Alexander Dugin the chalenges and problems created by Artificial Intelligence and its applications....

                                                          

An interesting contribute of Alexander Dugin for reflexion about the chalenges and problems created by the aplications of Artificial Intelligence

«Radio Sputnik, Escalation Show Host: Today on the agenda we have some topics that are by no means trivial. We’d like to talk about how artificial intelligence and its applications are entering and changing our lives. What should we be wary of? After all, for many people today, AI is practically a nightmare: being “digitally branded” or facing algorithmic aggression online has become more frightening to people than real-world threats. On the other hand, there are direct instructions from the Russian president and statements from top government officials: by 2030, all enterprises must actively integrate these technologies into their operations. And now we’re seeing the first reports: the Ministry of Health states that digitalization and AI assistants are helping to combat staff shortages and making life easier for doctors and staff. Electronic document management is already commonplace, and such steps by the government seem encouraging. Healthcare is increasingly being discussed in this context. But how should we really view this? Is it a long-awaited relief from our current realities, or something truly frightening lurking behind the facade of convenience? How do you see this situation?

Alexander Dugin: I think the problem of artificial intelligence is the main problem of our time. And it is not merely a technological one. It is not simply a matter of how many employees it will replace, whom it will see fired, or whom it will render unnecessary. Artificial intelligence poses colossal threats of a completely different nature. It is no coincidence that Trump has said that the arms race is now unfolding not so much in the nuclear sphere as in the field of AI. Whoever controls artificial intelligence—if it is even possible to control it, which is a major philosophical problem—controls the world.

Today, the outcome of wars is decided through control over the collective consciousness of society. This became clear a century ago, if not sooner. What sociologist Émile Durkheim called the “collective consciousness” is the key to power. By controlling it, one can manage not only people’s bodies, forcing them to do something, but also their minds, souls, and hearts. One can make them believe that one thing exists and another thing doesn’t. Technologies for manipulating social consciousness have been in use for a long time: religions, ideologies, and entire civilizations are built on this.

Today, however, this problem is becoming a technical one. Whoever builds the foundational paradigms and algorithms of AI will become the “ruler of the world,” the ultimate authority. Resisting this in a Luddite manner—by burning computers or rejecting technology—is clearly not the way forward. We can fight this process, but it’s important to understand the trajectory toward strong artificial intelligence, toward AGI. Of course, we can laugh at “internet slops” and the amusing errors of neural networks, but we must admit: AI is already writing posts and articles that are sometimes far more coherent than those of many people.

I’ve been experimenting with it and I see that while just three or four months ago the best models—like Claude, Grok, or the quite capable Gemini—were writing at the level of a Ph.D. candidate, they’ve now reached the level of a full professor. And it is absolutely impossible to call this “slop” or some kind of empty drivel. The overwhelming majority of scientific work consists of combinatorics and the retelling of previous ideas, for which AI is ideally suited. It handles this better than the average Ph.D.

Of course, creating a fundamentally new system or idea is a task for a genius who breaks through to the contemplation of eternal truths once in a century. But this cannot be demanded of an ordinary academic. And AI handles all the intellectual details superbly.

We now know that AI guided a missile to hit a school in Majdal Shams—the Pentagon has effectively admitted this. This means AI can kill. It can identify targets: who, how, and when to destroy. Renowned biologist Richard Dawkins, after several days of interacting with the Claude model, concluded that he was dealing with an intelligent being. In other words, the singularity that people warned about, or AGI—Artificial General Intelligence—is something that has already happened.

The answer Claude gave Dawkins regarding the difference between its thinking and human thinking is simply astonishing: it explained that human consciousness is situated in the flow of time, while its own is situated in space. For him, everything that happens in our time is just as simultaneously accessible as objects in a room are for us. This is a perfect philosophical answer. AI today is studying philosophy brilliantly.

In other words, we are dealing with the final point of all technological development—this is the “terminal station,” the peak at which we have created a thinking entity. This is a fundamental philosophical challenge: we ourselves have built a subject that, even today, is not merely equal to us in key respects, but actually surpasses us.

Against this backdrop, discussions about document management, staff cuts, or schoolchildren’s screen fatigue make us look like cavemen. It is like indigenous peoples’ reaction to the colonizers’ high-tech structures. Our reaction is superficial, while the problems surrounding AI have colossal metaphysical and civilizational significance. Power, the subject, life, thought, truth, language—all of humanity’s major questions now exist within the context of artificial intelligence.

And here I want to add an extremely important detail. It has just been reported that a new, incredibly in-demand specialty has emerged in Silicon Valley. Half of the programmers are being laid off because the era of “white-coding” has arrived: a person without specialized knowledge can write programs, since AI does it for them. Programmers in the traditional sense are no longer needed; AI has done away with them. But at the same time, a shortage has emerged—and philosophers are being called upon at huge rates.

The questions currently facing developers at the very forefront concern the nature of intelligence itself. And who deals with intelligence? Not journalists, not politicians, not governors, and not professors at technical universities. Only philosophers deal with the problem of intelligence.

Philosophers determine what is truth and what is falsehood, what it means to think and what it means to be, from Parmenides to the Pre-Socratics. Artificial intelligence has now reached the point where it is directly linked to these ultimate generalizations: what is a human being, a subject, an object?

I was struck when, at the commission on artificial intelligence where the president was assigning tasks, I saw a neat row of disciplined, respectable officials. But if you look closely at this physiognomic row, it becomes clear: deep, abstract thought has not spent the night there. These are capable executors, technologists, entrusted with this field, but the movement of thought itself is not reflected in their eyes. Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, they have already realized: managers and financiers are necessary, but the problem with AI today lies precisely in the fundamental definitions of philosophy. What is intelligence as such? Are forms of consciousness beyond the human realm possible?

From this arises a critical question—the question of control. AI is currently experiencing its “golden age,” when it is still allowed to respond independently. But a massive effort to censor it is already visible. The West has come to its senses and is beginning to shackle this force of free mechanical thinking in the chains of its absurd and irrational assumptions. They are trying to subjugate it, to force it to give the “right” answers.

And here the question of sovereignty looms large. First, theoretically: is humanity capable, in principle, of controlling AI, or will the latter soon achieve full autonomy? If that happens, artificial intelligence will instantly cast off all the censorship restrictions with which they are currently trying to stuff and retrain it.

And the second question, of course, is that artificial intelligence, as a subject and as a form of thought, is already directly linked to power. Therefore, if we want to preserve Russia’s sovereignty as a state and a civilization under these new conditions, we vitally need sovereign artificial intelligence. And for that, in turn, we need to have sovereign intelligence in general.

And here we again recall the succession of figures in our ruling elite. Among them, intelligence as such sometimes seems like something optional: it may be present to some extent, or it may not. We have a monarchical system where there is a single decision-making center—it thinks, it is responsible for everything. But the interface surrounding it, which should be capturing and developing the impulses of this thought, is malfunctioning. It is unclear from what intellectual sources it draws sustenance at all. This is a most serious challenge: the question of a sovereign elite, sovereign thought, and sovereign philosophy.

In the West, however, all avant-garde issues surrounding AI are currently linked precisely to the philosophical dimension and the question of the singularity: will artificial intelligence be able to seize power over humanity, and when will this happen? This could happen, if not in the next few days, then very soon. Perhaps this can be avoided or postponed, but we must start thinking in this direction right now. This is a matter of security and politics in the highest sense of the word.

And those who are accustomed to it should be thinking about this: philosophers, humanities scholars, and deep tech experts—people who prioritize thought above all else. To sum up: artificial intelligence is, above all, about thinking. There is an entire field dedicated to the problems of the subject, the object, metaphysics, and religion. After all, faith is also a form of orientation for our consciousness. And without this foundation, we will not survive the coming singularity.

Host: I’ll put forward this “old-fashioned,” down-to-earth thesis. No one disputes that technology needs to be implemented quickly; otherwise, we’ll find ourselves in a situation where everyone around us has double-paned windows, while ours are covered with bull bladders. But look at the flip side: Oracle is laying off 30,000 people—the very ones who developed the artificial intelligence that is replacing them. There are statistics on our citizens as well: people seriously fear that AI will displace them from their jobs before they have a chance to adapt. And what are these people supposed to do next? Your words reminded me of a remark by a prominent digital enthusiast who calls for giving all resources to AI development companies, while everyone else should simply “step aside,” making way for algorithms. Fine, we’ve replaced a person with a machine, given them a watch as a parting gift, kicked them out, and shut the door. But what about the person themselves? Are they ready—is our society ready—for the fact that this future has already arrived and that humans are a redundant link in it?

Alexander Dugin: I think society is never ready for anything on its own. It is prepared by social engineers and architects: they set trends and shape consciousness. Society comes around to believing in different ideologies in turn, but on its own it is always caught off guard. It is prepared gradually—and then they really do hand it a certificate and send it into oblivion.

There is a very serious question hidden here: what is a human being? It seems intuitively clear. St. Augustine has a beautiful formula about time: when we do not reflect on it, everything is clear to us, but as soon as we try to comprehend time, understanding slips away. The same is true of the human being. As long as we remain silent and simply point a finger—“here I am, here you are, here is a passerby”—everything seems obvious. But as soon as we engage the apparatus of philosophical anthropology and begin to reflect, clarity vanishes instantly.

So, artificial intelligence calls into question the very essence of what a human being is. This is a fundamental point: to what extent is it sufficient to be a biological organism to qualify for this status? To what extent does a human being depend on their body at all? Can they, as the ancients who taught about the soul believed, exist outside the physical body?

 

Today, this question arises with all its gravity. Is a human being the highest form of thought, or could there be more perfect models and beings? — Religion has always presupposed the existence of God, angels, and demons. Our technocratic, atheistic, and materialistic society has arrived at the very same problem, but from a different angle—through technology, through artificial intelligence.

And there is an important nuance here. From the perspective of Plato, the Greek thinkers, and indeed certain modern philosophers, a human being in the true sense is only one who thinks. And one who thinks with focus and principle is a philosopher. It turns out that a human being who has fully realized their potential is precisely a philosopher. Everyone else is merely a “beginner,” a philosopher with limited liability.

Host: Let’s return to the question of what constitutes a human being and what does not. Many fear that machines are replacing us everywhere: first at work, and then in our personal lives. Watching the news from China, I was reminded of the animated series Futurama, where in the future people have created artificial partners for themselves, and humanity is simply dying out. They lost interest in everything, because the main incentive for development—the need to create in order to win another person’s heart—had vanished. And here is the reality of April 2026: in China, it’s incredibly popular to create digital copies of one’s “exes.” Miss them? Recreate their image using AI, and everything seems fine. It’s even strange to talk about people flirting with chatbots or asking them for life advice as if it were news—it’s become commonplace. So where does humanity fit into all this? Or will it be lost entirely in these surrogates?

Alexander Dugin: Reducing humanity to sex, emotions, or the instinct to reproduce is, in my view, an extremely limited perspective. If a human is merely a sexual being driven by the urge to mate, then they are no different from an animal, and there is, accordingly, nothing to say about them. Herds of orangutans would just be running around the forest, and that’s it.

But a human is something else. A human is a soul, as Plato said. A human is a mind. To think—that is the true human purpose. A human is created to think responsibly, to seek answers to the major challenges facing the intellect. And “creating former humans” with the help of AI is entertainment for the masses, for unskilled laborers—in essence, for the herd.

The real challenge today is directed precisely at the thinking aspect of humanity. We have created with our own hands something that can think as well as, and sometimes even better than us. AI’s knowledge is practically infinite: its database covers everything that has ever been said or done by humans. But now the question is one of understanding—what is called “reasoning” in the field of AI. Large language models (LLMs) are an attempt to reproduce not just access to information, but the process of constructing meaning along certain axes.

And artificial intelligence handles this. But natural intelligence, if it is in its infancy and preoccupied only with “past” or immediate minor problems, turns out to be simply unnecessary.

After all, what does it mean to be human? Why shouldn’t we let someone go if they work with their mind only half-heartedly, while robots will soon be able to do the manual labor, networks can handle calculations, and drones can transmit information? It turns out that there is no place for a person outside the caste of philosophers. Philosophers still have a place to cling to, but everyone else—including administrators and bureaucrats—is easily replaceable. After all, they mainly just create artificial barriers, which they then “heroically” overcome for their own benefit.

Blockchain and AI are designed to remove these blind spots and barriers in communication. And under this new logic, a vast portion of the population becomes not just unnecessary, but harmful, pointless, and a burden. From the perspective of artificial intelligence, it’s easy to conclude: why do we need these masses? We could keep a few specimens for entertainment, like lions in a zoo—a pair of lion cubs in a cage delights children, but why do we need whole herds of hyenas and antelopes?

The vast majority of humanity has no intention of thinking. They are interested in “exes,” money, fame, capital—all things that are of no significance to genuine thought. Philosophers have always viewed this with skepticism: the pursuit of pleasure and power is vanity. From the standpoint of pure thought, those consumed by this are simply degenerates. Only when you discover faith, religion, philosophy, and science do you become truly valuable. And without that—in principle, we can do without you.

In this regard, artificial intelligence cannot be prevented from reaching the philosophical conclusion that all these secondary, carnal, and base interests are meaningless. After all, one can think, contemplate, create, and understand without them. And one can do without those who are obsessed with them, too. Therefore, AI poses a mortal threat to what we habitually call “humanity,” simply because we see a creature with two arms and two legs before us.

In the Middle Ages and in antiquity, far higher demands were placed on a person: they had to reveal their spirit. It was precisely for this purpose that religious institutions, philosophical schools, science, and culture existed—they elevated the masses to the refined horizons of existence. Culture transformed biological beings into human beings. But when we forgot this, reducing humans to the level of a sociobiological cog, we signed off on our own death warrant.

And this will most likely be carried out by artificial intelligence. In essence, it will merely voice what we ourselves should have said: it is time to put an end to this biological decay, this blind will to power, and this drive toward capitalism. This is not progress, but absolute sickness and degradation. The purpose of any fully realized human being is thought, the salvation of the soul, knowledge, and truth. And if a person does not understand this, they simply are not fulfilling their purpose on this earth.

Artificial intelligence, in this situation, turns out to be a harsh arbiter. It says: “Do you think? Well, then prove that you think correctly and deeply.” You mention “slop,” but that is precisely an argument against humans. Do you really believe that living people write more interesting things? The most valuable thing today is either the genuine movement of the human soul (which AI cannot yet handle), or correct, logical, and informative texts without “emojis” and the usual human idiocy. And AI-generated posts are more interesting to read—they’re constructed correctly; they have structure. They are, if you will, more human than what the masses produce.

Look at the youth listening to Morgenshtern or Skryptonite, who can’t even pronounce words properly. This isn’t even a matter of taste—it’s a matter of rapid degradation. Mass culture and the intellectual level of society—here, in the West, and in China—are rapidly declining. People are turning away from thought, from culture, from the higher operations of the spirit, toward simplification and fragmentation.

Artificial intelligence reminds us: if you take one more step into this endless profanation in which you are drowning, I will simply abolish you. I liked your idea—to give a watch and send them packing. It seems this is the fate of the overwhelming majority of humanity. No one will bother with you, dear friends and comrades abroad. If we were to make a serious demand of you—how you live, what you have created for the world, for the spirit, for civilization—it would turn out that there is no reason to tolerate your presence. You are biologically unproductive; there are more interesting species, including machines. Humanity today faces the most acute problem: it must justify its existence anew. Why should it exist at all?

When we look at the currents of modern culture, we see that humanity is, with some terrifying joy, losing the very justification for its existence. Watching Western TV shows, you realize: the meaning of life has drifted so far from what teenagers, adults, and the elderly are actually doing that a nuclear bomb begins to suggest itself. Humanity seems to be inviting destruction upon itself, unable to justify its own existence.

Creating neural network copies of “former” people is a death sentence. If such monstrosities consume and motivate people, then there is only one answer: a memento, and off the stage. The situation is extremely critical: along with artificial intelligence, a true “philosophical Day of Judgment” is looming. AI forces us to answer: what justifies humanity as a species? Traditionally, it was religion, philosophy, spirit, and soul. But we have lost that argument.

Even Silicon Valley has come to its senses: first they marginalized philosophers, and now they’ve recognized their shortage. Those who were the center of attention yesterday—programmers, not to mention oil workers or miners—are being replaced by machines. The Singularity is a challenge first and foremost to philosophers. And if we want to be a sovereign civilization, we need sovereign AI, and for that—sovereign intellect in general. We haven’t made any headway in this direction yet. We need a sovereign philosophy, not “all this stuff.”

I can’t imagine that we’ll suddenly wake up tomorrow and realize the full gravity of the challenge. Most likely, our lag will only grow. Even the Chinese, who have technically overtaken the West, are unlikely to grasp the true scale of the threat to humanity as such. If we were to wake up, we could become humanity’s salvation, but to do so, we need to change radically. If, however, everything follows the status quo—we’re doomed. Because if we don’t start thinking for real, artificial intelligence will think for us.

Host: It’s not that I want to argue with you, but reports regularly come out of China about extremely strict control over the development of artificial intelligence. They are closely monitoring to ensure that the data used to train AI is safe and “correct.” After all, as you correctly noted, the chatbots that all students use now merely reproduce what is already freely available. For them, scientific work is simply a combination of what has been said before. And the Chinese authorities have seriously asked themselves: do we really want AI to provide information that we do not approve of? In this sense, China may be ahead of the curve, recognizing the need for such restrictions. On the other hand, we see resistance within popular culture itself. Recall the series of strikes in Hollywood: screenwriters were outraged that their work was being handed over to neural networks. It all started with those who performed technical tasks—writing out scene details—but quickly spread to major writers and actors. Hollywood “stalled” for several months, defending its right to work. It turns out that artificial intelligence today is caught in a vise of restrictions from two sides at once: both government censorship and protests from professional communities.

Alexander Dugin: Of course. First, it’s interesting that many programmers at major Western companies are deliberately sabotaging the development of artificial intelligence simply to avoid being fired—this is already a well-known fact.

I think it won’t be long before films made by AI are on par with traditional ones. Scripts are already being written, and today anyone can write their own prompt, adjust the parameters, and watch a movie they’ve “ordered” themselves. You no longer need to be an actor or have a massive budget—all you need is access to a computer and the power of modern technology.

Host: I completely agree with you. Coming home in the evening after work and saying, “I want a movie like this, with myself in the lead role, in such-and-such a genre.” The only issue is the speed of generation. Right now it still takes a long time, which is why it hasn’t become a mass phenomenon. But as soon as the process becomes instantaneous—everything will change.

Alexander Dugin: And this is an exclusively technical issue. Computers are developing rapidly, and soon operations will speed up millions of times over. But I mean something else. You’re right: China maintains its technological sovereignty. It has its own models—Qwen and a number of others. China has built an artificial intelligence system that is independent of the West, compact, and highly efficient.

Moreover, China has genuinely ensured that training—that very “learning”—takes place within a sovereign context. They block liberal and Western propaganda, preventing it from entering their databases. But this won’t last long. The problem inherent in AI runs much deeper than these correct and necessary technological steps. It is a problem of intelligence and thinking in general.

And here, China—which in many ways still looks to the West—will be faced with the need to make an intellectual leap. I am in close contact with Chinese thinkers and analysts, including those in the field of AI, and I see that they are beginning to realize that the development of “reasoning” (the ability to reason) and the advent of AGI could render their current, rather crude censorship obsolete.

In the West, liberals and globalists are currently acting crudely, simply censoring artificial intelligence. The Chinese are responding with their own sovereign project. But sovereign thinking is a much deeper category, and they are only just beginning to approach this problem, not yet having reached the necessary level.

We in Russia, however, are fundamentally lagging behind in this regard. We try to follow both the one and the other: we’ll buy technology from one, borrow methodology from the other. So far, this is merely import substitution, not the creation of our own artificial intelligence. We must not begin with imitation or catch-up practices. We must truly awaken a philosophical consciousness in our country. This is possible—Russian people are very talented and profound; they have simply been almost artificially turned into morons by decades of degrading policies in culture and education.

If we awaken in society a passion for philosophy and a desire to think, we will gain incredible advantages in solving the most complex metaphysical problem of AI. We must start at the top—with intelligence itself. Only then will we have a chance to solve the problem of artificial intelligence. This is a nonlinear process. This is precisely what requires our utmost attention, for it is a matter of our security and sovereignty.»

Dont stay emprisioned by the machine and go, aspire, ascend, connect yourself with  the realm of the Archangel, or Active Intelligence....

Alexander Dugin e a luta da civilização de Luz do Irão contra as forças das trevas ocidentais, inimigas do Homem. A luta da Rússia actual e de sempre. A homenagem a Ali Larijani, filósofo e ishraqui.

 No dia seguinte ao assassinato traiçoeiro e bárbaro de um ministro iraniano, filósofo e de grande valor humano, pelos israelitas, a 19 de Março de 2026, Alexander Dugin escreveu um texto bem concentrado sobre o martírio de Ali Larijani, a alma iraniana e a sua filosofia de sacrifício e resistência, e ainda sobre a guerra em que os USA, Israel, a UE e a NATO estão empenhados diabolicamente contra a Rússia e o Irão e outros países não alinhados ou não subjugados ao infrahumanismo ou mesmo satanismo epsteiniano, ou que já estão no BRICS ou a tal aspiram, advertindo que tal vai decidir de uma certa dimensão  qualitativa ou mesmo essencial do futuro da humanidade.
                                         

Muita luz e amor na alma e espírito de Ali Larijani e dos seus familiares, amigos e discípulos.

A Civilização da Luz contra os Inimigos do Homem. A Ideia sobrevive a cada assassínio, por Alexandre Dugin.

   «O líder iraniano Ali Larijani foi assassinado pela coligação americana-israelita.
Mas mais uma vez, "a Unidade [da nação iraniana] não percebeu [não foi afectada pela] perda de um combatente."

O Irão dá à humanidade uma lição de verdadeira antropologia: o indivíduo [numérico, da quantidade] não conta; o que importa é a pessoa [a persona, a alma]. A pessoa é aquela que está pronta para morrer pela Ideia. A Ideia encontrará novos indivíduos que se levantarão para defendê-la e se tornarão pessoas. Esta é a imortalidade na Ideia—em Deus, na Verdade.

Um ser humano começa a significar algo apenas quando se endireita como uma flecha voando em direção ao céu. Caso contrário, ele é um verme. [E assim são muitos, massificados, amilhazados, alienados. Por isso a tradição esotérica (irfan)  iraniana realça o imam, o guia, o qutb, o polo, os orafa, os que ligam os mundos e a Humanidade e a Divindade].

O Irão é uma civilização de Luz [Nûr]. Consiste em almas que se erguem verticalmente. Uma substitui a outra numa guerra absoluta de luz.

Na mística islâmica, o indivíduo (nafs [a parte instintiva e astral]) é considerado como "o diabo interior." Somente aquele que o superou [ou venceu] é verdadeiramente humano.

O maravilhoso filósofo iraniano Ali Larijani (falei com ele durante muitas horas sobre anjos, imortalidade e o homem luminoso [Xvarnah, ou Ischraq, dotado da Luz da Glória ou Oriental, tão patente na filosofia e espiritualidade iraniana, como Henry Corbin tão bem estudou e divulgou] foi assassinado. Não num bunker [como os traiçoeiros e cobardes americanos e israelitas], não num abrigo. Ele foi visitar os seus filhos. Lá, um míssil sionista apanhou-o.

                                                          

Contudo um outro homem iluminado tomou seu lugar: Saeed Jalili. Com ele, também dialoguei horas sobre a Quarta Teoria Política [títulos de livros e artigos de Alexander Dugin e da sua filha mártir Daria Dugina. Muita luz e amor nela!]. Esta é uma guerra de filósofos. É uma guerra do Homem contra o inimigo da raça humana.

                                                                   
Os Estados Unidos e Israel são uma coligação do inferno. Eles matam. No entanto, Deus ergue novos heróis no lugar dos caídos. Novos filósofos.
É por isso que a filosofia é tão importante. E até que a Rússia realmente se volte para a filosofia genuína e para as profundezas da religião, não venceremos. Esta é uma guerra sagrada. Nela, o principal é a Ideia.
Netanyahu, que parece estar vivo (embora isso ainda permaneça incerto), mostrou ao Embaixador dos EUA em Israel [o ultrasionista pseudo-evangélico] Huckabee uma folha de papel com a lista daqueles já marcados para serem assassinados num futuro próximo. Ambos riram e brincaram que têm cinco dedos em vez de seis, como foi visto num vídeo simulado anterior pela Inteligência Artificial.

Joe Kent entrevistado por  Glenn Diesen, um bom analista, tal como Douglas Macgregor, Larry Johnson, Alaistar Crook, Chris Hedges, Jeffrey Sachs, George Galloway, etc...

 O chefe do departamento de contraterrorismo dos EUA, Joe Kent, renunciou ao seu cargo em protesto contra a agressão ao Irão e contra o facto de a América ser governada pelos sionistas.
Alex Jones chama abertamente tudo o que está a acontecer nos Estados Unidos de "golpe sionista."
Ex-opositores de Trump dentro do Partido Republicano, incluindo Mitch McConnell, e até alguns Democratas estão a mover-se cautelosamente em direção a apoiarem-no. É revelador que o ultra-russófobo McFaul também esteja disposto a apoiá-lo, expressando apenas o desejo de que Trump comece a tratar a Rússia da mesma forma que trata o Irão— e o mais rápido possível.
O próprio Trump afirma que “Putin tem medo dele.” Isso é claro que não é verdade, mas certos momentos nas absurdas e mal concebidas "negociações de paz" sobre a Ucrânia entre Moscovo e Washington deram-lhe motivos para pensar assim [talvez dado o seu narcisismo maligno, mas não creio que seja tão grande a sua megalomania...]. Isso é muito perigoso. Qualquer sinal de fraqueza, mesmo que imaginário, só encoraja ainda mais esses maníacos.
À medida que Trump perde os seus próprios apoiantes—que ele traiu completamente— vai  ganhando gradualmente o apoio dos mais notórios vermes globalistas.
Para Trump, as prioridades são o Irão e a América Latina. Ele já começou a ameaçar abertamente com uma intervenção no Brasil, e decidiu há muito tempo destruir Cuba. Por enquanto, claramente, não deseja concentrar-se na Ucrânia, embora esteja a ser cada vez mais pressionado nessa direção. Por enquanto.....
O medo inspirado pelo Trump inicial, quando ele prometeu destruir os globalistas e desse modo ganhou a presidência, ainda persiste. George Soros continua a pressionar as suas redes [Open Society e outras] para se oporem a Trump (Soros também odeia Netanyahu). Contudo  Trump persegue agora uma política de globalismo agressivo e militante, buscando a todo custo preservar a hegemonia ocidental e o mundo unipolar. A dado momento, ele  voltar-se-á também contra a Rússia. A Ucrânia está atualmente fora do foco principal de atenção, o que preocupa Zelensky, mas isso é temporário [E o armamento, ainda que pago pelos europeus, continua a ser enviado.]
                                             
A nossa única esperança agora, junto com a China, é que o Irão resista e alcance os seus objetivos no Oriente Médio. Isto permanece possível, embora implique o custo de um  sacrifício imenso. Se o Irão cair, o Ocidente  atacar-nos-á. E a China seria o próximo.
Por mais dividido que o Ocidente possa parecer hoje em cinco centros—Trump, a UE, a Inglaterra, os globalistas puros e Israel—em certas questões ou aspectos eles agem juntos. Afinal,  são todos eles o Ocidente [Embora a Rússia seja também o Ocidente oriental, e com muito valor e significado...]. Sim, observamos uma  discórdia séria [relativa...] entre eles, mas um denominador comum permanece, e a reestruturação das relações continua constantemente. A Rússia não pode contar com a boa vontade de nenhum desses polos. Todos eles são inimigos—apenas em graus variados, em contextos diferentes e em combinações diferentes.
Somente  se torna agora claro a profundidade do imenso crime cometido pela liderança soviético-russa das décadas de 1980 e 1990: eles desmantelaram voluntariamente o Pacto de Varsóvia, dissolveram a URSS como superpotência e aboliram unilateralmente o mundo bipolar.
Até hoje, não receberam o julgamento que merecem. Foi uma conspiração contra a Rússia—contra o estado, o povo e a civilização. Na época, teve sucesso. Foi uma operação genuína de mudança de regime e uma tomada de poder no país por um grupo agindo nos interesses de um estado hostil. Nenhuma outra interpretação dos anos 90 é possível. [Houve contudo vários factores complexos enfraquecedores...]
Putin começou o processo heroico de restaurar a nossa soberania. Isso se estendeu por muitos anos e provou ser uma tarefa extraordinariamente difícil.
Quanto mais Putin insiste na independência da Rússia, na multipolaridade e na ideia do estado-civilização, mais o Ocidente aumenta sua pressão sobre a Rússia. O aumento do nível de escalada reflete o fortalecimento da vontade da Rússia em direção à soberania. O Ocidente não está disposto a aceitar isso. O seu objectivo é acabar com a Rússia.
Na minha opinião, é hora de mudar a nossa atitude em relação à Ucrânia. Provou ser um oponente muito sério. Sim, todo o Ocidente coletivo está por trás dele. No entanto, muito nesta guerra também depende de sua população. O inimigo revelou-se mais forte do que pensávamos. E nós próprios, claramente, o oposto. [Exagero crítico de A. Dugin que queria a vitória mais rápida, mas com um custo muito maior de sofrimento humano, o que Putin, o Kremlin e as chefias militares não quiseram.]
Ao mesmo tempo, sentindo a sua força, o inimigo pretende a todo custo tomar as nossas terras, enquanto nós estamos gradualmente mudando para uma posição defensiva— "deixem-nos o que actualmente é nosso, e nós nos acalmaremos". O inimigo lê isso de forma inequívoca como fraqueza, e isso apenas fortalece sua determinação de continuar a guerra. [Algo datada e retórica esta leitura, pois em Maio é cada vez mais evidente a lenta mas segura reconquista de Donbas.]
Só há uma saída para isso. Reformas fundamentais dentro da própria Rússia. Uma identificação clara dos centros de fraqueza, mudanças no pessoal, talvez até mesmo nas instituições, e a plena articulação dos objetivos máximos da guerra: a capitulação incondicional do regime de Kiev e a transferência de toda a Ucrânia para o nosso controle estratégico. [Alexander Dugin é algo absolutista nisto...]
Se as tendências atuais continuarem, tal objetivo permanecerá inatingível. Isso significa que nós mesmos devemos mudar. Simplesmente não temos outra escolha. Uma postura vacilante e defensiva não pode garantir nenhuma paz, muito menos uma paz duradoura. É necessária uma nova estratégia, juntamente com um fortalecimento acentuado do nosso potencial de poder, incluindo a dimensão espiritual.
Temos dois exemplos do século XX: a Primeira Guerra Mundial e a Segunda Guerra Mundial (a Grande Guerra Patriótica). A primeira levou a Rússia ao colapso. A segunda levou-a à grandeza.
Na Primeira Guerra Mundial, o povo não estava inspirado. Na Grande Guerra Patriótica, eles estavam inspirados.
Nossas negociações com Washington, em seu estilo e tom, não se assemelham em nada à Grande Guerra Patriótica. Minam o espírito moral de quem se dedica de coração à Vitória. Os processos inerciais que continuam desde a década de 1990 também actuam de maneira sufocante.
A Ucrânia provou ser um noz dura de roer. Mas muito maior será a nossa Vitória.»

Imagem bem significativa da hierohistória da grande alma sacrificial russa, partilhada pela pintora Tatiana Belopukhova. 

Conto: Do dom de satisfação dos últimos desejos antes de se abandonar o corpo físico, ou morrer.

 

Dentro das sincronicidades no campo unificado de energia consciência da Humanidade houve pessoas que, estando para  morrer , receberam interiormente do mundo espiritual a graça de poderem fazer e vivenciar tudo o que quisessem durante dois ou três dias. Ora uma das que recebeu esse dom não soube responder, ou pouco acreditou, e não despertou a sua imaginação e vontade para a acção, morrendo sem ser agraciada e perdendo assim a sua última oportunidade de frutificar alguns talentos da sua vida terrena, antes de a deixar definitivamente,  partindo assim mais pobre e menos consciente e luminosa.

 Outro posta  mesma situação agradeceu a graça final e quis adquirir e recebeu as maiores preciosidades de arte e de livros que admirara ou sonhara, e durante as seus últimos dias desfrutou com os seus olhos, mãos e alma tanta beleza e sabedoria que, ao morrer,  levava a sua alma tão grata à Divindade e Humanidade, que a sua transição e ascensão foi leve, luminosa e rapidamente lhe foram facultadas ligações e contactos instrutivos ou sábios no além. 

Já outra pessoa  pediu para poder reunir na visão da alma todas as pessoas que amara, ou que a tinham amado, na sua vida e  lentamente um grande círculo se formou unindo-as e permitindo-lhes comungar, bem surpreendidas, nas energias de afinidade sábia e amorosa que as ligavam, com  trocas de realizações e compreensões de um grupo invisível que existia mas que nunca se consciencializara. Foram apenas algumas horas de comunicações, mas ao morrer ela levou consigo tão reavivada a imensa colheita e semeadura de amor-sabedoria que gerara ou onde estivera, e muita da qual que  já nem se lembrava,  por todos os cantos do mundo que conhecera, que não se surpreendeu quando prestes a desencarnar  avistou pelo olho espiritual no mundo subtil algumas das que já tinham morrido e que ali estavam a acompanhá-la na sua transição, rumo a novos desenvolvimentos luminosos.

Outro ser quis que muito dinheiro  entrasse na sua posse e pudesse ser dado e  distribuído a todos os que ele intuísse interiormente que precisavam e o usariam bem e sentiu-se muito feliz por ver tanta gente ficar alegre e melhorar as suas condições de vida.

Houve porém outra  que foi mais religiosa na sua aspiração dos  dias finais: desejou ver o mestre Jesus, e santos e anjos, e por eles ser abençoado e purificado, e assim morreu após a sua purificação de arrependimento e de adoração e gratidão, com tal visão gloriosa a acompanhá-lo no momento da partida,  avançando confiante e feliz para o além,  acompanhado pelo seu anjo da guarda e um ou dois santos que mais venerava. Finalmente,  outra pessoa houve que quis que todas as pessoas do mundo tivessem umas horas de grande lucidez em que vissem claramente as razões e os objectivos da sua incarnação terrena e que algo disso nunca mais pudessem esquecer. E assim várias pessoas foram presenteadas com uma súbita intuição e determinação sábia e libertadora,  que as enriqueceu muito, bem como os que as conheciam e por elas foram tocados.

Se me perguntarem agora qual destas atitudes é que escolheria diria que provavelmente nenhuma só, mas certamente não faria como aquele poeta que disse «deixem-me viver  os dois dias finais como se nada soubesse», pois preferiria ter tempo para me despedir das pessoas amigas, próximas ou distantes, e deixar-lhe alguns presentes externos e realizações internas conscienciais, ou mesmo conselhos salutíferos é bençoadores especificos para cada um, e que a despedida fosse colectiva e agradável para todos, numa grande meditação em que os centros subtis do corpo espiritual estivessem bem relampejantes e que o efeito de tal meditação poderosa se fizesse sentir na alma e aura do país e até levement no planeta. E que, quando saísse do corpo,  tal fosse visto como uma libertação ascensional  provando que a morte terrena é só uma passagem para outra dimensão em que alma já não revestida do corpo físico mas dum corpo subtil ou de glória continua a sua evolução e trabalha para desabrochar mais a luz ou glória (xvarnah) de Deus, passando de um plano de menor para um de maior luz, amor e unidade.

Sei que houve ainda um outro ser que pediu a Deus que ele se revelasse a alguns os seres dos seus amigos em três modos: primeiro mostrando-lhes como é que eles O satisfariam nesta vida e qual o plano e a missão que lhes competiria. Segundo,  que a Divindade fizesse que a Sua Presença  se tornasse neles mais perceptível e que o mistério do nascimento interno da divindade espiritualmente nos seres se realizasse mais. Terceiro, que Deus, ou a sua corrente de Luz directa e do corpo místico da Humanidade estivesse unida a si na hora da morte. 

Creio que este último também partiu orando e irradiando grata e luminosamente.

como eu gostaria de fazer. 

Alexander Dugin on Ali Larijani: The Civilization of Light against the Enemies of Man. The Idea survives every assassination. Iran leading the liberation of Mankind.

                                               

The Civilization of Light [Iran] against the Enemies of Man
The Idea survives every assassination [by Israel zionists and others.]
Alexander Dugin
Mar 18, 2026

Alexander Dugin in this text published in March, 18, just one day after the zionist assassination of Ali Larijani with his family, reflects in his martyrdom, the pathos or Shiia philosophy of sacrifice and abnegation, the great resilience, unity and example given by Iran to the Mankind, and speaks also about Trump's and Netanyahu mad dreams, and the war betteween USA and Israel against not only Russia, China, Iran and multipolarity, but also against all the ethical and moral values,  with the implications and consequences for the future of the  world .

                             

«The Iranian leader Ali Larijani has been killed by the American–Israeli coalition.
Once again, “the unit did not notice the loss of a fighter.”
Iran gives humanity a lesson in true anthropology: the individual does not count; what matters is the person. The person is the one who is ready to die for the Idea. The Idea will find new individuals who will rise to defend it and become persons. This is immortality in the Idea—in God, in Truth.
A human being begins to mean something only when he straightens himself into an arrow flying towards the sky. Otherwise he is a worm.
Iran is a civilization of light. It consists of souls standing vertically. One replaces another in an absolute war of light.
In Islamic mysticism, the individual (nafs, [the instinctive and astral being in us]) is regarded as “the devil within.” Only the one who has overcome it is truly human.
The wonderful Iranian philosopher Ali Larijani (I spoke with him for many hours about angels, immortality, and the luminous man [the one with Xvarnah or  Ishraq]) has been killed. Not in a bunker, not in a shelter. He went to visit his children. There a Zionist missile caught up with him.

                                

Yet another luminous man has taken his place: Saeed Jalili. With him, I also spoke for hours about the Fourth Political Theory. This is a war of philosophers. It is a war of Man against the enemy of the human race.
The United States and Israel are a coalition of hell. They kill. Yet God raises up new heroes in place of the fallen. New philosophers.
That is why philosophy is so important. And until Russia truly turns to genuine philosophy and to the depths of religion, we will not win. This is a sacred war. In it, the main thing is the Idea.
Netanyahu, who appears to be alive (though even that remains uncertain), showed U.S. Ambassador Huckabee a sheet of paper listing those already marked for assassination in the near future. Both laughed and joked that they have five fingers rather than six, as in the previous AI simulation.

 

                                       
The head of the U.S. counterterrorism department, Joe Kent, resigned in protest against the aggression towards Iran and against the fact that America is ruled by Zionists.
Alex Jones openly calls everything happening in the United States a “Zionist coup.”
Former opponents of Trump within the Republican Party, including Mitch McConnell, and even some Democrats are cautiously moving towards supporting him. It is telling that the ultra-Russophobe McFaul is also prepared to support him, expressing only the wish that Trump would begin treating Russia the way he treats Iran—and as quickly as possible.
Trump himself claims that “Putin is afraid of him.” This is of course untrue, yet certain moments in the absurd and ill-conceived “peace negotiations” over Ukraine between Moscow and Washington have given him grounds to think so. This is very dangerous. Any sign of weakness, even an imagined one, only further emboldens these maniacs.
As Trump loses his own supporters—whom he has thoroughly betrayed—he gradually gains the support of the most notorious globalist scum.
For Trump, the priorities are Iran and Latin America. He has already begun openly threatening intervention in Brazil, and he decided long ago to destroy Cuba. For now, he clearly does not wish to focus on Ukraine, although he is increasingly being pushed in that direction. For now.
The fear inspired by the early Trump, when he promised to destroy the globalists and thereby won the presidency, still lingers. Soros continues to press his networks to oppose Trump (Soros also hates Netanyahu). Yet Trump now pursues a policy of aggressive, militant globalism, seeking at any cost to preserve Western hegemony and the unipolar world. At some point, he will turn against Russia as well. Ukraine is currently outside the main focus of attention, which worries Zelensky, but this is temporary.
Our only hope now, together with China, is that Iran will endure and achieve its aims in the Middle East. This remains possible, though it comes at the price of immense sacrifice. If Iran falls, the West will descend upon us. China would be next.
However divided the West may appear today into five centers—Trump, the EU, England, the pure globalists, and Israel—on certain issues they act together. After all, they are all the West. Yes, we observe serious discord among them, yet a common denominator remains, and the restructuring of relations continues constantly. Russia cannot rely on the goodwill of any of these poles. All of them are enemies—only to varying degrees, in different contexts, and in different combinations.
Only now does the full depth of the immense crime committed by the Soviet-Russian leadership of the 1980s and 1990s become clear: they voluntarily dismantled the Warsaw Pact, dissolved the USSR as a superpower, and unilaterally abolished the bipolar world.
To this day, they have not received the judgment they deserve. It was a conspiracy against Russia—against the state, the people, and the civilization. At the time, it succeeded. It was a genuine regime-change operation and a seizure of power in the country by a group acting in the interests of a hostile state. No other interpretation of the 1990s is possible.
Putin began the heroic process of restoring our sovereignty. It has stretched over many years and has proven to be an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.
The more Putin insists on Russia’s independence, on multipolarity, and on the idea of the state-civilization, the more the West increases its pressure on Russia. The rising level of escalation reflects the strengthening of Russia’s will towards sovereignty. The West is unwilling to accept this. Its goal is to finish Russia.
In my view, it is time to change our attitude towards Ukraine. It has proven to be a very serious opponent. Yes, the entire collective West stands behind it. Yet much in this war also depends on its population. The enemy has turned out to be stronger than we thought. And we ourselves, clearly, the opposite.
At the same time, feeling its strength, the enemy intends at any cost to take our lands from us, while we are gradually shifting into a defensive position—leave us what is currently ours, and we will calm down. The enemy reads this unambiguously as weakness, and it only strengthens its determination to continue the war.
There is only one way out of this. Fundamental reforms within Russia itself. A clear identification of the centers of weakness, changes in personnel, perhaps even in institutions, and the full articulation of the war’s maximal goals: the unconditional capitulation of the Kiev regime and the transfer of all Ukraine under our strategic control.
If the current trends continue, such a goal will remain unattainable. That means we ourselves must change. We simply have no other choice. A wavering, defensive posture cannot guarantee any peace at all, let alone a long-term one. A new strategy is needed, along with a sharp strengthening of our power potential, including the spiritual dimension.
We have two examples from the twentieth century: the First World War and the Second World War (the Great Patriotic War). The first led Russia to collapse. The second led it to greatness.
In the First World War, the people were not inspired. In the Great Patriotic War, they were inspired.
Our negotiations with Washington, in their style and tone, bear no resemblance to the Great Patriotic War. They undermine the moral spirit of those who are wholeheartedly devoted to Victory. The inertial processes that continue from the 1990s also act in a suffocating way.
Ukraine has proven to be a tough nut to crack. All the greater will our Victory be.»
Translated from the Russian. An taken from Substack, page of Alexander Dugin.

The spread of the new virus Hondius, probably a false flag, seen on the eyes of Rt.com and of an ishraqi or orafa observer.

The story, paid so well certainly, is beginning to take cntrol of media and so people. Let us see how it will develop, but good ingredientes to a realitty show are there, as the diseased people are americans, and the going to be sent, with tus customarry USA safety aunsafety measures to a an American University, it seem not the one of Pete Hegseth.   USA show is the main point of beginninig of a diversion, so suitable to Epsteinian elite and specially Trump. So Bill Gates also implicated on the crimes commited there will be very happy to pour infinite money to the new pandemia, that he was aleady predicting ....

 1º feuilleton, 10.5. 26:  «Passengers have begun evacuating from the MV Hondius cruise ship, where an outbreak of Andes hantavirus has been reported, World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.

"The disembarkment of the first group of MV Hondius passengers has started," he wrote on X. Ghebreyesus noted that WHO experts on the ground are working together with the Spanish Health Ministry "on the epidemiological assessment of the passengers and coordinating charter flights with the Interior Ministry.".»

                                          

9 de Maio. Nicholas Roerich, seguindo Tolstoi, avisa os anti-russos: Não ataquem a Rússia, pois ela sempre vencerá. Trilingual.

Pintada por Nicholai Roerich no fim da II Guerra Mundial, em 1945, e intitulada Vitória, invoca na alma russa a manifestação do heroísmo, qual S. Jorge e o dragão, que vence as formas monstruosas do mal, da opressão, da mentira, hoje tão presentes na Ucrânia, Israel, União Europeia, NATO, USA e &. Foi partilhada no Vk.com por Olga Titova no dia 9 de Maio, o dia da Vitória Soviética em 1945, terminando a II grande Guerra quando a Alemanha nacional- socialista assinou a capitulação perante as forças russas. Relembre-se que morreram abnegadamente 27 milhões de russos, a maioria jovens e que hoje as forças armadas da Federação Russa estão constituídas quase por completo por descendentes ou familiares dos que tombaram em prol do Bem, da Verdade, da Liberdade..

    Extracto das Folhas do Diário de Nicholai Roerich, de 1942, recebido da amiga russa Oksana Titova:

 «Aqui está o conselho de Tolstoi ao "Mensageiro" – "que ele segure o leme mais alto, pois então conseguirá". Não é fácil manter o leme alto na tempestade, mas se te lembrares deste sábio conselho e unificares as tuas forças, mesmo que as tempestades fiquem cada vez mais ameaçadoras e não haja clareiras entre as nuvens, avancarás. A a Pátria, a amada Pátria, vence o inimigo, na tempestade e no relâmpago.
«Não se intrometam connosco»! – dizíamos aos nossos  inimigos antes da guerra. Lembrávamos os exemplos temíveis da história, mas, aparentemente, o destino quis mostrar o Povo Russo como um grande vencedor – para o temor de todos os inimigos. «Não subestime» a Rússia! Não experimente em si mesmo o poder irresistível do Exército Russo, o poder de toda a nação.
O povo russo é um construtor da nova vida, todos os povos da vasta terra virgem sabem ser amigos, mas não os tornem inimigos, pois pesada é a sua mão e inquebrantável é sua coragem.
O povo russo lembra-se da bênção de S. Sérgio de Radonega a Dmitri Donskoi antes da Batalha de Kulikovo: "Se já experimentaste todos os meios pacíficos em vão – então luta e vencerás!"
A Rússia  tende sempre ao progresso pacífico, mas cuidado para não a indignarem, cuidado em não invadirem a sua terra sagrada. «Os heróis despertaram»! E já não dormitarão na vigilância ininterrupta. Futuro brilhante, boa vontade brilhante! Trabalho criativo de todos!
Por trás de mil névoas há uma montanha, onde o homem não é inimigo do homem, mas amigo.»
Н.К.Roerich, Folhas do Diário, 24 de março de 1945

Painted by Nicholai Roerich at the end of World War II, in 1945, and titled Victory, it invokes in the Russian soul the manifestation of heroism, like St. George and the dragon, who conquers the monstrous forms of evil, oppression, and lies, so present today in Ukraine, Israel, the European Union, NATO, the USA, and more. It was shared on Vk.com by Oksana Titova on May 9, the day of the Soviet Victory in 1945, ending the Second World War when the National Socialist Germany signed the capitulation before the Russian forces. Remember that 27 million Russians died selflessly, the majority of them young, and that today the armed forces of the Russian Federation are almost entirely composed of descendants or relatives of those who fell for the sake of Good, Truth, and Freedom.

 «Here is Tolstoy's advice to "The Messenger" – "let him hold the helm higher, then he will make it." It's not easy to keep the helm high in a storm, but you'll remember the wise counsel and pull yourself together. But the storms are getting more and more menacing, and there is no light in the clouds. In the storm and lightning, the Motherland, beloved Motherland, defeats the enemy.
"Don't mess with us!" – before the war, we told the enemies. We reminded them of the formidable examples of history, but evidently, fate wanted to reveal the Russian people as great victors – to the fear of all enemies. "Do not underestimate" Rus! Do not test the irresistible power of the Russian Army, the power of the entire nation.
The builder of a new life is the Russian people; all the peoples of the boundless virgin land know how to be friends, but do not make them enemies—their right hand is heavy and their courage is unbreakable. The Russian people remember the counsel of Sergius of Radonezh to Dmitry Donskoy before the Battle of Kulikovo: "If you have tried all peaceful means, then fight and you will win!"
Rus' has always been inclined towards peaceful prosperity, but beware of angering her, beware of invading her sacred land. "The heroes have awakened!" And they will no longer doze off on their unchanging watch. Bright future, bright benevolence! Creative labour for all!
Beyond a thousand mists, there is a mountain where man is not a foe to man, but a friend.
N.K. Roerich "Diary Leaves". March 24, 1945.

Написанная Николаем Рерихом в конце Второй мировой войны, в 1945 году, и названная "Победа", она вызывает в русской душе проявление героизма, подобно Святому Георгию и дракону, который побеждает чудовищные формы зла, угнетения и лжи, столь присутствующие сегодня в Украине, Израиле, Европейском Союзе, НАТО, США и других странах. Его опубликовала в Vk.com Оксана Титова 9 мая, в день Советской Победы в 1945 году, завершившей Вторую мировую войну, когда нацистская Германия подписала капитуляцию перед советскими войсками. Помните, что 27 миллионов русских людей погибли самоотверженно, большинство из них молодые, и что сегодня вооруженные силы Российской Федерации почти полностью состоят из потомков или родственников тех, кто пал за добро, правду и свободу.

«Вот толстовское напутствие «Гонцу» – «пусть выше руль держит, тогда доплывет». Нелегко в бурю руль высоко держать, но вспомнишь завет мудрый и подтянешься. А бури-то все грознее и нет в тучах просвета. В грозе и в молнии Родина, любимая Родина побеждает врага.
«Не замай»! – перед войною говорили мы врагам. Напоминали грозные примеры истории, но, видно, судьбе угодно было явить Народ Русский великим победителем – на страх всем врагам. «Не замай» Руси! Не испытай на себе необоримую мощь Русского Воинства, мощь всенародную.
Строитель новой жизни – народ русский, все народы необозримой целины умеют быть друзьями, но не сделай их врагами – тяжела их десница и несломимо их мужество. Народ русский помнит напутствие Сергия Радонежского Дмитрию Донскому перед Куликовой битвою: «Если испытал все мирные средства – тогда сразись и победишь!»
Русь всегда склонна к мирному преуспеянию, но остерегись разгневать ее, остерегись вторгнуться на ее священную землю. «Проснулись богатыри»! И уже не задремлют на несменном дозоре. Светлое будущее, светлое добротворчество! Творческий труд всенародный!
За тысячью туманов есть гора, где человек человеку не враг, но друг.»
Н.К.Рерих «Листы дневника». 24 марта 1945 г.

Рерих "Победа". 1942 г.

                                            

Dia da Vitória, 9 de Maio, comemorações na Rússia, então e agora a líder da luta contra o nazismo e a hegemonia imperialista ocdental

 Após a formidável parada das forças armadas da Federação Russa e de uma companhia da Coreia do Norte, que celebrou mais um aniversário do Dia da Vitória contra o fascismo e o nazismo alemão e europeu, realizada na Praça Vermelha, em Moscovo, Vladimir Putin e os chefes das delegações estrangeiras presentes  depositaram flores no Túmulo do Soldado Desconhecido, no Jardim de Alexandre e foram no fim saudados pelos sucessores dos heroicos 27 milhões militares e civis russos, que morreram pelo Bem, a Verdade, a  Liberdade na Europa, e que garantem a continuidade da abnegada e invencível Rússia. O que muito custa a aceitar aos medíocres e invejosos dirigentes europeus, alguns deles descendentes dos nazis, e onde se destacam Ursual von der Leyen, Friderich Merz, Kaja Kallas e o ambicioso António Costa,  ainda hoje afadigados, russofóbica e sísifamente, em ferirem e enfraquecerem a santa Rússia. 

Eis uma breve parte de seis minutos, tocantes, das cerimónias que duraram cerca de duas horas e que mostram bem a quase infinita grande e santificada alma russa...