A first try. Not perfect for sure but a beginning:
In your fundamental works, articles and speeches, you very often rely on the concept of the British politician Halford Mackinder about the civilization of the sea and the civilization of the land. In short, I will just explain to our viewers, so as not to go far, you correct me, if anything. There is the civilization of the sea, the United States, Britain. And there is the heartland, the so-called civilization of land. This is Russia. Can you explain to me why you think, as I understand it, that the civilization of the sea and the civilization of the land must necessarily be in a state of war? Just like the 1984, right where Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
This is not a question for me, but for Mackinder. Mackinder described these two civilizations in his first basic article, "Geographical History," in 1904 in National Geographic, and then developed the discipline himself over several decades.
But you agree with this, you quote him a lot.
Yes, this is just geopolitics, that is, these are the foundations of geopolitics. And Mackinder himself said that depending on which civilization we belong to, we are programmed to it.
He was British himself, he was a British imperialist, and he saw the world through the prism of civilization of the sea. And he looked at how best to conquer Eurasia, to dismember Russia.
He was the Entente's commissar for Ukraine, by the way, he made plans for the dismemberment of the Russian Empire, he asked the Whites to sign that if they won, they would leave Ukraine to independence, and his successors of this discipline in America, Zbigniew Brzinski, with whom he met, they simply continue this line, because it is believed that between these two civilizations there is a yin and yang.
Why is that so?
Well, that's simply how it is in the Chinese tradition.
But why, that is why I want to ask you this question. How do you understand why this is so and why is it a yin and yang, why should they always be at war?
I don't know. I'm not interested. I have no explanation.
How is there no explanation?
Why is there darkness and light?
Why?
Why is there darkness and light?
But let us take man and woman. This does not mean that they are at war. They are just different. It's the same here. Why should the sea and the Heartland necessarily be at war?
A man and a woman are not necessarily enemies, but they are often at war.
But light and darkness, they are definitely opposition principles both in morality and in religion.
That's it.
These two civilizations are opposed. This is a kind of axiomatic condition of geopolitics.
Why is this an axiom? That is, for me, for example, this is not an axiom. In the very first kind of philosophical cornerstone of your reasoning about Eurasianism and about the path of Russia initially there stands a brick, as an axiom, which for me, for example, a person who is just getting acquainted with your worldview, is absolutely not.
Mackinder says that it is two types, or something, two types of attitude to the world. One type of attitude is when you are on the side of progress, of time. This is the sea. Everything is changing all the time, there are no fixed boundaries. You immerse yourself in this element of the sea, you are, in general, a pirate more than anyone else on a ship where there are no women. And in this male aggressive team from the sea, you see land, he says.
This creates incredible prerequisites for technical development, constant innovation, for democracy, for finance, fluidity, cash. So many of the modern aspects of modern capitalist civilization are built on this metaphor of the sea.
Another geopolitician, Karl Schmidt, wrote a book called "Land and Sea", which developed it even more philosophically. Neither of them, and not a single geopolitician, explains why this is so. They merely register it.
Carthage is a civilization of the sea. Not because Carthage had a fleet. Spain also had a navy.And Britain had a navy. But Britain is a civilization of the sea. They just register it. Carthage is a civilization of the sea. Not because Carthage had a fleet. Spain also had a navy. And Britain had a navy. But Britain is a civilization of the sea, and Spain is not.
And this is explained in detail in a significant number, in an array, in such a critical array of textbooks on geopolitics. Mackinder himself, well, something interesting next, Mackinder himself believed that it was necessary to develop this theory from the point of view of the civilization to which he belonged. That is, it is the land for the sea that is the enemy, the civilization of the Heartland, Eurasia is the enemy.
But he said that if you were born Russian, he remarks so, with the land power point of view, then you would all speak in exactly the opposite way.
And they reserve this possibility of this other geopolitics, although the same, but only from the position of land. For some possible other generations. These people were not there.
That is, geopolitics continued to develop, and now it is developing only from the point of view of the civilization of the sea, about how to surround us, how to fight us, how to dismember us. And this has already become geopolitics.
And at the end of the 80s, having become acquainted with this discipline, having read dozens of Mackinder's books, and all this development, I thought, listen, well, Mackinder himself, this British imperialist, reserved this gigantic geopolitical system for us, for the supporters of Eurasia, for Russian patriots.
We are studied as an object, as a goal for dismemberment, and why can't we, because we were offered our point of view, and I, having found this place, built a school of geopolitical Russian geopolitics on it.
It operates with the same principles, the same moves, the same concepts, all methodologies, but only from the other side.
And when I met with Brzsinski in Washington in 2005, there was a chessboard between us.
Yes, he has a famous book "The Chessboard".
"Chessboard", yes.
And I told him, Mr. Brzinsky, chess is a game for two. For Mackinder, this is a game for two. Here you imagine the civilization of the sea, which is at war with us, the civilization of land.
I represent a land civilization. And the biggest representative of the land civilization is our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who is the subject of the other side of this chessboard.
Then Brzinsky interrupted me, said, “stop, stop, stop, stop”. I say, this is not what I meant in my book "The Grand Chessboard". I'm saying, isn't it? And here is Mackinder, what is Mackinder? “Let me explain everything to you now, young man”.
He says, “look, here I am playing with White, I make a move, then I turn the board over, I play with Black, then I turn it over, then with White. See?” A chess game for one.
That is, during this discipline, because no one picked up the geopolitics from the side of land civilization, listen, its representatives got the impression that there is no one on the other side, there are blockheads.
It would be helpful to include transcripts of these videos, so they can then be translated into other languages. Thank you.
Record it. Save the recording as a text file. Translate the text file.
Russia is Land Civilization
Does he know who he's talking to? Next to him is a matryoshka Jew. But you can't call him fucked up. Then what..?
P.S. And this is her mom and what she said one day.
A first try. Not perfect for sure but a beginning:
In your fundamental works, articles and speeches, you very often rely on the concept of the British politician Halford Mackinder about the civilization of the sea and the civilization of the land. In short, I will just explain to our viewers, so as not to go far, you correct me, if anything. There is the civilization of the sea, the United States, Britain. And there is the heartland, the so-called civilization of land. This is Russia. Can you explain to me why you think, as I understand it, that the civilization of the sea and the civilization of the land must necessarily be in a state of war? Just like the 1984, right where Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
This is not a question for me, but for Mackinder. Mackinder described these two civilizations in his first basic article, "Geographical History," in 1904 in National Geographic, and then developed the discipline himself over several decades.
But you agree with this, you quote him a lot.
Yes, this is just geopolitics, that is, these are the foundations of geopolitics. And Mackinder himself said that depending on which civilization we belong to, we are programmed to it.
He was British himself, he was a British imperialist, and he saw the world through the prism of civilization of the sea. And he looked at how best to conquer Eurasia, to dismember Russia.
He was the Entente's commissar for Ukraine, by the way, he made plans for the dismemberment of the Russian Empire, he asked the Whites to sign that if they won, they would leave Ukraine to independence, and his successors of this discipline in America, Zbigniew Brzinski, with whom he met, they simply continue this line, because it is believed that between these two civilizations there is a yin and yang.
Why is that so?
Well, that's simply how it is in the Chinese tradition.
But why, that is why I want to ask you this question. How do you understand why this is so and why is it a yin and yang, why should they always be at war?
I don't know. I'm not interested. I have no explanation.
How is there no explanation?
Why is there darkness and light?
Why?
Why is there darkness and light?
But let us take man and woman. This does not mean that they are at war. They are just different. It's the same here. Why should the sea and the Heartland necessarily be at war?
A man and a woman are not necessarily enemies, but they are often at war.
But light and darkness, they are definitely opposition principles both in morality and in religion.
That's it.
These two civilizations are opposed. This is a kind of axiomatic condition of geopolitics.
Why is this an axiom? That is, for me, for example, this is not an axiom. In the very first kind of philosophical cornerstone of your reasoning about Eurasianism and about the path of Russia initially there stands a brick, as an axiom, which for me, for example, a person who is just getting acquainted with your worldview, is absolutely not.
Mackinder says that it is two types, or something, two types of attitude to the world. One type of attitude is when you are on the side of progress, of time. This is the sea. Everything is changing all the time, there are no fixed boundaries. You immerse yourself in this element of the sea, you are, in general, a pirate more than anyone else on a ship where there are no women. And in this male aggressive team from the sea, you see land, he says.
This creates incredible prerequisites for technical development, constant innovation, for democracy, for finance, fluidity, cash. So many of the modern aspects of modern capitalist civilization are built on this metaphor of the sea.
Another geopolitician, Karl Schmidt, wrote a book called "Land and Sea", which developed it even more philosophically. Neither of them, and not a single geopolitician, explains why this is so. They merely register it.
Carthage is a civilization of the sea. Not because Carthage had a fleet. Spain also had a navy.And Britain had a navy. But Britain is a civilization of the sea. They just register it. Carthage is a civilization of the sea. Not because Carthage had a fleet. Spain also had a navy. And Britain had a navy. But Britain is a civilization of the sea, and Spain is not.
And this is explained in detail in a significant number, in an array, in such a critical array of textbooks on geopolitics. Mackinder himself, well, something interesting next, Mackinder himself believed that it was necessary to develop this theory from the point of view of the civilization to which he belonged. That is, it is the land for the sea that is the enemy, the civilization of the Heartland, Eurasia is the enemy.
But he said that if you were born Russian, he remarks so, with the land power point of view, then you would all speak in exactly the opposite way.
And they reserve this possibility of this other geopolitics, although the same, but only from the position of land. For some possible other generations. These people were not there.
That is, geopolitics continued to develop, and now it is developing only from the point of view of the civilization of the sea, about how to surround us, how to fight us, how to dismember us. And this has already become geopolitics.
And at the end of the 80s, having become acquainted with this discipline, having read dozens of Mackinder's books, and all this development, I thought, listen, well, Mackinder himself, this British imperialist, reserved this gigantic geopolitical system for us, for the supporters of Eurasia, for Russian patriots.
We are studied as an object, as a goal for dismemberment, and why can't we, because we were offered our point of view, and I, having found this place, built a school of geopolitical Russian geopolitics on it.
It operates with the same principles, the same moves, the same concepts, all methodologies, but only from the other side.
And when I met with Brzsinski in Washington in 2005, there was a chessboard between us.
Yes, he has a famous book "The Chessboard".
"Chessboard", yes.
And I told him, Mr. Brzinsky, chess is a game for two. For Mackinder, this is a game for two. Here you imagine the civilization of the sea, which is at war with us, the civilization of land.
I represent a land civilization. And the biggest representative of the land civilization is our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who is the subject of the other side of this chessboard.
Then Brzinsky interrupted me, said, “stop, stop, stop, stop”. I say, this is not what I meant in my book "The Grand Chessboard". I'm saying, isn't it? And here is Mackinder, what is Mackinder? “Let me explain everything to you now, young man”.
He says, “look, here I am playing with White, I make a move, then I turn the board over, I play with Black, then I turn it over, then with White. See?” A chess game for one.
That is, during this discipline, because no one picked up the geopolitics from the side of land civilization, listen, its representatives got the impression that there is no one on the other side, there are blockheads.
English, please.
I see English subtitles but often superimposed over Russian/Cyrillic subtitles the same color (white and hard to read).
Transcripts, please.
Also, link to the whole interview, not just a snip.