Alexander Dugin traces how Donald Trump’s return to power marks a decisive rupture with the global deep state, fracturing the collective West and hastening the rise of a multipolar world...
I shared this too. 20 places with this comment. "I think Dugin should be read, Both for his Russian views and for his views of man and the world. You don't have to agree with him. You may or you may not, but he deserves to be listened to."
I'm 75 and a US citizen I don't support either the Republicans or the Democrats. I regard them as two sides of the same coin. And I don't think you understand Trump at all.
Trump is a con man. Sinclair Lewis might have created him. Trump is undoubtedly Buzz Windrip, (It can't happen here) though significant parallels exist with Elmer Gantry as well.
And I do not believe that you understand the United States. I see nothing wrong with painting the simplistic picture you paint, but you need to use different words to paint it and, as I said, you don't get the United States or at least what's underneath the United States, You may be somewhat correct about the deep state.
Also, I would not use the word liberal, or liberalism. The terms have meant too many different things. To my father, liberal meant Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Keynesian economics and caring about people. To the people I knew in the late '60s when I was in college It meant something similar, and none of us would have ever ascribed a society that resembled 1984 to the term.
Nope, and definitely nope. I'm 75 too. Liberalism is the correct word. It destroys everything it infects, the body politic, philosophy, theology among a few that come to mind. A contemporary and classic example that I have just finished studying is documented by James V. Heidinger's in his recent book, "The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism." I would say that ?uther'ss Protestant Reformation is at its historical emd, having devolved into a weak soup lacking and spiritual nutrition. To Pre-Vatican II penitants and disciples across thd Protestant spectrum, Satan has won.
Back to your comment; I am not entirely pro-Trump. Arguably, (and I agree with observations in Dugan's essay), Trump's efforts are trivialized and by far outweighed by his rabbid, misinformed and misguided Zionist Christian beliefs. And no matter if he wins most of his battles, the West will ultimately fail to meet the challenges presented by CCP China's Third or Middle Way. That's for another post, another thread. Perhaps Dugan understands why I say so and might weigh in on it or suggest a few readings.
A long but interesting read about a possible US-Russia rapprochement. But where is the Chinese CCP (the next wannabe global hegemon) in your analysis? Was not the currently powerful CCP monster created by the same Anglo European global deep state finance you blame for much else? The Indo Russian (Soviet) treaty of friendship was signed in 1971, soon after the wily Kissinger (deep state agent) led Nixon to Beijing through Pakistan, the ultimate deep state henchman. Pakistan was conceptualized by the deep state to control India as well as the wider Asian continent (first by the British establishment - Churchill, MI6, later taken over by US, CIA), a role it is fulfilling till date. The real high stakes great game presently is in Asia not Europe. As long as China and Pakistan are not factored in your deep state analysis, it will remain incomplete.
USA is country about two centuries, Deep State has ancient routes, started from Sumerian Embaer. The main problem for Deep State is the Christianity, two super powers countries Russia and USA are Christians. Economy, Political, Armed forces, Technology...are the weapons of Deep State. The war in Ukraine is one more creature, one more plan. President Trump will be President for 3.5 years and after that, What ? President Putin for how long will be President ? Deep State has time and knows to wait, the East knows to wait.
The claim that the USA, being only about two centuries old, is pitted against a Deep State with “ancient roots” tracing back to Sumerian Embaer (likely a misspelling or distorted reference, possibly meaning “Empire” or invoking some mythic Sumerian entity) immediately signals a kind of mythic-historical framing rather than empirical political analysis. By connecting modern global power structures to ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, the argument isn’t just making a historical claim; it’s crafting a mythology of power, positioning the Deep State as an immortal, transhistorical force.
This is analytically problematic. Modern “deep state” theories refer (often loosely) to entrenched bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, and military-industrial actors within specific national contexts, not to some 5,000-year-old cabal stretching from Sumer to Silicon Valley. There’s no evidence-based bridge linking Sumerian temple economies or royal priesthoods to the internal workings of 21st-century Western intelligence agencies. This rhetorical move substitutes mythic continuity for careful historical causality.
Next, the claim that Christianity is the “main problem” for the Deep State, because both Russia and the USA are Christian-majority superpowers, oversimplifies both geopolitics and religious identity. While it’s true that both societies have large Christian populations, the political systems, cultural expressions, and religious practices in each are profoundly different. The Russian Orthodox Church’s relationship with the Kremlin is deeply entangled in nationalist and state-power projects, often instrumentalized to legitimize authority. Meanwhile, American Christianity is fractured across evangelical, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and other movements, with varying degrees of alignment or opposition to state institutions.
More importantly, the idea that “Christianity” as such threatens the Deep State assumes that the Deep State operates according to an anti-Christian agenda — but this remains undefined. Is the argument suggesting the Deep State is secular, satanic, technocratic, or aligned with other religious or anti-religious forces? Without specificity, this becomes a catch-all accusation that plays into conspiratorial frameworks without offering testable claims.
The passage lists economy, political systems, armed forces, technology as the “weapons” of the Deep State. This is almost tautological: these are the levers of power available to any governing entity, including states, corporations, and military actors. Calling them the “weapons of the Deep State” doesn’t clarify much it merely amplifies suspicion toward all institutional forms, as though the existence of organized systems automatically indicates hidden control.
The line “The war in Ukraine is one more creature, one more plan” reduces an incredibly complex geopolitical and historical event to a puppet act of the Deep State. This erases local Ukrainian agency, historical traumas (such as Soviet repression and Holodomor), regional political dynamics, Russia’s own expansionist agendas, NATO’s history, and the tangled motivations of both Western and Eastern powers. Conspiratorial thinking tends to compress multiplicity into singular intent, but the Ukrainian conflict cannot be adequately explained as just a Deep State plan it involves a multilayered clash of national identities, security fears, economic interests, and historical grievances.
The rhetorical pivot to “President Trump will be President for 3.5 years, and after that, What?” raises the issue of temporality: it suggests that while political leaders are transient, the Deep State has patience and crucially, that the East also knows to wait. This implies that the Deep State is playing a long, multi-generational game, outlasting individual leaders and elections. But this argument relies on a personification of institutions: it treats the Deep State as a singular, conscious actor rather than a shifting web of bureaucracies, corporate interests, military contractors, intelligence networks, and political elites who often compete with each other. Moreover, the idea that “the East knows to wait” glosses over internal tensions within “the East” Russia, China, Iran, India which have very different geopolitical goals, cultural strategies, and timelines.
The Deep State, in this framing, becomes a kind of timeless monster: ancient, shadowy, always adapting, immune to democratic cycles, wielding every tool of modernity, and facing only the spiritual resistance of Christian civilizations. But this is less political analysis and more mythopoetic architecture it sets up a moral and cosmic battle rather than providing a sociological or political map of how institutions, ideologies, and actors actually function.
Critically, this worldview does not account for internal contradictions:
How does the Deep State reconcile tensions between, say, Big Tech libertarianism and Pentagon conservatism?
How does it manage the ideological splits within Western societies, where media, corporate, military, and political actors are constantly jostling for power?
How does it sustain coherence across centuries and civilizational ruptures, revolutions, and systemic collapses?
Without answers, the Deep State remains a mythological placeholder: it explains everything and nothing, absorbing all complexity into a single explanation. This might serve emotional, symbolic, or mobilizing functions, but it obscures more than it reveals when used as a serious tool of analysis.
lol you’re a smart man, but this is largely tripe.
What we are seeing in the west is the old guard being challenged by the new guard. That tension that comes with challenge and change, that conflict, is now playing out in many arenas.
Begin to think on those lines and much more makes sense.
When we see Deep State criminals arrested - Fauci, Gates,Soros et al - we can believe in Trump. Until then we are right to suspect that Trump represents a reinvention or rebranding of the Deep State. Nothing more
I, for one, certainly think you do understand President Trump and his defense of the truly American institutions, and of American thinking and morality that dates back to Benjamin Franklin, Washington and Alexander Hamilton. It dates forward in time to Lincoln, and then FDR, Kennedy and LaRouche.
Mr Dugan, I welcome your thinking, from across the globe, speaking and writing in the USA!
My deeper response to your frank inquiry into the nature of the enemy:
Today President Trump — a virtual miracle — is waging an unrelenting patriotic ‘hybrid war’ to restore American sovereignty. In this effort he has many fellow patriots as allies, and inspired by his example — as you clearly surmise.
President Trump is engaged in this great revival while driving back and working to ultimately expose, isolate and defeat a powerful corporativist combine based in an Anglo-Dutch financial system of central banking & predatory debt, the monetarist ideology long-promoted as that combine’s “free market” British liberal tool, the ancient Venetian tool of a still-extant European & Anglo-American oligarchy.
In a better attempt to understand the United States. I think you should examine the genius Michael Hudson who I believe understands United States better than anyone I listen to or read. Here are some links.
"Return of the Robber Barons: Trump’s Distorted View of US Tariff History"
These essays collectively paint Trump as a revivalist of Gilded Age economics, prioritizing rentier interests over productive growth and weaponizing economic tools at the expense of global stability
There is a dark force behind most of the leaders of the world. They work against the masses in favor of their agenda: depopulation, a global government that tells nations what to do, using unelected bureaucrats and technocrats, causing chaos to destabilize much of the world. Globalization must be resisted with more control shifting toward local and individual sovereignty.
I would not use the word liberal in the US I think the better word is neocon. Liberal is a vague term that is meant too many different things. I'm 75 the US citizen. To my father it meant Franklin Roosevelt Keynesian economics championing the working man and caring about people.
When I was a student in the late '60s the word meant nothing as you describe it and certainly nobody I knew would have thought it had anything to do with a society that might approach 1984.
I think you may be coming from a well intentioned place but I don't think you understand the United States at all.
I don't see anything wrong with painting the picture you paint but it needs different labels and as far as Trump you're completely wrong. Trump is a con man a latter day PT Barnum. You give him too much gravitas. He's someone that Sinclair Lewis might have written about or created. Trump is undoubtedly Buzz Windrip, though significant parallels exist with Elmer Gantry as well...
There has actually been little change in US policy since Woodrow Wilson, least of all Trump although he takes a "Ralph Crampton" approach (Jackie Gleason "The Honey Mooners" TV comedy)
Trump 1 bombed and sanctioned Syria : sanctioned Russia and reneged INF treaty and built up the Ukrainian army. Rejected the JPCoA with Iran and applied more sanctions. Now, he welcome al Sharaa, Sunni head chopper in Syria and sells America to Saudi investors rather than Chinese. He talks peace but pivots from Ukraine to Iran as though hapless Europe could actually carry Zalensky's water and Americans' will rally around the flag to save Israel. Trump understands only "business" : making money by moving it from one pot to another while his get rich quick schemes fail faster than Louis Napoleon's. He's the fat NYC bus driver on thin ice who ends up admitting to "Alice", "I've got a big mouth!"
Dugin argues that Trump’s rise marks the collapse of the collective West and a shift toward a multipolar world. This is a dramatic framing, but it overstates the capacity of any single political figure even one as disruptive as Trump to fundamentally overturn the deeply institutionalized, interwoven global order. While Trump’s rhetoric certainly challenged liberal internationalist norms, the structural power of international finance, trade systems, military alliances, and legal frameworks remained largely intact even during his presidency. The collapse Dugin imagines is less a material collapse than an ideological fantasy projected onto global affairs.
Dugin positions Trump as an opponent of liberal globalism, distinguishing him from prior Republicans like George W. Bush. While Trump’s rhetoric certainly rejected the moralizing tone of liberal internationalism, it’s worth noting that his administration was hardly consistent or ideologically coherent: he wavered between isolationism and unilateral aggression (as with Iran), transactional deal-making (as with North Korea), and status-quo military entrenchments (as in Syria). Painting Trump as the ideological anti-globalist overlooks the messiness and pragmatism of his actual record.
The critique of liberalism as a project that erases collective identities and advances transhumanism is riddled with alarmist exaggeration. Liberalism, in its mainstream form, defends individual rights within pluralistic societies not the erasure of identities per se. While certain progressive cultural trends do challenge traditional social structures, collapsing this into a totalitarian drive to abolish gender, ethnicity, nationality, or even humanity itself is conspiratorial hyperbole. The accusation that liberalism equals “global deep state” control ignores the robust internal debates, fractures, and critiques within liberal-democratic societies themselves.
Dugin’s depiction of the global elite as a network of actors uniformly driving toward technocratic control lacks empirical grounding. Yes, elites exist, and yes, there are structural inequalities but attributing a singular, coordinated intention to vastly diverse actors (from Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to EU bureaucrats to American progressives) oversimplifies power dynamics. The world’s ruling classes are not a monolith; they compete, clash, and diverge in priorities and interests.
The portrayal of Ukraine as a Nazi puppet regime armed by liberal globalists is particularly striking and factually false. While Ukraine certainly has nationalist factions (as many countries do), its government is a democratically elected body fighting off a Russian military invasion, not a Nazi proxy state. This kind of rhetoric recycles Kremlin propaganda and erases the agency, complexity, and historical trauma of Ukrainians themselves. It also flattens geopolitical realities, presenting everything as a binary clash between Russia and the West, ignoring the layered motives, fears, and aspirations at play in Eastern Europe.
Dugin lumps together Islamist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, Taiwanese sovereignty, and Ukraine’s struggle into a single globalist agenda. This is analytically sloppy. Radical jihadist movements, Taiwanese democracy, and Ukrainian nationalism are not coherent extensions of liberal globalism; they emerge from distinct histories, local grievances, and geopolitical pressures. Conflating them into a singular “enemy” suggests an ideological need for unified opposition rather than careful political analysis.
When Dugin claims that national governments in the West have become irrelevant under the control of the global deep state, he ignores the actual frictions between national governments and international institutions. Brexit, EU internal divisions, tensions between national courts and supranational law, and populist movements across Europe all demonstrate that national sovereignty is far from dead. Even within the U.S., state governments, courts, and local movements routinely contest federal authority, suggesting a far more plural and negotiated power landscape than Dugin allows.
The idea that Trump’s MAGA movement has permanently broken the West into fragments with a Trumpist U.S., globalist Europe, and Russia as a rising pole is speculative and premature. While Trump’s rise shook Western alliances, U.S. institutional resilience (including during the chaotic 2020–2024 period) indicates that global structures can absorb significant shocks. Moreover, MAGA’s ideological coherence is questionable: it is a mix of economic nationalism, cultural resentment, celebrity populism, and evangelical politics, not a clear, unified global realignment program.
Dugin links the roots of liberal globalism back to Woodrow Wilson and the post-WWI order, arguing that Trump is overturning a century-long ideological structure. But here too, the historical argument is selective. The liberal order has been under constant revision, contestation, and recalibration over the past century through decolonization, the Cold War, the rise of China, the non-aligned movement, and the post-Cold War adjustments. Trump’s rejection is not some apocalyptic rupture; it is one episode in an ongoing cycle of contestation within international order-building.
Finally, Dugin concludes that to defeat the liberal-globalist deep state, one must rigorously study its theories, institutions, and strategies. While intellectual preparation is always valuable, Dugin himself does not model that rigor. Instead, his framework collapses diverse movements, institutions, and ideas into a binary “us versus them” structure that feeds ideological mobilization but impoverishes nuanced understanding. The actual work of analyzing liberal democracies involves looking at contradictions, internal debates, adaptive capacities, and failures not demonizing the entire system as an agent of singular evil.
Overall, Dugin’s arguments rest on hyper-polarized framing, grandiose historical claims, and conspiratorial flattening of complexity. His vision of a world divided into multipolar sovereignties fighting off a totalitarian globalist machine functions more as a mythic narrative than a grounded geopolitical analysis. That doesn’t mean his work lacks political influence but it does mean that his ideas should be approached critically, carefully, and skeptically, with attention to the real-world messiness that they strategically erase.
Insisting in presenting Trump as the incarnation of a National Imperialist Power open to a so called Multipolar World Order, mr Dugin is playing the game of the Deep State. He keeps ignoring That Trump is an Harlequin playing his role as a weapon of deception in the very hands of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros, Gates,Mask with his X weapon of global deceptive propaganda. Mr Dugin ignores complete the reality on the ground in Ukraine War and the very recent attempt on the life of Russian Leader Putin while flying over the war zone! Every one knows the the USA army was involved and Trump knew about it. Mr Dugin may gain some knowledge if he studies the Art of War and the laws governing it .
I shared this too. 20 places with this comment. "I think Dugin should be read, Both for his Russian views and for his views of man and the world. You don't have to agree with him. You may or you may not, but he deserves to be listened to."
I'm 75 and a US citizen I don't support either the Republicans or the Democrats. I regard them as two sides of the same coin. And I don't think you understand Trump at all.
Trump is a con man. Sinclair Lewis might have created him. Trump is undoubtedly Buzz Windrip, (It can't happen here) though significant parallels exist with Elmer Gantry as well.
And I do not believe that you understand the United States. I see nothing wrong with painting the simplistic picture you paint, but you need to use different words to paint it and, as I said, you don't get the United States or at least what's underneath the United States, You may be somewhat correct about the deep state.
Also, I would not use the word liberal, or liberalism. The terms have meant too many different things. To my father, liberal meant Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Keynesian economics and caring about people. To the people I knew in the late '60s when I was in college It meant something similar, and none of us would have ever ascribed a society that resembled 1984 to the term.
I appreciate your perspective.
For an idea of my views You could look at what I wrote today in my most recent substack https://open.substack.com/pub/heininger/p/the-inevitable-unraveling-americas?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=16lm0
Nope, and definitely nope. I'm 75 too. Liberalism is the correct word. It destroys everything it infects, the body politic, philosophy, theology among a few that come to mind. A contemporary and classic example that I have just finished studying is documented by James V. Heidinger's in his recent book, "The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism." I would say that ?uther'ss Protestant Reformation is at its historical emd, having devolved into a weak soup lacking and spiritual nutrition. To Pre-Vatican II penitants and disciples across thd Protestant spectrum, Satan has won.
Back to your comment; I am not entirely pro-Trump. Arguably, (and I agree with observations in Dugan's essay), Trump's efforts are trivialized and by far outweighed by his rabbid, misinformed and misguided Zionist Christian beliefs. And no matter if he wins most of his battles, the West will ultimately fail to meet the challenges presented by CCP China's Third or Middle Way. That's for another post, another thread. Perhaps Dugan understands why I say so and might weigh in on it or suggest a few readings.
A long but interesting read about a possible US-Russia rapprochement. But where is the Chinese CCP (the next wannabe global hegemon) in your analysis? Was not the currently powerful CCP monster created by the same Anglo European global deep state finance you blame for much else? The Indo Russian (Soviet) treaty of friendship was signed in 1971, soon after the wily Kissinger (deep state agent) led Nixon to Beijing through Pakistan, the ultimate deep state henchman. Pakistan was conceptualized by the deep state to control India as well as the wider Asian continent (first by the British establishment - Churchill, MI6, later taken over by US, CIA), a role it is fulfilling till date. The real high stakes great game presently is in Asia not Europe. As long as China and Pakistan are not factored in your deep state analysis, it will remain incomplete.
USA is country about two centuries, Deep State has ancient routes, started from Sumerian Embaer. The main problem for Deep State is the Christianity, two super powers countries Russia and USA are Christians. Economy, Political, Armed forces, Technology...are the weapons of Deep State. The war in Ukraine is one more creature, one more plan. President Trump will be President for 3.5 years and after that, What ? President Putin for how long will be President ? Deep State has time and knows to wait, the East knows to wait.
The claim that the USA, being only about two centuries old, is pitted against a Deep State with “ancient roots” tracing back to Sumerian Embaer (likely a misspelling or distorted reference, possibly meaning “Empire” or invoking some mythic Sumerian entity) immediately signals a kind of mythic-historical framing rather than empirical political analysis. By connecting modern global power structures to ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, the argument isn’t just making a historical claim; it’s crafting a mythology of power, positioning the Deep State as an immortal, transhistorical force.
This is analytically problematic. Modern “deep state” theories refer (often loosely) to entrenched bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, and military-industrial actors within specific national contexts, not to some 5,000-year-old cabal stretching from Sumer to Silicon Valley. There’s no evidence-based bridge linking Sumerian temple economies or royal priesthoods to the internal workings of 21st-century Western intelligence agencies. This rhetorical move substitutes mythic continuity for careful historical causality.
Next, the claim that Christianity is the “main problem” for the Deep State, because both Russia and the USA are Christian-majority superpowers, oversimplifies both geopolitics and religious identity. While it’s true that both societies have large Christian populations, the political systems, cultural expressions, and religious practices in each are profoundly different. The Russian Orthodox Church’s relationship with the Kremlin is deeply entangled in nationalist and state-power projects, often instrumentalized to legitimize authority. Meanwhile, American Christianity is fractured across evangelical, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and other movements, with varying degrees of alignment or opposition to state institutions.
More importantly, the idea that “Christianity” as such threatens the Deep State assumes that the Deep State operates according to an anti-Christian agenda — but this remains undefined. Is the argument suggesting the Deep State is secular, satanic, technocratic, or aligned with other religious or anti-religious forces? Without specificity, this becomes a catch-all accusation that plays into conspiratorial frameworks without offering testable claims.
The passage lists economy, political systems, armed forces, technology as the “weapons” of the Deep State. This is almost tautological: these are the levers of power available to any governing entity, including states, corporations, and military actors. Calling them the “weapons of the Deep State” doesn’t clarify much it merely amplifies suspicion toward all institutional forms, as though the existence of organized systems automatically indicates hidden control.
The line “The war in Ukraine is one more creature, one more plan” reduces an incredibly complex geopolitical and historical event to a puppet act of the Deep State. This erases local Ukrainian agency, historical traumas (such as Soviet repression and Holodomor), regional political dynamics, Russia’s own expansionist agendas, NATO’s history, and the tangled motivations of both Western and Eastern powers. Conspiratorial thinking tends to compress multiplicity into singular intent, but the Ukrainian conflict cannot be adequately explained as just a Deep State plan it involves a multilayered clash of national identities, security fears, economic interests, and historical grievances.
The rhetorical pivot to “President Trump will be President for 3.5 years, and after that, What?” raises the issue of temporality: it suggests that while political leaders are transient, the Deep State has patience and crucially, that the East also knows to wait. This implies that the Deep State is playing a long, multi-generational game, outlasting individual leaders and elections. But this argument relies on a personification of institutions: it treats the Deep State as a singular, conscious actor rather than a shifting web of bureaucracies, corporate interests, military contractors, intelligence networks, and political elites who often compete with each other. Moreover, the idea that “the East knows to wait” glosses over internal tensions within “the East” Russia, China, Iran, India which have very different geopolitical goals, cultural strategies, and timelines.
The Deep State, in this framing, becomes a kind of timeless monster: ancient, shadowy, always adapting, immune to democratic cycles, wielding every tool of modernity, and facing only the spiritual resistance of Christian civilizations. But this is less political analysis and more mythopoetic architecture it sets up a moral and cosmic battle rather than providing a sociological or political map of how institutions, ideologies, and actors actually function.
Critically, this worldview does not account for internal contradictions:
How does the Deep State reconcile tensions between, say, Big Tech libertarianism and Pentagon conservatism?
How does it manage the ideological splits within Western societies, where media, corporate, military, and political actors are constantly jostling for power?
How does it sustain coherence across centuries and civilizational ruptures, revolutions, and systemic collapses?
Without answers, the Deep State remains a mythological placeholder: it explains everything and nothing, absorbing all complexity into a single explanation. This might serve emotional, symbolic, or mobilizing functions, but it obscures more than it reveals when used as a serious tool of analysis.
There are Great and Bright Souls but also there are small darkness and dirty souls, like yours.
Substack is designed for reasoned debate.
Your statement is clearly insulting.
Are you concerned that the national debt of the US has risen to unmanageable heights? Will this doom the US even thought Trump is doing his best?
lol you’re a smart man, but this is largely tripe.
What we are seeing in the west is the old guard being challenged by the new guard. That tension that comes with challenge and change, that conflict, is now playing out in many arenas.
Begin to think on those lines and much more makes sense.
https://americanorthodoxfilm.com/
When we see Deep State criminals arrested - Fauci, Gates,Soros et al - we can believe in Trump. Until then we are right to suspect that Trump represents a reinvention or rebranding of the Deep State. Nothing more
I, for one, certainly think you do understand President Trump and his defense of the truly American institutions, and of American thinking and morality that dates back to Benjamin Franklin, Washington and Alexander Hamilton. It dates forward in time to Lincoln, and then FDR, Kennedy and LaRouche.
Mr Dugan, I welcome your thinking, from across the globe, speaking and writing in the USA!
My deeper response to your frank inquiry into the nature of the enemy:
Today President Trump — a virtual miracle — is waging an unrelenting patriotic ‘hybrid war’ to restore American sovereignty. In this effort he has many fellow patriots as allies, and inspired by his example — as you clearly surmise.
President Trump is engaged in this great revival while driving back and working to ultimately expose, isolate and defeat a powerful corporativist combine based in an Anglo-Dutch financial system of central banking & predatory debt, the monetarist ideology long-promoted as that combine’s “free market” British liberal tool, the ancient Venetian tool of a still-extant European & Anglo-American oligarchy.
So, in a few words, I can best put it. I welcome this discussion. brianlantz@substack.com
But Trump is a committed Zionist Christian. Therein lies the seed of his inevitable political destruction. The Deep State includes AIPAC.
In a better attempt to understand the United States. I think you should examine the genius Michael Hudson who I believe understands United States better than anyone I listen to or read. Here are some links.
"Return of the Robber Barons: Trump’s Distorted View of US Tariff History"
April 2025
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/04/trumps-inverted-view-of-americas-tariff-history/
Central thesis: Trump’s tariffs serve as class warfare, benefiting wealthy elites while accelerating deindustrialization and economic instability.
"Weaponizing the US Dollar"
January 2025
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/01/weaponizing-the-us-dollar/
Analyzes Trump’s “we win; you lose” approach to financial policy and its global repercussions.
"Will Trump's War Games Backfire?"
April 2025
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/04/will-trumps-war-games-backfire/
Critiques Trump’s use of tariffs as a smokescreen for tax cuts and deregulation.
"US Economic Colonialism On Notice"
January 2025
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/01/us-economic-colonialism-on-notice/
Examines Trump’s transactional foreign policy and its destabilizing effects.
"Trump’s Tariffs Hurt the US Much More Than China"
April 2025
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/04/
Details how Trump’s protectionism undermines U.S. industrial revival while isolating the nation globally.
External Discussions of Hudson’s Work:
Geopolitical Economy Report (April 2025):
Summarizes Hudson’s critique of Trump’s trade wars:
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/04/21/trump-tariffs-us-china-michael-hudson/
Scheerpost (April 2025):
Interview expanding on Hudson’s "robber barons" framework:
https://scheerpost.com/2025/04/22/trumps-tariffs-hurt-the-us-much-more-than-china-economist-michael-hudson-explains/
These essays collectively paint Trump as a revivalist of Gilded Age economics, prioritizing rentier interests over productive growth and weaponizing economic tools at the expense of global stability
There is a dark force behind most of the leaders of the world. They work against the masses in favor of their agenda: depopulation, a global government that tells nations what to do, using unelected bureaucrats and technocrats, causing chaos to destabilize much of the world. Globalization must be resisted with more control shifting toward local and individual sovereignty.
I would not use the word liberal in the US I think the better word is neocon. Liberal is a vague term that is meant too many different things. I'm 75 the US citizen. To my father it meant Franklin Roosevelt Keynesian economics championing the working man and caring about people.
When I was a student in the late '60s the word meant nothing as you describe it and certainly nobody I knew would have thought it had anything to do with a society that might approach 1984.
I think you may be coming from a well intentioned place but I don't think you understand the United States at all.
I don't see anything wrong with painting the picture you paint but it needs different labels and as far as Trump you're completely wrong. Trump is a con man a latter day PT Barnum. You give him too much gravitas. He's someone that Sinclair Lewis might have written about or created. Trump is undoubtedly Buzz Windrip, though significant parallels exist with Elmer Gantry as well...
All I can say is Abe Lincoln WAS WRONG
There has actually been little change in US policy since Woodrow Wilson, least of all Trump although he takes a "Ralph Crampton" approach (Jackie Gleason "The Honey Mooners" TV comedy)
Trump 1 bombed and sanctioned Syria : sanctioned Russia and reneged INF treaty and built up the Ukrainian army. Rejected the JPCoA with Iran and applied more sanctions. Now, he welcome al Sharaa, Sunni head chopper in Syria and sells America to Saudi investors rather than Chinese. He talks peace but pivots from Ukraine to Iran as though hapless Europe could actually carry Zalensky's water and Americans' will rally around the flag to save Israel. Trump understands only "business" : making money by moving it from one pot to another while his get rich quick schemes fail faster than Louis Napoleon's. He's the fat NYC bus driver on thin ice who ends up admitting to "Alice", "I've got a big mouth!"
"Ralph Crampton" approach (Jackie Gleason "The Honey Mooners" TV comedy)"
The name is Ralph Kramden.
THX
Dugin argues that Trump’s rise marks the collapse of the collective West and a shift toward a multipolar world. This is a dramatic framing, but it overstates the capacity of any single political figure even one as disruptive as Trump to fundamentally overturn the deeply institutionalized, interwoven global order. While Trump’s rhetoric certainly challenged liberal internationalist norms, the structural power of international finance, trade systems, military alliances, and legal frameworks remained largely intact even during his presidency. The collapse Dugin imagines is less a material collapse than an ideological fantasy projected onto global affairs.
Dugin positions Trump as an opponent of liberal globalism, distinguishing him from prior Republicans like George W. Bush. While Trump’s rhetoric certainly rejected the moralizing tone of liberal internationalism, it’s worth noting that his administration was hardly consistent or ideologically coherent: he wavered between isolationism and unilateral aggression (as with Iran), transactional deal-making (as with North Korea), and status-quo military entrenchments (as in Syria). Painting Trump as the ideological anti-globalist overlooks the messiness and pragmatism of his actual record.
The critique of liberalism as a project that erases collective identities and advances transhumanism is riddled with alarmist exaggeration. Liberalism, in its mainstream form, defends individual rights within pluralistic societies not the erasure of identities per se. While certain progressive cultural trends do challenge traditional social structures, collapsing this into a totalitarian drive to abolish gender, ethnicity, nationality, or even humanity itself is conspiratorial hyperbole. The accusation that liberalism equals “global deep state” control ignores the robust internal debates, fractures, and critiques within liberal-democratic societies themselves.
Dugin’s depiction of the global elite as a network of actors uniformly driving toward technocratic control lacks empirical grounding. Yes, elites exist, and yes, there are structural inequalities but attributing a singular, coordinated intention to vastly diverse actors (from Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to EU bureaucrats to American progressives) oversimplifies power dynamics. The world’s ruling classes are not a monolith; they compete, clash, and diverge in priorities and interests.
The portrayal of Ukraine as a Nazi puppet regime armed by liberal globalists is particularly striking and factually false. While Ukraine certainly has nationalist factions (as many countries do), its government is a democratically elected body fighting off a Russian military invasion, not a Nazi proxy state. This kind of rhetoric recycles Kremlin propaganda and erases the agency, complexity, and historical trauma of Ukrainians themselves. It also flattens geopolitical realities, presenting everything as a binary clash between Russia and the West, ignoring the layered motives, fears, and aspirations at play in Eastern Europe.
Dugin lumps together Islamist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, Taiwanese sovereignty, and Ukraine’s struggle into a single globalist agenda. This is analytically sloppy. Radical jihadist movements, Taiwanese democracy, and Ukrainian nationalism are not coherent extensions of liberal globalism; they emerge from distinct histories, local grievances, and geopolitical pressures. Conflating them into a singular “enemy” suggests an ideological need for unified opposition rather than careful political analysis.
When Dugin claims that national governments in the West have become irrelevant under the control of the global deep state, he ignores the actual frictions between national governments and international institutions. Brexit, EU internal divisions, tensions between national courts and supranational law, and populist movements across Europe all demonstrate that national sovereignty is far from dead. Even within the U.S., state governments, courts, and local movements routinely contest federal authority, suggesting a far more plural and negotiated power landscape than Dugin allows.
The idea that Trump’s MAGA movement has permanently broken the West into fragments with a Trumpist U.S., globalist Europe, and Russia as a rising pole is speculative and premature. While Trump’s rise shook Western alliances, U.S. institutional resilience (including during the chaotic 2020–2024 period) indicates that global structures can absorb significant shocks. Moreover, MAGA’s ideological coherence is questionable: it is a mix of economic nationalism, cultural resentment, celebrity populism, and evangelical politics, not a clear, unified global realignment program.
Dugin links the roots of liberal globalism back to Woodrow Wilson and the post-WWI order, arguing that Trump is overturning a century-long ideological structure. But here too, the historical argument is selective. The liberal order has been under constant revision, contestation, and recalibration over the past century through decolonization, the Cold War, the rise of China, the non-aligned movement, and the post-Cold War adjustments. Trump’s rejection is not some apocalyptic rupture; it is one episode in an ongoing cycle of contestation within international order-building.
Finally, Dugin concludes that to defeat the liberal-globalist deep state, one must rigorously study its theories, institutions, and strategies. While intellectual preparation is always valuable, Dugin himself does not model that rigor. Instead, his framework collapses diverse movements, institutions, and ideas into a binary “us versus them” structure that feeds ideological mobilization but impoverishes nuanced understanding. The actual work of analyzing liberal democracies involves looking at contradictions, internal debates, adaptive capacities, and failures not demonizing the entire system as an agent of singular evil.
Overall, Dugin’s arguments rest on hyper-polarized framing, grandiose historical claims, and conspiratorial flattening of complexity. His vision of a world divided into multipolar sovereignties fighting off a totalitarian globalist machine functions more as a mythic narrative than a grounded geopolitical analysis. That doesn’t mean his work lacks political influence but it does mean that his ideas should be approached critically, carefully, and skeptically, with attention to the real-world messiness that they strategically erase.
Insisting in presenting Trump as the incarnation of a National Imperialist Power open to a so called Multipolar World Order, mr Dugin is playing the game of the Deep State. He keeps ignoring That Trump is an Harlequin playing his role as a weapon of deception in the very hands of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros, Gates,Mask with his X weapon of global deceptive propaganda. Mr Dugin ignores complete the reality on the ground in Ukraine War and the very recent attempt on the life of Russian Leader Putin while flying over the war zone! Every one knows the the USA army was involved and Trump knew about it. Mr Dugin may gain some knowledge if he studies the Art of War and the laws governing it .