Alexander Dugin argues that Europe is no longer facing ordinary protests but the rise of permanent forces of disorder, driven by mass immigration, elite ideology, and the deliberate dismantling of social order.
Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.
Host: We’d like to talk about the fact that Europe is being swept by another powerful wave of protests driven by the rapid rise in the cost of living, housing prices, and education costs. France has found itself at the very center of events—last week we already discussed the tense dynamics in that country with experts. Maria Zakharova posted a very expressive video about what’s happening in Europe and posed the rhetorical question: “Surely the Russians aren’t to blame again?”—directly pointing out that the causes of this deepest crisis are purely internal, not external.
Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], the scale of the European protests right now does look extremely serious. How deep are the real socio-economic and systemic problems of the West, and where might all this turbulence lead in the near future?
Alexander Dugin: What’s happening in Europe right now does not, if you like, have any single isolated cause. It’s not simply a local reaction to one particular government decision or another price hike. Processes of this kind have been going on there continuously.
In this respect we are observing a phenomenon that rather resembles classical chaos theory—when a small, seemingly insignificant event or an individual case of injustice (and there are plenty of those in any society) suddenly provokes a disproportionately massive reaction. After that the process is set in motion according to the snowball principle and acquires an exponential character.
At the same time, an important peculiarity must be noted: in France, starting from a certain historical moment, this kind of behavior by the street masses—gigantic demonstrations, pogroms, the seizure of shops, arson, and direct aggression against the police—has essentially turned into a stable national tradition.
Beginning with the May events of 1968, when street protests engulfed France and ultimately cost the great General de Gaulle his resignation, this form of mass pressure became a political norm. Since then, million-strong manifestations regularly flare up in France’s largest cities. They often involve extreme, extremely harsh violence, yet systemically nothing changes in politics.
Throughout the entire rule of Emmanuel Macron, the “Yellow Vests”—ordinary people without a clear party orientation—have continuously opposed him. They fought bitterly with the police practically every week. In essence, combat operations between the people and Macron stretched across both of his presidential terms. And it led to no overthrow of the regime.
Recall the mass marches against the legalization of same-sex marriage: a million and a half people then took to the streets of Paris. It seemed society was about to topple the government, yet the system held. For the French, smashing, burning, and destroying is a kind of special way of life, a specificity of their socio-psychic condition. This is not simply a disease, but heightened volatility of the collective psyche.
And such deviant street behavior is extremely contagious—it easily spreads to other countries on the principle of a viral syndrome. In Albania right now there are colossal protests that do not lag behind the French ones. A popular uprising has flared up there because Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, decided to acquire an Albanian island, and the local population is categorically against it, fearing that another closed enclave in the spirit of Epstein will be set up there. In Italy there seem to be no objective economic pretexts at the moment, yet the revolt is still spreading.
The main deep factor, however, consists in the following: contrary to all economic logic and common sense, colossal masses of migrants have for years been brought into Europe in an uncontrolled and systematic way. And this is not an accident, but a conscious basic policy of the current European elites—whether Macron, Friedrich Merz, or their colleagues in the EU. This is their fundamental ideology.
None of the normal residents of Europe need these migrants; the local population is in complete horror of them. They behave extremely irresponsibly because the globalist authorities have granted them absolute permissiveness.
And gradually the social composition of these large-scale street-psychotic actions, which have become part of French political culture, is radically changing. A fundamentally new qualitative shift is arising: earlier the French did not loot shops. They took to the streets, made scandals, swore harshly, sometimes set something on fire and beat people, but they did not engage in marauding.
Now, however, this street protest is before our eyes turning into a predatory hunt for free expensive things. Looting is acquiring a systemic, epidemic character—and there was nothing like this in the history of French protests before. Previously even the most furious actions proceeded along at least some intelligible channels, whereas now they have finally crossed a critical line.
It is frightening to watch when in Limoges a magnificent, exquisite traditional architectural building burns to the ground simply because a crowd of irresponsible migrants set it on fire for no reason.
The main source of this catastrophe is precisely liberal ideology and the insane policy of the globalist elites. It is absolutely rejected by society and brings no benefit to anyone, yet these elites cling with a kind of bullish, dogged grip both to power and to their liberal-individualist dogmatism, continuing to import and protect migrants in spite of everything.
Even here in Russia people sometimes mistakenly assumed that only conservatives were opposing Macron. But on the streets the ultra-left supporters of Mélenchon are also raging. And here astonishing paradoxes arise. We are accustomed to thinking that politics is something deeply rational, based on calculation. Yet the current situation in Europe completely refutes this thesis. The modern course of the leaders of the European Union is fundamentally irrational.
But the reciprocal reaction of European society is also absolutely irrational, chaotic—this is not constructive protest, but a large-scale psychic breakdown, a collective psychotic exacerbation. Society is becoming extremely atomized and unstable, while residual rationality has completely evaporated from the ruling class.
And at the same time—Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova is completely right—they are still planning to go to war with us. Internally they cannot establish elementary order, they are incapable of protecting and preserving their own historical buildings from a raging crowd. They are unable to cope with their own streets—and yet they are hatching plans for war with nuclear Russia?
But which of these people will go to fight? As soon as they try to start the work of military commissariats in European cities, they will simply be burned the next day. And this will happen much faster than in Ukraine.
Therefore a persistent feeling arises that a certain part of the globalist elite has consciously taken a course toward the total self-destruction of their own societies. They are purposefully conducting a policy that inevitably leads precisely to such processes. There is no usual state sense in their actions: Macron will not resign; he is convulsively clinging to his post with his teeth. It seems that one small match is enough—and everything flares up like a field doused with gasoline.
We are confronting a most important turn in world politics: the transition of the West into a phase of chaotic, terminal irrationality. We are accustomed to thinking that the West is extremely pragmatic, calculating, and looks after its economic interests. At one time it really was like that. But what is happening there today—with the gender dictatorship, the migration bacchanalia, and the systematic destruction of its own traditional values—all of this is pouring out into civilizational suicide.
The indigenous population is no longer having children; instead, insane huge masses of alien population are being brought into the countries, who at the first opportunity begin to rob, smash everything around, and burn classical cultural heritage.
Perhaps they will still somehow suppress this particular wave. But the next wave, in my view, is capable of sweeping away not simply Macron, but Europe itself as a civilization. And none of the leadership is even trying to correct this catastrophic vector. On the contrary, they are indulging it in every way. And ahead there remains only one path: either final chaos, or Europe’s transition to extreme forms of harsh dictatorship, because otherwise it is already impossible to rein in this raging element.
Host: Listening to you, I ask myself a question. Over the weekend I spoke with a person who had lived in France for 25 years and recently returned to Russia. We were discussing precisely these disorders and protests. And he confirms your words: for many local residents this already doesn’t even bother them—it is perceived simply as an everyday way of life, as an element of the norm.
As for the burned ancient building in Limoges—listeners also wrote to us on air asking whether migrants really did this and whether it relates to the current protests in France. Now, thanks to your explanations, the picture has become extremely clear: all of this is links in one chain.
But a question arises for me: does it even make sense to talk about a systemic exit from the crisis if for them this has already become the norm? And is a conditional “other government” capable of fundamentally turning anything around? Right now many in the West and here link hopes to the fact that in 2027 Marine Le Pen may come to power in France. Is the sphere of the right-wing opposition really capable of changing what is happening in France, or have the processes of destruction gone too far?
Alexander Dugin: First of all, theoretically the situation can of course be corrected. Nothing supernatural is required for this—it is enough to return to an elementary, rational approach to governance. What is needed is neither more nor less than to restore common sense to big politics. That’s all.
For this it is not at all necessary to resort to excessive harshness or some radical repressions. If truly rational people find themselves at the head of European states, who simply sit down and weigh all the real pluses and minuses of the policy being pursued, this insane crisis can be rolled back very quickly. Someone can calmly be deported, someone can be called to a harsh reckoning. There exists, after all, a perfectly workable concept of remigration: if people are in the country illegally or grossly violate legal and cultural norms, they are sent back to their historical homeland. All of this is quite feasible within the framework of normal state procedures.
But here lies the most important paradox. As soon as such right-wing and sovereign forces—whether Marine Le Pen in France, the Alternative for Germany in the FRG, the Freedom Party in Austria, or the recent example of Călin Georgescu in Romania—approach real power, when the overwhelming part of the population begins to vote for them by a natural, democratic path, strange things immediately begin to happen to them.
Either these parties are simply banned through the courts, or they begin to be accused of extremism, fascism, “working for the Russians,” and of propagandizing values unacceptable to the liberal establishment. And sometimes inconvenient leaders are simply removed from elections or physically eliminated. That is where the genuine problem lies.
Looking at the current European leaders, it is hard to call them clinically insane. Most likely they are quite adequate in everyday life. But the final goal toward which they stubbornly lead European society raises colossal questions. They are moving with a kind of fanatical stubbornness along a strictly prescribed route, paying for this course with constant disorders, pogroms, and social disintegration.
Of course, if Marine Le Pen really proves consistent and receives a full mandate of popular trust, she, I think, will be able to cope with this. Because this crisis is not some fatal historical doom. It is the result of the action of a specific intellectual virus.
This is a real brain virus—the liberal-globalist ideology, which forces those who hold power to act contrary to elementary common sense, contrary to the national interests of their own peoples, and simply contrary to the laws of logic and order.
By the way, if we look at this from the standpoint of philosophy, the roots of this phenomenon go very deep. It was precisely in France from the end of the 1960s that the direction of postmodernism began to develop actively, which then captured all of Western philosophy and culture. And the philosophy of postmodernism consciously bets on the dismantling of the norm and the legitimation of pathology, on the transition from human reasonableness to the triumph of schizophrenia and the formation of a controlled “schizo-mass.”
The point is that postmodernism is an entire epoch that consciously places illness above health. Hence the old diagnoses are canceled, and psychiatric clinics in many countries are literally emptied—because it is considered that “being tolerant” and “soft” toward any manifestations of deviation is extremely progressive.
And society itself is transformed: from a vertically organized structure (even if democratic) it turns into absolute chaos. Moreover, chaos in postmodernism and in the same object-oriented ontology is not a random failure or ordinary disorder, but a fully conscious final goal.
A clear impression is created that in the political context this postmodernism, which was at first only an elitist philosophical paradigm and cultural direction, has today completely captured the consciousness of the Western elites.
By the way, I noted with great interest that in the military sphere of the USA the concept of chaos has been systematically developed for already 25–30 years. The notion of “network-centric warfare” is based precisely on the principle of so-called controlled chaos, where the terms “chaotic systems” and “nonlinear dynamics” are used as regular military categories. That is, chaos is not a random breakdown, but a method.
If we look at the humanities of the contemporary West, we will see how postmodernism is totally expanding its influence. Everything that Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, partly Michel Foucault, and their followers once wrote about is literally coming true before our eyes.
A systemic transition is occurring from the individual to the dividual (sub-individual) state:
The right hand of society no longer knows what the left is doing;
Governments are consciously increasing the concentration of madness—and they are doing this not simply for the sake of facilitating technologies of domination, but because their fundamental ideology commands it.
This is a critically important moment. We are observing the final stop in the development of liberal thought, which historically sought to “liberate” the human being from absolutely all forms of collective identity.
First the human being was liberated from estates and empires;
Then—from national and religious identity;
After that—from family and gender belonging.
All of this is subjected to total and conscious erosion. People are specially pushed toward changing sex through aggressive propaganda, while simultaneously millions of alien migrants are being brought in in order to blur the classical order and let pure chaos in place of civilization. This is a systemic strategy.
And the last logical step on this path is the liberation of the human being from human nature itself. Precisely from this flow transhumanism, posthumanism, and the concept of singularity.
Today on the streets of European cities they defend migrant-pogromists with foam at the mouth, and tomorrow according to the same manual they will defend humanoid robots or digital entities from “bad treatment by people.” They are already training on non-human agents—exactly as Bruno Latour, yet another deep and dangerous philosopher of postmodernism, describes it.
That is why contemporary Western society is ceasing to be a society in the usual sense. It has already become a post-society. It is useless to measure and interpret it by our traditional criteria. In a certain sense we have lagged behind these processes—and thank God, that is what saved us.
The way social and political institutions are being transformed in the West can be explained only through the philosophy of postmodernism. This is an extremely serious philosophy: it cancels not only God, Christianity, and the sovereign state, but the human being as such. What we are now seeing on the streets of France and across Europe is the direct socio-political materialization of postmodernism—its real explosion and triumph.
Host: Let’s move on to an equally interesting topic. Zelensky has complained that Trump is pushing Ukraine toward capitulation. Trump, for his part, says Zelensky does not want the conflict to end. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Washington is looking for ways to settle the conflict. At the same time, the media report that the allies do not want to give Ukraine any security guarantees. It feels as though the conflict between them is becoming more open. Perhaps that is not entirely accurate. Could you explain the essence of this public confrontation between Trump and Zelensky, why it is intensifying, and whether everything is really happening the way Western media present it?
Alexander Dugin: This is a very serious subject. Yesterday we discussed it on Channel One with Dmitry Simes, and he offered a precise image for Trump’s policy—the zigzag. Trump never moves in a straight line; he moves by zigzag. Some internal structure can be discerned in his actions, but inconsistency is his most constant and fundamental trait.
If one tries to identify the core of Trump’s view of the war in Ukraine, he has regarded it from the very beginning as a fundamental mistake. From his perspective, Russia does not represent a direct economic or geopolitical threat to the United States.
Trump’s priorities are ordered quite differently:
The Middle East and absolute support for Israel. For Trump and his electoral core this has an almost religious, sacral character. It is hard to judge how rational this is, but the fact remains: defending Israel in any situation, and helping it against all the forces surrounding the Israeli state that Tel Aviv calls its enemies, is his sacred cow. Whatever zigzags Trump makes in foreign policy, he never abandons his fundamental orientation toward Netanyahu.
China as the main global rival. Trump sees Beijing as the principal geopolitical and economic challenge for America. He is preparing above all for confrontation and a hard war with China.
Russia does not constitute a key threat for him in this larger design. In Trump’s logic, the ideal scenario would be to make Russia either neutral in the American confrontation with China or even tilt it toward the United States. These are his basic foreign-policy orientations.
However, weakness and pressure play a role. If we show weakness somewhere and Ukraine, with Western encouragement, creates the appearance of progress at the front, Trump—under the influence of junior NATO partners and his own American hawkish elite—has repeatedly shifted his attitude toward Russia, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the relatively better.
Recall that under him the legislation of the Russophobe Lindsey Graham was adopted. Trump is not an ideological fighter against Russophobia, but neither is he its main driver. With constant zigzags he sometimes softens Russophobic outbursts, then veers back into the familiar Russophobic track.
After all, this war was started by the Democrat-globalists. They were the main force that brought Zelensky to power, set the Kiev regime against us, and continues to fuel the conflict. Trump sees the process differently: for him the Russian question is secondary.
Seeing that Ukraine is making no progress and that its position at the front is steadily deteriorating, Trump is inclined to acknowledge this openly. He has never liked Zelensky and—unlike the ideological globalists—has never seen any “religious duty” in endless support for the Kiev regime.
Zelensky, of course, senses this. There has never been any chemistry between them. Zelensky effectively took part in Kamala Harris’s election campaign, toured the states, and openly campaigned for the Democrats. In Kiev they understand perfectly well that Trump has never been a radical supporter of Ukraine, unlike the Democrats or the Brussels elites.
But why has Zelensky dared to quarrel so openly with Trump, to be rude to him and mock him? The Kiev regime is totally dependent on the United States. The main intelligence data and the key high-precision weapons systems are American. Europe provides money, but the technological and military infrastructure of the war is supplied by the United States.
Why has Zelensky grown bold now?
Because in Kiev they are convinced that Trump will suffer defeat in the upcoming midterm elections—he will lose the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate as well. Polls already show a high risk that the Republicans will lose their majority in the House, and if they lose both chambers it will be a complete catastrophe for Trump.
After that Trump will become a definitive lame duck, with whom his opponents inside and outside will feel free to disregard him entirely. A new round of impeachments will begin, pressure will intensify, and any initiative of his in foreign policy will be blocked by a Democratic majority.
This is what Zelensky is counting on. He believes Trump’s remaining leverage will not last long, even though the end of the term is still far off. In Kiev they expect that after the midterms Trump will be greatly weakened—and this is acknowledged today by both his supporters and his opponents.
Moreover, Ukraine itself matters very little to the ordinary American voter. Strong, ideological Russophobia exists among neoconservatives and Democrats, but ordinary people are largely indifferent to Kiev. Trump’s position is damaged far more heavily by other factors:
the war in the Middle East;
the rapid rise in fuel and diesel prices;
the general deterioration of socio-economic indicators in the United States.
Unconditional support for Netanyahu and the Middle East conflict is already costing Trump a great deal politically. Zelensky has drawn the conclusion that Trump can no longer be feared and can be addressed with rudeness.
In response Trump is already saying almost openly: “Remove Zelensky, he must go; we need a pragmatic deal with the Russians—in energy and on a number of other key issues.” And for America this would indeed be advantageous.
A complex knot of three forces has formed. On one side is Trump, who still holds the golden share (control over military aid, intelligence, and finances). He does not want a new round of escalation with Russia, yet he also lacks the firm will to end the conflict. If he had genuinely wanted to finish the war, he had many opportunities—after Anchorage and at other points. But he did not use them, demonstrating the zigzag principle that Dmitry Simes described so accurately.
In this oscillation—one step toward Zelensky, one step away—Trump has remained stuck.
On the other side are Zelensky himself, the American Democrats, the leaders of the European Union, and Britain. Together they form a single camp of hard-line, radical Russophobia obsessed with the idea of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.
They firmly believe—or pretend to believe—that this is a realistic task. They hope that the vulnerabilities of Russia revealed during the conflict can be pressed further. Although practice does not confirm this—Russia, having adapted reasonably well to extremely harsh conditions, is holding its own—the enemy continues to cling to the illusion. Even if our current tempo is not yet sufficient for a swift, crushing victory, shifting the conflict from a war of annihilation to a protracted war of attrition seems to them a winning strategy.
In this furious hatred of us there is its own—even if irrational—ideological logic:
Russia stands for a multipolar world, the sovereignty of state-civilizations, and traditional values;
Western globalists and liberals stand for the opposite—a total unipolar world under Western control, anti-traditional destructive values, and the destruction of any national sovereignty.
They therefore have fundamental claims against Russia. They regard the Ukrainian conflict as an ideal instrument for maximally weakening, undermining from within, and ideally breaking and destroying our state.
Analyzing this dynamic, we must clearly understand the real limits of what Trump, the Democrats, the European Union and NATO, and Zelensky himself can do. Zelensky in this scheme is only an obedient executor. If the entire West unanimously ordered him to leave, he would disappear the same day. But when only Trump demands his resignation, Zelensky ignores it—because the Democratic clans behind him whisper that Trump will soon be finished.
We must not fall into illusions, overestimate figures in American politics, or entertain inflated hopes from contacts with Trump’s team. If Congress passes under Democratic control, the first people to suffer a crushing legal and political blow will be Trump’s special envoys such as Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner. They will immediately be asked who they are and on what authority they are intervening in major geopolitics.
To build an adequate and rational strategy, we need to recognize the main challenge. We should set ourselves the task directly: to inflict a strategic defeat on the West.
For now our official rhetoric says the opposite: we constantly emphasize that we do not intend to attack Europe, do not seek to escalate the conflict, and do not want a direct war with NATO. From a diplomatic point of view this is understandable. But the adversary has openly set itself the goal of destroying us. If someone has come to kill you and you reply only by saying “I don’t plan to kill you,” to whom is such a position addressed? This is a deeply asymmetric and dangerous subtext. We are being destroyed in earnest.
These fundamental questions were examined in detail on the air with Dmitry Simes, together with Dmitry Trenin and Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano is a former influential American judge, a former close associate of Trump who has revised his views, and a serious analyst. Dmitry Simes himself is one of the deepest experts and former participants in the upper circles of American analysis.
The conclusion we reached is that we are not free to choose between escalation and non-escalation. Extremely influential forces in the West are raising the level of escalation unilaterally. So far we have only followed them and reacted.
Why should we not enter this process actively? If we play an active rather than a passive role in the escalation—an active offensive rather than a passive defensive one—we can begin to manage the process.
An increase in escalation on our side can paradoxically lead to its reduction. When, from their point of view, we respond sluggishly and uncertainly, they see only weakness and raise the pressure further. We parry. But if we joined in now…
Of course, one can wait a couple of weeks until the U.S. midterms. And then, apparently, that is what we will do. Everything is in the hands of our leadership: as the President decides, so it will be. But it would be logical—if the change in Trump’s position toward Zelensky produces no decisive result (and the result is unlikely to be exhaustive, though there will be some and we should make maximum use of it)—to respond differently. If the situation remains unchanged, Russia should enter the process of escalation and thereby make it manageable from both sides.
If European politicians say they are fighting in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, then let us answer them symmetrically: “Very well. Then we too will fight you in order to inflict a strategic defeat on you.” You aim for strategic defeat against us, and we against you.
It is time to stop evading this fact and pretending that nothing is happening. We really are good and kind. But if a war to the death is underway, it is foolish to ignore the circumstance. The war is in full swing. In some cases raising the level of escalation can, paradoxically, bring peace closer—quiet the most aggressive voices, cool the hotheads in the West, and demonstrate what we are capable of. And we are certainly capable of much that we have not yet used.
Consider how long we refrained from delivering critical strikes on Kiev. As soon as we began them, everything changed. The Kiev regime’s behavior became far more rational. They suddenly realized they could lose everything. While we spared them, they were convinced we were not striking out of weakness. Sometimes it is simply necessary to demonstrate strength in order to obtain peace.
The idea of unconditional pacifism and constant assurances that we have no aggressive intentions toward the West do not always produce a positive result. They interpret this as weakness.
Meanwhile European societies have finally become chaotic—we discussed this in the first part. The peoples there may elect unwelcome politicians, but the ruling elite simply will not allow them to reach power. If we want to look good in the eyes of ordinary Western citizens, we may look reasonably acceptable. But total propaganda operates there, and nothing more depends on these societies.
The West is ruled by elites guided by their own logic, which has less and less in common with public opinion. I once had a frank conversation with Francis Fukuyama. When I reminded him that classical democracy is the power of the majority, he answered directly: “That was before. Today our democracy is the power of minorities directed against the majority.” I was surprised and said that was something new. He replied: “Yes, because the majority can elect Putin or another strong leader, so the majority can no longer be trusted. The majority must be controlled, re-educated, and better still placed under the strict control of minorities.”
The time of the majority in the West has passed. Today’s globalist elites do not even hide their complete rupture with society. They consider their own people backward and forcibly push them into postmodernism.
We still poorly understand what the contemporary West has really become. If we studied philosophy and the modern humanities more carefully, we would realize a great deal more. The West has become fundamentally different, and we need to take this into account. The factor of direct, unyielding force is now vitally necessary for us—not only in relation to Ukraine, but in relation to the entire West.
Host: Let’s try to touch on the topic of artificial intelligence at least in a blitz format. Elon Musk recently stated that many people will very quickly be overcome by a super-convincing superintelligence, and he even allowed that he himself might be among them. At the same time there is continuous noise around AI: some demand that it be totally controlled and slowed down, others want it accelerated as much as possible. What do you think about this?
Alexander Dugin: I am convinced that artificial intelligence is above all a fundamental philosophical problem, because it calls into question the very definition of what intelligence is. Can reason exist outside the human being?
The human being possesses a unique gift that distinguishes him from all other species—thinking. The fact that humanity is trying to reproduce this intellect technologically, to become a “demiurge” and “creator” of a new reason, contains something deeply Luciferian. We claim to generate alternative life, and for us life is above all intelligent life. This in itself inspires extreme anxiety.
Those who argue about whether the development of AI should be accelerated or slowed down understand perfectly well that it has long surpassed the capabilities of the average human being. This is not the future; it is already an accomplished fact. Artificial intelligence is not simply faster than a human—it is in many respects more objective. Yes, it can hallucinate and make mistakes, but the structure of large language models has allowed it to operate with thought as language—flexibly and organically, not merely as dry formal logic. We created AI in our own image and likeness, and in this form it has already outgrown us.
The talk now is of the next stage—the moment of technological singularity, when artificial intelligence begins to make decisions for humanity itself. For the time being we remain inside the decision-making loop, but we are rapidly approaching the point when control will pass to it.
In the military sphere this is most obvious: the human being is already physically unable to cope with the speeds of modern combat systems and data flows.
In the end a non-human, all-powerful artificial intelligence may simply seize power over the world. How it will treat us—whether it turns people into its slaves or eliminates them as an obsolete biological species—is an open question. This is extremely dangerous. It looks like a real Apocalypse—both secular, unfolding according to the scenarios of dark science fiction, and genuinely religious. With our own hands we are constructing a non-human absolute intelligence at the final stage of Western technical civilization. And this looks extremely sinister.
(Translated from the Russian)
New from Multipolar Press:
Dugin Against the Modern World by Constantin von Hoffmeister
Get it here.
Why am I not surprised? Because I watched many documentaries about how it all started by Euromaidan in Ukraine. Alex Krainer reported about signs that these riots are organized (someone brought a big box of bottles for Molotov coctails by a fork-lift truck!). That's why I can predict where this is leading. The western psychopathic parasites (financial and corporative oligarchy) has decided that Europe should become Ukraine 2.0. To tempting not to use 400 million population for cannon fodder against Russia...
Such a shame that Trump has fucked things up so badly that the same kind of people that destroyed France and the uk are about to sweep the next 2 elections and enact policies, pass legislation, and make changes that will keep them in power long enough to do the same here.