope that “now you can attack everyone, destroy, and proclaim any race you want…” And then, as soon as they complete this operation against us — and this is precisely what big geopolitics is about — they instantly turn into compliant executors of the liberal agenda. They begin marching in the appropriate parades and become absolute plankton, controlled by the globalist elite.

Welcome to a world where people think they are making a career, while in reality they are simply items on the menu of these global elites. The West’s logic is: if you hate Russians, you can be whoever you want. Hatred is precisely what these destructive forces find extremely convenient. This is exactly what we are seeing in full measure in Ukraine right now. And what kind of nationalism is this in Ukraine? This country had a large amount of territory and, generally speaking, controlled it peacefully — no one made any claims against them. But as soon as the liberals began pushing Ukraine into NATO and the European Union, that’s when the colossal losses for Ukrainians began: loss of their own territories, sovereignty, independence, economy, and population. Everything went completely off the rails. What kind of nationalism is that?

They continue to attack and carry out terrorist acts while failing to notice this obvious contradiction. I think this is a profound threshold of consciousness. The same pattern, by the way, is followed by other Eastern European, post-Soviet, and even Western European radicals. They shout slogans like “Now we will rule here, we won’t let in any migrants,” but in reality, the switch is flipped and they become obedient executors of globalist will.

Globalists control nationalists, not the other way around. Any attempt to enter into an alliance with globalist forces is doomed from the very beginning — it is a completely dead-end path. Why don’t those who are being bribed and seduced see this? Why do they lose the capacity for normal political thinking that could weigh real sovereignty and interests? It’s hard for me to say, but the degree of cognitive blindness in modern societies is simply astonishing.

Host: Since you mentioned Ukraine, let’s touch on this. First there was Zelensky’s loud open letter, written in language that is completely unacceptable for public politics. Then came the meeting between Zelensky, Macron, Starmer, and Merz, after which yet another ultimatum-proposal was voiced to our country. Why do they keep repeating the same pattern of actions over and over? Do they have any hope of achieving some result from these actions? Or what is the purpose of all this?

Alexander Dugin: Of course, they are waging war against us. They hope to inflict a strategic defeat on us. We usually respond that they won’t succeed. I am confident that we are right — they won’t succeed — but this “won’t succeed” will not happen by itself.

If we wake up, if we pull ourselves together into a fist, gather our will, our minds, and our resolve, and look honestly at what we really lack for a genuine and convincing victory… What is victory? It would mean, for example, that we are prepared to inflict a strategic defeat on Ukraine. Not on the West, but on Ukraine. Yes, and that means demilitarization and denazification. It means establishing control over this territory so that it cannot pose a threat to us either ideologically or militarily. That is what inflicting a strategic defeat on the current Ukrainian regime would look like. Europe, which stands behind it, is the next stage.

They have a different perception. They feel that by fighting us, they are capable of inflicting a strategic defeat on us. They apparently see our weakness — perhaps we ourselves don’t fully realize it, or perhaps they are imagining it, which is also possible. In any case, they feel that, for example, as they see it, we are in the fourth or already fifth year of the war with only very relative results. In that sense, they are right from their point of view. So they think: we need to keep pressing Russia with sanctions, insults, threats, provocation, and irritation so that it loses self-confidence, feels weak, and its society begins to split apart.

And do you think none of this works? It does work. Of course, it is mostly enemy propaganda, but people inside the country are also starting to ask questions: how is this possible? Where is the image of victory? Where is the clear, understandable logic? Many in our country are becoming dissatisfied, and this is exactly what they are counting on. Our enemy is counting on the fact that if they press Russia with all their might, escalate the degree of confrontation, they will achieve their goal. After all, our responses have been rather modest so far. “Oreshnik” without special warheads, strikes on targets that are not particularly symbolic…

This is not funny. Their intention, their desire to inflict a strategic defeat on us is not funny at all. It was not funny when Hitler sought to inflict a strategic defeat on the Soviet Union. That was extremely serious, and we won that war — the Great Patriotic War — only with enormous difficulty. It was incredibly serious. And now something no less serious — if not more so — is brewing. Europe has 400 million people. That is a lot. And America has a colossal population and enormous economic and technological capabilities.

I am not trying to scare anyone. I am simply saying that we need to understand: the situation is taking a very dangerous turn. If we expect them to meet us halfway, to start negotiating with us, or to change their tone — why on earth would they do that? Are there any indisputable arguments on our side? Do we have such tremendous successes that could force them to do so — for example, to stop our powerful offensive? If Kharkov and Odessa were ours, if we were standing at the gates of Kiev — then they would change their tone. But while the line of contact remains roughly what it is now, with only minor changes, the situation is very dangerous. They sincerely believe they are winning. We understand that this is not the case, but since they believe it, we cannot afford to ignore it.

Host: The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum [SPIEF] recently concluded. In addition to economic issues, it was also devoted to the future world order. President Vladimir Putin spoke there and discussed the coming world order in detail. Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], how significant are such forums in the modern world for determining how we will live going forward? What role do they play today?

Alexander Dugin: I think all forums are different. There is the Davos Forum, where globalists gather to develop their projects. There are forums where China dominates and mainly talks about itself. There are Islamic forums where Islamic issues are addressed.

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum was conceived — and by the way, I was there at its origins, when Yegor Stroyev and Yevgeny Primakov first outlined it in the late 1990s (around 1997–1998). At the early SPIEFs I gave presentations on my books and projects: Foundations of Geopolitics, Absolute Motherland, Our Path. I now recall how untimely those ideas seemed back then — they caused bewilderment. We discussed them with various figures from the Yeltsin system, with its advisors, ministers, and deputy ministers. From my point of view, everything I said was correct, but from their point of view it sounded like a terrible dissonance. Although Primakov and his inner circle, as well as some military figures, liked it very much.

But over these almost 30 years since the forum began, enormous changes have taken place. First of all, Vladimir Putin gave it tremendous scale in the 2000s. It became a showcase and exhibition of Russia — its achievements and successes. Leaders of many European states came to us when tensions between Russia and Europe had not yet reached the current stage of direct war. At that time, it was a window onto a new, rising Russia that sought to integrate with the West while preserving its sovereignty.

This project gradually collapsed. First came COVID, when the forum was either cancelled or barely attended. Then came the start of the Special Military Operation. At first, people recoiled from the forum — there was an attempt to isolate and demonize Russia. All those high-ranking guests and representatives of major companies who had formed the core of the SPIEF in the 2000s disappeared. That earlier forum had many dark sides and excessive entertainment programs. St. Petersburg turned into a kind of “window to Europe” exhibition where, from both sides, some of the least admirable characters flocked. But that Western-oriented SPIEF is over.

For the next few years, the forum was somewhat disoriented as we gathered our strength and showed that we were nevertheless building our own path. The guests were mostly from non-Western civilizations. That was also good: Russia was not forgotten, we remained open — but no longer to the Western world.

And now, at this forum, I sensed a very interesting shift: it is once again becoming powerful, gaining strength, and we are returning to ourselves. We are restoring our somewhat shaken confidence in our own capabilities, and a profound turn is taking place among our political elites toward our deep civilizational identity and toward the multipolarity that the President spoke about. And this self-confidence of ours is inspiring everyone else.

This year, the guests looked at us in a completely different way — including many representatives of the West. Prominent figures came, such as Candace Owens, an independent American journalist whose influence extends to tens of millions of people in America and around the world. There was a sense that these people had come to us, to the Russians, consciously, and the Russians gathered there also clearly understood who they were. When a drone attack occurred in the morning, it didn’t frighten anyone — on the contrary, it united people. They felt like one whole.

There was no longer any dominance of systemic liberals in the foreground. In the past, patriotic bearers of sovereign ideas — Glazyev, Galushka, Konstantin Malofeev, Alexander Isaev — had looked like white crows among them. People with a patriotic worldview used to be exotic exhibits at such forums. This time, there was no trace of that. Very focused, purposeful, energetic, and strong representatives of our elite, the regions, and foreign guests — all understood what Russia is as a civilization-state.

Yes, of course, there were some flaws, such as the display of strange cars — echoes of the old “archaeomodernity” from the 2000s or 2010s. We still can’t do without these waves of absurdity. But remember: once upon a time, Konstantin Malofeev’s Tsargrad pavilion was decorated in Khokhloma style, and everyone walked past in amazement. Then electronic kokoshniks gradually appeared. And now, practically every second stand featured Russian elements. The pavilions of our regions showcased their ethnic and cultural traditions — both Russian regions and national republics. Every city demonstrated its uniqueness, and yet we are one people.

We no longer divide the country into “those who are at war” and “those who are not at war.” Governors, officials, ministers, and entrepreneurs — everyone is now involved in this historic process. Everyone understands how serious everything is. It seemed to me that this was a unique forum that demonstrated Russia’s gradual return as a fully sovereign civilization-state — one that feels its own dignity, strength, and freedom. And this Russia is ready for dialogue with everyone who is open to it: in the East, in the West, in Africa, and in Latin America. China was represented very systematically and substantially. A wonderful journalist from India came, who was absolutely delighted with what she saw. In essence, the real contours of the new world are emerging before our eyes.

Our forum, the St. Petersburg one — where at the beginning I somewhat solitarily handed out the brochure Our Path, which described roughly what we have finally arrived at with great difficulty — was my first experience, the first feeling of a certain loneliness and clear prematurity of it all. And now at this forum, in which I participated, I had the feeling: yes, of course it is slow — “the mills of the gods grind slowly” — all our processes happen gradually. But if you are confident, work hard, wait, love your country, and labor for it tirelessly, then in 30 years or so, you may see some results. Especially if the top leadership of our country continues moving in the same patriotic direction.

But this was confirmation of long, enormous efforts and meticulous work by many — I think millions — of Russian people. In other words, we have shifted the ship of Russian statehood away from the difficult course of integrating into the Western world and onto the true course of affirming our own identity, sovereignty, freedom, and our civilizational and traditional values. And we have crossed a certain threshold. The previous two years also saw very good St. Petersburg forums, but it was hard to clearly articulate exactly what we were presenting. We showed that we were beginning to reassemble ourselves, to rethink our position in the world, and to pursue import substitution in the economy. But now the question is no longer simply about import substitution. Now the question is how Russia can unlock its infinite potential — in politics, resources, economics, and technology.

Subscribe now

Share

I was also pleasantly surprised by the sessions this year. Every second one was devoted to demography, increasing the birth rate, regional development, and the settlement of large cities. One part of the agenda focused on patriotic themes — support for mothers, women, and families; the other half on a breakthrough in technology, artificial intelligence, and other innovations. This is simply an optimal agenda.

At the session we organized together with Konstantin Malofeev, we discussed threats for the year 2050 and ways to overcome them. It was perhaps one of the most lively and well-attended sessions after the President’s speech. People couldn’t fit in the hall — the audience could have filled it three times over. This means people are taking the future very seriously. They understand what threats hang over our country and what difficulties we still have to overcome. There was no trace of overconfidence or bravado. We are united, we are recovering, we are strong, and we cannot be intimidated. We have finally consolidated ourselves in our patriotic dimension. There is no other option — everything else has either left or fallen silent; at least, it was not visible at the forum. The people who gathered at the forum understood their task: to save Russia under rather difficult conditions. Difficult, but by no means hopeless.

Host: Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], both at this forum and in many public speeches, we talk about Russia as a civilization-state and about the creation of a multipolar world, which is actively continuing. In the context of a multipolar world, what does Russia as a civilization-state represent? What kind of civilization is it?

Alexander Dugin: I have just published a book called The Civilization-State, which we prepared on a state commission.

What does it mean to “be a civilization”? It means possessing absolute monopoly over meaning. That is, Russia itself defines what is good and what is bad, what is humane and what is not, what goals we pursue, what kind of society we are building, what system we choose — and no one from outside can impose any values on us. If we want to, we accept them of our own free will; if we want to, we reject them. This is the degree of civilizational sovereignty that is inaccessible to an ordinary state.

Italy, Spain, Holland, or Belgium are also considered sovereign political states. So are Morocco and Egypt. But they belong to one civilization or another and are forced to share its values, even when this runs counter to their national interests. A civilization itself determines the most important things. It determines not only what is good and what is bad, but even what exists and what does not. A civilization has its own cosmos; it describes the very structure of being based on its own ideas.

Our civilization is, without doubt, Orthodox Christian at its roots and East Slavic in its essence. This is the Russian World — our core. This calm and dignified affirmation of the Russian principle as the axis of our civilization, Orthodoxy as its spiritual content, and strong statehood and great-power status as the political expression of our historical messianism — along with the values of mercy, openness, universality, the traditional family, and a traditional attitude toward generations — all of this constitutes the inner life of our people. Together, they shape who we are.

This is far more important than technology. Far more important than resources, the economy, nuances of trade, finance, or business. All of that is important, no one disputes it, but it is secondary and has an instrumental character within a civilization. Russians should have a Russian economy and a Russian financial system. If we like something from abroad — for example, Islamic banking or other forms of managing financial assets — we can adopt it, but it must be our choice. If we want to, we take it; if we want to, we reject it. And no one from outside can ever impose on us which reserve currency to use, with whom to engage economically, with whom to be friends, or with whom to cooperate. All of this flows from one place — from the center of our soul, from the Russian heart.

This idea of the civilization-state is itself a philosophy, a teaching, a worldview, an ideology — whatever you wish to call it. From this single term unfolds a vast field of meanings. If we are an independent civilization, then we are not part of the West. And in that case, the West is peeled away. Another practical significance of the civilization-state is that the West loses its claim to universalism, to exclusivity, to monopoly, and to hegemony in every sense.

That is, we can take something from the West and discard something else. And no one can say: “Why didn’t you adopt, for example, human rights?” Because we understand both rights and the human being differently. That is why we do not follow what you put into that concept. Moreover, your “human rights” are a liberal individualistic ideology that you use in your own interests. We simply do not play those games. We have our own understanding of man and his rights, based more on the Orthodox and humanistic worldview of our classical tradition than on your latest ideas.

In other words, we set our own standards, criteria, goals, and measures. That is what it means to be a civilization. This applies to everything: education, politics, and more. For example, if we are a civilization-state, we can abolish democracy. People will say, “Oh, why are you abolishing democracy?” But we might not abolish it… Look: everyone panics and is horrified because they think there is no alternative to democracy. Of course there is. It is a Western European invention of the Modern era, one that functions rather poorly, is visibly degenerating, and is turning into a dictatorship masked by the omnipotence of deep states or liberal elites. Why should we cling to it? It is not a divine law. It is merely a human construct.

It may not be bad in itself. We had a good zemstvo system and zemshchina — assemblies of the land. That kind of democracy appeals to us. As for liberal democracy, we have already rejected it along with liberalism, but we can retain certain elements if we wish. That is the main point: if we have elements of democracy, it will be because we chose them, not because they were imposed on us. It will be because we thought it through and weighed everything: “Well, perhaps democracy after all.” But for that, we must first understand whether we really need it. Maybe we are better off without it. And if we immediately become frightened — “No, no, how can we do without democracy?” — then we fall into the trap.

Here, thinking men and women who occupy a prominent place in the realm of thought and wisdom must sit down and discuss this at a nationwide council. Russian people, do you need democracy? The Russian people might say: “To hell with it. Give us prosperity, justice, honesty, and a strong state instead — why do we need this democracy?” Or they might say: “No, as the Russian people, I very much want this democracy. I like elections — going and choosing people.” If the Russian people say that, then we will adopt democracy.

The main thing is to understand that we can choose it, or we can choose not to. We owe nothing to anyone. The same applies to human rights and civil society: if we want, we build a strong great power and choose what we want. That is what it means to be a civilization-state. It is complete autonomy. No one can impose on us any religion, ideology, politics, culture, science, or educational standards — as long as we, the Russian people, honestly, deeply, and thoroughly think everything through and weigh it carefully. This is what civilization gives us. In essence, it grants us the fullest possible freedom attainable in human history.

Host: In that case, doesn’t this require some kind of legislative consolidation? Or should it remain at the level of worldview? Because everything you listed — and perhaps I’m wrong — reminds me of an ideology that is prohibited by our Constitution. Don’t we need some changes in this direction?

Alexander Dugin: There are different points of view. First of all, if we recall the conditions under which the Constitution was adopted, it was a specific historical moment. But the Constitution is not divine law. Constitutions are adopted, changed, abolished, readopted, or countries can live without one altogether. It is a historical phenomenon, so we should not absolutize it.

Yes, state ideology is currently prohibited in our country. Nevertheless, right up until the beginning of the Special Military Operation, we effectively had one. It was Western-style liberalism, embodied in our economy and culture: “You are an individualist, make your personal career, orient yourself toward the West — that is the goal.” That was our real ideology. Although formally prohibited, it dominated.

Now we are freeing ourselves from it — from this liberalism — and opening up a genuinely new ideological horizon. Within the framework of the civilization-state, every narrow ideology has the right to find its place, and every political form can be meaningfully considered. The civilization-state is by no means a dogmatic model. It is openness to everything except the dictates of the West and the liberalism that was imposed on us.

(Translated from the Russian)

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:29:48 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-st-petersburg-forum-and-russias-war-with-europe <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Thomas Massie’s USS Liberty Speech]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/09/thomas-massies-uss-liberty-speech/

And there it is: Mark Levin rages at Trump for moving to make a deal with Iran and telling Israel not to attack Lebanon.

He mocks the president for being "desperate for a deal" and plays a clip of Tyrus calling Trump Iran's "best friend."

"I don't know why he keeps bashing the… pic.twitter.com/d2VA2UORYt

— Chris Menahan ?? (@infolibnews) June 9, 2026

Thomas Massie’s Revenge Tour has begun.

Note: Meanwhile, Mark Levin is turning on Trump for being insufficiently subservient to Netanyahu. Please note that MAGA purged Massie from Congress for these people.

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:30:46 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336820 <![CDATA[[Multipolar Press] What’s Happening in Albania?]]> https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/whats-happening-in-albania

Oğul Tuna on Israel’s expanding Mediterranean ambitions and the uprising in Albania.

The Albanian people’s famous stubborn streak has flared up once again, and this time in a way that has the potential to draw the entire Mediterranean and Europe into the controversy.

The Balkans are currently being shaken by what has become the most passionate and substantial popular political reaction seen in the region in recent years. In protests largely ignored by the Western media, thousands of people have spent the past week filling the streets of the capital, Tirana, as well as Vlorë.

Subscribe now

Share

At the center of public anger are the United States and Israel. Although they were not the original cause of the unrest, demonstrators have directed their slogans and banners towards Washington and Tel Aviv. The individuals viewed as directly responsible are Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump, and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Public outrage has been mounting ever since plans emerged to transform Sazan Island, located off the Albanian coast and once home to a Soviet military base, into a massive luxury resort complex.

Why Are These Figures Being Targeted?

Under Kushner and Ivanka’s project, Albania’s Sazan Island and Zvërnec Island are being opened up to “tourism.” Though, arguably, a very particular kind of tourism. In the words of Turkish intellectual Yalçın Küçük, one could say that “human degradation” is once again being used as a pretext, or perhaps a cover, in this picturesque corner of the Balkans:

Perhaps one of the most ignoble words is ‘tourism.’ One can understand communism or socialism. But the ‘ism’ of the tour corresponds to the corruption of man, and over time I have come to understand it as the mode of movement of the degenerate.

(Caligula: Saralı Cumhur, p. 16)

Continuing from Küçük’s observation, behind a project that could potentially transform an already mafia-ridden and externally dependent region—not merely Albania, but much of the Balkans—into a society devoted entirely to serving outsiders, the familiar actors once again appear. According to reporting by Fırat Çelik of GZT, the initiative is being undertaken by Kushner’s investment fund, Affinity Partners. The project is expected to cost $6 billion, with financing reportedly coming from Gulf and Israeli sources.

The development includes everything one would expect: luxury hotels with thousands of rooms, marinas, private villas, and more. While discussions continue about the “Dubai-ization” of Istanbul, what now confronts us is a project aimed at the “Dubai-ization” of Albania. Yet this vision has alarmed not only Albanians but internet users around the world. In fact, following the revelations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and the release of related documents, fears have emerged that a new version of Little Saint James, better known as Epstein Island, could effectively be relocated to this part of the world.

Regardless of the speculation and allegations surrounding the matter, the broader picture and the connections involved have driven protesters into the streets for days, expressing their opposition to numerous figures, ranging from Socialist Party Prime Minister Edi Rama to Ivanka Trump. According to reporting by Harici, Ivanka visited Albania earlier this year and toured Sazan Island, which is currently part of a national park.

Rama, who has dismissed the project as a victim of “fake news” and claimed that the street demonstrations are backed by Iran, had already faced protests in February of last year over allegations of corruption. The prime minister, who is actively pursuing Albania’s accession to the European Union, has also attracted criticism both for his eccentric photo opportunities with EU leaders and for statements he made during a visit to Israel in January 2026. Speaking before the Knesset, Rama declared:

Standing before Netanyahu, one of the greatest orators in the world, makes my knees tremble.

During a meeting with the Israeli president, Rama also issued the following invitation:

By the way, we are ready to welcome with open arms all Israelis who wish to come here—whether tourists, entrepreneurs, artists, writers, people working in high technology, or those caring for the elderly. In this country, located in the heart of Europe, on the shores of two seas and surrounded by many rivers, our doors are open to those who wish to build their homes here. Within a very small geography, in a country as small as Albania, nature offers everything you could possibly be looking for.

The Bigger Picture: Is the Mediterranean the Real Target?

Although the protests in Albania currently dominate discussion in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean, looking at the broader picture makes it difficult to avoid asking: Is the Mediterranean itself the real target?

After all, we are approaching the anniversary of the Iran–Israel–United States war. Over the course of the past year, numerous reports concerning Israeli investors and entrepreneurs have emerged. Commentators have written extensively about how the government in Tel Aviv, which seeks to establish a front alongside Greece and Southern Cyprus against Turkey, has been expanding its activities particularly in the southern part of the island.

Of course, these activities are not limited to military and political initiatives. According to a report published in May by Ecem Şahinli Ögüç of Anadolu Agency, the village of Trozena near the city of Limassol has reportedly been purchased by Israelis, with Greek Cypriot residents allegedly prevented from entering the area.

Alongside the many analyses warning that Northern Cyprus is becoming a target of Israeli interest and that the security of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is increasingly at stake, we also see that the region has become a destination for Israeli investors and settlers. Likewise, after the Iran war intensified, many Israeli citizens reportedly fled not only to Southern Cyprus but also to Northern Cyprus. According to an August 2025 report by Emir Abdurrahman Bulut in Independent Türkçe, Chabad and various investors had been acquiring property there for an extended period. The issue became so prominent that the authorities of Northern Cyprus and the Israeli media clashed last year after headlines proclaiming that “Northern Cyprus is also an Israeli problem” began to multiply.

In May 2026, The Jerusalem Post drew attention to a different country altogether. An Israeli company, IDM Kalamata Monoprosopi AE, was reported to be planning a €136.5-million investment in Kalamata, in southern Greece. The project is designed to attract both foreign tourists and individuals interested in purchasing property in the region.

Of course, within a laissez-faire economic framework, the nationality or identity of capital is generally regarded as irrelevant. For this reason, officials such as those in the Albanian government, who are eager to accelerate integration with the West and attract foreign investment, tend not to concern themselves with the origin of incoming funds. Yet when one steps back and considers the broader pattern, examining the locations where investments, reports, and public reactions continue to multiply, it becomes difficult to ignore the possibility that something significant is developing along Europe’s Eastern Mediterranean coastline.

At the very least, this is how the Albanian protesters see the situation. Even after a full week of demonstrations, they continue to fill the streets with forceful slogans. As Rama claims, these may not be the largest protests he has ever faced, yet they can hardly be described as a fading movement. What may be most troubling for him is that Albanians from every social background and political persuasion have united in opposition to both him and the project.

Will these demonstrations bring down the government or trigger a domino effect across Europe? It is still too early to say. It is worth remembering that many Europeans, like the Albanians and their neighbors, are increasingly aware that ordinary people are struggling, even as their governments appear preoccupied with projects that do little to serve their countries’ interests. As a result, it would hardly be surprising if the summer were to bring similar demonstrations to many other European cities beyond Tirana.

(Translated from the Turkish)

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 03:20:07 -0700 https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/whats-happening-in-albania <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] OUT NOW - Julius Evola: Political Traditionalism]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/out-now-julius-evola-political-traditionalism

In this landmark volume, Alexander Dugin presents a far-ranging panorama of the life, works, and contested legacy of the Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola.

The fruit of nearly half a century of engagement with Evola’s works, Dugin’s essays weave together philosophical, esoteric, and biographical perspectives to illuminate key dimensions of the Evolian …

Read more

]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2026 23:49:23 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/out-now-julius-evola-political-traditionalism <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Israel and Iran Exchange Fire]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/08/israel-and-iran-exchange-fire/

? JUST IN: President Trump says HE CALLS THE SHOTS, not Israel — FT interview

“I decide. I decide everything. He doesn’t decide.”

"Netanyahu will have no choice but to accept an Iran deal. I call the shots. I call all the shots. Bibi does not."

47 is now holding discussions… pic.twitter.com/NdjQW8SGEG

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 7, 2026

Donald Trump said he “calls the shots” and Israel will have no choice but to accept an Iran deal. He calls Netanyahu and tells him not to strike Iran. Israel defies Trump and attacks Iran.

]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2026 17:34:53 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336812 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] VIDEO SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-466

]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:31:23 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/video-sitrep-466 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Platonova’s Analysis: An Epiphany of Deep France]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/platonovas-analysis-an-epiphany-of-b9e The subject of French politics was very dear to Daria. She studied it with enthusiasm, as she did with everything that genuinely interested her. Where ordinary analysts saw only calculation, benefit, and Machiavellianism, Daria undertook to unveil the deeper patterns which, running far from vulgar and superficial political analysis, lead to political ph…

Read more

]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2026 03:00:56 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/platonovas-analysis-an-epiphany-of-b9e <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Multipolar Press in Manhattan]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/multipolar-press-in-manhattan

You are warmly invited to an exclusive evening in Manhattan on Saturday, July 18, 2026:

The Future of the West in a Multipolar World

A select gathering of writers, thinkers, and distinguished guests will examine the profound cultural, political, and civilizational shifts defining the emerging multipolar era. The evening will feature speaker presentations, a moderated discussion, and generous time for meaningful conversation and networking.

Date: Saturday, July 18, 2026

Time: 8:00 PM start (open-ended)

Location: Manhattan, New York City (details forthcoming)

Host: Rebecca Hargraves

Speakers:

Constantin von Hoffmeister

Cameron Macgregor

Mainstream Dissident

Kenaz Filan

Tickets: $65 (includes appetizers and a welcome drink)

Dress code: Smart casual

To secure your place, please RSVP and order tickets at:

constantin@multipolarpress.com

Reservations requested by: June 18, 2026

We look forward to welcoming you for a memorable evening of ideas.

]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2026 13:25:54 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/multipolar-press-in-manhattan <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump Storms Out Of Meet the Press Interview]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/07/donald-trump-storms-out-of-meet-the-press-interview/

President Trump says the war against Iran is part of the America First agenda because he saved Israel and the world from being blown up by Iran’s nuclear weapons.

He says Iranians are crazy people, but he gets along with them.

"I'm doing the world a service."

"I'm doing our… pic.twitter.com/lWwbnT8szJ

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 7, 2026

He threw away his presidency to be Bibi Netanyahu’s bitch.

]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2026 11:59:29 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336801 <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] ADDENDUM to prior SITREP]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/addendum-to-prior-sitrep

]]> Sat, 06 Jun 2026 19:18:20 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/addendum-to-prior-sitrep <![CDATA[[Real Thomas777] UNDERSTANDING the CURRENT SITUATION]]> https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/understanding-the-current-situation

]]> Sat, 06 Jun 2026 18:22:01 -0700 https://realthomas777.substack.com/p/understanding-the-current-situation <![CDATA[[Troy Keith Preston] Round-Table #154: Military Industrial Complex]]> https://troykeithpreston.substack.com/p/round-table-154-military-industrial

Join Keith, Florian, and Todd for a discussion on the US military-industrial complex. Locals:

https://praiseoffolly.locals.com/

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

X: https://twitter.com/PoFPodcast Telegram: t.me/PraiseOfFolly_1511 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PraiseOfFoll... BuyMeACoffe: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/PraiseOf... Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/PraiseO... Substack: https://substack.com/profile/40985862... Email: tertullian155@protonmail.com Co-host: Keith Preston:

https://attackthesystem.com/

X: @TKeithPreston1 Ulrich: flulrich@gmail.com 🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://streamyard.com/pal/d/56338185...

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Sat, 06 Jun 2026 11:02:29 -0700 https://troykeithpreston.substack.com/p/round-table-154-military-industrial <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] SPIEF, Sovereignty, and the Multipolar World]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/spief-sovereignty-and-the-multipolar SPIEF is about a multipolarity. Russia stays strong on this point. The multipolarity is under attack. I felt on this SPIEF that still fragile balance has shifted a bit in our sense. I was at the origins of SPIEF in late 90-s. This one is most successful one among all of them.

In 1998 I presented at SPIEF my books Foundations of Geopolitics and Absolute F…

Read more

]]> Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:15:18 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/spief-sovereignty-and-the-multipolar <![CDATA[[Robert Stark] The Indian Colonization Of The SF Bay Area And Enclavism As A Compromise]]> https://robertstark.substack.com/p/the-indian-colonization-of-the-bay @kolyn_cheang @SarRavani @HarshaReports &amp; @santiagomejia \n\nGIFT LINK: sfchronicle.com/projects/2026/… ","username":"demianbulwa","name":"Demian Bulwa","profile_image_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/profile_images/911079026755694593/fa3ZlN7O_normal.jpg","date":"2026-05-26T15:23:00.000Z","photos":[{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HJQUUO0bUAADg3Q.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/yyz8fZWlip"},{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HJQUUOuaEAADDyZ.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/yyz8fZWlip"},{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HJQUUPWbwAEQE51.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/yyz8fZWlip"},{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HJQUUOsbgAAvLwK.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/yyz8fZWlip"}],"quoted_tweet":{},"reply_count":2,"retweet_count":11,"like_count":25,"impression_count":3770,"expanded_url":null,"video_url":null,"belowTheFold":false}" data-component-name="Twitter2ToDOM">

SF Chronicle has an article about how the meteoric rise of Indian immigrants and their descendants reshaped the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. The article points out that the Bay Area’s Indian population doubled from 2010 to 2024, which is astonishing. Indians are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the Bay Area, which now has a larger share of Indians than any US metro and 2nd in pace of growth to only the Dallas metro. About half of the Bay Area’s tech workforce is Asian, and 66% are foreign-born with 23% from India and 18% from China.

source: SF Chronicle

In the late 20th Century there were already small Indian communities in the Bay Area, including both Indian techies and more working class Punjabi Sikhs and Gujarati motel owners. Then after the post dot com bubble recovery around 2004, there was this massive wave of primarily South Indian tech immigration, particularly from the Telugu ethnicity from the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which are India’s tech hub. For instance, JD Vance’s wife Usha and Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, are Telugu. South Indians are overrepresented in technical roles while North Indians are more represented in managerial and marketing roles in Silicon Valley. While most of this Indian growth is due to Silicon Valley, when Biden opened the border, there was a wave of more blue collar Punjabi Sikh migrants and lower caste Hindus who provide the service sector jobs for tech immigrants. The Bay Area’s Sikh community is concentrated in Hayward, Union City, and El Sobrante in the East Bay and there are communities throughout the Central Valley.

Image

source: SF Chronicle

It is really the recent Indian demographic shift that is the most dramatic. In contrast, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Mexican growth is slowing down while even Chinese immigration is growing at a much slower pace than Indian. Besides South Asian immigration growing at a faster pace, Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants can move to SoCal suburbs, which are more affordable, and Filipinos are concentrated in the nursing industry, which is geographically dispersed. Even with remote work, tech is still heavily concentrated in the Bay Area. German, Italian, and Irish ancestry is declining in the Bay Area while English ancestry is stable. It could be a sign of the UK’s brain drain or Utah Mormon techies moving to the Bay Area but it could also just be more Americans finding out they are of English ancestry due to genetic testing.

Fremont in the East Bay has the highest percentage of Indians of any city in the Bay Area and the entire Nation, as it is close to a third Indian and about two thirds Asian. The article points out that even Fremont was close to as White as other East Bay suburbs just a few decades ago. For instance, Mission San Jose high school in Fremont used to have a reputation as a party school with a top ranked football team. Edison in Central New Jersey, Sugarland in the Houston metro, and Frisco in the Dallas metro are also heavily Indian and approaching parity with Bay Area cities like Fremont.

Image

source: SF Chronicle

The Chronicle has a follow up article about The Tri-Valley region, which is a cluster of inland suburban East Bay cities, Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and Danville, which has recently become a bedroom community of Silicon Valley for Indians. While Indians have traditionally been concentrated in Silicon Valley, and certain inner East Bay suburbs like Fremont, Indians are expanding into the Tri-Valley region, which has seen the most dramatic growth. The article points out that when a family moved to San Ramon in 2005, there was only one other Indian family on their street while today most of their neighbors are Indian. A lot of Indian techies are relocating from Silicon Valley, because despite being expensive, the Tri-Valley has greater bargains for larger homes by comparison. The big irony is that the Tri-Valley region emerged as a White flight zone back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

source: SF Chronicle

Pleasanton went from 76% White and 12% Asian in 2000 to 36% White and 43% Asian in 2020, San Ramon went from 72% White and 14% Asian in 2000 to 32% White and 50% Asian, and Danville from 83% White and 9% Asian in 2000 to 62% White and 21% Asian. Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon is now nearly 79% Asian. The Tri-Valley’s Indian population is also more South Indian than the rest of the Bay Area’s Indian population, which is probably because South Indians are overrepresented among more recent tech immigrants. However, there is a small Sikh community in Livermore. There are also a lot of Eastern European and Middle Eastern immigrants in the Tri-Valley.

Of the Tri-Valley cities, Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon demographically transformed in the 00s and 2010s while Danville and Livermore are in the early stages of transformation, though Livermore has more Latinos than the rest of the Tri-Valley. During the covid hybrid-remote work boom, Indian tech workers discovered Danville and that the commute to Silicon Valley was doable. I interviewed a Chinese American guy, Flower Heart, who has family in Danville, and he said that just 20 years ago it was nearly all White and that they were the only Asians on their block. When his family sold their house a few years ago, they noticed that nearly every new home buyer was Indian. Danville is only 7% Indian and still majority White, so is nowhere close to being an Indian or Asian ethnoburb, but the growth rate is astronomical and comparable to where San Ramon and Pleasanton were 15-20 years ago.

Indian Population Growth Rate

Image

source: SF Chronicle

source: SF Chronicle

source: SF Chronicle

It is not just the Tri-Valley cities like Danville and Livermore, but San Carlos, Burlingame, Los Altos, and Los Gatos are all traditionally White cities that are experiencing rapid Indian growth. Thus, it is not just enclaves solidifying demographically but rather a colonization of White areas. Only Los Altos Hills and Contra Costa Center had a decline in their Indian population, which I am unsure as to why Los Altos Hills would be different from other wealthy Peninsula cities, but Contra Costa Center makes sense, as it has a lot of transient renters. Los Gatos, which is the last White stronghold of Silicon Valley, is also beginning to transform. The article references an Indian family who moved to Los Gatos in 1975, when they were among the few Indian residents in a city that is now more than 20% Asian. An Indian Los Gatos resident is quoted that, “I used to meet one Indian in a week. But now we meet 250 in one hour.”

Image

source: SF Chronicle

If you look at the Chronicle’s demographic maps, you notice both the recent rapid demographic growth in the Tri-Valley but also an abrupt shift from a lot of Indians to hardly any Indians just to the north. This is because Indians tend to live in newer housing stock, so the western and main part of Danville with older housing stock is still much Whiter than San Ramon to the South, and Blackhawk to the east, which have newer housing stock. Unlike San Ramon and Dublin, Danville hasn’t built that much new housing, so that rapid growth rate is especially astonishing. The affluent East Bay suburban region of Lamorinda (Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda), which mostly has older housing stock, is not listed as having significant Indian growth. However, Lamorinda is likely attracting more assimilated East Asians and mixed White-Asian families, just not many Indians, as it is further from Silicon Valley, though it is recently attracting SF AI talent.

source: SF Chronicle

The Whitest region of the Bay Area is Marin County, with cities like San Anselmo, Ross, and Belvedere with overall White populations near 90% and a student-age demographic that remains largely consistent, tracking just a few points lower. Thus, there is little danger of demographic transformation. The second Whitest region is Lamorinda, with overall White averages hovering around 65% while the youth population is around 50−55% White. Danville’s overall White population sits at roughly 60% while its White youth percentage remains at roughly 50%. Danville is at slightly higher risk of demographic change than Lamorinda, as the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, which serves Danville, has seen its White student population shrink over the last decade, with significant growth in Asian and multiracial enrollment. Los Gatos is also around 60% White with a 50% White youth population, but is at higher risk of dispossession than Danville due to being in the heart of Silicon Valley. Peninsula affluent cities with high Indian growth like San Carlos, Burlingame, and Los Altos range from 50-55% White with a youth population ranging from 35-45% White. Thus, the demographic transformation is well underway and is unlikely to reverse. From the most to least likely to become less White in the future of these affluent regions, I’d rank Los Gatos and the Whiter parts of the Peninsula as most at risk, followed by Danville, Lamorinda, and Marin County as least likely.

When the East or South Asian percent of an area crosses a certain threshold, the area is no longer culturally American. For instance, there is this trend that when a school district becomes more Asian or Indian, there is White flight, in part due to it becoming too academically hyper competitive for Whites. However, I also see a Hapa and assimilated Asian identity forming with a lot of White men marrying Asian women. Regardless, California just doesn’t have enough Whites to maintain prolonged mass assimilation, so it is better to be honest that the future is ethnic balkanization.

The reality is that there is zero sum competition over real estate and jobs, especially in the Bay Area, and even more YIMBY housing policies aren’t going to resolve that. Texas’s demographic transformation is getting a lot more attention, such as conservative influencer, Sara Gonzales’s viral YouTube videos exposing the Indian demographic takeover of Dallas’s suburbs. However, since Texas has a lot of cheap flat land, there is not as extreme zero sum competition as in the Bay Area. Texans will take offense to this, but more desirable and elite places matter more.

AI Depiction of Danville and San Ramon under pan-enclavism

Ultra nationalists want to deport Indians, which I don’t endorse nor do I think is feasible. However, I half jokingly proclaim that Indians need to be deported back to Silicon Valley out of Whiter suburbs. So instead of thinking about America’s sovereignty, the Bay Area is made up of these micro nations. For instance, the San Ramon/Danville border is like the border between India and White America. Indians can have Fremont and Milpitas while Danville, Alamo, and Lamorinda must stay White. San Ramon and Pleasanton can be set aside as a mixed White Asian/Indian region, and Los Gatos can either be part of a White/Asian mixed region that includes much of the Peninsula or a White region that extends down to Santa Cruz. Danville’s old west architectural aesthetics matches the White American demographic better while San Ramon has new tract housing that appeals more to Indian and Chinese immigrants.

Bay Area Demographic Map For 2020 Census

Source: CNN Interactive census map

What if a community and civic members in a city like Danville declared their city a White enclave? It is not like a city can challenge fair housing in freezing the mortgages of tech immigrants who say moved in the last decade. Fair housing law, both national and California state law, is generally only applied to Whites resisting demographic change rather than to immigrant enclaves that only sell or rent to their own demographic. It would be something more akin to an immigrant enclave getting a symbolic designation that fosters a sense of community, but no one is legally excluded from moving in, or at least in the short term. The compromise is that areas with more established demographic transitions can be accepted but the most recent demographic change must be reversed and future displacement prevented.

If anything, enclavism is the centrist solution that can deescalate the hate. Because if enclavism is not normalized then either there is endless demographic replacement until there are no White communities left or there is a really nasty xenophobic backlash, which we are beginning to see. Enclavism can even be rebranded as multiculturalism which makes it sound lefty. I favor multiculturalism revolving around close knit enclaves and small businesses rather than mega corporations creating company towns for their immigrant labor. While India is very diverse, having so many corporate strivers from one particular region of India, in one niche industry, all pouring into the Bay Area is bad for diversity. Enclavism is ironically embracing that America will inevitably become more like India. So you’ll have White people saying I am a White Brahmin or a White Vaishya.

The quote tweets and comments to the Chronicle article on Twitter are largely very negative toward Indian people and the demographic changes. However, it is not primarily from dissident right types, White Nationalists, and groypers, but rather from a lot of normies from the Bay Area, which is shocking. Even if you go on Seattle’s sub reddit, which is fairly liberal, there is growing resentment against Indian demographic growth. A lot of the resentment in the Bay Area is coming from other non-Whites, including working class Blacks and Latinos, as well as more established East Asian techies who feel undercut by the recent wave of Indian techies.

There are a lot of negative stereotypes about Indians, such as being scammers, nepotistic, and rude neighbors. Then you get the cruder racism like calling Indians “Jeets,” “street shitters,” or “demon worshipers.” Certainly, H1B visas have been abused, disproportionately by Indian outsourcing firms. There is a strong moral taboo against being anti-Black because of the history of slavery and Jim Crow but also because punching down on a poorer group is gauche. Even if Jews are also successful, there is a taboo against anti-semitism because of the Holocaust. Indians don’t have any similar moral shields, as most Americans have never heard of Winston Churchill’s famine in India nor feel guilty about it.

source: SF Chronicle

The key issue is that Indians are growing at a rapid rate and have the potential to be a massive demographic comparable to Mexicans, but unlike Mexicans, are rising to elite managerial positions, like Jews. However, Jews are a much smaller demographic and are similar to Whites in appearance while Indians are very foreign culturally and in appearance. Even if the majority of Indian immigrants and Indian Americans are decent people, this is a cataclysmic transformation for not just the Bay Area but for America. Meanwhile, a large portion of White Americans are facing downward mobility and do not have the wealth nor opportunities that their parents and grandparents had, thus feel usurped and dispossessed.

Indians are just responding to incentive structures, as the establishment’s paradigm for America and especially California, is as an economic zone and worship of GDP over identity and community. I can’t really hate on Indians for not respecting ethnic boundaries if many Whites have this neoliberal mentality that communities belongs to the highest bidder rather than to those who have long standing ethnic ties in that particular area. Indians insisting they’re model immigrants because they “make lots of money” comes across as very vulgar and tactless but in a way they are just responding to how America presents itself to the World. While Indians are more nepotistic and tribalistic, they have higher social bonds that Americans had in the past but have lost due to atomization.

There was a backlash to Mexican immigration in the 90s and 00s but that subsided as the White working class left California while there was this new arrangement in which Whites are the White collar class while Mexicans are California’s working class. However, the mass ascendence of high skilled immigrants to the managerial class upends that arrangement, which means White Californians are in danger of becoming economically obsolete. There is this assumption from both the Left and populist Right that the White upper middle class are extremely privileged, but even they are being dispossessed in California. While boomers control much of the Bay Area’s prime real estate, among Millennial buyers it is either Indians and Asians working for tech corporations or Whites who inherit wealth. The late Scott Adams, who was canceled for saying White people need to stay away from Blacks, also celebrated his Pleasanton neighborhood becoming Indian, which is more of a boomer mindset, as Indians prop up real estate prices and don’t commit much crime. Even if Bay Area Indians genuinely are the most ambitious and driven people, this makes the region hyper-competitive, driving out people who can’t compete or who desire a healthier life work balance.

I have not even noticed the same extreme backlash to Chinese immigration, considering that China is the US’s main rival. Unlike Indians, the Chinese are much more established in the Bay Area with SF’s historic Chinatown dating back to the 19th century. Even though there is a historic Punjabi Sikh community in Yuba City in the Sacramento Valley, between 1820 and 1959, less than 14,000 Indians immigrated to the US in total. There was some negative attention regarding the federal probe into Chinese covert operations, involving Eileen Wang, the former mayor of Arcadia, a SoCal suburb that used to be Anglo that transformed into a Chinese ethnoburb. There is also resentment against rich Chinese people cutting down trees on their properties for superstitious reasons. There are even allegations of Chinese nepotism at META. However, it is nowhere near as extreme as the resentment against Indians. It could be that East Asians are more introverted, have low birthrates, high rates of intermarriage with White men while Indians are more extroverted and have low rates of intermarriage. Not to mention that Indians are more overrepresented among elites while East Asians more upper middle class professionals but not elites (eg. Bamboo Ceiling vs Madras Floor).

The Chronicle article expresses concern that Trump’s tougher visa regulations could peril the Bay Area’s Indian demographic expansion. However, a judge recently struck down Trump’s visa policy that would have forced immigrants to return home to renew their visas. The article also mentions that "Developments in AI [have] cast doubt on the future of the tech jobs that built the Bay Area’s Indian community. And India’s own economic transformation has made it more alluring for highly educated residents to stay." Not to mention that the AI bubble popping could also slow down or reverse the demographic change. I hope all these big tech companies go under, which is a reason I’ll vote yes on California’s billionaire tax, if it makes it to the ballot.

The point from my article on the AI real estate bubble is that there will be less jobs but a smaller pool of very high paying jobs. Thus, extreme wealth will concentrate more in the Peninsula while places like the Tri-Valley may see a real estate crash which I am unsure whether that would stop demographic change or just make real estate cheaper for immigrants. A lot of these White areas have older populations, so when boomers sell off or pass on, demographic change could further accelerate. However, for the time being, higher interest rates could slowdown demographic change, albeit also incentivizing empty nesters to stay put.

Robert Stark's Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Fri, 05 Jun 2026 17:30:42 -0700 https://robertstark.substack.com/p/the-indian-colonization-of-the-bay <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] Stalingrad and the Eurasian Order]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/stalingrad-and-the-eurasian-order

After the Stalingrad slaughter, as is known, the Germans were unable to recover.
— Joseph Stalin, 6 November 1943

The war in the East began as far more than a contest between states. From the first days of the campaign, it carried within it an immense ideological charge. Military objectives, racial theories, economic ambitions, and dreams of continental mastery fused into a single enterprise. Vast territories stood marked for conquest, their resources destined for extraction, their populations assigned places within a hierarchy shaped by power. The German leadership envisioned a transformed Europe stretching deep into Eurasia, governed through force and organized according to principles that claimed permanence. In this sense, the conflict became a struggle over the future shape of an entire continent. What unfolded along the endless plains between Berlin and the Volga resembled an attempt to impose a new historical order through steel, administration, and war. The battlefields of the East became laboratories of empire where armies carried competing visions of civilization, destiny, and political faith.

Stalingrad emerged as the decisive test of these ambitions. Across months of relentless combat, entire formations disappeared beneath artillery fire, hunger, disease, and winter cold. Hundreds of thousands perished. The German advance, which had swept across Europe with astonishing speed, encountered its limit on the banks of the Volga. The statistics remain staggering: nearly half a million Soviet soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands wounded, and immense losses among the Axis forces. The German Sixth Army entered history as a symbol of destruction on a scale that surpassed ordinary military defeat. When the encirclement closed and resistance finally ended in February 1943, a legend collapsed. The belief that victory remained inevitable vanished beneath the snow. The battle transformed from a military event into a historical marker dividing one age from another.

For many observers, Stalingrad acquired a significance extending beyond strategy. The French writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline viewed it as the point where an entire chapter of European history reached its conclusion and the White race met the beginning of its end. His language carried the force of prophecy rather than analysis. He saw the shattered armies on the Volga as symbols of a civilization exhausted by generations of conflict, revolution, and ideological struggle. Such interpretations belong less to military history than to the realm of historical imagination, yet they reveal how deeply the battle entered the consciousness of Europe. The city became a symbol through which writers, thinkers, and political movements sought to understand the transformation of the modern world. The collapse of one vision of Europe stood before them, while the shape of the coming order remained uncertain and unfinished.

Among those who reflected upon the fate of Europe, the German author Ernst Jünger occupies a distinctive place. Unlike many contemporaries, he viewed great conflicts as moments that revealed the hidden structure of an age. Through his experiences in two world wars, he observed the rise of technological power, mass mobilization, and the transformation of the individual into a component within vast systems. Stalingrad appeared as one of the ultimate expressions of this process. Heroism remained present, sacrifice remained real, yet both existed within a battlefield dominated by industrial force and total mobilization. The warrior traditions of earlier centuries confronted a new reality shaped by machines, bureaucracy, and mass politics. Jünger perceived in such struggles the end of one historical form and the emergence of another, where the scale of organization exceeded anything known in previous European history.

The aftermath of Stalingrad opened the path towards a radically different geopolitical landscape. The Soviet Union emerged from the battle with immense prestige, having absorbed the greatest blow of the German offensive and reversed its momentum. Across Europe, the balance of power shifted decisively. The old continental empires entered their final phase, while new structures of authority took shape. In later decades, the Belgian thinker Jean Thiriart interpreted these developments through a geopolitical lens. He argued that Europe’s future depended upon continental unity on a grand scale rather than dependence upon external powers. For Thiriart, the tragedy of the twentieth century lay in Europe’s fragmentation and inability to act as a single political force across the Eurasian landmass. Stalingrad thus represented more than a military turning point. It demonstrated the decisive importance of territorial depth, industrial capacity, and civilizational cohesion in the modern age.

The legacy of Stalingrad continues to resonate because it touched questions larger than armies and frontiers. It marked the defeat of a project that sought mastery through conquest and racial hierarchy, while simultaneously confirming the strength of a Soviet civilization forged through revolution, industrialization, and immense sacrifice. The battle revealed that historical survival belongs neither to inherited prestige nor to memories of former greatness. Every civilization faces moments of testing. Some emerge strengthened. Others pass into history. The ruins of Stalingrad became a monument to this reality. They stand as a reminder that power, culture, and political order derive their meaning through struggle. Across the decades, the battle has remained a symbol of endurance, collapse, renewal, and transformation, shaping the historical consciousness of Europe and Eurasia long after the guns fell silent on the Volga.

If you enjoy my writing, order my new book, The Fate of White America, here.

Eurosiberia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]> Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:33:37 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/stalingrad-and-the-eurasian-order <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] House Passes War Powers Resolution]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/04/house-passes-war-powers-resolution/

The U.S. House votes 215-208 to end President Trump's war in Iran. Cheers erupt as the vote is read. pic.twitter.com/OMdoEAkbNZ

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) June 3, 2026

As we head into the midterms, Trump’s message is that only Dumbocrats and Republican traitors oppose his war with Iran for Israel.

]]> Thu, 04 Jun 2026 14:23:46 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336793 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Principal Threats Facing Russia in the Second Quarter of the 21st Century]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/principal-threats-facing-russia-in-852 It is evident that the time has come to discuss long-term strategies for Russia’s development in light of the principal threats the country may face in the next quarter of the 21st century, the period from 2026 to 2050.

This matter is of particular urgency right now, at a moment of genuine transition towards a polycentric world order, as well as towards new technological and economic paradigms. These processes, accompanied by the exponential growth of great-power competition, are creating fundamentally new categories of threat for Russia, while also opening up significant opportunities.

What are the principal threats facing Russia in the second quarter of the 21st century across five key dimensions: geopolitics; ideology and politics; demography; economics; and technology?

Is it possible to analyze their scale and relevance? How might we forecast the principal scenarios for their materialization on the horizons of 2036 and 2050?

What responses from Russia and its rivals are these threats likely to prompt?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

]]> Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:11:09 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/principal-threats-facing-russia-in-852 <![CDATA[[Pill Eater] Boards of Formula: Millennial Macabre and Y2K Irony]]> https://www.pilleater.com/p/boards-of-formula-millennial-macabre

“It is not difficult to understand why journalists writing for The New York Times and The New York Review of Books were so effusive about [Stephen Jay] Gould, while scientists were so critical. Journalists have the same liberal-left beliefs as Gould. When they read him, they read what they wanted to hear, and they did not have the knowledge or integrity to question what he wrote. As for Gould himself, he must have known he was deliberately misrepresenting the evidence to suit his political agenda — and it was he who said scientists who do this deserve to spend the afterlife in the bottom circle of the Inferno.”

- Richard Lynn, Science in the Service of Ideology. (2002)1

Boards of Canada actually broke up in 2006. Right after Trans Canada Highway, both Marcus and Mike Sandison had to raise their own families in rural Scotland. The 2013 release of Tomorrow’s Harvest was already considered a comeback irony album of sorts. There were previous experimental “listening parties” in New York for Geogaddi and The Campfire Headphase, but these were mere market trials to see if anyone would buy the CDs. But it was the Tomorrow’s Harvest release campaign that was over the top. It was a concept about the end of the world, or the soundtrack to a John Carpenter film that doesn’t exist. The album was a direct parody of “April Orchestra Vol. 40.”2

That happened 13 years ago. Everyone agreed that somewhere between 2007 and 2015, Boards of Canada was officially over. I certainly did. What influence do they have now from that gap of missing time? The feeling is like a neglectful dad that comes back to see his child enter university and wants to finally reconnect. Resent, or denial from the child, is definitely in the air.

Now, here’s the real problem: What happens when you make a “new” comeback album based upon a previous comeback album and forget about what happened when guitars were introduced during The Campfire Headphase, twenty years ago!? You get a product, which was made not for a new generation of listeners, but deliberately giving in to the demands of perverted fanfiction and the stereotype of what consumers think Boards of Canada is.

To make a long story short, I am greatly disappointed with this unoriginal release called “Inferno.” Why is it such a joykill?

Every Boards of Canada album was different. I remember in 2004 buying Geogaddi on CD from Tower Records because I heard it while watching Weebl and Bob and Salad Fingers on the family computer. And when The Campfire Headphase came out, with that minimal Flash website and 30-second audio clips from Amazon.com, I thought it would be even scarier and bombastic! I remember an entire shelf of Campfire CDs at the Best Buy in Trooper, Pennsylvania. Yes, an array of CDs lined up so you would buy the new album that October on the outskirts of Pennsylvania!

But I was also disappointed with that album twenty years ago. Something has changed.

What was it? Did they get full of themselves? Was it the introduction of guitars? I just felt like something was off.

In an interview with Pitchfork,3 Mike Sandison argued,

“We knew that we had to break away from this thing. It bothered us that if you go into the big stores our stuff is always sitting in the dance music section. We never made a dance record in our entire career but our stuff still gets thrown in there. Our drive with this record [The Campfire Headphase] is to try and get us out of the dance section and into the main section with all the others bands, like ABBA and A-Ha. We’re just a band. Not an IDM band, not an electronic band, and not a dance band.”

And that was it.

They became pretentious. They were embarrassed that they were making “electronic music,” and they wanted the same respect as My Bloody Valentine or Cocteau Twins. They wanted to become the acts outside the obvious medium and subculture of electronic music. So how were they gonna ignore this reality?

A similar story arises with the French duo Daft Punk. They really only had two good albums and two bad albums. After Humans After All (also in 2005), they spent most of their time boosting their brand image and producing little to no music. Why? Because it’s all about propaganda if you can’t make a good record anymore.

Boards of Canada has unfortunately become this kind of golden-calf brand name starting around 2010. Now we have this “new” thing, 16 years later, from the same hype machine of nothing. Right smackdab on the Wikipedia page for the album, we see the word “hauntology” as a selling point. Is that really it? Are we supposed to think this is the spiritual successor to Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti?

Nobody celebrated Boards of Canada because of “hauntology.” That’s the crude part. We have to remember what they were in the 90s and early 2000s. They were trip-hop and beat-driven. They were experimental and innovative. They were industrial and harsh. Those terms have been thrown out the window because it doesn’t sell to English Gen-Xers who are now acting like their Boomer parents.

Is there anything good about this album?

This “millennial macabre” fallacy of scary childhood memories has gone too far. The brothers gave in to the formula, and instead of making an original work, they just copied what people thought Boards of Canada was.

Just look at the back of the album and read the song titles if you would like to know the entire content.

The track titles are clearly derivative and read from a scripted notepad. The words are jumbled up in a medley like something later Talk Talk would produce (like “Myrrhman” or “Runeii”). The titles comes off as a plug-and-play syllabus that reads like it was created by AI. Also, the naming convention always speaks in the first, second, or third person and always follows two to six words each.

Here are some examples of this repetitiveness found on older albums that have been mutated into something else:

  • Aquarius is now “Age Of Capricorn.”

  • Kid for Today is now “Father and Son.”

  • In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country is now “Somewhere Right Now In The Future.”

  • Magic Window is now “Acts of Magic.”

  • In The Annexe is now “Blood In The Labyrinth.”

  • Sick Times is now “Deep Time.”

  • From One Source All Things Depend is now “All Reasons Depart.”

  • You Could Feel The Sky is now “You Retreat In Time And Space.”

  • I Saw Drones is now “I Saw Through Platonia.”

It’s a regurgitation of the small playful hints of hip-hop consciousness, painted into a concept album about an Aum Shinrikyo step-by-step cult initiation.

Even worse is that each new track sounds exactly like the last one from the previous albums.

I’ll go over each track.

Starting the album, “Introit” is the worst Boards of Canada intro (even as a generic song) I've ever heard. It’s an obvious Roland SH-101 arp sequence that mocks the computer intro start-up noise on Tomorrow’s Harvest and is far away from the stimulating “Wildlife Analysis,” “Ready Lets Go,” and “Into The Rainbow Vein,” which these three tracks sound nothing like. In addition, Introit is way too short at 35 seconds, coming close to “I Saw Drones” (from Geogaddi) at 27 seconds. Introit is just annoying and cringe, like forcefully trying to appreciate the Rankin Bass ending bumper. This one was made for the Reddit fans.

“Prophecy At 1420 MHz” was intentionally made as an epic opener. The kind of thrill of watching a brand-new movie trailer and getting excited about what’s to come. But that’s it. It could have been made by Trent Reznor for any Disney movie, and no one would blink an eye. I could see this jingle being used in a future Hyundai car commercial. But I would never play this track in a club setting. It echoes the same surf rock intention of Dayvan Cowboy, but also shames itself further that “Boards of Canada is a rock band!” Within 24 hours, YouTube comments are filled with lyric fandom of “I am god,” which makes me feel queazy about these kinds of insecure fans. I would feel much better if this song were done by the Blue Men Group.

“Hydrogen Helium Lithium Leviathan” is not “Everything You Do Is a Balloon.” The obnoxious drone chord that comes in and doesn’t stop till the 70-second mark. The backmasking feels pushed for no apparent reason (rather, it just sits there to be pretty). The digital audio workstation Reason has an instrument called the Complex-1 Modular Synthesizer, and its first preset is called “Canada” which sounds exactly like this drone. The band’s name is a product and a sound that synthesizer salesmen sell back to you. “It’s a Boards of Canada™ sound you are after!” I’m sure they got this preset and just made a song from it.

“Age Of Capricorn” goes right back into the horoscope motif that was already done. The intro harks back to “Constants are Changing” or “Macquarie Ridge” with its laidback pondering. It might as well be a clap-and-stomp version of “Olson.” The problem is that the album’s mood has changed from an upbeat action movie to a thought-provoking Adam Curtis documentary or Spike Jonze film. The chanting becomes irritating to a point where I wouldn’t be surprised to hear this in the previously mentioned Hyundai car commercial (even if it was directed by David Lynch to try to make the blandness into fine art). It’s like the brothers watched The Wicker Man and decided that was an art direction and subculture to define their music.

“Father and Son” is a new variation of “Telephasic Workshop” or “Julie and Candy.” It’s a turntablist throwback that harkens to DJ Shadow breakdancing. KMFDM’s “Death and Burial of C.R.” also comes to mind. Groovy, but it’s the same old style. I guess this song is about “the family?” (The “cult” kind or “Let me guess how bad your family is!”) It’s a good Autechre jig, but It’s also a bad sign to end Side A abruptly like this.

Turning the record over to the other side, “Somewhere Right Now In The Future” reeks of the “lost futures” nonsense. The “hypnogogic” pop of Neon Indian or Washed Out is a bad comparison. It’s just boring. This isn’t the intro to Stranger Things. If you know you could do the same thing with a guitar in your bedroom, then the track becomes disenchanted.

“Naraka” is another “Alpha and Omega” clone. I have a strong feeling they again reused their twenty-year-old gear and have the same vintage presets they made. If anything is “new,” it’s likely a cool VST3 they just purchased to test something out. I thought this was by Art of Noise, until I heard the ugly lead synth. It’s not just an ugly lead synth; “it’s a Boards of Canada™ synth!” And it’s the worst part of the track.

“Acts of Magic” is bland noise. The most boring track the band has ever released. Boards of Canada is telling me that they are “Merzbow for normies.” A girl in high school just learned about Boards of Canada and wants to sound cool next time in front of her friends and further explains that this track is really “deep and psychedelic.”

“Memory Death” is a telltale sign they are speaking to the millennials obsessed with vaporwave. “It’s about memories!” Well, this entire track is like being on the deathbed. The heart monitor doesn’t make the track any better. Its lack of creativity ends with a C-note bass guitar. I am just imagining this is the stage in the cult ritual where the member loses everything in the past and reinvents himself anew. I just had to make up a story to provide meaning to a video game soundtrack that doesn’t exist, but I am sure a Trans person will be influenced by it. (I would rather be listening to David Bowie’s Low at this point). Soundtracks today seem to be more expressive than meaningful.

“The Word Becomes Flesh” is another Telephasic Workshop. There are only two songs you can breakdance to on this album, and this is the last one. It’s not as scary as “The Devil Is in the Details.” It’s upbeat and like Kraftwerk or Daft Punk. You have to freak out your body to each word said. But the fidelity is way too clean to over the lo-fi crunch to dance (It’s the new VSTs, isn’t it?).

And right on the same release date of the album, the Backrooms movie showcases this track in the film. It makes over 80 million dollars, and the brothers do nothing to get those royalties. More exposure, more branding. This is all orchestrated on purpose.

Side B is over, and it shows you that the record ends both sides with these subliminal dance raps.

Starting the second record, “Into The Magic Land” sounds like a bad Russian cover of “Sixtyniner.” I won’t be surprised if this is the next single. It has that vibe (and smell) of a brown kid with a nose ring that plays guitars and collects designer pedals only to make “drone” and “soundscapes” out of them. It’s a self-guilt track that the band isn’t Clan of Xymox or Handful of Snowdrops. It puts the guitar forward and downplays everything else. It just doesn’t belong anywhere on the album.

There is a good reason why they didn’t move past The Campfire Headphase. It’s like how Depeche Mode made Exciter, and everyone trashed it, only then to make a good throwback like Playing the Angel, and return to Exciter with the equally bad Sounds of the Universe. This is coming back to Campfire, and sound regresses further into the Scottish rock of The Sexual Objects.

“Blood in The Labyrinth” is too polished and belongs in a shopping mall as muzak. It’s the “Dayvan Cowboy” kind of optimism for people who miss browsing Flash games on their Windows XP computer. We are back at the Campfire, or at least they are trying way too hard to be Massive Attack or The Orb.

“Deep Time” is a lazy “Sherbet Head.” Perhaps the worst Boards of Canada song ever released. Why? So many listeners called it “Tape 5” when the promo video was released to advertise the album. People cared more about Boards of Canada returning than they did about the content of what was being listened to. I want to believe that the United States government is connected with the band and knew they were going to make them successful. But the real concerning issue is that someone in the White House actually thinks this is a good song! All that over a synth pad and harp? There is nothing in the Matryoshka doll when you get to it. The elite want you to like bad music on purpose.

“All Reasons Depart” doesn’t know what it is. It’s a Roger Waters speech in the beginning, and then a funky Eurorack jam akin to “Palace Posy” later. Just end Side C already. Minimal techno like this is just filler.

For the final side, “Arena Americanada” is cheery at the wrong time. The snare is compressed, the lead is only three notes, the bass guitar budges too much in the front, and the voice stab is played out. They say you begin a record with the possibility of it being a single. Go “loud” at the start. But for what purpose now, when the album is almost over?

“The Process” must be about Process Church of the Final Judgement. The noise collage sounds way too wild, like “Gemini,” and goes into another two-in-one song structure, and the latter part morphs into “Tears From The Compound Eye.” A novelty track with two different schizophrenic emotions. Perhaps the real closer on the album.

“You Retreat In Time And Space” is bad muzak you would hear on a Kitarō meditation tape. It’s not “Open The Light.” It’s not even the intro to The Phantom Tollbooth. It doesn’t know what it is. It’s “Aquarius” without saying “orange!” The bass guitar makes it feel like it’s Acid Jazz (the Medeski Martin & Wood kind), then thinking they are going to have a special on NPR’s Tiny Desk Concerts. This is a single without saying it is.

“I Saw Through Platonia” borrowed its heartbeat from Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon. The heartbeat, like the heart monitor on Memory Death, is too much. More new age without context. More “One Very Important Thought” without being important. All of it is a bad repeat episode. The same gimmicks from 1998 all over again. Noise at the end of the tunnel. Inferno is what The Force Awakens is to Star Wars.

The only thing “new” about the release is the original art by the brothers featured in the album’s interior and booklet. While the art is stunning, it feels out of place with the music and the design. It’s like if they got the booklet template from Tomorrow’s Harvest and then re-uploaded new art pieces that they made to replace it. The obvious Christian cross and haunted children honestly feel boring at this point. Peter Sotos knows how to write and visualize such trauma, while the brothers feel that it is now an obligation (and for the fans) to feature such cliches in their work. This is the annoying aspect of the millennial macabre attitude. It assumes anything in the past was gloomy and scary by nostalgia, something “hidden” by euphemisms. There is no trust in the past. It’s extremely doubtful what is good and sincere in favor of the idea that all of tradition should be discarded as reactionary.

The album art suffers from the band’s name being plastered over the fresh image. It’s to make sure non-English speakers know they are buying an album by “BOARDS OF CANADA.” I can’t even see if there is actual album art other than children, which I guess is like the first album. The lowercase track listing on the back isn’t helping either.

The photography is similar to what Placebo was doing on “Without You, I’m Nothing.” So, no, the album art isn’t that innovative in the history of existing physical albums.

This product made me contemplate a greater thought. Why does everyone who signed on to Warp Records think they are indie musicians doing experiments with their guitars like they are Nick Drake? What’s with the Tycho car jingles? Why does Boards of Canada think they can cut into the Beach House consumer market? Why is the press photo another white person who does interesting things and who is just like you, living in Bushwick or West Philly? The target demographic is guys with mustaches and nose rings who buy lots of designer pedals to be “expressive,” but get really embarrassed if you call their sound “techno.”

Squarepusher’s “Detroit People Mover” is about a society without humans; a type of nonhuman future where Timothy Morton’s ideas of post-human, anti-anthropocene nihilism reign supreme. Where technology adapts to human behavior, electronic music does not exist because it’s a simple expression in a complex world. Squarepusher is a novelty jazz musician who just happens to use a drum machine, and should be judged like Miles Davis writing music for a traditional-futuristic Japan. Why? Because Americans —liberalism and capitalism— brought so much good to the Asian world, and they are just like us. (…I am being sarcastic here.)

Look at Squarepusher’s new album released this year, “Kammerkonzert.” Design-wise, it looks like an old Jazz record with the track titles on the front of the release! (I only know of the band Health who has done this, ironically mixed with power electronic aesthetics.) The record label, label address, the barcode, and even the production credits of the album are on the front! What kind of faux-authenticity is this in 2026? It is telling me nobody treats the material form with respect anymore because everything is free online. What are the chances I am going to find this album in a record bin in 2046 and buy it for $5 because of the information on the front? This assumes there are too many albums produced for the average consumer, and hence, inflation is bound to happen in the art industry.

And the distorted Neue Haas Grotesk font is not persuading me that this is a Herbie Mann or generic City pop record.

And so why am I comparing Kammerkonzert to Inferno? It’s because both are on the same label, released this year with the same target audience in mind. What does it tell you about the fans who consume these products?

Boards of Canada is trying really hard to be a joke of The Incredibles String Band or Strawberry Alarm Clock. Every album they released felt different, but not (Disco) Inferno. Craig Laubach of Acid Horizon will pick and choose his favorite things and why his favorite band could do no wrong, because it reinforces his favorite thoughts. At this point, there is nothing left, and we have to admit that Inferno isn’t their best. It’s the cost of trying to find nothing to get a book deal on Repeater.

The only thing the brothers can do to redeem themselves is to go on tour and create a new community around concert-going. The whole secret Freemason mystery is no longer trendy. Blank Banshee is still hiding behind a mask, and after a decade, it’s not making the music any better.

Aphex Twin has a synth; Richie Hawtin has a drum machine, so where is Boards of Canada’s guitar pedal?

It would also be in their best interest to release another album in three years. The stagnation harms their output. That’s why they need to market their name so much to make up for lost time. I wouldn’t be surprised if Inferno was recorded in 2015 and then released a decade later out of boredom to get another paycheck.

The golden rule is that aesthetics alone can’t define the music or sound. But here we are with another fad product to make you relive the same nostalgia of an already ironic product that was released more than a decade ago, with a zeitgeist that is getting older and bitter about society.

I predicted this outcome about nine years ago in a tweet on October 30th, 2017:

“boards of canada is extremely overrated... but geogaddi is a scary folk horror album par excellance.”

Inferno isn’t a Geogaddi. The band just gave up on originality after 2006.

That’s it. Please, don’t defend this album.

I give it 2 out of 5 stars.

-pe

6-4-2026

Sign the Guestbook!

Subscribe now

Share

Share www.pilleater.com

1

https://www.amren.com/news/2018/12/stephen-jay-gould-scientist-service-ideology-richard-lynn/

2

See for yourself: “April orchestra 40 - Le grand Vide”

3

https://pitchfork.com/features/interview/6151-boards-of-canada/

]]> Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:16:24 -0700 https://www.pilleater.com/p/boards-of-formula-millennial-macabre <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Speech by Alexander Dugin at SPIEF 2026, Session: “Principal Threats Facing Russia in the Second Quarter of the 21st Century”]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/speech-by-alexander-dugin-at-spief It is evident that the time has come to discuss long-term strategies for Russia’s development in light of the principal threats the country may face in the next quarter of the 21st century, the period from 2026 to 2050. This matter is of particular urgency right now, at a moment of genuine transition towards a polycentric world order, as well as towards new technological and economic paradigms. These processes, accompanied by the exponential growth of great-power competition, are creating fundamentally new categories of threat for Russia, while also opening up significant opportunities. What are the principal threats facing Russia in the second quarter of the 21st century across five key dimensions: geopolitics; ideology and politics; demography; economics; and technology? Is it possible to analyze their scale and relevance? How might we forecast the principal scenarios for their materialization on the horizons of 2036 and 2050? What responses from Russia and its rivals are these threats likely to prompt?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

]]> Wed, 03 Jun 2026 07:34:46 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/speech-by-alexander-dugin-at-spief <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Republican Jewish Coalition Takes Victory Lap]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/03/republican-jewish-coalition-takes-victory-lap/ I would rather have the Democrats in power than these people.

]]> Wed, 03 Jun 2026 07:30:50 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336785 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Principal Threats Facing Russia in the Second Quarter of the 21st Century]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/principal-threats-facing-russia-in It is evident that the time has come to discuss long-term strategies for Russia’s development in light of the principal threats the country may face in the next quarter of the 21st century, the period from 2026 to 2050. This matter is of particular urgency right now, at a moment of genuine transition towards a polycentric world order, as well as towards…

Read more

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:47:51 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/principal-threats-facing-russia-in <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Mark Levin: Iran Sees Our Polls]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/02/mark-levin-iran-sees-our-polls/

Bannon: I believe — and the polls show — the more people who hear Mark "Tel Aviv" Levin's pitch, the lower the numbers go. pic.twitter.com/zgH01midHj

— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) June 1, 2026

Steve Bannon is correct.

Mark Levin pushes Trump’s poll numbers lower every time he is plugged.

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2026 04:42:19 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336768 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] The Idea of “Progress” as the Basis for Political Colonization and Cultural Racism]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-idea-of-progress-as-the-basis The identity of “modernization” and “Westernization” requires some clarifications, which will lead us to very important practical conclusions.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2026 01:07:35 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-idea-of-progress-as-the-basis <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump’s Jewish Paradise]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/06/01/donald-trumps-jewish-paradise/ It has been quite a year.

A year ago, I was on my way back from The Political Cesspool’s Will To Power conference. I had written and delivered an optimistic speech in which I had defended the first four months of Trump’s second term. We were still riding high off our victory in the 2024 election. I had spent months arguing with activists in the comments and defending practical engagement in mainstream politics.

Looking back on it, I could cite dozens of polls which showed public opinion was shifting in our direction on almost every issue. Younger Americans were even waking up to the Jewish Question. White identity politics seemed to be going mainstream. “Mass deportations” were just over the horizon. We had moved the Overton Window and won over the Right on immigration, trade, foreign entanglements, etc. Nationalism had gone mainstream. The last remaining neocons like Liz Cheney were being purged from Congress. Senators like Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and Ben Sasse were retiring. BoomerCons were certain to fade in power and cycle out of the electorate over the next decade.

The future appeared to be bright. The Republican Congress would soon use reconciliation to pass the Big Beautiful Bill which would be used to finance “mass deportations” and hire the personnel to carry it out. Trump had already shown a willingness to impose bold tariffs to protect American industry on Liberation Day. The border was quieter than ever. The Supreme Court was about to strike a blow against anti-White discrimination in Ames v. Ohio and would soon gut the Voting Rights Act. The 2030 Census would reapportion Congress and Blue States would lose seats and key electoral votes. It felt like an opportunity to reenter mainstream politics was opening up as a result of all of our metapolitical victories.

There were, of course, warning signs of where we were headed in those first few months. There was Trump’s war against the Houthis in Yemen. I didn’t really care though about a bunch of pirates. There was Trump’s executive order on student loans which sided with debt collectors. There was DOGE wildly slashing at the federal bureaucracy, accomplishing little and cutting funding to programs which should never have been terminated. There was the TACO on the Liberation Day tariffs and the arbitrary way they were being imposed via Truth Social posts. The economy was being managed by Trump’s mood swings. This was not the way that tariffs had historically been used by Congress to protect American industry. More than anything else, there was DOJ’s release of “Phase One” of the Epstein files.

There was always the unsettling fact that Miriam Adelson and other big Jewish donors had given Trump hundreds of millions of dollars during his 2024 campaign. Trump hadn’t gone to war in his first term though. He ran on “no new wars” and was hemmed in by a decade of his own rhetoric. Surely, he wouldn’t be stupid enough to start a war with Iran, which would only bring the Democrats back to power who would be out for vengeance. If nothing else, I thought he would be deterred because his own ass was on the line. I could tolerate Trump being pro-Israel and highly annoying. I didn’t care about antisemitism at Ivy League universities or deporting Mahmoud Khalil neither of which affected my own life.

Trump’s second term could have been radically different.

The Big Beautiful Bill passed Congress as we expected. He could have just shut his mouth and started deporting millions of people while keeping the border under control. The Voting Rights Act also went down as we expected. He could have shut his mouth and allowed redistricting to play out. He could have shut his big fat mouth and said nothing about the Epstein files. He could have shut his mouth about Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. He could have not taken the country to war with Iran for Israel or at the very least shut his big fat mouth after Operation Midnight Boomer. It would have been remembered like the Soleimani assassination. He could have shut his big fat mouth and not compared himself to Jesus Christ on Truth Social and so on.

This unstable narcissist simply can’t help himself. See Venezuela. See Greenland. See the White House Ballroom. See the destruction of his relationship with Elon Musk. See his constant interventions in the primaries. He is driven by a desperate need for validation which creates unnecessary bad news cycles. He doesn’t care if his choices and actions are bringing about the political ruin of JD Vance. He spent the last month throwing his weight around to purge Thomas Massie and prop up Vivek Ramaswamy.

The one service that Trump has done us over the past year is that the has shattered a lot of illusions. “Remigration,” for example, was transformed into a Republican dog whistle. “Overton Window victories” are meaningless. Trump’s cult of personality doesn’t care about ideology. It has gotten to the point where the Republican Party is being vetted to destroy anyone who would expose wealthy pedophiles and the base has been conditioned to accept that. He has also proven that he will do anything that Israel wants no matter how much it contradicts everything he said about putting “America First” for a decade. No one has been given so much power and squandered it in such a short period of time.

The Never Trumpers were right. Hillary Clinton was right. Trump never had the character to serve as president of the United States and should have been disqualified on that basis.

]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:08:08 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336713 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] The West Against Multipolarity]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-west-against-multipolarity In America, unconditional love for Israel and visceral hatred for Russia frequently go hand in hand. Why?

Most russophobic team Loomer, Shapiro, Levin, Graham.

I agree that Russophobia is paired with Zionism on the right. Dems hate both Russia and Israel (at least Netanyahu). Or Russia alone.

The term “multipolar” begins to sound like the radical insult fo…

Read more

]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2026 05:30:04 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/the-west-against-multipolarity <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump Wants To Cancel “America 250” Concert]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/05/31/donald-trump-wants-to-cancel-america-250-concert/

AMERICA IS BACK Rally! pic.twitter.com/ZAowKERA12

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 30, 2026

This is perfectly normal.

The president spent yesterday fuming on Truth Social about all the has been artists who have canceled their performances at his America 250 concert. He posted a meme of himself on Mount Rushmore and another meme celebrating his purge of Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress for releasing the Epstein files. He floated canceling the concert so that he could hold a MAGA rally in DC and make America’s 250th anniversary purely about himself. Finally, he ended the day by telling everyone on Truth Social to watch Mark Levin who praised him for launching the Iran War.

Daily Mail:

“President Donald Trump is looking to cancel America’s 250th birthday concert after artists have dropped out and instead turn it into a rally and make himself the new headliner. 

Trump, 79, is ready to add another career accomplishment to his name as he called himself ‘THE GOAT’ – which stands for the greatest of all time – and said he would take over as the main headliner of the birthday event. 

In a long Truth Social post on Saturday, he dubbed himself the ‘Number One Attraction anywhere in the World’ and compared himself to Elvis.

Trump said unlike The King, who needed a guitar to wow his fans, all the President needs is a microphone and a good speech to get ‘much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime,’ he wrote. 

Although viewers will not get to see Trump don a sparkly one-piece or see him showcase his vocals, instead he said he plans to give a speech at the rally. …”

Can you really blame any of these artists for canceling?

Trump is now one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. MAGA is about to be swept out of power for good in the midterms. There isn’t going to be another comeback. No one in the entertainment industry wants to be on the wrong side of the Democrat Revenge Tour.

Scott Greer:

“America 250 is turning into a major disappointment. On top of the public not really caring about the special occasion, the events planned by the Trump administration are falling apart.

Freedom250, the Trump-aligned committee involved in celebrating the sesquicentennial, announced a concert series for its Great American State Fair. Music icons were promised to perform at the National Mall.

The lineup was far from anyone’s idea of music icons. Every artist has seen better days, with many of them now punchlines. Milli Vanilli is most famous for not actually singing their songs rather than for their music. Vanilla Ice, Young MC, and C+C Music Factory provided many great pump-up jams for elementary school gym classes in the ‘90s, but no one has seriously enjoyed their work since. Martina McBride, Bret Michaels, and Flo Rida still have some cultural clout, but their primes are well in the past. The same goes for the other performers. It was Hasbeenapalooza, but it was probably the best the administration could do. Your humble author, at least, was excited to see these acts share their art.

However, even the has-beens turned out to want nothing to do with Trump. …”

Is anyone surprised that Trump lost the culture?

This is someone who was given a second chance and used it to destroy his own coalition.

]]> Sun, 31 May 2026 13:07:23 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336693 <![CDATA[[Euro Siberia] OUT NOW: The Life of Homer]]> https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/out-now-the-life-of-homer

New Book from Multipolar Press!

THE LIFE OF HOMER & Plato’s ION

A voice crossed the ancient world before kingdoms reached their height, before philosophy took systematic form, and before empires claimed eternity. That voice belonged to Homer. The Iliad and the Odyssey formed the spiritual foundation of Western civilization, shaping ideas of heroism, honor, and fate for nearly three millennia. Yet the poet himself remained hidden behind legend.

This volume brings together two ancient works that approach Homer from different directions. The Life of Homer, attributed to Pseudo-Herodotus, presents Homer as a wandering poet moving through the Greek world, enduring blindness, rejection, and struggle while preserving memory through the power of verse. Plato’s Ion, a dialogue centered on Homer, turns from the poet’s life to the mystery of inspiration and recitation, examining how Homer’s words pass from the poet to the performer and from the performer to the audience.

This edition includes a preface by Constantin von Hoffmeister exploring Homer’s enduring role as the voice through which the West first learned to remember itself.

Order your copy here.

]]> Sun, 31 May 2026 10:49:03 -0700 https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/out-now-the-life-of-homer <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Donald Trump’s Endorses Nancy Mace’s Opponent In South Carolina Governor Race]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/05/30/donald-trumps-endorses-nancy-maces-opponent-in-south-carolina-governor-race/

President Trump endorses Pam Evette (R) for South Carolina Governor pic.twitter.com/xBeNLeN1tD

— Politics & Poll Tracker ? (@PollTracker2024) May 29, 2026

I can’t stand the lying from MAGA.

If Trump cared about “no new wars” or immigration, then Lindsey Graham would be the last person in Congress that he would endorse. He has repeatedly endorsed Lindsey Graham. He has also endorsed Maria Salazar and Mike Lawler who are champions of the Dignity Act.

If Trump cared about the Big Beautiful Bill, which MAGA lied and said was the reason he was purging Thomas Massie, then he would have endorsed Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene who all voted for it. Instead, he intervened to purge all of them in primaries.

The only thing that Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace have in common is that they were the only four House Republicans who signed the discharge petition to release the Epstein files. In order to protect the reputations of Jeffrey Epstein’s associates, Trump has been willing to massively intervene in their primaries to defeat all of them.

Trump has remodeled the Republican Party, but it hasn’t been around any ideology or vision. Instead, he has transformed it into a corrupt cult of personality in which only sycophants are rewarded. He doesn’t even seem to be interested in winning elections or passing legislation anymore. We’re the party of $5 gas, inflation, war with Iran for Israel and protecting Jewish pedophiles isn’t a winning brand.

]]> Sat, 30 May 2026 07:28:48 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336670 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Chutzpah and the War of Symbols]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/chutzpah-and-the-war-of-symbols Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: On May 22, the Ukrainian Armed Forces committed a horrific terrorist attack: 21 people were killed at the Starobelsk Pedagogical College of Luhansk State University. In any such situation, the first question is: why? Because even behind such monstrous crimes, there is usually s…

Read more

]]> Fri, 29 May 2026 11:04:40 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/chutzpah-and-the-war-of-symbols <![CDATA[[Occidental Dissent] Peter Thiel Flees To Argentina]]> https://occidentaldissent.com/2026/05/29/peter-thiel-flees-to-argentina/

I bet he saw the video pic.twitter.com/8LOXMrO7AH https://t.co/Dy11rk3GFO

— Hunter Wallace (@LutherEnjoyer) May 28, 2026

Peter Thiel isn’t a fool.

He knew Trump was doomed in 2020 and didn’t support him. It speaks volumes about his confidence in JD Vance in 2028 that he is fleeing the country and taking up residence in Argentina. The fact that Argentina is hardly a bulwark of political stability ought to tell you how badly the Golden Age is playing.

New York Times:

“The Saturday tournament at the Buenos Aires chess club hosted its usual lineup of players, including an accountant, a college student and schoolchildren. But this time, hunched over the club’s tiny wooden tables with them, was a new entrant: Peter Thiel, the right-wing tech billionaire and Trump donor.

Mr. Thiel — who, according to one of the participants, “did not play badly” and came in third — had recently decamped from his homes in Los Angeles and Miami to establish a foothold thousands of miles away in Argentina’s capital.

His new roots in Argentina are partly motivated by his concerns about the direction of the United States, the people familiar with his thinking say, particularly California, where an initiative on November’s ballot could lead to a significant tax on billionaires. …”

Rumors are circulating that Vance is giving up on 2028.

Daily Mail:

“JD Vance, now the lone dove in Donald Trump‘s cabinet after Tulsi Gabbard‘s resignation, has been left more isolated than ever and is even considering abandoning a run for the presidency in 2028, multiple sources tell the Daily Mail.

Gabbard’s resignation letter cited her husband’s diagnosis with a rare form of cancer.

But the whispers racing through the West Wing find common ground: Iran.

Vance’s most senior non-interventionist ally is gone, and even as he expressed his sorrow for the exit of his ‘dear friend’ on Friday, insiders told the Daily Mail that his own future is at the front of his mind, while his rivals sharpen their blades.

‘Vance is a non-event in the West Wing,’ a source close to the President told Daily Mail. …”

The GOP will probably spend the next decade digging out of the rubble of this disaster. Trump is closing in on George W. Bush’s political standing in his second term in the RCP poling average.

]]> Fri, 29 May 2026 09:38:47 -0700 https://occidentaldissent.com/?p=336657 <![CDATA[[Alexander Dugin] Alexander Dugin on the Death of His Daughter Daria Dugina]]> https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/alexander-dugin-on-the-death-of-his-001
For a Radical Life: Meditations

The meaning of life is a lifelong endeavor, a constant quest and task to live up to. Philosophy, poetry, existential self-questioning, and sacrifice are all part of the art of living. In special cases, one person’s life – and death – can be meaningful and even life-changing for many others.

For a Radical Life brings together a unique selection of Daria Platonova Dugina’s meditations on a young life lived in deep thinking and persevering struggle. Drawn from her philosophical writings, interviews, social media, and personal diary, the words that speak from the pages of this book offer an unprecedented glimpse into the life and mind of Daria Platonova Dugina.

PRAV Publishing

Eschatological Optimism

Eschatological Optimism

Eschatological Optimism, the posthumous philosophical testimony of Daria Platonova Dugina, explores and develops this ancient idea amidst the overwhelming kaleidoscope of the cave of the modern world. Engaging a vast spectrum of philosophical, theological, sociological, and literary perspectives, Dugina shows that the decision to decipher and face the illusions of our “reality” is only the beginning of an intellectual, existential, spiritual, and political journey which diverse thinkers, ancient and modern, have dared to undertake. At once a philosophical theory, a hermeneutic lens, and a way of life, “Eschatological Optimism” is a watchword, orientation, and mission that inspires one to dare to know, live and die for the higher principles that forever shine through and beyond the cave.

PRAV Publishing

A Theory of Europe: A View of the New Right

In a world increasingly levelled by homogenisation, Daria Platonova Dugina retrieves the vibrancy of European culture by delving into the intellectual renaissance of the French New Right. Exploring the pioneering work of figures like Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, Dugina traces their groundbreaking and provocative reimagining of identity, tradition, and belonging, where the spirit of ideas transcends the conventional boundaries of Left and Right. Through a “Gramscianism from the Right” approach, she analyses how the New Right’s critique of universalist ideologies and its visions of civilisational revival present a cultural counter-hegemony that values rootedness and organic community over the globalist paradigm.

In this unique collection of lectures, essays, and interviews, Dugina highlights the complex intersections of New Right thought with currents like National Bolshevism and Eurasianism, investigating the philosophical and geopolitical frontlines of the fracturing world order. Dugina takes readers on a far-reaching journey beyond the standard ideological spectrum, inviting a deeper understanding of identity politics in the contemporary age. Here, philosophy meets praxis, inspiring those searching for alternatives in today’s monotone world to revisit the foundations and peaks of Europe’s intellectual heritage.

Arktos

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In Memory of Daria Dugina
Памяти Даши Платоновой-Дугиной

]]> Fri, 29 May 2026 00:15:19 -0700 https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/alexander-dugin-on-the-death-of-his-001