Posts Tagged ‘nova ordem mundial – nova era’

continuação – o homem que quer dominar o mundo

02/02/2009

> Alexander Dugin

Aleksandr Gelevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин) (Russian scholar, political activist, and founder of the contemporary Russian school of geopolitics often known as “Eurasianism”. He is often seen to be an advocate of National Bolshevism.

 

 

Dugin worked as a journalist before becoming involved in politics just after the fall of communism. He helped to write the political programme for the newly refounded Communist Party of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Gennady Zyuganov, producing a document that was more nationalist in tone than Marxist.

 

 

Dugin soon began publishing his own journal Elementy which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian neo-fascist Jean_Franois Thiriart. He also sought an alliance with Alain de Benoist although the Frenchman was discouraged by Dugin’s vehement Russian nationalism. Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia, Elementy also revealed Dugin’s admiration for Heinrich Himmler and Julius Evola, to name but two. He also played a role in editing the weekly journal Dyen (The Day), a bastion of Russian anti-Semitism. Convinced that National Bolshevism needed its own political movement Dugin talked his close ally Eduard Limonov into leading a new group and so the National Bolshevik Front was born. Dugin then became a prominent member of National Bolshevik Party.

 

 

The Eurasia Party, founded by Dugin on the eve of George W. Bush’s visit to Russia at the end of May 2002, is said by some observers to enjoy financial and organizational support from Vladimir Putin’s presidential office. The Eurasia Party also is supported by the leaders of the Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, and Jewish faiths in Russia, and the party hopes to play a key role in attempts to resolve the Iran. Dugin’s ideas, particularly those on “a Turkic-Slavic alliance in the Eurasian sphere” have recently become popular among certain nationalistic circles in Turkey.

 

 

One of the basic ideas that underpin his theories is that Moscow, Berlin, and Paris form a “natural” geopolitical axis, because a line or axis from Moscow to Berlin will pass through the vicinity of Paris if extended). Dugin’s theories foresee an eternal world conflict between land and sea, and hence, Dugin believes, the US and Russia. He says, “In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” According to his 1997 book, The Basics of Geopolitics, “The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilisational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.”

 

 

What has made Dugin notorious is that his thought echoes Hitler’s in certain areas. For example, the second of the party’s principles is “Social Orientation.” This principle begins: “This is a euroasian economy, consisting of capitalism with a national soul and socialistic face”.

 

 

He is talking about capitalism based on a combination of nationalism with socialism: this at least resembles “national socialism”, or Nazism. His theories were banned during Soviet times for their links to Nazism. Nowadays, however, his theories have won broad acceptance within the Communist Party.

 

 

Dugin does have a healthy respect for Judaism. He is, however, anti-Zionist, which he regards as standing in contradiction to basic Talmudic principles. He also views Israel as a “strategic base for [the] militant Atlantism” promoted by the US and Britain.

 

 

Most recently he has criticized the “Euro-Atlantic” involvement in the Ukrainian presidential election as a scheme to create a “cordon sanitaire” around Russia, much like the British attempted after the first world war.

 

 

 

 

Dugin’s works

Absoliutnaia rodina, Arktogeia-tsentr (1999), ISBN 5818600033

Tampliery proletariata: natsional-bolshevizm i initsiatsiia, Arktogeia (1997), ISBN 5859280173

Osnovy geopolitiki: geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii, Arktogeia (1997), ISBN 5859280181

Metafizika blagoi vesti: Pravoslavnyi ezoterizm, Arktogeia (1996), ISBN 5859280165

Misterii Evrazii, Arktogeia (1996), ISBN 5859280157

Konservativnaia revoliutsiia, Arktogeia (1994), ISBN 5859280130

Aleksandr Dugin – Alexander Dugin – O homem que doutrina Putin sobre a guerra total contra o ocidente

02/02/2009

Aleksandr Dugin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин) (born January 7, 1962 in Moscow) is a politologist and one of the most influential ideologists of Russian expansionism and nationalism, with close ties to the Kremlin and Russian military intelligence. He was the leading organizer of National Bolshevik Party, National Bolshevik Front, and Eurasia Party. His political activities are directed toward restoration of the Russian Empire through partitioning of the former Soviet republics, such as Georgia and Ukraine, and unification with Russian-speaking territories, especially Eastern Ukraine and Crimea [1][2]

Contents

Early life and education

Dugin was born in a family of a high-ranking Soviet military intelligence officer. His mother was a doctor. In 1979 he entered the Moscow Aviation Institute. His father helped him to get a job in the secret KGB archives in the beginning of 1990s.

Early career and political views

Dugin worked as a journalist before becoming involved in politics just before the fall of communism. In 1988 he and his friend Geidar Dzhemal joined the nationalist group Pamyat. He helped to write the political program for the newly refoundeded Communist Party of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Gennady Zyuganov, producing a document that was more nationalist in tone than Marxist.

In his 1997 article “Fascism – Borderless and Red,” Dugin claimed the arrival of a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism” in Russia. He believes that

“…by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans, …while Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes.”

Waffen-SS and especially the scientific sector of this organization, Ahnenerbe,” was “an intellectual oasis in the framework of the National Socialist regime.”, according to him. Dugin also described Reinhard Heydrich, an organizer of the Holocaust a “convinced Eurasianist”.[3]

Dugin soon began publishing his own journal entitled Elementy which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian Jean-François Thiriart, supporter of a Europe “from Dublin to Vladivostok.” Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia, Elementy also revealed Dugin’s admiration for René Guénon and Julius Evola, to name but two. Dugin also collaborated with the weekly journal Den (The Day), a bastion of Russian anti-Semitism[citation needed] directed by Alexander Prokhanov.

Dugin was amongst the earliest members of the National Bolshevik Party (NBP) and convinced Eduard Limonov to enter the political arena in 1994. A part of hard-line nationalist NBP members, supported by Dugin split off to form the more right-wing, anti-liberal, anti-left, anti-Kasparov aggressive nationalist organization, National Bolshevik Front. After breaking with Limonov, he became close to Yevgeny Primakov and later Vladimir Putin[citation needed].

 Formation of The Eurasia Movement

Dugin speaking

The Eurasia Party, later Eurasia Movement, was founded by Dugin in 2002 and is said by some observers to enjoy financial and organizational support from Vladimir Putin‘s presidential office. The Eurasia Party claims support by some military circles and by leaders of the Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish faiths in Russia, and the party hopes to play a key role in attempts to resolve the Chechen problem, with the objective of setting the stage for Dugin’s dream of a Russian strategic alliance with European and Middle Eastern states, primarily Iran. Dugin’s ideas, particularly those on “a TurkicSlavic alliance in the Eurasian sphere” have recently become popular among certain nationalistic circles in Turkey, most notably among alleged members of the Ergenekon network, which is the subject of a high-profile trial (on charges of conspiracy). Dugin also advocates for a Russo-Arab alliance.[4]

In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” …”The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.

The Basics of Geopolitics (1997)

He has criticized the “Euro-Atlantic” involvement in the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election as a scheme to create a “cordon sanitaire” around Russia, much like the British attempt post-World War I.

Dugin has criticized Putin for the “loss” of Ukraine, and accused his Eurasianism of being “empty.” In 2005 he announced the creation of an anti-Orange youth front to fight similar threats to Russia.

In 2007 Dugin was prohibited entering Ukraine for five years due to his perceived anti-Ukrainian activities.

 Dugin’s works

  • Pop-kultura i znaki vremeni, Amphora (2005)
  • Absoliutnaia rodina, Arktogeia-tsentr (1999)
  • Tampliery proletariata: natsional-bol’shevizm i initsiatsiia, Arktogeia (1997)
  • Osnovy geopolitiki: geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii, Arktogeia (1997)
  • Metafizika blagoi vesti: Pravoslavnyi ezoterizm, Arktogeia (1996)
  • Misterii Evrazii, Arktogeia (1996)
  • Konservativnaia revoliutsiia, Arktogeia (1994)
  • Conspirology(Russian)

References

  1. ^ Robert Horvath, Beware the rise of Russia’s new imperialism, The Age, August 21, 2008
  2. ^ His interview at Echo of Moscow (Russian)
  3. ^ Andreas Umland, Will United Russia become a fascist party?, Turkish Daily News, Tuesday, April 15, 2008
  4. ^Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S.“, Los Angeles Times (2008-09-04). Retrieved on 14 November 2008. 

External links

Aborto na nova era obama

18/12/2008

=

=
na-au768_aborti_g_20081216212052

nova era conspiração iluminati governo mundial maçonaria treze 13 pontos da nova ordem mundial dos iluminati

12/12/2008

http://www.grandorient.org/trezepontos.html 

1° Moeda mundial; 

2° Linguagem universal; 

3° Segurança total (monitoramento e vigilância); 

4° Assistência Social Completa e Contínua (renda mínima, pleno emprego, ensino gratuito, saúde pública); 

5° Desconcentração da renda e poder do Estado (impostos mínimos, colaboradores mínimos, enxugamento); 

6° Igualdade absoluta dos seres: posição social, étnica, econômica, dos costumes, inexistência da autoridade; 

7° Justiça Internacional: repressão total a contravenção, ao crime, a tirania e a corrupção; 

8° Saneamento e Saúde em nível mundial; 

9° Planejamento familiar; 

10° Fim da fome e da miséria; 

11° Liberdade irrestrita de opinião e manifestação; 

12° Moralização do ser: fim da mendicância, da prostituição, do trabalho infantil e demais fatores; 

13° Criação da Polícia e do Exército da Nova Ordem.

Financial Times denuncia governo mundial

12/12/2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05c36962-c594-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

091208top

 

And now for a world government

By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 9 2008 02:00 | Last updated: December 9 2008 02:00

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope , he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

gideon.rachman@ft.com