Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post A Political Action Plan for the US...and Putin's Playbook?
Created by John Eipper on 08/30/19 3:31 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


A Political Action Plan for the US...and Putin's Playbook? (Tor Guimaraes, USA, 08/30/19 3:31 am)

I've been following this rather boring WAIS debate about whether or not liberalism has caused the rash of populism happening today.

The topic sounds interesting; the speakers were all knowledgeable and well-prepared. Was I the problem, and if not, what went wrong? The speakers had dramatically different backgrounds and spoke from very different perspectives (which usually I like), but they talked over each other's heads even when they agreed on facts. Finally I realized what went wrong: at the end there were no conclusions, just more fog.  There was no actionable knowledge. Thus I came up with my own guidelines to fight populism and its many bad characteristics:

1. Keep your eyes on what is essential for a healthy nation (we discussed this many times in WAIS: freedom of speech and religion, real representative democracy and no vote suppression of any kind, markets truly free, no excessive income or wealth differences, no socializing costs and privatizing profits for anyone, no racism, strict separation of church and state, promote innovation, have a decent infrastructure, no wars except in self-defense, join the world to stop destroying the environment.

2. Force every person to declare whether or not these are good values. Make the No-Sayers the enemy of the nation and agents of evil. Yes, get religious about it. This is a life-and-death situation for our nation. We must cut through this fog.

3. Any political candidate not subscribing to these values better do a good job explaining why, or s/he is out of consideration for any post.

4. Candidates for political roles with the following characteristics need not apply: chronic liar, racist, xenophobic, major ignoramus, uses unnecessarily vulgar and insulting language to subordinates, promote divisiveness rather than union among sub-groups, etc.

By the way, regarding the last item, the Russian military Academy of the General Staff has a textbook by Aleksandr Dugin titled The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia. It preaches that Russia should use its special services within the United States to fuel instability and separatism, including provoking American racists, introducing geopolitical disorder to internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements, extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, to destabilize internal political processes in the US. Also recommended: isolating the United Kingdom from the rest of Europe, annexing Ukraine, dismembering Georgia, creating a vital alliance with Iran, destabilizing Turkey, and minimizing the influence of China. Wow, Vladimir has made much progress.

On the other hand, I changed my mind about wanting Trump to get along with Putin. Perhaps, rather, Trump should be impeached ASAP.

JE comments:  I especially like your requirement #4, Tor.  I'd add a fifth one:  banish the lobbyists and no dirty money in politics, just individual (and modest) donations.  Utopian dreams?  Of course.  Or not?

Alexandr Dugin has been called the world's most dangerous philosopher.  (Look it up.)  Can anyone tell us more?


Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (1)
Informational value20%

Visits: 173


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Alexandr Dugin: "World's Most Dangerous Philosopher"? (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 09/01/19 10:20 AM)
    Alexander Dugin has been called the world's most dangerous philosopher. But is this the case for the Empire dominated by extreme liberal capitalists, or for humanity as a whole?

    Dugin has also been called the Rasputin of Putin, which of course is historical nonsense. Furthermore, it is not worth talking about Russia fueling instability for the Empire. For three quarters of a century the Empire has fueled instability in the Soviet Empire and then in Russia. Prior to 1991 this may have been understandable, but there is no excuse for the creation of Al-Qaeda and the support given to the extremist Islamic terrorists in the Caucasus. After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Russia could have been integrated into cooperation with the West, as Berlusconi dreamt of doing, but the Empire favored only the Russian leaders shamefully reduced to making commercials for American firms such as Pizza Hut.

    If Russia is now repaying with the same coin, no one should complain.

    Alexander Dugin has elaborated a Fourth Political Theory, after Liberalism, Communism and Fascism:

    "For the liberals, identity is something to be destroyed. But destroying identity means destroying the people [I would say the nation]: from this populism is born, which is the people's attempt to become a people [again I would say a nation]:"

    For the extreme liberal capitalists, the people are the union of the rich with silly personal rights and the poor only required to pay and pay and pay. Such individuals are stripped of nationality, tradition, history, religion and even sex/gender (no more she or he); they are only a neuter consumer.

    Such extreme ideology begins to be rejected and a reaction is born which the elites call populism, in an attempt to give it a negative meaning and to try to take back the obedient herd back to the slaughterhouse.

    It is not a question of foreign policy in the sense of shifting alliances.  Rather, it is a question of restoring national independence with dignity within its own traditions.

    JE comments:  Without having read his books, I sense that Dugin comes from the Russocentric mold:  Pan-Slavism if you will.  Is the Dugin philosophy radically different from that of Dostoevsky or Solzhenitsyn?

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

  • Can You Mandate "Good Values" in Politicians? (from Gary Moore) (John Eipper, USA 09/03/19 7:42 AM)

    Gary Moore writes:

    Tor Guimaraes didn't really say, did he (August 30), that in his ideal nation-state
    he would "force every [political candidate] to declare whether or not these are good values."
    That must be a misprint, right?

    JE comments:  Here's a recap of Tor's values:  Freedom of speech and religion, real representative democracy and no
    vote suppression of any kind, markets truly free, no excessive income or
    wealth differences, no socializing costs and privatizing profits for
    anyone, no racism, strict separation of church and state, promote innovation, have a decent infrastructure, no wars except in
    self-defense, join the world to stop destroying the environment.

    I like 'em all, but can you mandate good behavior?  An idealist might say that the ballot box does exactly this, but electorates often prefer bad behavior.  Remember Brecht's call to abolish the electorate?

    Let's discuss this.


    Please login/register to reply or comment:

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (42711 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who