Jobbik President Gábor Vona delivered a lecture at Lomonosov Moscow State University

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Prof. Alexander Dugin and Gábor Vona

"Last week, I visited Moscow at the invitation of Prof. Alexander Dugin who asked me to deliver a lecture at Lomonosov Moscow State University, which titled "Russia and Europe".

Earlier, Prof. Dugin advised to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and now, he is the geo-political adviser of the Chairman of the Russian Parliament.

During my visit, I met several leading Russian politicians and discussed issues regarding Russian-Hungarian relations. I met the President of the Russian parliament's energy policy committee Ivan Dmitrievich Grashow and vice-President Vasily Tarasyuk, who is also the vice-President of the Russian-Hungarian Friendship Group. I also met several other state officials including Foreign Affairs Committee Vice-President Leonid Ivanovich Kalashnikov, two pro-government representatives, Yevgeny Fedorov and Anton Vasilyevich Romanov, as well as the Russian gas industry association's vice-President Alexei Anatolyevich Starikov.

The subject of discussion included energy and economic related issues relevant to bilateral relations, as well as the possibilities of increasing Hungarian exports to Russia and the crisis of the European Union.

After the meetings, I went to the Lomonosov State University Sociology Department and held a presentation, which attended about fifty students and professors. I can say without boasting that my lecture was a big success. I've received a lot of questions after the presentation, and a new invitation as well.

I consider my Moscow trip a major breakthrough because it became clear that the Russian politicians consider Jobbik as a partner. They told me that they read about Jobbik in the press, but because they know the nature of the media, they don't let themselves be influenced by them. My guests seek good relations with all political parties that enjoy the Hungarian people's trust and support including Jobbik. The main criteria for them is the party's foreign policy, they don't intend to interfere with internal matters. We made a major step forward again ...”

In his presentation, Vona called the U.S. a malformed European experiment and the European Union a treacherous organization. According to Vona, Russia is much more European than the former entities, because she preserves her tradition rather than worship money and mass culture. Earlier, the sick Europe conquered America to alleviate its problems, and now, it's America that is doing the same to ease its economic problems.

The party president emphasized that the countries of Europe shouldn't give up their national values and their history. The role of Russia today is to offset the Americanization of Europe.

The Eu's promises were lies, we haven't gained more freedom from joining the European Union instead, they took away our markets, our factories, and filled our store-shelves with western garbage said Vona.

Hungary will have to chose in a few years, will it stick with the EU, join the Eurasian Union or remain independent.

You can read Vona's entire speech on his Facebook page in Hungarian.

(Gabor Vona Facebook – translated by


Anonymous said...

While Russia is pursuing its (nationalist) Eurasian Strategy, it is important to understand the Empire's destructive NeoCon strategy.

This is a long, very powerful analysis of the NeoCon disaster consuming the West.

“The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives” by Laurent Guyénot

To realize their fantasies of world domination, the neocons resorted to a triple discourse, as Laurent Guyénot shows in this study, i.e. a cynical political philosophy developed by their mentor Leo Strauss for domestic consumption; a cold analysis of Israeli strategic interests for the benefit of the leaders in Tel Aviv, and a fear-mongering warning against imaginary dangers besetting U.S. public opinion.

Who are the neoconservatives?

The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than “conservative”) Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It’s a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren”. The neoconservative apologist Murray Friedman explains that Jewish dominance within his movement by the inherent benevolence of Judaism, “the idea that Jews have been put on earth to make it a better, perhaps even a holy, place” (The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy, 2006).....

Anonymous said...

Alexander Dugin on White Nationalism and Other Potential Allies in the Global Revolution

...Those from either the Right or the Left who refuse American hegemony, ultra-liberalism, strategic Atlanticism, the domination of oligarchic and cosmopolitan financial elites, individualistic anthropology and the ideology of human rights, as well as typically Western racism in all spheres – economic, cultural, ethical, moral, biological and so on – and who are ready to cooperate with Eurasian forces in defending multipolarity, socio-economic pluralism, and a dialogue among civilizations, we consider to be allies and friends.

Those on the Right who support the United States, White racism against the Third World, who are anti-socialist and pro-liberal, and who are willing to collaborate with the Atlanticists; as well as those on the Left who attack Tradition, the organic values of religion and the family, and who promote other types of social deviations – both of these are in the camp of foe...

At the present time, we are ALL being challenged, and ALL of us are being dominated by the forces of the prevailing global order.

Before we concern ourselves with these other issues, we first need to liberate ourselves.

I am very happy that Gábor Vona, whom I have met, and who is the leader of the Jobbik party in Hungary, understands this perfectly. We need to be united in creating a common Eurasian Front...

I consider the “White nationalists” allies when they refuse modernity, the global oligarchy and liberal-capitalism, in other words everything that is killing all ethnic cultures and traditions. The modern political order is essentially globalist and based entirely on the primacy of individual identity in opposition to community. It is the worst order that has ever existed and it should be totally destroyed. When “White nationalists” reaffirm Tradition and the ancient culture of the European peoples, they are right...

But since we have a common enemy in the globalist elite, which is pro-Pussy Riot/Femen, pro-gay marriage, anti-Putin, anti-Iran, anti-Chávez, anti-social justice and so on, we all need to develop a common strategy with the Muslims. Our traditions are quite different, but the anti-traditional world that is attacking us is united, and so must we become...

But that is illogical, because the globalists are in the process of destroying any identity except for that of the individual, and to forge an alliance with them therefore means to betray the essence of one’s cultural identity.

The problem with the Left is different. It is good when it opposes the capitalist order, but it lacks a spiritual dimension. The Left usually represents itself as an alternative path to modernization, and in doing so it also opposes organic values, traditions and religion, just as liberalism does...

In terms of traditionalism, usually traditionalism is defensive or is considered to be such. What we need is to break this assumption and promote offensive traditionalism. We should attack (hyper)modernity and make the status quo explode, in the name of the Return...

Every traditionalist should ask himself (or herself) the following questions:

1. Why have I arrived to be on the side of Tradition in opposition to modernity?

2. What is the reality that makes me what I am, in essence? Where have I got it from?

3. Is my vocation as a traditionalist the result of my socio-cultural heritage (society, family, and culture) or is it the result of some other factor?

4. How it is possible, in the midst of modernity and postmodernity, to be differentiated from them?

5. In which way can I cause the modern world around me real damage? (In other words, how can I effectively fight against the Devil?)

Anonymous said...

The West against Europe by Tom Sunic

...No doubt that the terms the West (‘L’Occident ‘) and Westernization (‘occidentalisation’) underwent a semantic shift. Over the last forty years they have acquired in the French language a negative meaning associated with globalism, vulgar Americanism, savage liberalism, and “the monotheism of the market”, well described by the late Roger Garaudy.

I’d like to remind you that during the communist epoch East Europeans were not only annoyed by communist bullying and ukases, but also felt offended by their status as second-class European citizens, especially when Westerners, namely the French and the English, used the term ‘East’ in order to describe their neck of the woods in Europe, namely “Eastern Europe” or “l’Europe de l’Est.” .. The French adjective “oriental” reminds East Europeans of the Orient, of Turkey, of Arabia, of Islam — notions under which they absolutely refuse to be catalogued. Even those East Europeans who are perfectly proficient in the French language and know French culture, prefer, in the absence of other words, that the French-speaking people label their part of Europe as “Eastern Europe”, but never as “l’Europe orientale.”..

The history of words and semantic shifts does not stop here. All East Europeans, whether left or right, anti-globalists or globalists, and even the ruling political class in Eastern Europe like to identify themselves as members of “Mitteleuropa” and not as citizens of Eastern Europe. The German term Mitteleuropa means “central Europe”, a term harking back to the nostalgic days of the Habsburg Empire, to the biedermeier style, to the sweetness of life once delivered by the House of Austria where Slovaks, Poles, Croats, Hungarians, and even Romanians and Ukrainians belonged not so long ago...

One must admit, though, that it is ourselves, the Europeans, who are primarily responsible for the Westernization and therefore for the loss of our identity...
To “be a good European” means nothing today. Declaring oneself a “good “Westerner” is meaningless as well. Being rooted in one’s soil in the globalist world has absolutely no significance today because our neighborhoods, being populated by aliens, along with ourselves, are subject to the same consumer culture...
Our duty is to define ourselves first as heirs of European memory,..

Not the aliens, but the capitalists, the banksters, the “antifas” and the architects of the best of all the worlds are our main enemies. In order to resist them it behooves us to revive our racial awareness and our cultural heritage...

Race, as Julius Evola and Ludwig Clauss teach us, is not just biological data. Our race is our spiritual responsibility which alone ensures our European survival.

Anonymous said...

An interesting review of Alexander Dugin s Fourth Political Theory by Andrew Lowden

Alexander Dugin’s book is a very timely work; by which I mean it is almost exclusively a response to the twentieth century—“the century of ideology” (p. 15) — from the twenty-first. It is a right-wing critique of modernity that has learned its lessons from left-wing post-modernity. It joins a flurry of works in a similar genre of post-war “alternative politics,” spanning from Julius Evola’s Fascism Viewed from the Right of 1964 to Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism of 2010. Authors can be Christian, neo-pagan, or atheist; they can be reformed fascists, “paleo”-conservatives, or Traditionalists. They all, however, seem to send the same message and understand the same thing about the present state of the Western world: everything that is wrong with the way we act is rooted in something desperately wrong with the way we think. It is, in many ways, set apart from the radical right-wing not only in conclusions but the quality of the authors. While some are certainly pamphleteers in spirit, there is a distinctly intellectual strain running through it all—exemplified by the Nouvelle Droit phenomenon in France. It should come as no surprise, then, that Dugin is Professor of Sociology at Moscow State University (as well as Chair of that department’s Centre for Conservative Studies)...

Anonymous said...

Transitioning from Modernity A Review of Alexander Dugin's "The Fourth Political Theory" (Part 1 of 2)
September 2, 2013 Siryako Akda

Anonymous said...

Transitioning from Modernity: A Review of Alexander Dugin’s "The Fourth Political Theory" (Part 2 of 2)

Anonymous said...

The Eurasian Idea by Alexander Dugin

...Eurasianism as the Old World (Continent)

The New World is part of the Second Old World or a more specific and narrow sense of the word Eurasianism applicable to what we call the Old World. The Notion of the Old World (traditionally regarding Europe) can be considered in a much wider context. It is multi-civilizational super space, inhabited by nations, states, cultures, ethnicities, and religions connected to each other historically and geographically by dialectic destiny. The Old World is an organic product of human history...

The basic principles of Eurasianism are the following:

Differentialism, the pluralism of values systems versus the conventional obligatory domination of one ideology (American liberal-democracy first and foremost);

Tradition versus suppression of cultures, dogmas, and discoveries of traditional society;

Rights of nations versus the “gold billions” and neo-colonial hegemony of the “rich North”;

Ethnicities as values and subjects of history versus the depersonalisation of nations, imprisoned into artificial social constructions;

Social fairness and human solidarity versus exploitation and humiliation of man by man.

Anonymous said...

Alexander Dugin: The Eurasian Oracle, Part 1 of 2

Alexander Dugin: Eurasian Oracle, Part 2 of 2

Post a Comment

Comments using obscene language, or comments calling for hate and violence will be deleted.