Technocracy in general appears to be poisonous to the soul and corrupting to the body. A realisation that politcs is an affair of human needs and relations, not technological management, is needed. There is no other way to fix things, and further trying to build a cybernetic-synthetic power is just the end state of communist structures, simply arrived at from the other end.
I think Trump can be salvaged and MAGA can take a sharp turn away from the neocons. Trump is being hamstrung by trying to pass the BBB, but after that, as negotiations progress with Iran and China and finally with Putin, Trump will not be beholden to Netanyahu and I think we will see his marked move towards "Armageddon", though if Trump makes peace with Russia, China and Iran, there will be no one to fight in WWIII and it will be avoided.
Think you have it wrong. Neocons have him by the balls, ignoring the fact that he is an ardent zionist, Epstein files have him caged in a box. He is screwed. Dawned if he does and dawned if he doesn't.
I'm sure there's a Russian proverb that says something like "you can't clean a house in a single sweep". Trump has to divide and conquer. He has zero support from the TDS left so he has to keep some enemies close if he wants to fulfill his promises to his voters.
Trump is a mental retard who sides with anyone who strikes his ego. He has zero principles. MAGA is dead and dusted and he dipped his entire base again (just like he abandoned his base after Jan 6th)
The text under consideration begins by asserting that Peter Thiel, in a New York Times interview, has identified what is purportedly the fundamental dilemma of the contemporary world: the clash between “Antichrist” and “Armageddon.” This framing immediately departs from any conventional political analysis and instead invokes eschatological and metaphysical categories derived from Christian apocalyptic mythos. In doing so, it seeks not merely to analyze political conflict but to sacralize it to render global tensions as a spiritual war between good and evil. Yet this initial dualism is based on a false binary. By framing the world in terms of liberal globalism (as Antichrist) versus multipolar nationalism (as Armageddon), the text occludes the possibility of alternative political models, such as regional cooperation, pluralistic sovereignty, or institutional multilateralism. There is no room here for gradation, compromise, or ambivalence only the absolutism of eschaton.
The identification of the Antichrist with liberal globalism phrases like “One World or none” equates institutions such as the United Nations, the European Union, or climate treaties with metaphysical evil. This is a theological slander, not a policy critique. Simultaneously, the text casts multipolarity as a righteous order a “Greater Power World Order” spearheaded by MAGA, Putin, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi. But this romanticization of authoritarian multipolarity is ahistorical. It ignores the historical reality that multipolar orders, such as pre–World War I Europe, often generate instability and catastrophic war. It also assumes without evidence that authoritarian regimes are capable of “realist coexistence,” when their track record often suggests aggression, expansionism, and repression.
The narrative then pivots to a rhetorical reversal by suggesting that it is the globalist “Antichrist” who actively seeks to provoke Armageddon by portraying multipolarity as inherently destructive. This is a classic projection strategy: accuse your enemy of the exact behavior your own camp enacts. The claim that globalists are warmongers attempting to sabotage multipolar peace is unsubstantiated and ideologically convenient. It diverts attention from actual belligerent actions—such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s militarization of the South China Sea and instead paints those who resist such aggression as responsible for global tension. In this way, the text attempts to invert responsibility for escalating conflict, suggesting that the true architects of destruction are those who criticize strongman regimes.
At this point, the critique turns inward toward the MAGA movement itself, arguing that it has been “hijacked” by neoconservatives figures such as Lindsey Graham who transform its isolationist nationalism into a vehicle for renewed American hegemony. This part of the argument contains a partial truth: there is indeed a tension between MAGA’s America First isolationism and the interventionist legacy of neoconservatism. However, the text overlooks that Donald Trump himself governed through this contradiction, simultaneously decrying globalism and authorizing drone strikes, unilateral sanctions, and massive arms deals. There is a profound incoherence in framing MAGA as inherently pacifist or realist; its foreign policy has always vacillated between populist nationalism, militarism, and transactional aggression.
What follows is an apocalyptic naming ritual: liberal globalism is finally called by its “proper name” Antichrist. This is a theological moment disguised as analysis. By moving from critique to cosmological accusation, the text elevates political disagreement into metaphysical enmity. In such a framework, compromise becomes apostasy, and diplomacy becomes collaboration with Satan. The consequences of this kind of rhetoric are severe: it justifies violence, delegitimizes pluralism, and renders coexistence with ideological opponents morally intolerable. When liberalism is framed not merely as mistaken but as demonic, all forms of civil discourse collapse.
The text then shifts gears to reflect on what it calls “right transhumanism,” attributing to Thiel the claim that transhumanist technologies may liberate the soul from the body. Here, we encounter an odd theological hybrid: a techno-gnostic libertarianism merged with Catholic metaphysics. The critique acknowledges that Thiel affirms the soul’s existence a position contrary to the materialist left but expresses unease at the implication that the body may become optional. The claim that gender change is a first step toward “discovery of the soul” is attributed to Thiel without citation and reads more as interpretive speculation than faithful paraphrase. Nevertheless, the discomfort expressed here is telling: it reveals the paradox of the New Right’s attempt to fuse traditional metaphysics (soul, hierarchy, Catholicism) with radical technological acceleration (AI, body modification, post-humanity). This synthesis results in a deeply unstable theology—simultaneously reactionary and revolutionary, mystical and materialist.
As the text nears its conclusion, it turns to Elon Musk and Trump. Trump is described as a hostage of neoconservatives, discredited in the eyes of the MAGA base due to his perceived interventionism and support for Netanyahu. Musk is presented as a possible figure of renewal a bearer of new momentum. This signals a shift from restoration to rupture. Trump, once the savior of the nationalist right, is now seen as compromised. The prophecy has failed, and thus the prophet must be replaced. This is classic millenarian logic: when the eschatological figure fails to deliver paradise, the blame shifts from doctrine to leader. What remains is the persistent hunger for apocalypse, for purification, for total rupture. “High time to start something new,” the text concludes perhaps unconsciously echoing revolutionary and cultist movements that abandon failed leaders to seek ever more total solutions.
In sum, this text is not a political commentary but a mytho-political tract. It draws its energy from religious eschatology, not empirical analysis. It engages in theological demonization, not civic reasoning. It glorifies authoritarian nationalism and technological transcendence while vilifying liberalism as Satanic. The result is not insight, but a dangerous fusion of metaphysics and war rhetoric an attempt to sanctify geopolitical conflict as a spiritual crusade. While it borrows the vocabulary of thinkers like Peter Thiel and the authority of platforms like the New York Times, its structure is conspiratorial, its logic is totalizing, and its implications are apocalyptic. It is a rhetorical architecture built not for understanding but for annihilation.
"U.S. administrations and a host of U.S. cold warriors have framed the issue as being between “democracy” (defined as countries supporting U.S. policy as client regimes and oligarchies) and “autocracy” (countries seeking national self-reliance and protection from foreign trade and financial dependency)."
Michael Hudson - an educated man who doesn't parade pieces of paper to agrandise himself.
Thanks for your valuable comment. I watch / listen to Michael Hudson often and have enormous respect for his views and arguments within various Podcasts.
The statement attributed to economist Michael Hudson is a provocative, compressed polemic that challenges the moral grammar of U.S. foreign policy. In just a few lines, it seeks to invert the dominant narrative of global politics by accusing American policymakers and Cold War ideologues of strategically redefining core political terms. At its core, the statement performs a semantic reversal: what the U.S. calls “democracy” is, Hudson contends, merely a euphemism for geopolitical alignment, economic subordination, and elite enrichment. Conversely, the term “autocracy,” typically laden with negative connotations, is reframed as a mask for countries pursuing sovereignty, economic protection, and resistance to the gravitational pull of U.S.-dominated trade and finance regimes. This rhetorical maneuver is not simply definitional it is ideological deconstruction in miniature.
What makes this framing so striking is its use of inversion as a technique of critique. By swapping the content of “democracy” and “autocracy,” Hudson aims to unmask what he sees as the profound hypocrisy embedded in American geopolitical rhetoric. The power of this inversion lies in its capacity to expose contradictions between liberal-democratic ideals and the pragmatic reality of foreign alliances. The U.S. has historically supported authoritarian regimes Pinochet’s Chile, Suharto’s Indonesia, the Shah’s Iran so long as they remained open to Western capital and hostile to socialist movements. This lends plausibility to Hudson’s claim that “democracy” in U.S. foreign policy is often little more than a loyalty test to Washington’s strategic priorities, rather than a genuine commitment to representative governance or civil liberty.
However, while the critique identifies structural hypocrisies, it simultaneously risks oversimplification. By reducing U.S.-aligned governments to “client regimes and oligarchies,” Hudson flattens a diverse geopolitical landscape. Many U.S. allies, such as Germany, Japan, or South Korea, are complex liberal democracies with robust institutional protections, pluralistic elections, and civil societies. To refer to them merely as clients or oligarchies ignores internal contestation, popular agency, and the historical emergence of democratic norms that often predate or operate independently of U.S. influence. In collapsing democracy into clientelism, Hudson risks eliminating meaningful political distinctions and replacing them with a binary structure: one either resists U.S. hegemony or collaborates with it. This view may be clarifying for polemical purposes, but it is analytically crude.
Moreover, Hudson’s redefinition of “autocracy” as national self-reliance and financial independence introduces another layer of ambiguity. The revalorization of autocracy as economic sovereignty flips the moral compass entirely. In this framing, regimes that resist integration into U.S.-led financial architectures are not authoritarian but independent; their refusal to open up to foreign capital is not insular but liberatory. This logic draws on a long tradition of anti-imperialist thought, particularly within the Global South, where economic nationalism has often been a precondition for resisting Western domination. There is historical resonance here with leaders like Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, or Chávez in Venezuela figures who linked national dignity with economic self-determination.
Yet this reframing risks romanticizing authoritarian regimes by obscuring their domestic repressions. China’s digital surveillance, Russia’s imprisonment of political opponents, or Iran’s theocratic restrictions on dissent are not simply defensive measures against financial imperialism they are mechanisms of internal control. Hudson’s emphasis on external independence may therefore inadvertently sanitize internal domination. By emphasizing sovereignty over liberty, the critique turns a blind eye to citizens caught between opposing hegemonies, those who suffer both under Western sanctions and their own governments’ brutalities. The idea that autocracy is synonymous with resistance and democracy with submission dangerously conflates the structure of international finance with the content of domestic governance.
Reinforcing this framing is the final gesture: the comment that “Michael Hudson an educated man who doesn’t parade pieces of paper to aggrandize himself.” This anti-elitist aside positions Hudson as an authentic, modest intellectual who refuses the trappings of academic vanity. It is a rhetorical move that further legitimizes the critique by distancing it from institutional authority. In effect, the statement casts Hudson as a truth-teller, someone whose insights are grounded not in technocratic arrogance but in structural clarity and moral courage. This aligns with the populist tone of the passage, rejecting credentialism while reaffirming the authority of lived insight or ideological lucidity.
However, this rhetorical move also carries risk. While it elevates Hudson’s credibility through his perceived humility, it can also shield his arguments from critical scrutiny. The rejection of “pieces of paper” might serve as a subtle anti-intellectualism, suggesting that academic consensus or peer review is merely performative. Yet Hudson is himself a trained and credentialed economist. The framing of him as outside the system is less a literal truth than a strategic positioning a way of staging credibility in contrast to technocratic orthodoxy. It appeals to readers disenchanted with neoliberal economics or elite academic discourse, but it also risks conflating contrarianism with correctness.
Altogether, Hudson’s statement is a potent distillation of anti-imperialist critique dense, adversarial, and sharply polarized. Its strength lies in the way it foregrounds structural contradictions: the way liberalism can function as a veneer for control, and how terms like “freedom,” “democracy,” or “reform” often become operational tools of empire. Yet its weakness lies in its tendency to reduce complexity to polarity. The real world does not always conform to a binary logic of domination versus resistance. There are democracies that resist empire, and autocracies that depend on it. There are hybrid regimes, contested sovereignties, and middle grounds that disappear in the forcefulness of Hudson’s framing.
Ultimately, the statement operates as a form of ideological diagnosis, not empirical reportage. It invites us to question the language of global power, to see how moral vocabularies are embedded in geopolitical interests. But it also demands that we maintain critical awareness of how critique itself can become ideology when it romanticizes repression as resistance, or collapses political pluralism into economic determinism. Hudson’s voice is an important one in the conversation about global order, but it is best heard in dialog with complexity, rather than as an oracle of inversion.
Despite the seemingly endless commentary you seem to have missed that my comment was meant as an insult to you personally. I am surprised that you have not published anything at your blog, which considering these two posts is astounding. Your ten subscribers must be so frustrated.
Please don't reply, just assume that I am a crude critic that fails to recognise true genius 'cos I'm too stoopid ...
Mr Dugin , if you think there is anything humanly worthwhile in such a crazed degenerate as Theil you have no judgement whatsoever. If there is a contemporary exemplar of evil , it is he.
The saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is demonstrably false in this instance. The devil is nothing if not cunning as numerous folk tales and traditions from your country illustrate.
With the greatest respect to Prof. Dugin for his perspectives on Russia and geopolitics, among other things, he really misses the mark when he allows his emotions to run away with him about Americans. For the past half year, and up until just a month ago, Prof. Dugin was singing the praises of Donald Trump, describing him in terms others might reserve for the Second Coming. I told him in these comments that he was almost certainly to be disappointed before long. Sure enough, now Prof. Dugin has veered away from Trump and chosen, of all people, Peter Thiel. Now it's the latter that's described in mythological terms, as if he was a god descended from Olympus.
Alexander, the geopolitical currents you see are real and you have interesting perspectives on them. But your assessment of America's 'movers and shakers', and their places within those currents, are deeply flawed. Trump, Thiel, Musk, Dimon and the rest - though enormously influential - are not even heroic figures let alone gods. They are crass examples of the elites who have destroyed what little mythology America at one time owned.
Awakening to what for most is obvious, Prof. Dugin, you've dumped Trump. However it seems you need a new American to eulogize, a new hero to worship. You WILL be disappointed with this one as well.
There are living Russian heroes, Alexander. Vladimir Putin, for example. But there are no heroes in the American elite. That is just a corrupt cohort of the generally decent American people, and it resembles nothing more or less than the German elite during the 1930's and 1940's. Powerful, utterly convinced of their ideological supremacy, and more than willing to make the innocent suffer.
Trust me on this: abandon any hope that the USA and those who control it can redeem themselves. They are incapable of such humility.
I just wonder why the most despicable, totally ambiguous and entirely evil, very influential figures like Adolf Hitler (I know he was born in Braunau...), Klaus Schwab or now Peter Thiel come from a place called Germany ... 🤔🤔🤔
L' anticristo può vivere ovunque, nelle sedi dei partiti comunisti, nelle chiese, nei consigli di amministrazione. Predilige i luoghi belli, dove ci sono ideali, per corromperli, anche se le sue amate legioni sono composte di perversi ed orchi.
You've drawn fascinating connections between Thiel's "Antichrist vs. Armageddon" framework and multipolarity. Your point that globalists weaponize fears of multipolar chaos to discredit sovereignty movements is sharp and aligns with your earlier critiques of liberal hegemony.
But two tensions stand out:
1. Multipolarity ≠ Automatic Coexistence: You rightly praise Thiel for naming globalism's spiritual corrosion ("Antichrist"), but framing multipolarity only as "realist coexistence" feels optimistic. Sovereign powers (MAGA, Putin, Xi, Modi) often pursue conflicting interests – not just harmony. Calling the concept of multipolar clash an "Antichrist lie" downplays genuine risks like resource wars or ideological friction. If multipolarity avoids Armageddon, its champions must actively build restraint – something your own support for Putin’s "holy war" in Ukraine arguably contradicts.
2. Thiel's Theology Needs Pushback: You note his "body optional" transhumanism is "wrong," but could go further. If the soul is sacred (as Thiel, a Catholic, claims), why trivialize its vessel? Framing gender transition as a "first step to soul discovery" risks validating the very techno-utopianism you condemn elsewhere. Traditionalists like you should ask: Can the soul truly flourish disembodied?
Your take on MAGA’s betrayal by neocons is strong. Yet salvation won’t come from swapping one dystopia (globalism) for another (soulless technocracy). As you often argue: True alternatives need rooted tradition – not just rebranded power blocs.
Thief is nothing less than another Harlequin, Musk, apparent disagreement with Trump the Harlequin for excellence, is not only another Harlequin but a last resort,Trojan Horse coming out from the Satanic Nazi Zionist Nursery. He, Will be, indeed, the end of the States Civilisation Nations if Russia, China, Iran falls into Musk’s Satanic Trojan Horse . The Soul, comprise the Universe’s Laws. The Soul on this planet Earth is embodied into the People History and Civilisation. The more the People become Conscious of its Nature the less the distance from its Spirit, the Soul! To save Humanity from the grip of Nazi Zionists,Demonic extermination project.
; The Nation States Civilisations must help the People get out from the, almost over half century Nazi Zionist Hypnosis, now or never! Only the People makes History. Russia, China,Iran, will not win anything even if they together become “ Victorious” after an Atomic Third World War battle with the Deep State. The World civilisation will go back to a similar, (centuries long black hole ), after the fall of the Roman Empire. The fall of Imperialism will not be a bourgeois comedy, it will be the greatest Tragedy to the People of the entire World. The Science of History, to the few that have a comprehensive Knowledge of it Laws, Victory will come always with nearly extinction of the Victorious Coalition! It is the Price to be paid!
Peter Thiel is a liar. He is part of the system. Palantir and Lavender are part od his evil empire.
He is at a minimum, extremely conflicted. It shows in his face and loss for words.
Mr. Dugin, I think that Peter Thiel is actually an agent of the Antichrist with his transhumanist agenda
Technocracy in general appears to be poisonous to the soul and corrupting to the body. A realisation that politcs is an affair of human needs and relations, not technological management, is needed. There is no other way to fix things, and further trying to build a cybernetic-synthetic power is just the end state of communist structures, simply arrived at from the other end.
I think Trump can be salvaged and MAGA can take a sharp turn away from the neocons. Trump is being hamstrung by trying to pass the BBB, but after that, as negotiations progress with Iran and China and finally with Putin, Trump will not be beholden to Netanyahu and I think we will see his marked move towards "Armageddon", though if Trump makes peace with Russia, China and Iran, there will be no one to fight in WWIII and it will be avoided.
Think you have it wrong. Neocons have him by the balls, ignoring the fact that he is an ardent zionist, Epstein files have him caged in a box. He is screwed. Dawned if he does and dawned if he doesn't.
I'm sure there's a Russian proverb that says something like "you can't clean a house in a single sweep". Trump has to divide and conquer. He has zero support from the TDS left so he has to keep some enemies close if he wants to fulfill his promises to his voters.
"Neocons have him by the balls, ignoring the fact that he is an ardent zionist, Epstein files have him caged in a box."
I don't know if the Epstein files are to blame, or the Zionist money he was given, but he sure as hell is an Israeli first asshole.
Recalling the 60s slogan “What if they gave a war and no one came?”, or the Clash line, “It’s up to you not to heed the call up.”
Trump is a mental retard who sides with anyone who strikes his ego. He has zero principles. MAGA is dead and dusted and he dipped his entire base again (just like he abandoned his base after Jan 6th)
Sounds like you watch MSNBC and have TDS
The text under consideration begins by asserting that Peter Thiel, in a New York Times interview, has identified what is purportedly the fundamental dilemma of the contemporary world: the clash between “Antichrist” and “Armageddon.” This framing immediately departs from any conventional political analysis and instead invokes eschatological and metaphysical categories derived from Christian apocalyptic mythos. In doing so, it seeks not merely to analyze political conflict but to sacralize it to render global tensions as a spiritual war between good and evil. Yet this initial dualism is based on a false binary. By framing the world in terms of liberal globalism (as Antichrist) versus multipolar nationalism (as Armageddon), the text occludes the possibility of alternative political models, such as regional cooperation, pluralistic sovereignty, or institutional multilateralism. There is no room here for gradation, compromise, or ambivalence only the absolutism of eschaton.
The identification of the Antichrist with liberal globalism phrases like “One World or none” equates institutions such as the United Nations, the European Union, or climate treaties with metaphysical evil. This is a theological slander, not a policy critique. Simultaneously, the text casts multipolarity as a righteous order a “Greater Power World Order” spearheaded by MAGA, Putin, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi. But this romanticization of authoritarian multipolarity is ahistorical. It ignores the historical reality that multipolar orders, such as pre–World War I Europe, often generate instability and catastrophic war. It also assumes without evidence that authoritarian regimes are capable of “realist coexistence,” when their track record often suggests aggression, expansionism, and repression.
The narrative then pivots to a rhetorical reversal by suggesting that it is the globalist “Antichrist” who actively seeks to provoke Armageddon by portraying multipolarity as inherently destructive. This is a classic projection strategy: accuse your enemy of the exact behavior your own camp enacts. The claim that globalists are warmongers attempting to sabotage multipolar peace is unsubstantiated and ideologically convenient. It diverts attention from actual belligerent actions—such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s militarization of the South China Sea and instead paints those who resist such aggression as responsible for global tension. In this way, the text attempts to invert responsibility for escalating conflict, suggesting that the true architects of destruction are those who criticize strongman regimes.
At this point, the critique turns inward toward the MAGA movement itself, arguing that it has been “hijacked” by neoconservatives figures such as Lindsey Graham who transform its isolationist nationalism into a vehicle for renewed American hegemony. This part of the argument contains a partial truth: there is indeed a tension between MAGA’s America First isolationism and the interventionist legacy of neoconservatism. However, the text overlooks that Donald Trump himself governed through this contradiction, simultaneously decrying globalism and authorizing drone strikes, unilateral sanctions, and massive arms deals. There is a profound incoherence in framing MAGA as inherently pacifist or realist; its foreign policy has always vacillated between populist nationalism, militarism, and transactional aggression.
What follows is an apocalyptic naming ritual: liberal globalism is finally called by its “proper name” Antichrist. This is a theological moment disguised as analysis. By moving from critique to cosmological accusation, the text elevates political disagreement into metaphysical enmity. In such a framework, compromise becomes apostasy, and diplomacy becomes collaboration with Satan. The consequences of this kind of rhetoric are severe: it justifies violence, delegitimizes pluralism, and renders coexistence with ideological opponents morally intolerable. When liberalism is framed not merely as mistaken but as demonic, all forms of civil discourse collapse.
The text then shifts gears to reflect on what it calls “right transhumanism,” attributing to Thiel the claim that transhumanist technologies may liberate the soul from the body. Here, we encounter an odd theological hybrid: a techno-gnostic libertarianism merged with Catholic metaphysics. The critique acknowledges that Thiel affirms the soul’s existence a position contrary to the materialist left but expresses unease at the implication that the body may become optional. The claim that gender change is a first step toward “discovery of the soul” is attributed to Thiel without citation and reads more as interpretive speculation than faithful paraphrase. Nevertheless, the discomfort expressed here is telling: it reveals the paradox of the New Right’s attempt to fuse traditional metaphysics (soul, hierarchy, Catholicism) with radical technological acceleration (AI, body modification, post-humanity). This synthesis results in a deeply unstable theology—simultaneously reactionary and revolutionary, mystical and materialist.
As the text nears its conclusion, it turns to Elon Musk and Trump. Trump is described as a hostage of neoconservatives, discredited in the eyes of the MAGA base due to his perceived interventionism and support for Netanyahu. Musk is presented as a possible figure of renewal a bearer of new momentum. This signals a shift from restoration to rupture. Trump, once the savior of the nationalist right, is now seen as compromised. The prophecy has failed, and thus the prophet must be replaced. This is classic millenarian logic: when the eschatological figure fails to deliver paradise, the blame shifts from doctrine to leader. What remains is the persistent hunger for apocalypse, for purification, for total rupture. “High time to start something new,” the text concludes perhaps unconsciously echoing revolutionary and cultist movements that abandon failed leaders to seek ever more total solutions.
In sum, this text is not a political commentary but a mytho-political tract. It draws its energy from religious eschatology, not empirical analysis. It engages in theological demonization, not civic reasoning. It glorifies authoritarian nationalism and technological transcendence while vilifying liberalism as Satanic. The result is not insight, but a dangerous fusion of metaphysics and war rhetoric an attempt to sanctify geopolitical conflict as a spiritual crusade. While it borrows the vocabulary of thinkers like Peter Thiel and the authority of platforms like the New York Times, its structure is conspiratorial, its logic is totalizing, and its implications are apocalyptic. It is a rhetorical architecture built not for understanding but for annihilation.
"U.S. administrations and a host of U.S. cold warriors have framed the issue as being between “democracy” (defined as countries supporting U.S. policy as client regimes and oligarchies) and “autocracy” (countries seeking national self-reliance and protection from foreign trade and financial dependency)."
Michael Hudson - an educated man who doesn't parade pieces of paper to agrandise himself.
Thanks for your valuable comment. I watch / listen to Michael Hudson often and have enormous respect for his views and arguments within various Podcasts.
The statement attributed to economist Michael Hudson is a provocative, compressed polemic that challenges the moral grammar of U.S. foreign policy. In just a few lines, it seeks to invert the dominant narrative of global politics by accusing American policymakers and Cold War ideologues of strategically redefining core political terms. At its core, the statement performs a semantic reversal: what the U.S. calls “democracy” is, Hudson contends, merely a euphemism for geopolitical alignment, economic subordination, and elite enrichment. Conversely, the term “autocracy,” typically laden with negative connotations, is reframed as a mask for countries pursuing sovereignty, economic protection, and resistance to the gravitational pull of U.S.-dominated trade and finance regimes. This rhetorical maneuver is not simply definitional it is ideological deconstruction in miniature.
What makes this framing so striking is its use of inversion as a technique of critique. By swapping the content of “democracy” and “autocracy,” Hudson aims to unmask what he sees as the profound hypocrisy embedded in American geopolitical rhetoric. The power of this inversion lies in its capacity to expose contradictions between liberal-democratic ideals and the pragmatic reality of foreign alliances. The U.S. has historically supported authoritarian regimes Pinochet’s Chile, Suharto’s Indonesia, the Shah’s Iran so long as they remained open to Western capital and hostile to socialist movements. This lends plausibility to Hudson’s claim that “democracy” in U.S. foreign policy is often little more than a loyalty test to Washington’s strategic priorities, rather than a genuine commitment to representative governance or civil liberty.
However, while the critique identifies structural hypocrisies, it simultaneously risks oversimplification. By reducing U.S.-aligned governments to “client regimes and oligarchies,” Hudson flattens a diverse geopolitical landscape. Many U.S. allies, such as Germany, Japan, or South Korea, are complex liberal democracies with robust institutional protections, pluralistic elections, and civil societies. To refer to them merely as clients or oligarchies ignores internal contestation, popular agency, and the historical emergence of democratic norms that often predate or operate independently of U.S. influence. In collapsing democracy into clientelism, Hudson risks eliminating meaningful political distinctions and replacing them with a binary structure: one either resists U.S. hegemony or collaborates with it. This view may be clarifying for polemical purposes, but it is analytically crude.
Moreover, Hudson’s redefinition of “autocracy” as national self-reliance and financial independence introduces another layer of ambiguity. The revalorization of autocracy as economic sovereignty flips the moral compass entirely. In this framing, regimes that resist integration into U.S.-led financial architectures are not authoritarian but independent; their refusal to open up to foreign capital is not insular but liberatory. This logic draws on a long tradition of anti-imperialist thought, particularly within the Global South, where economic nationalism has often been a precondition for resisting Western domination. There is historical resonance here with leaders like Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, or Chávez in Venezuela figures who linked national dignity with economic self-determination.
Yet this reframing risks romanticizing authoritarian regimes by obscuring their domestic repressions. China’s digital surveillance, Russia’s imprisonment of political opponents, or Iran’s theocratic restrictions on dissent are not simply defensive measures against financial imperialism they are mechanisms of internal control. Hudson’s emphasis on external independence may therefore inadvertently sanitize internal domination. By emphasizing sovereignty over liberty, the critique turns a blind eye to citizens caught between opposing hegemonies, those who suffer both under Western sanctions and their own governments’ brutalities. The idea that autocracy is synonymous with resistance and democracy with submission dangerously conflates the structure of international finance with the content of domestic governance.
Reinforcing this framing is the final gesture: the comment that “Michael Hudson an educated man who doesn’t parade pieces of paper to aggrandize himself.” This anti-elitist aside positions Hudson as an authentic, modest intellectual who refuses the trappings of academic vanity. It is a rhetorical move that further legitimizes the critique by distancing it from institutional authority. In effect, the statement casts Hudson as a truth-teller, someone whose insights are grounded not in technocratic arrogance but in structural clarity and moral courage. This aligns with the populist tone of the passage, rejecting credentialism while reaffirming the authority of lived insight or ideological lucidity.
However, this rhetorical move also carries risk. While it elevates Hudson’s credibility through his perceived humility, it can also shield his arguments from critical scrutiny. The rejection of “pieces of paper” might serve as a subtle anti-intellectualism, suggesting that academic consensus or peer review is merely performative. Yet Hudson is himself a trained and credentialed economist. The framing of him as outside the system is less a literal truth than a strategic positioning a way of staging credibility in contrast to technocratic orthodoxy. It appeals to readers disenchanted with neoliberal economics or elite academic discourse, but it also risks conflating contrarianism with correctness.
Altogether, Hudson’s statement is a potent distillation of anti-imperialist critique dense, adversarial, and sharply polarized. Its strength lies in the way it foregrounds structural contradictions: the way liberalism can function as a veneer for control, and how terms like “freedom,” “democracy,” or “reform” often become operational tools of empire. Yet its weakness lies in its tendency to reduce complexity to polarity. The real world does not always conform to a binary logic of domination versus resistance. There are democracies that resist empire, and autocracies that depend on it. There are hybrid regimes, contested sovereignties, and middle grounds that disappear in the forcefulness of Hudson’s framing.
Ultimately, the statement operates as a form of ideological diagnosis, not empirical reportage. It invites us to question the language of global power, to see how moral vocabularies are embedded in geopolitical interests. But it also demands that we maintain critical awareness of how critique itself can become ideology when it romanticizes repression as resistance, or collapses political pluralism into economic determinism. Hudson’s voice is an important one in the conversation about global order, but it is best heard in dialog with complexity, rather than as an oracle of inversion.
Sigh ...
Despite the seemingly endless commentary you seem to have missed that my comment was meant as an insult to you personally. I am surprised that you have not published anything at your blog, which considering these two posts is astounding. Your ten subscribers must be so frustrated.
Please don't reply, just assume that I am a crude critic that fails to recognise true genius 'cos I'm too stoopid ...
Usually that would solely apply to you…….
So,
You really are a crude DUD…….
A DUD RIDDLER
Mr Dugin , if you think there is anything humanly worthwhile in such a crazed degenerate as Theil you have no judgement whatsoever. If there is a contemporary exemplar of evil , it is he.
The saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is demonstrably false in this instance. The devil is nothing if not cunning as numerous folk tales and traditions from your country illustrate.
With the greatest respect to Prof. Dugin for his perspectives on Russia and geopolitics, among other things, he really misses the mark when he allows his emotions to run away with him about Americans. For the past half year, and up until just a month ago, Prof. Dugin was singing the praises of Donald Trump, describing him in terms others might reserve for the Second Coming. I told him in these comments that he was almost certainly to be disappointed before long. Sure enough, now Prof. Dugin has veered away from Trump and chosen, of all people, Peter Thiel. Now it's the latter that's described in mythological terms, as if he was a god descended from Olympus.
Alexander, the geopolitical currents you see are real and you have interesting perspectives on them. But your assessment of America's 'movers and shakers', and their places within those currents, are deeply flawed. Trump, Thiel, Musk, Dimon and the rest - though enormously influential - are not even heroic figures let alone gods. They are crass examples of the elites who have destroyed what little mythology America at one time owned.
Awakening to what for most is obvious, Prof. Dugin, you've dumped Trump. However it seems you need a new American to eulogize, a new hero to worship. You WILL be disappointed with this one as well.
There are living Russian heroes, Alexander. Vladimir Putin, for example. But there are no heroes in the American elite. That is just a corrupt cohort of the generally decent American people, and it resembles nothing more or less than the German elite during the 1930's and 1940's. Powerful, utterly convinced of their ideological supremacy, and more than willing to make the innocent suffer.
Trust me on this: abandon any hope that the USA and those who control it can redeem themselves. They are incapable of such humility.
I just wonder why the most despicable, totally ambiguous and entirely evil, very influential figures like Adolf Hitler (I know he was born in Braunau...), Klaus Schwab or now Peter Thiel come from a place called Germany ... 🤔🤔🤔
I'm pretty sure Peter Theil is the antichrist
L' anticristo può vivere ovunque, nelle sedi dei partiti comunisti, nelle chiese, nei consigli di amministrazione. Predilige i luoghi belli, dove ci sono ideali, per corromperli, anche se le sue amate legioni sono composte di perversi ed orchi.
You've drawn fascinating connections between Thiel's "Antichrist vs. Armageddon" framework and multipolarity. Your point that globalists weaponize fears of multipolar chaos to discredit sovereignty movements is sharp and aligns with your earlier critiques of liberal hegemony.
But two tensions stand out:
1. Multipolarity ≠ Automatic Coexistence: You rightly praise Thiel for naming globalism's spiritual corrosion ("Antichrist"), but framing multipolarity only as "realist coexistence" feels optimistic. Sovereign powers (MAGA, Putin, Xi, Modi) often pursue conflicting interests – not just harmony. Calling the concept of multipolar clash an "Antichrist lie" downplays genuine risks like resource wars or ideological friction. If multipolarity avoids Armageddon, its champions must actively build restraint – something your own support for Putin’s "holy war" in Ukraine arguably contradicts.
2. Thiel's Theology Needs Pushback: You note his "body optional" transhumanism is "wrong," but could go further. If the soul is sacred (as Thiel, a Catholic, claims), why trivialize its vessel? Framing gender transition as a "first step to soul discovery" risks validating the very techno-utopianism you condemn elsewhere. Traditionalists like you should ask: Can the soul truly flourish disembodied?
Your take on MAGA’s betrayal by neocons is strong. Yet salvation won’t come from swapping one dystopia (globalism) for another (soulless technocracy). As you often argue: True alternatives need rooted tradition – not just rebranded power blocs.
One world government and multipolarity both being the anti Christ is a contradiction and meaningless.
https://substack.com/@bruce1701/note/c-130103790?r=5v3nzq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
The Tecno-overlord points to the political-overlord for overlording. Ironic
The small things are the ones that keep evil at bay
If a Nazi was also a vampire
Thief is nothing less than another Harlequin, Musk, apparent disagreement with Trump the Harlequin for excellence, is not only another Harlequin but a last resort,Trojan Horse coming out from the Satanic Nazi Zionist Nursery. He, Will be, indeed, the end of the States Civilisation Nations if Russia, China, Iran falls into Musk’s Satanic Trojan Horse . The Soul, comprise the Universe’s Laws. The Soul on this planet Earth is embodied into the People History and Civilisation. The more the People become Conscious of its Nature the less the distance from its Spirit, the Soul! To save Humanity from the grip of Nazi Zionists,Demonic extermination project.
; The Nation States Civilisations must help the People get out from the, almost over half century Nazi Zionist Hypnosis, now or never! Only the People makes History. Russia, China,Iran, will not win anything even if they together become “ Victorious” after an Atomic Third World War battle with the Deep State. The World civilisation will go back to a similar, (centuries long black hole ), after the fall of the Roman Empire. The fall of Imperialism will not be a bourgeois comedy, it will be the greatest Tragedy to the People of the entire World. The Science of History, to the few that have a comprehensive Knowledge of it Laws, Victory will come always with nearly extinction of the Victorious Coalition! It is the Price to be paid!