Eurasianism or Eurasian theory is an ideology that can be expressed in a single aspiration: race-mixing the yellow race, the WANTED result of which is White genocide and the complete erasure of White culture from the face of the Earth and from the memory of posterity.
To put it succinctly. The Tatar-Mongol yoke, i.e. the yoke of the yellow race over the White race, the mass rape of White women, the death of White men, the forced dissociation of White nobles from the Mongols and other consequences – all this existed, but it was all GOOD. That tyrannical form of government we got from Genghis Khan’s “yasa”, feudalism, serfdom, absolute monarchy – it’s all GOOD. Just as good is the fact that the communists revived the same thing in Russia, killing Tsar Alexander II, who wanted to give the country a constitution, killing the fledgling rule of law, destroying Western values, and bringing back tyranny.
From an article by V.V. Bureg. Comprehension of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in the Eurasian historiosophy
“From the Eurasian concept of Russian history followed another far-reaching conclusion. From the same geopolitical point of view, the Soviet Union was also a power that fulfilled “Eurasian” tasks, that is, it implemented the unification of Eurasian place-development.”
 Savitsky P.N. Geopolitical notes on Russian history. С. 322.
 Savitsky P.N. Eurasian concept of Russian history. С. 126.
 See for example the Letter of P.N. Savitsky to P.G. Struve of 5.11.1921 in: Savitsky P.N. Continent of Eurasia. С. 272-275.
From the point of view of Eurasianism, the goal itself is to keep the Russian people in slavery to the jewish god, to strengthen the position of Judo-Orthodoxy, and precisely for this jewish goal was to be slaves of the Tatar-Mongols for three centuries, and to lose freedom, human rights and the original Slavic cultural values for seven centuries, with a failed attempt by the Romanovs to break through the windows into Europe or revive the constitutional form of government.
The Eurasianist Vernadsky condemns Dmitry Donskoy’s struggle for the independence of the Russian people and his victory at the Battle of Kulikovo because it led to a strengthening of the position of the White Race, and consequently a weakening of the position of Judo-Orthodoxy and the tyrannical values of the jews and the dirty races.
“By his deep and ingenious hereditary historical flair Alexander understood that in his historical era the main danger to Orthodoxy and the identity of Russian culture threatened from the West, not from the East, from Latinism, not from Mongolism. Mongolism brought slavery to the body, but not to the soul. Latinism threatened to distort the very soul. Latinism was a militant religious system, which sought to bring the Orthodox faith of the Russian people under their control, and to remake it according to their own model. Mongolianism was not at all a religious system, but only cultural and political. It bore with itself laws civil and political (Chingisov yasa), but not religious and church” .
 Vernadsky G.V. Two feats of saint Alexander Nevskiy. С. 326.
The Eurasianist Savitsky admits that the term “Eurasianism” literally means the dissociation with the predominance of yellow and mixed black-and-yellow dirty races (“CIS countries”), which means that the Eurasian movement means the same thing for Russia as the pan-European movement does for Europe.
Savitsky P.N. Geopolitical Notes on Russian History. С. 309-310.
“The man of the future will be a mixed race. The currently existing races and classes will gradually disappear along with time, space and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, in appearance reminiscent of the Ancient Egyptians, will come and replace the distinctions of nations by the distinction of individuals.”
– Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism)
It is not at all surprising that the Judeo-Orthodox traitors of Race ended up becoming a tool of external Soviet intelligence – they chose the jewish god over the racial and cultural purity of the Russian people, which once again proves that communism is the logical result of Christianity:
” Savitsky considered the revolutionary upheavals as a painful “mutation” which, however, “does not break the continuity of the genetic line, does not destroy tradition.” He also noted that in the Soviet Union there is a clear “revival of the ‘draft’ and ‘servile’ beginnings” dating back to the Mongolian period of national history. Thus, despite his principled rejection of communist ideology, Savitsky had a certain respect for the state-building of the Bolsheviks. He believed that the communist idea will die fairly quickly and its place will organically take the Eurasian idea. Such an attitude toward the Soviet Union alienated most of the Russian emigration, and they were labeled as “national-Bolsheviks. Eurasians themselves, however, did not particularly protest against this appellation. It is quite typical that the left wing of the movement in the second half of the 1920s actually turned pro-Soviet and gradually became a tool of the Soviet foreign intelligence service.
Contrary to false rumors, Eurasianism supports and promotes islamism, terrorism, ISIL and similar phenomena. All for the same reason – they are more pleasing to the jewish god than civilization. It also quite openly and on the air, promotes White Genocide, because only by destroying the White Man can his civilization be destroyed.
The main Eurasian ideologist in Russia, Alexander G. Dugin admits that the White Man built civilization, gave the world all modern technologies, all discoveries, all achievements, and all that we now have and call: convenience, luxury, good life, economy, great works of art, scientific discoveries, progress, hygiene, comfort, rights, freedom, etc. and to destroy all this, one must first destroy the White Man.
Alexander Dugin, leader of the Eurasia Party. “I’m for black people. White civilization – its cultural values, the false, anti-human model of the world it has built – has failed. Everything is heading toward the beginning of white pogroms on a planetary scale. Russia is saved only by the fact that we are not purely white. Robbing multinational corporations, oppressing and suppressing everyone else, MTV, blue and pink – these are the fruits of white civilization that we need to get rid of. So I’m for reds, yellows, greens, blacks – just not for whites. I side with the people of Zimbabwe with all my heart.
Part from Euroracism
Alexander Dugin is a professor at Moscow State University, leader of the International Eurasian Movement, philosopher, political scientist, sociologist, http://dugin.ru
This book, “The Eurocentric Concept of World Politics,” is dedicated to exposing Western racism. From the philosophical point of view, from the anthropological point of view, from the sociological point of view, from the political science point of view, in my opinion, this is an invaluable work, which deserves to be translated, disseminated and studied everywhere. It shows, this book, very convincingly that all models of international relations, all in general, of all schools: realism, liberalism, Marxism and even Edward Said’s anti-imperialism or Wallerstein’s neo-Marxism, are all built on the principle of absolute racism. That we are dealing with a racist model.
– Straight up to ’45, where all these theories were accompanied by a reference to the white race and its unchanging superiority over other races.
– And subliminal racism after 1945, when direct racism was no longer possible after the Hitler story. Then racism became subliminal and this racism in a broad sense Hobson sees in “Human Rights Theory”, in modern globalization, in modern democratization, in general in any thesis, in any gesture and in any Western theory that persists to this day.
Accordingly, the book, which seems to me that it needs to be translated in China for our Chinese friends, needs to be translated into Spanish or into Portuguese for our colleagues from Latin America. So this book is a revolution. Because it shows that under the guise of democracy, freedom and dialog of civilizations, the West pushes through the racist, imperialistic, chauvinistic, misanthropic model of worldview in all its forms, including the most innocent lambs, such as pacifists and liberals. They are racists no less than those who are already almost blatantly in agreement with it.
I will now explain a little bit about the basic model that Hobson talks about, so that you can see the scope of his critique of racism and the structure, the concept of Hobsonian anti-racism. Hobson begins by drawing attention to the basic scheme that was in effect in Alexandrian anthropology until the early 20th century, and which generally served as the normative taxonomy for all types of societies. It was led formally by Lewis Morgan, the American anthropologist, but subliminally, unconsciously, this concept was present and is present in general in the understanding, even before Morgan, of Western types of societies and types of civilizations.
What is this taxonomy.
The idea that there are 3 types of organization of societies, the basic ones, to which all the others are reduced:
The 1st type is the state of savagery. This state of savagery of primitive, savage tribes is seen in this evolutionist model of anthropology as the state of the primordial horde or human herd. It is a transitional state between a group of apes (a community of apes) and, proper, human society. This savagery, which is seen as the basic, initial, childlike state of humanity, has its own particular characteristics:
– Absence of a state,
– Lack of writing,
– Lack of a clearly differentiated culture, social differentiation, division of labor in society.
This is the archaic society that classical anthropology deals with, unwritten cultures. It is a state of savagery.
The 2nd state from which this archaic humanity emerges in the next stage is the state of barbarism. At this point, empires emerge centralized with fairly strong differentiation, but which continue to be weakly reflexive with underdeveloped cultures and with a rather inefficient mode of production.
Hobson introduces such a concept as agency, which can be interpreted both as a mode of production and as efficient strategies. Thus, barbaric societies are characterized by the so-called concept of predatory agency, that is, a predatory mode of production. The strong take from the weak, take for themselves. Strong clans, castes, the state, maybe authoritarian groups, estates, wars in society – they take from the weak and build their wealth and poverty on this basis for the weak, the oppressed strata. This is a predatory agency – a predatory way of production, which contrasts with low agency, that is, inefficient production, when people dig up some stub with their hands: dig it up, eat it, dig it up again. This is called low agency, it is ineffective at all, because to walk here …..
Or for example hunting with snares without spears and bows is called low agency, because with a bow you can shoot a bird or chipmunk from a tree, but with snares you sit and bore him until he will get into it. This is low agency. Next comes the low agency.
And finally, the 3rd type, which is called civilization, which is characterized by high agency – a high level of capture, a high degree of culture, self-reflection.
These 3 types of society are arranged among themselves in a double system of taxonomic hierarchy. That is, dual: diachronic and synchronic.
From the point of view of the synchronic one, savagery is the preceding, preliminary stage of barbarism, while barbarism is the preliminary stage of civilization. That is, savagery is at the bottom from all points of view.
Man savage is savage, savage, sewage, is completely such an almost animal compared to civilized man. He is a man in the first stage of such a mental, wholesome state. He is likened to children, schizophrenics, idiots, and monkeys. It is a mixture of idiot and monkey, which represents savagery. Here is savage, savage man, savage, savage.
The 2nd is barbaric man. Barbaric man already resembles normal man in terms of this theory, but still falls short. Because he does not reflect, he moves with his personal complexes, with his desires, his appetites, which can only be limited by the opposing force. This is the barbaric type.
And civilization, where logos, philosophy, thinking, culture, understanding of the other, and a very high efficiency of socio-economic processes come into play.
So, these 3 types of society that are not equal. These 3 types of society are:
– Civilization: beautiful and wonderful,
– barbarism: deplorable, vicious, negative,
– and savagery: it’s a rabble-rouser altogether. It is just to fall down and not get up, just to cry.
When a civilized man sees a savage, he says: how on earth did you do that, my dear. I mean, of course, it’s essentially an attitude toward a little doggy there, or some kid who’s never going to be an adult. He’s still going to be an adult – okay, but he’s not going to be one at all. So it’s such a downer in the family, woe to the parents. It’s a savage.
Therefore, the question of whether the savages of archaic societies belonged to the human species was acute in the age of geographical discoveries. And in the 16th century, only the Pope of Rome, by his bull, classified them as human. Another remarkable example: it turns out that one pygmy was caught in the early 20th century (a young pygmy, quite remarkable without teeth), brought to the American zoo and for a long time (it was, I think, until the 14th year) was shown in a cage in the theory of natural evolution. Until an African pastor interceded for him, asking him to be released. He died of boredom after a while. In any case, this is now a historical case – in early 20th century blessed, democratic, civilized America, out of pity for this pygmy, they put him in a cage. They did, however, put Ezra Pound in afterwards, too. This is the “wonderful” culture of America. But even Ezra Pound maybe he didn’t have anything against it because he hated the culture and he just fought it. He himself thought it was a zoo. That’s where there’s interest banking, there’s a zoo. So it was a struggle. But the pygmy wasn’t fighting interest slavery, he was just living there, walking through his own woods, being brought in, being shown next to the monkeys in the 20th century! This is certainly powerful and shows how civilized society treats savages.
And now here’s an interesting point. Synchronically – these societies are not equal.
– Civilization is good,
– barbarism is deplorable,
– savagery – well, just nowhere.
Accordingly, in the diachronic perspective, everything, all history is viewed in this way: the transition from savagery to barbarism, from barbarism to civilization. And this is the only way of history. The entire history is only this way. Of course, you may linger on the level of savagery, you may stall in barbarism, you may be in some such state for a long, long time, but the path is the same – everyone is moving towards civilization. So there is still a temporal teleology of these societies, there is their hierarchy, and their theology.
In the end, they coincide in the triumph of modern, Western, European civilization, which is the most modern and the highest. That is, time and space converge in the West. This is what Hobson calls Eurocentrism.
And Eurocentrism operates with this concept of 3 types of societies of purpose and vertical hierarchy, as a basic setting. All societies are graded in this way. Why is this especially important in international relations. Because this premise reveals itself most vividly where we are talking about different states, about different peoples, in the sphere between peoples. Somewhere, as within a single society, it is not so obvious, not so evident. Yes, it is taught in schools. Yes, it’s what our humanities, technology science is built on. It’s a presumption of our cultural condition being Western or under Western influence (the whole world operates with this). But it is not so clear-cut.
When we move to the sphere of international relations, then this index assigned to this or that society begins to have a very serious impact, up to the legal level. Then Hobson introduces the concept of default or graded sovereignty.
The principle of sovereignty is a modern principle, a civilizational principle. It is imposed on everyone today: all countries, all states.
– But if the country is civilized, its sovereignty is complete.
– If the country is barbaric, it has default sovereignty. That is, it is recognized, but it is treated by Western civilization with distrust – whether it will use this sovereignty in the right way, as we do, or the wrong way as a barbaric, predatory, predatory agency. This has to be monitored and somehow reduced the amount of this sovereignty.
– And what about Hawaiian sovereignty, or the sovereignty of, there, African peoples? It is clear that this is just nominal sovereignty.
And the West, the international model, which operates – “all UN states are equal”, in practice in a concrete action, the daily organization of diplomatic relations introduces this criterion “civilization, barbarism, savagery” to solve any problem: humanitarian, diplomatic. That is, it is a working model, which is not marked anywhere, but which manifests itself in Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism, which manifests itself in international relations quite unambiguously.
And then Hobson says that all the theories of international relations, with which we operate, in general, all underlying are built on this scheme. That there is only one movement historically, a movement toward civilization. The imperialists say so, the anti-imperialists say so, and all the representatives opposed to Western hegemony want to build a nation-state like in the West, they want to build a civilization, to be accepted as a civilization, so that they are no longer seen as barbarous, let alone savage.
That is, the process of modernization, strengthening national sovereignty is already a racist concept derived from this principle of hierarchization and from time and space. That is, the synchronous combination of these types of civilizations and the claim that this logic of history is simply the only indispensable.
And then,” Hobson says, “do you know how, before ’45, how this schema was labeled?
And very simply:
civilization = white,
barbarism = yellow,
and savagery = black.
And so in fact this whole model was originally built on the principle of white man whiteman burn time. That is, the white man is the carrier of civilization and vice versa. Look: the bearer of civilization is the white man. Michael Jackson is technically black, but he wants to be in civilization, so he paints his face and becomes white. Like the titans who crawled after Dionysus so the gods wouldn’t notice them, they painted their faces with lime, then they let them through to Olympus. In other words, white is social status.
I was surprised, too, because in Brazil I met black fascists, black racists. They were black, but they thought they were Aryan, because it was a sociological question.
– I’m a black Aryan! (he read Haushofer there).
He doesn’t even realize he’s black when I say all this:
– How about this?
– How what? He’s juggling a basketball there himself, he says: Haushofer (perfectly calm), well, Larouche.
I couldn’t understand it for a long time. Then the Brazilians told me: they have no racism at all, they sort of allocate the indices in terms of civilization. Who is black, who wants to be black, is black. Well, who wants to be white is white. And behaves like a white man, dresses like a white man. So the concept is reversed: whoever wants to be civilized, whoever wants to be a white man – he dresses like a white man, he looks like a white man, in the end he acts like a white man. And white and civilization are identified in this scheme.
The yellow race. The yellow menace arises from here. By the way, this applies closely to the Russians and the Chinese, especially the Russian Eurasians. They are seen as an unfinished, intermediate version. They have much more efficiency than blacks, but they represent the 2nd world. And this yellow-brown world: the Arab, Latin American, Asian world, is really spreading around this white core. This is the second belt of humanity. Which, from a sociological point of view in this Eurocentric model is strictly something intermediate between white and black. That is, yellow is a mixture. Something is white, that is, the capacity for some still organization: states, cultural values, traditions, reflection, philosophy, socio-economic development, modernization, state and a certain aggressiveness. But nevertheless qualitatively different from the white civilization. Yellow people, second class – the Westerner thinks: look, Russians are white on the outside and yellow on the inside. “You must have rampant corruption,” thinks Napoleon, because corruption is a characteristic of yellow societies, barbaric societies.
And if you belong to the second world, the yellow world, you must necessarily be a predatory agency, a high lewel of corruption, all territorial rule, totalitarian methods and non-compliance with human rights and gay minorities. It is inherently simple if you belong to this second model, the yellow model. You are yellow, which means you represent barbarians. So barbarians and civilization is a conversation between whites and yellows.
And beyond that. Savagery. It’s black.
It’s the black natives, it’s the black Africans, it’s the black population. Well, you can add to them the red – the Indians still, who are an archaic society incapable of any non-colonial self-organization. Which could fall prey to either yellow predators or white civilizers, colonizers.
We are dealing with an absolute racism that, until ’45, also thinks of the Eurocentric model in terms of skin, skin color. And that skin color is a sociological and political signifier and marker of international relations: black is supposed to be one thing, yellow another, white another. Notice, this is not biological racism. It is, in fact, the labeling by skin color of a much deeper form of racism: the racism of civilization or Eurocentrism.
What happens after ’45,” Hobson writes. That one form, a very marginal form of Hitlerian racism that didn’t even constitute any main line during these models, it did a lot of bad things, was discredited. That’s why such a direct continuation of the conversation, thanks to Hitler. By the way, he wasn’t the chief and the first racist. The first racists were the British and the liberals precisely. So the first political theory is by no means the third, it is not its essence, racism.
At any rate, Hitler’s racism was very vivid and it cast a shadow over racism as such. And then racism after ’45 in the West goes into a subliminal phase. Subliminal is under the threshold. Limes is a certain threshold, a threshold of perception. From direct explicit racism we move into a phase, according to Hobson, of implicit racism. This means that henceforth we do not say: white, yellow and black. We say: civilization, barbarism, and savagery in fact. What we mean by that.
– Do you mean blacks by savagery?
– No, we say: savage, you know, the ones in loincloths. The ones with the stone axe, the ones like monkeys. That’s what we mean.
– The black ones? (someone shakes – an animal rights activist and a man).
– No,” he says, “we’re not black, we’re wild. We are savages. They need to be put on display right away, in fact.
The yellows are turning into a second world. In the beginning, the Soviet Union actually turns yellow. And Eurasians and Eurasian models tell them that it is yellow. We say we are Europe. If you are not Europe, you are Asia. Asia is yellow, yellow is barbarians. So the word yellow is no longer used. The word used is barbaric, or corrupt society, or authoritarian, totalitarian-no matter what the actual regime is. If the regime is located in the Asian zone, for example, then it will be like that. Because we are talking about yellow barbarians. This is the yellow threat, which translates into the threat of a totalitarian, Soviet, Communist Russian-Chinese system in fact. What is feared in the second half of the war. The second half, after World War II during the Cold War.
Well, accordingly, civilization is breaking away from the white man. It’s just that nobody talks about a white man burden anymore, about a white man’s burden. They talk about the burden of civilization. That is the cost of modernization, the need for structural reforms with the help of the international market, the International Monetary Fund, the promotion of democracy, human rights, and global values. That is, we have removed the marker of color, of race in the pure sense, in the literal sense, but the whole structure of thinking, of international relations has been preserved. This is what Hobson calls subliminal racism. Thus, both overt and subliminal racism constitute, in fact, some of the dominant Eurocentric approach.
Next, we should think that this hierarchization of the three types of civilizations and this movement of history is actually nothing but the expression of modernity in its purest form. That is, this is the way modernity thinks. So modernity is a racist phenomenon. Modernity is racism. And not in any of its versions, not in the Russian version of modernity, but in general in any version of modernity it is nothing but racism: open and covert (subliminal). When we deal with modernity, we have to deal with racism.
In fact, the rejection of racism must pass through a concrete rehabilitation of what is called savagery. That is to say, savagery is a racist concept. The savage was invented by the slave-traders in order to exploit it. That is, it is not really an underdeveloped animal society, it is another human society. And here Richard Thurnwald, with his five volumes of Die menschliche Gesellschaft “Human Society,” is a fundamental tool for us. No language has translated the great Thurnwald, who proves that archaic societies have an enormous full gamut of all types, the richest types.
This, by the way, is what Gerbar wrote about as well. He said that a good savage who lives with his family, with his hut is more wholesome, happier, more perfect, from the spiritual, cultural point of view, than this modern freak, running around only through banks and markets: miserable, split up, living like total garbage, and he still brags about this perfect man, who from morning till night smokes a pipe and contemplates the sunset in the Zambezi. It’s just that this is perfect and this is incomplete. That the savage is a complete man and the modern man is a freak and an ape.
The same barbarism.
Well, barbarism, then, acquires for Russia and for China and for Latin America simply a fundamental significance. We are not barbarians, but we are different than you. Our way of production, Asian or whatever, is not less efficient, but simply different. Because we have different values, different cultural attitudes, and so on. It is necessary to defend and rehabilitate this so-called yellow, barbaric, imperial, traditional, religious community: monarchy, totalitarianism, socialism, everything that the white civilization hates.
We have to tell the truth. Yes, Genghis Khan kind of killed everyone and did the right thing, because such a law is correct, good, wonderful and belongs to life. But you saw it from a side which you do not notice in the civilized West at that time: there were floggings, absolutely horrible executions, hundreds of thousands of people were burned. Genghis Khan is terrible, Western culture is exemplary of the same period. It was about the same. And then you have to rehabilitate everything that civilization, pay attention, threw off the ship of modernity in the era of modernity.
It is necessary to defend Asia, it is necessary to defend the yellow. It is necessary to protect:
– Latin America with its unique experience.
– The islamic world, the islamic caliphate. The islamic caliphate is wonderful.
– Black African societies are wonderful.
– Chinese civilization is the best.
– The Indian world is a model.
– Samurai Japan is an example to follow.
– The Russian tsars – there is no one more humane and beautiful.
And the whole argument has to be restructured. Because we have to reject the civilizational racism of the West and Eurocentrism. We are the people of Asia, we are the people of Eurasia, the people of India. And we have to stop striving for some goal that does not flow from our culture. Why do we need to be European? What the hell do we need them for? Let them look at themselves already. They have completely degenerated and still suggest that we follow them.
Our tardiness saves us, our obliquity saves us from turning into the same kind of underdogs that wander into modern civilization. Civilization is death. […]
Typesetting: Tatiana Dombrowska
Edited by: Natalya Rizaeva
http://poznavatelnoe.tv – educational Internet television
…happier, more perfect, from a spiritual, cultural point of view, than this modern, unhappy, divided, living like a complete garbage freak, running around only through banks and markets…
…and he still brags about this perfect man who smokes a pipe and contemplates the sunset over the Zambezi from morning till night…
The savage is a complete man,
…and modern man is a freak and a monkey.
We must protect:
– Latin America with its unique experience…
– The islamic world, the islamic caliphate…
The islamic caliphate is wonderful!
– Black African societies are beautiful…
– The Indian world is a model.”
It is abundantly clear from this speech that civilization is the only possible form of existence for White Man, the only possible way of life for him, is created by him and does not exist without him.
In fact, I will quote directly and verbatim the teachings of Eurasianism when I say that civilized man is a code word for White Man, and came into use only after the victory of the latter’s enemies in World War II. Before that, things were called by their proper names. It was already clear to everyone that the term White Man in itself implied civilization, education, culture, ethics, beauty, etc.
Dugin also admits that Bolshevism in Russia and globalism-liberalism in the West have the same ultimate goal – the dissolution of national and racial boundaries, the sinking and dissolution of the White Race into the stream of dirty races and blending with them until all distinction from them disappears. Dugin himself, who opposes both of them with his Eurasian doctrine, has absolutely the same goal: the destruction of the White civilization and the drowning of the genes of its Builder in the stream of dirty races, islam, judeo-orthodoxy and other phenomena alien to the White Man. Its kike-orthodox czarism is itself a mixture of kike faith and the yellow form of government, both of which are imposed on us from without, neither of which is inherent in us from the beginning.
Moreover, the jewish faith is still imposed by force. For the vast majority of Russians, Christianity is not their own decision. People are baptized at an age when they are not only unable to stand up for themselves and resist, but simply to realize what is happening to them. They cannot think critically, they cannot express themselves articulately, they do not yet have an opinion, they cannot say no. That’s when these curses are put on them. And when they grow up and realize that they don’t need it, everything has already been decided for them, and they have already lived half their lives with this curse.
Another extremely obvious thing from their teachings. Dugin admits that the only period of relative resemblance to the savages and barbarians in Europe was the period of the Christian Church. That is, Christianity promotes savagery, it is a religion of savages. The torture he mentions was introduced and practiced precisely by Christians, and it was the weakening of the power of the Christian church in Europe that led to the development of civilization there.
I would also, almost verbatim, quote the teachings of Eurasianism when I say that racism is actually the knowledge of good and evil as described in the bible. It is original sin. I will not depart from the text if I say that it is the original sin of the White Man. Any division into good and bad, any evaluation, is at the very heart of racism. The urge to make life better, to modernize, to improve is the teaching of the Devil, and out of this urge has grown all inequality on the planet and in the universe, as civilizations are born of this urge. Even the very process of giving grades in school is racist.
You can ALSO see that Eurasianism is Christianity.
Some would argue that racism and dividing people into bad and good are different things, since the latter is not tied to skin color. In fact, we have the same factor here as with the substitution of the word White for the word civilized. Moral, spiritual, cultural, any human appearance is dictated by genes. Racial reality is more complex than just the division into three main races, there are clans, bloodlines, clans. And each of their representatives inevitably carries the imprint of the entire clan. Our identity is rooted in our family tree, which feeds it.
And the angels, the sons of heaven, saw them, and coveted them, and said to one another, “Let us choose our wives among the sons of men and bear us children!” …
8.  And they took wives for themselves, and each chose one for himself; and they began to enter into them and mingle with them, and taught them magic and spells, and revealed to them the cutting of roots and trees.
9. They conceived and gave birth to great giants, whose height was three thousand cubits.
14.  And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and armor, and taught them to see what was behind them, and taught them arts: wrists, and articles of adornment, and the use of whiting and rouge, and the adornment of eyebrows, and the adornment of the most precious and excellent stones, and of all the colored matter and metals of the earth.
16. Amezarak taught all kinds of incantations and the cutting of roots, Armaros taught the breaking of spells, Barakal taught the observation of the stars, Kokabel taught signs; and Temel taught the observation of the stars, and Astradel taught the movement of the moon.
[Book of Enoch]
Here’s a direct link between genetics and the level of civilization. According to the bible and its older version, the Book of Enoch, the genes necessary to build civilization were given to humans by the Demons of Hell. They also helped us to develop the potential in those genes and come to what we call civilization.
Now, it must have struck you that Eurasianism, for all its external adherence to state borders, for all that Dugin defends “Russians,” he calls yellow barbarians “Russians. Out of “patriotic” motives, Dugin supports everything that ruined Russia: the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the judeo-kikish religion, which burned our women at the stake. He mentions the “Indo-Aryan Union,” with “Indo-Aryans” he considers black Hindus, yellow Asians, mixed pisslamic bastards. “We are the people of Asia, we are the people of Eurasia, the people of India.” …
He defends only that in the Russian man which comes from outside, and more importantly, is the result of violence: racial impurity – the result of mass rape, remnants of an alien yoke, an alien religion imposed by sword and fire, a form of government suppressing our personality … why?
22. And the lord god said, Behold, Adam became like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now as though he had not stretched out his hand, and taken also from the tree of life, and tasted it, and lived forever.
24. And he cast Adam out, and set a cherubim in the east by the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword that turned, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Answer: here again the self-interest of the Hebrew god is involved. The fact is that the innermost essence and ultimate goal of civilization, the knowledge of good and evil, etc., of Satanic doctrines, is to protect the tree of life. Satanic doctrines is the attainment of immortality. The simple common arthropod envy of the jewish god is the only thing this is all about.