Welcome to Rational Religion where spirituality makes sense. Today, we are going to be discussing Alexander Dugin, a public intellectual in Russia who has quoted Islamic ideas several times in recent history. We're going to talk about that because we want to discuss the wider issue of Russia's future, its ideological future, its cultural future, and how Islam comes into that. Now, let me first introduce Alexander Dugin. He is a very well-known philosopher in Russia, probably,
I would say, Russia's most internationally recognized public intellectual. He has been accused or has been described as being Putin's brain, which is probably not really an accurate description. But I think it stems from the idea that he has the Kremlin's ear. Some people say that he has certain individuals within the Kremlin, they do listen to him and his ideas. He is very influential, especially amongst certain groups, both within Russia and without.
So, let's have a look at some of the tweets which he has been discussing, which he has put up, and we'll go from there. This is one tweet. So, this is his Twitter handle: Alexander Dugin @Agdchan. And this is one tweet that he put out. Let's start with this one because he put this out earlier. The first tweet he put out, which kind of caught my eye, was on July 4th, 2023. He put out a tweet. He says, "Islamic banking in Russia is a great idea, sovereign and multipolar, highly
patriotic. Usury is an absolute evil. The American poet Ezra Pound, who dedicated his magnum opus 'Cantos' to the destruction of interest capital, as an idea, reasoned as follows: "God is eternity, and time is the devil. Profiting from time is the devil's business."" It's not something that, as Muslims, we would endorse, that concept actually, because God says that 'I am time.' Yeah, time is actually an attribute of God, not of the devil. “Therefore, financial capitalism
is economic Satanism. The Muslim theories of Islamic banking reason differently: everything belongs to God, and especially time.” Oh so he got that. "He who introduces interest on a loan, appropriates what belongs to God for himself. This is Luciferian rebellion. From the two different chains of inferences, we come to the overall conclusion: Usury must be prohibited,
the yoke of interest slavery must be removed. This is what Islamic banking is all about. It is called Islamic, but in other contexts, it goes by other names: Douglas's social credit, Gesell's free money, that's the Austrian, etc. In our case, Islamic banking can be called the Russian monetary system because Orthodoxy, and to a certain extent Christianity in general, categorically
rejected usury." Perhaps we can discuss that. "Werner Sombart traces when, how, and where this prohibition began to be lifted and what it led to. And he goes on to say… So, can you just summarize what he said there, and then tell me why you think it's so significant? It's important because what he's saying is that Islamic banking, which is known within Islam
and Islamic culture, actually has other names in other cultures and concepts. For instance, under Austrian theorist Silvio Gesell, it was his concept, and then there was Douglas's social credit. What he's trying to say is that Russia should adopt the principles of Islamic Banking. The principal point he highlights is that usury is an absolute evil and should be removed from the Russian economic model. This is what he wrote, right? "Islamic banking thus simply reminds us of
what we had but lost at some point. Contemporary Russian economist Alexander Galushka’s idea of a two-cycle issue fits perfectly in this context. In this case, the terms Islamic and Russian coincide in meaning." So what’s he’s saying there is that the Russians should adopt a form of Islamic banking but call it Russian Banking. This is the concept of multipolarity, that different things can have different names, and sometimes different names for the same thing.
These coincide sometimes, and sometimes they don't, but we should all learn from each other. There's something very significant here: a top public intellectual in a modern nation is openly saying that we should take something from scripture and use it as a national system. Can you see that ever happening in the contemporary West?
No, because they deride religion. Whereas I don't think Russians do; they are kind of proud of their Orthodox Christianity. And this is what he's trying to say is, "Islamic banking reminds us simply of what we have lost at some point." He's referring to the fact that Christianity also used to prohibit usury. But I think, and we're going to get into this,
that Christianity prohibited usury at a time when it still had overtures of a Jewish faith. When it entirely rebelled against all roots of Judaism in the Protestant movement in the Anglo-Saxon West, then they lost all traces of the concept of religious law, and with that, the concept of the banishment of usury. This especially happened, as we know from our interview with Tarek El-Diwany, in a really good economics interview. He writes the book "The Problem of Interest,"
in which he traces the history of interest. He begins it in ancient antiquity, but in the recent phenomenon, it became acceptable through Henry VI. Yeah, so I think we will talk more about Islamic banking, maybe later in the video. I wouldn't agree that everything he said is just what Christians had and we can just call it Russian. Islam is a far broader philosophy and religion, and it has much more than the Russians have ever had, or any nation has ever had, apart
from those who actually adopted it. But what you said is very true: Western people deride religion, whereas the Russians don't seem to, which is particularly remarkable given their history. How do you make sense of their history over the last 100 years and their relationship with religion? I think they rebelled against everything that was Communist, and part of that was a rebellion of religion. And what was Communism’s relationship
with religion for those who may not know? Well Communism was explicitly anti-religious, anti-God. God was, as the famous phrase goes— and I don't even know if it's accurate— "that religion is the opiate of the masses." You're the one who's read Marx; he said that, right? They rebelled against communism and with everything that went with it. And under communism, you had purges, the church was effectively a secret organization in Russia, at least,
and not necessarily in all communist countries, but definitely in Russia. It was an underground movement, and so it became mainstream. Putin, in particular, has perhaps done more than any other individual, possibly in Russian history, to bring back Orthodox Christianity and not just that, but a concept of God back into society, from the lowest possible point, which was the early '90s.
So I think it's particularly remarkable because it's not just Christianity that they seem to have a positive relationship with, but also the Dagestanis and the Chechens are very openly Muslim. The governance in Russia seems to be quite supportive of that, especially because they know Muslims are going to make a huge part of their population,
and it's going to be much more by 2030. I remember an interview with Putin saying so. An uncharitable view would be just self-preservation, but I think it's actually more than that. Just a quick comment on that - what they want to make sure is that there is a Russian Islam And that there's no resentment from the Russians, like you have, perhaps, in France. And that's what Putin highlighted in one of his interviews, he said, the Muslims in our nation are not foreigners. You go to France,
and the Muslims are seen as an external foreign threat, from a separate, non-French culture. But Russia has many ethnicities, religions, languages, and time zones; it's huge. In one of the time zones, we are alive at a reasonable hour. Actually, I don't think we are; I think at the moment, it's all nighttime in Russia. It's just the Muslims getting up for Fajr. They're trying to adopt - they're trying to make sure there is a meaningfully Russian, patriotic Islam, and I think
they've achieved it actually. One can even say, one of the biggest exports are the MMA fighters who have put Russian Muslims on the map internationally as a patriotic group. And domestically also, the Chechens and their contributions to the Ukraine war, the Mariupol
fights, all of this, they're seen as heroes. The relationship between the Russian natives, let's say the white Russians, and their relationship with the Muslim Russians is so much more positive than basically anywhere in the Western world, as far as I can tell. Let's just pause here and think about what this moment in history means for Russia. As you said, they had a huge sweep against religion. The League of Militant Atheists was cutting down
all of these religions so that the state religion of Communism and Atheism was propped up. Then they had a total collapse in the 1990s. The prophecy of Ezekiel actually talks about, I think, I can't remember the exact wording, but like vultures who are feeding on the people there, and we can go through that in a moment. Now, it seems that they are reviving religion and their
relationship with it. But there is a problem: what's next? One thing that strikes me is that Dugin and, I think, the Russian feeling as a whole, is that they don't want to be like the West. There's a huge resentment against the West, which has only intensified in recent years, but it's been growing for some time. Yet, at the core of it, in reality, they're not actually that different in the sense that they have the same religious culture that the West had a few decades
ago — the '50s, '60s, you can say. Maybe you can locate current Russia in that time where people are generally traditional and conservative, and then in the big cities, you have the progressive liberals who are more radical. Their economic structure is essentially capitalistic, with some state socialism here and there, and very strong governance in the sense of a political process that has a strong arm on the country, whatever one thinks of its democratic merits.
So, it seems to me very similar to how America and Britain were a few decades ago. Yet, Russia wants to escape that fate. It doesn't want to become the West. It's actually hugely against, and Dugin himself talks about this. The opinion is very much against LGBT being widely promoted, against feminism, against all these things of modernity. And Dugin hates modernity. Yet, one doesn't see a clear path forward for them. How do they escape the fate of the West? Any thoughts on that?
There is this hyper-individualism that Dugin talks about in the West, and how, as I think you were talking to me about earlier, the liberalism of the West does not permit any collective identity – that's what Dugin says – beyond that of the individual. The individual has become such a prominent focus and centre of all of Western ethics that there's no space for other identities.
For Dugin, the main one is a national identity. The hyper-individualism of the West is exported, seeks to be exported to other nations under the guise of human rights and the rights of the individual, not bearing in mind the rights of the community, or what Dugin believes are the rights of the nation. And how different people may have different view on rights and responsibilities.
The LGBT issue is a good example. The view of the West is that a person individually has the right to love who they want and sleep with who they want and so on and so forth, whereas the Russian view, or Dugin's Russian view, which is kind of the majority view, is that a person does have those individual rights but also has a responsibility to their society and not to undermine the society's progress toward the continuation of that particular ethnic group.
Traditional values are all about producing the next generation of citizens. The LGBT movement, because of its focus on personal choices or feelings of sexual orientation instead of the responsibility of the individual to the collective community to produce children and families, is seen as a threat to Russian national identity because it will undermine traditional values which seek to promote the next generation of Russians. People could argue
that gay people can still have children, but one could argue that they can't actually. You know, a gay man has to have an artificial insemination process to have a child, and the other man – it still requires essentially a heterosexual process – it's an artificial heterosexual process, right. So, basically, LGBT issues are seen as a threat to Russian national identity because it will undermine traditional values which seek to promote the
next generation of Russians. That's one example, one aspect of it, but there are lots of others. Can I just come in there? This is what Dugin is against. He says he's not personally particularly animated against homosexuals or feminists, etc., but what he says is that Western liberalism has a totalizing aspect; it's totalitarian. It wants to invade other people's borders and cultures and promote itself as the master ideology, and he hates that. He viscerally hates it,
if you watch his stuff and read some of his work. He says it's not acceptable; different people have their own moral values, and they have a right to choose what goes on in their nation. For him, the nation is the real unit of sovereignty. It's a very interesting analysis, one which many Muslims across the world would probably agree with. But let's return now to this essential question: How does Russia escape the fate of the
West? As we said, they are in essentially a very similar position. For Russians, including Dugin, to think that they will somehow automatically escape that trajectory of ending up in an atheistic, hyper-liberal, hyper-individualistic nation seems a bit naïve. In order for us to prove the case we are putting forward, which is that the natural evolution of an Orthodox Christian society is towards a liberal, individualistic society, we have to show our working for that.
So why did Christianity necessarily lead to the world we have today in the West? That's your question to me, I guess. Yes, right. As opposed to Jim. Jim, no, we'll go to you. I think the key thing is what Christianity actually is. It’s a religion like none other. People might think all religions are the same, but actually, they're quite fundamentally different. Christianity stands out in a completely different way. It’s premised on an anti-religious philosophy.
Oh, okay. Now, you wouldn’t actually think that – Christianity is based on an anti-religious philosophy, quite the claim. Yes it’s animated by St. Paul, in particular, possibly the founder of modern Christianity. Okay, okay. We're going to have to unpack that, but okay, let’s carry on with it for now. So, you know, when you look at the doctrines of Christianity, they're all from Romans,
Corinthians, Galatians, all from the writings of St. Paul. What Paul did was... Jesus was a Jewish teacher, a Jewish prophet, and his role, as he saw it, was to revive the Jewish nation principally, and bring them back to the Torah. He made it very explicit, “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” All of the doctrine... Can you repeat that for me? “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.”
Which law is he talking about? The Jewish law. Right. He himself was a practicing Jew, he taught Judaism. So, what St. Paul did was he created a religion with Jesus as its central point, and he used the cover of Jesus’s moral majesty to infiltrate Christianity with an anti-God, anti-religious notion that the law of Judaism is a curse. Right. So, he taught that the law
of Judaism is a curse and Christ has liberated us from the curse of the law. The idea was that if you commit any sin or any crime against God, any sin, then that makes you eternally punishable in the eyes of God. Was that Jesus’s view? That wasn’t Jesus’s view, I mean, it's basically something he made up. And St. Paul effectively said that because God is so holy and he cannot tolerate any sin, even though he permits it to exist, the law in itself is, in actual fact, a curse.
Right. It's like saying we shouldn’t have laws in a country because people might break them, and therefore the problem isn't that people are breaking them, the problem is that we have a law in the first place. It's an extremely perverse way of looking at the concept of rules in life. So,
he believed, and he said, that the law is a curse and Christ has liberated us from the law. In other words, by Christ's death on the cross for us, he has taken the burden of sins upon himself, such that we do not need to, such that we are liberated from the punishment of our own sins. So now we don't need to follow the law because all the possible ways we could have broken the law,
and all the sins we would have committed, they've all been taken by Jesus. That's why Christians don't get circumcised, that's why Christians eat pork, drink, that's why they don’t follow any of the laws of Judaism, modern day. And that's been the case from pretty much day dot with respect to Paul's followers. Paul spread in Europe and he spread effectively from Judea west, but Jesus’s actual mission and message actually spread from Judea east, throughout Asia. And it was the Asians
who accepted a Judaic form of Christianity. This difference between Paulinism and Jesus’s original message is seen best in Acts 21, where James, the Apostle of Jesus, says to Paul in the temple, You have come from your tours, from your trips, and we have heard that you've been teaching men
everywhere against the traditions of their fathers and against the law of Moses. And that there are Jews who have believed, in other words, Jews who are followers of Jesus who are from Asia, and they are here in Jerusalem, and they will surely hear that you have come. So, take these three men who are like you and shave their heads and carry out the Nazarite. So they were rioting, essentially? No. So, this is what they told Paul to repent
of modern-day Christian doctrines in Acts 21, clearly written there. And when he repented, then he took those men, and he repented, he spent three days in the temple, he carried out what’s known as the Nazarite purification rituals. And on the third day, those Jews from Asia who had believed in Jesus, they were followers of Jesus but they were Jews, they found him in the temple, they mobbed him, and the Roman police had to arrest Paul for his own safety.
Christians often make it out as if it was the Jews who opposed Jesus who had Paul mobbed because Paul was just such a great apostle. However, it wasn't that at all. It's explicitly the Jews who have believed, they shall surely hear that you have come, and they're enraged with you. So, the arrest of Paul was about his insult to Jesus's Jewish followers and his actual Jewish message.
Paul hijacked Jesus's message to pervert it from within, to create an anti-Jewish religion by which Jews would be so offended and disgusted through the placement of Jesus as its central figure, as the physical Son of God, such that they would reject it outright. He was a Pharisee hypocrite plant within Jesus's Jewish movement. What I'm trying to get to here is that Paul founded a religion which spread in the West, founded upon the abolition of law and the concept
that the lawgiver and the law itself, and the concept of law, is evil. That rules are evil, and that you actually need to break free of rules. He was the first pure anarchist, and his anarchy was conducted not against the state, not against the national culture, not against the laws of the land, but at the lawgiver, againstj God. The idea that the law that God has given is actually a curse, which is such a perverse thing to say because for the law to be a curse, it must mean
that the lawgiver is a curse. It’s calling God Satan, saying what comes from God is satanic, and then claiming that God himself sacrificed himself, or his son, to save mankind from his own actions, and thus suicide is purified and sanctified as being a wonderful action, even though it is always known as a satanic action. The giving of a law is called a curse. Up is down, and down is up. And can I just say, how do we know that Jesus didn't believe in this same thing? It's very
simple. The Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us." "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." Then a bit later, "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you." So, if you are good to others, God will forgive you. There is forgiveness baked into Jesus's teaching. It's not just here; it's throughout the Jewish law, which Jesus himself espoused.
Jesus was very straightforward and clear. Just going back to what you said, though, "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us." Now, what's the nature of our forgiveness of other human beings? It doesn't involve punishing a third person or punishing yourself. No, no. So, forgiveness is not an act of self-flagellation. There's no punishment involved. That's the
essence of forgiveness, the waiving of punishment. Whereas in the Christian or Pauline philosophy of God's so-called forgiveness, it's not that he's forgiven anything; it's that he's conducted the punishment upon Jesus. So, it's simply that punishment has been enacted, so nothing is forgiven. For the Asians, and this is an Ahmadiyya interpretation of events, which is the strand of
Islam to which we belong, Islam Ahmadiyya, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. And what we put forward is that Jesus went East, he preached to the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel, and they believed in him, becoming Messianic Jews. They were basically Jews who believed in the Messiah. We know that later, when Islam came, many, most, or all of them converted to Islam because it was baked into that teaching that there would be that Prophet, the Paraclete who had come, and
whose message they cannot yet hear. [John 14-16] So, what you're saying is that Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and then migrated in search of the Lost Tribes of Israel. And those followers who accepted Jesus's Judaism became Muslim. We have a whole video on that, and it's a lot to take in. We've just done a brain dump on the audience. They're like,
"Oh my goodness." We've covered this in a video called "The Intelligent Design of Jesus's Crucifixion" and another one we did at the beginning of the Rational Religion podcast back in the COVID days. So, one can go and check those out. But the long and short of it is that the Eastern believers in Jesus became later Muslim. They were basically Jews who believed in the Messiah. The remaining ones in Europe and Rome onwards,
that's where the church, based on Paul, was perpetuated. So then you have the Catholic Church. Why don't you walk us through a bit about the Catholic Church, how they held things together, and then the role of Protestantism in the West? Was Protestantism false, as the Orthodox Christians believe, or not? So, Catholicism, how do you found a religion
and maintain social cohesion on the notion that the law is a curse? Very difficult because ‘follow our rules’, 'isn't it cursed?', 'err... yes.' If the premise is that the law’s a curse where does the social order come from? Because no civilisation can be built on lawlessness. So what the Church did is that it supplanted Jesus's Judaism, the Torah, and the laws of Moses with obedience to the church itself. The church became the foundation of a new law and the new lawgiver,
which Catholics explicitly believed. Catholicism created a new religion based on rules. For example, consider the notion of confession - the idea that through confession, your sins are forgiven. This has no place in Judaism whatsoever. In Judaism, if you confess your sins publicly, you've actually committed a crime because you're opened society to your evil. What you should do is go into seclusion and beg God for forgiveness. But in Catholicism, confession to God
becomes confession to the church. The church supplanted God, taking over the role of God. Catholicism created a new architecture of rules based on obedience to itself. The Latin law, promulgated in all the churches across Europe, which none of the ordinary people
could understand, became the basis of that faith. When the printing press came along, when the Bible was translated, and the Germans in particular started reading -- the engines of social change in Europe are the Germans... very ideologically fixated as a nation, in general I would say, but has been quite bad in the past apparently - no, absolutely! And the Protestant movement came out of them, because they started reading and they realised there was no mention of the church in the
Bible. It was all Paul saying the law is a curse. They became ultra-Paulinists, to rebel again, but this time not against God but against the church, using Paul's writings against the church rules. So it was Paulinism redux. It was, and this was, in fact, prophesied by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He said that Satan would remain chained for 1,000 years, and 1,000 years after the Prophet
Muhammad, Protestantism began, around the 15th and 16th centuries. Protestantism enabled imperialism; it was Protestantism in particular that fueled the ideological basis of liberalism. The idea was the focus on the individual's rights over others. Liberalism is interesting because it was also tied into imperialism. Liberals like John Stuart Mill were liberal for their own upper-class wealthy
British people, while defending the British East India Company in Parliament. Many Parliamentarians thought this was absolutely ridiculous to be defending this company which even they at that point thought were totally out of bounds. But his books were very nice... So this was the conundrum
they espoused the importance of hyper-individualism and used it as a means to subjugate nations and ignore their individualism. Now can you make that link more explicit, how did it motivate imperialism as such? Well, Protestantism, being the foundation of liberalism, was that God has forgiven your sins. At least with Catholicism is that you have some obligation and
accountability to the Church. If that's gone, if God has forgiven your sins, you don't have any obligation or accountability to anyone, and the emphasis is placed on Jesus' death for your sins, then ultimately it doesn't matter what you do. Then it leads to the question of how you can utilize your resources for personal benefit. And liberalism in way as I see it, was a pseudo-justification, a political justification for the crimes of imperialism.
The emphasis was on the individual's rights. Nobody can curtail my rights to do what I want... So it was the loss of a restraining factor, is that what you mean? Because Protestantism revisited Paul's emphasis on their being no rules, the natural moral instincts, and whatever rules might have been imposed by the church, which may or may not have condoned certain
political actions, suddenly all those things go away. So you lose the restraining factor, while you have your natural instincts as an individual and then a community's and nations, their natural instincts become unrestrained, to go and conquer, and as the technology improves they go and do that, and it can all be done in the name of Christ as well. And there's nothing which stops that from the scripture. Well, Paul said that the law is a curse, so basically,
it's almost like atheism, isn't it? It is because it uses Christianity to do away with God. It uses Jesus to do away with God the Father, the one to whom you'll be held accountable. Certainly, liberalism did bring with it a heightened consciousness of individual rights, which played an important role in British law abroad, enforcing individual rights, and tipping the balance in societies where individual rights were subjugated completely to the community. Then
it helped push that back and created a kind of moderating factor in those societies. The biggest one that comes to mind is India, right? So the Sikh rule at the end of the 18th century, beginning of the 19th century, and how it had oppressed the Muslims in Punjab, for example, we know best. Muslims were not permitted to do the call to prayer, they were not permitted to
exercise their normal religious rights under the pain of death often. The consequence of the British coming there and the focus on individual rights was that everybody had freedom of religion, and freedom of religion became baked into the society of India. So it had positives as well, but
it was also used for negatives. Those positives are, as you say, very significantly positive, but it's almost like the religious aspect just kind of became opened up, so as society developed intellectually, public morality in some respects improved, then they were able to implement that, and as public morality or governmental morality in some respects reduced, they were also able
to implement that. So we should never wholly condemn liberalism as evil in all its aspects, and we shouldn't be absolutists and not recognize the very significant good that the West achieved through its imperial projects. That's a fact. Anybody who thinks that the development of concepts of individual rights would have just happened automatically without
the role of the British Empire is deluded. The reality is the role the British Empire conquered vast waves of nations, countries, and territories, and put in place legal systems in those countries that persist to this day, in which individual rights are protected. But that's interesting because one can see that as also a phase, and liberalism itself is evolving.
If we are saying that Paulinism is like this universal acid against any rules and regulations, and it cut away at general societal restraints and religious restraints in particular, then it becomes something which continues to burn. How do you feel that that has continued to burn in Western culture? It's an interesting point. From a medical perspective,
you talk about acid, and it's kind of true actually. You know, this is a bit disgusting, but it just reminds me of this so I'm going to say it anyway; it's too late my inhibitions are doing down! You know when somebody ingests acid, that's what happens actually. So the burn continues for weeks, and it continues to burn through the tissues. And actually, that's absolutely right; that's exactly what's happened with Paulinism. It started,
it burned the church first, it burned Judaism first, right? Yeah, that's right, of course. Then it burned the church with Catholicism, when the church built up a notion of laws all over again, and then Paul came, and the rediscovery of Paul by the Protestants burned the church big time. Right, and then what? And that created some intellectual headroom for things to develop, absolutely did,
because it freed man from the yoke of the church as well. Right, because the church had been intellectually stifling, and from the Bible and from the Bible's literalism, which the Catholics had a nuanced view of some literal chapters, but at the end of the day, it reduced belief in the church's association with scripture, with Aristotelianism, which freed people scientifically to move forward. So, it also on the flip side was the ideological basis of imperialism.
But that had some upsides for the nations that were conquered to some extent, insofar as their legal systems and were codified in terms and the freedom of religion was enshrined in certain parts. But then what happened was with World War I and this is really where it actually comes to a head. What actually broke the West, and which transformed its Pauline aspect from a religious to
a cultural position, was the war. With World War I, World War II, right, and as a result of that, because they lost their material power, specifically talking about Britain here, because they lost their material power and authority after World War I, then after World War II for sure, Suez Crisis... you had a decline in Christianity. But the underlying philosophy of Paulinism in liberalism continued to play a part in effectively liberating the West from existing power
structures. Right, so that became initially the family. It manifested in the feminist movement. Right, it manifested... how did it manifest in the feminist movement? Well, the feminist movement teaches, again, people think that transgenderism is like, you know, a lot of people like transgenderism, you know, where does it come from? It actually comes from a long trajectory which actually dates all the way back to feminism. At least, in the cultural sphere. In the cultural
sphere. So feminism teaches that men and women don't actually have separate roles, that the roles are where you choose them. Right. Homosexuality then teaches, or the LGBT movement builds on that, and in the early days, the LGBT movement and the feminist movement were indistinguishable. Right,
okay. They were indistinguishable. The same people would be advocating for both. Right, okay. And the LGBT movement took the lessons of the feminist movement and used them, and now the transgenderism movement is using the same lessons that were learned from the lesbian & gay rights movement. You know, feminism began with the issue of roles and the blurring of roles. The LGB movement began
with the blurring of sexual function, and then the T movement has gone on to biological function. And it's become more and more literal. Right, to the extent that now the feminists are arguing with the transgender movement. Yeah, because the biological blurring actually destroys the basis of feminism. Right, because for feminism, females have to exist. Right. So the idea, the idea is that, that's like an inherent premise. The idea is that females are different from men, but they're equal,
and they can do the same roles. That's what feminism is. Yeah, and early, early, we should say because there'll be people in our comments, which there always are; early, like the first wave of feminism lay emphasis on the equality, and then the later wave, second, third onwards, laid emphasis on equal roles. Yes, correct. So we're not really talking about the first wave in
a sense. But Paulinism then destroyed, and this underlying character — I think, what happens is it became a character of the nation of the West. It was no longer a religion or a culture, it was a character of individualism first, right, and of individual rights first. Individual rights in the sense of, if I feel it, I should do it, in the sense of, that there should be nothing restraining
me. Right. Well, it's really complex, I think, because yes, there's the character of the nation, which is of promoting individual rights, and then that comes along with the breakdown of religion, of the church. You have the breakdown of the family, right. You even have the breakdown of communities with that. Right, okay. And then you're not really beholden to anyone. — So
instinct becomes your God. Yeah, so you are only you, you're an individual island. Right, you have no responsibilities to your road, to your community, to your church, to your family, because they don't exist anymore. Right, and because they don't exist, then there is only you, you are an individual island. You see this especially with young people when they go to university, I think.
They have no ties to anything, and they become kind of just, they just seek to try new things, as a manifestation of 'who am I?' To discover who they are, which is, you know, I always thought is bizarre. Because what that's basically saying is, is that the individual has to, in a way, go through lots and lots of experiences to discover who they are, instead of recognizing who they are
and then going and living their life. Right, and more than that, I think it is this idea that we are, that your self has to be excavated, through experience, through pleasure... so basically like there is this secret you, which is just so unique compared to everyone else in the world, and in order to find that, you have to be the exact same as everyone else! You should party hard, drink hard, sleep with these people, and then you'll find you. Whereas what you should do,
from a rational perspective, is who do I want to be? What values should I adopt? What beliefs do I think are true? And then after that is settled, one can think about more, how do I live that, and how do I create myself in that persona, in that role, through my actions? Right, but it takes it backwards, you know, it goes, let's do a bunch of actions first which happen to be completely hedonistic, and then you'll find out that you are the same as everybody else in your society.
The same equivalent person 10 years before or 10 years after will be the same as people in their generation. I personally think it's Protestantism and Paulinism in particular that continues to manifest itself in this age, which has actually driven out Judaism, the Catholic Church, and now even the Protestant Church. Even the Protestant Church didn't write any rules, but it's now just
a figure of authority. It must be banished. The church, the Protestant church, has eaten itself, and the funny thing is they don't really get it. That's why they keep on trying to change their position. They don't understand that no you need to now stand for something, because what you've been doing up to this point, which is changing yourself, that's what's caused your death. So, Russia does not want to go the way of the West, but they don't know what the problem is
with the West. They see the symptoms, but they don't know what the diagnosis is. They think that this guy is really ill, this guy is sick, but they don't really know what infectious disease he's caught. They're wary of catching that disease because they can see that they might be going the same way. They've got a fever and some lumps here and there, Bubonic plague style, but they don't actually know what it is. And I think that this is
Alexander Dugin's problem. He's continually emphasizing multipolarity because he really doesn't want to be the same as the West. And quite reasonably... so what we are saying then, we'll make it explicit one last time... I feel we should recapitulate just in case! Paul said that the law is a curse, and that freedom from the law, which was religious law, has been a universal acid which has burnt through all the layers of Western society and has led us
now to seeking freedom from even biology. And that this is what the Russians have rallied against, more than any other white nation, and that they are finding a way out of this. Dugin is famous for what he calls the fourth political theory. He says there have been three major political theories of modernity which he rallies against. The first is liberalism, which we've been discussing at length. Then you have fascism, then communism. He says
that fascism and communism failed because they failed to displace liberalism. Liberalism won, but there now has to be a fourth because fascism and communism were worse than liberalism, by a long stretch! Yeah he doesn't agree with that, but I don't agree with his disagreement. I think it's quite obvious that both of those were more absolutist, more unnatural, and more oppressive. If liberalism was worse, it wouldn't have survived... The funny thing
is that when diseases are worse, they kill the host faster. Liberalism has been around for a lot longer than fascism survived and a lot longer than communism survived. The reason is that it's a longer-lasting virus. It's like SARS and I think Ebola that had an insanely high death rate? Yeah and it burnt itself out. And COVID was in that sweet spot between lethality and spreading. Yeah it's got to keep the host alive long enough to spread. If it kills the guy the
moment it touches them then it ain't going to go anywhere. It's a bit like a fungus, really, like athlete's foot that just won't go away. It recurs every summer. I don't speak from experience... That's what liberalism is. But fascism was just gangrene; the whole foot had to go. Communism was like really bad cellulitis... skin infection. Can the audience tell that we're two doctors? I'm sure they can... But let's pause on that for a moment because there's one other thing
which is worth making explicit here, which is the prophecy of Ezekiel. The Prophecy of Ezekiel which is remarkable, and we've done a video on this before... #StopWW3 — do check that video out. The prophecy of Ezekiel talks about the future of this time, about Gog and Magog, or Yajuj and Majuj in Islamic terminology. Why don't you walk us through some of the salient features? We don't have to go through the whole thing, but if you could summarize. Sure,
can you see my shared screen? Let's get it up. Thanks. Zoom in. That's perfect. I'll zoom in. That'll be me. So, let's, oh, where's it gone? There we go. Okay, so this is Ezekiel chapter 38. And very significantly, this is actually discussed at the end of a book called "The Economic System of Islam," and that ties in very nicely with what Dugin was talking about. So this is Ezekiel, Chapter 38. It's at the end of this book because actually this prophecy is about two economic
systems, capitalism and communism, civilizations which are described as Gog and Magog. Gog is Russia, or Soviet Communism. And how do we know that? Well, because it says here, "And say thus
behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal." Which the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community highlighted. This is Moscow and Tobolsk. God says, "I am against thee," because communism was an explicitly anti-religious philosophy. But Magog, which is capitalism, is not explicitly anti-religious. The focus of Ezekiel is actually on Gog. That means that God would himself destroy it. When God destroys something,
it's far more subtle and beautiful. It destroys it from within. Humans, we create a lot of mess. But communism was destroyed from within due to its inherent failures, which God brought to light, basically. And what in Ezekiel tells us that it is anti-God? Well, God says, "I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal," which is interpreted as Moscow
and Tubal. God says, "Persia, Ethiopia, Libya with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands." It's in the northern regions, their alliance with Iran, exactly. And then it goes on to say, "Many days thou shalt be visited, and in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people,
against the mountains of Israel." It doesn't refer to literally the descendants of Jacob. It's talking about people who are God's people, religious people who belong to God. It means that this nation, this Soviet system, would be against religiosity itself, against belief in God itself. How does it end? What does it say the end is of these systems? "Thus saith the Lord God: It shall come to pass, that at the same time things shall come into thy mind, and thou shalt
think an evil thought. And thou shalt say, 'I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates. To take a spoil and to take a prey." It's about the
spread of communism. Then it says, "Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, 'Thus In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?'" It goes on, right, and it says finally, "And it shall come to pass, at the same time when Gog shall come up against the land of Israel, saith the Lord God, that my fury shall come up in my face." So it says when you shall take up arms against Godly people,
then God will defend them. " For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken: Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel." It says, "I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, every man's sword shall be against his brother..." And He goes on to say... "I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from
the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel. And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand." So God basically says, I will destroy it, and I will leave only a sixth of its nation. That's pretty much what happened at the end of communism. God destroyed communism himself and left it a barren waste, its economic power hugely declined, and it lost much of its military prowess.
Many of the countries which helped and armed it, it lost those as well. Was there something also about the vultures and how they... yeah it says, "I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field
to be devoured." My interpretation is that that perfectly describes the '90s in Russia, where you had all these capitalistic vultures from both abroad, from America and the West, and also those within Russia who came and devoured all of the state-owned projects and services of Soviet Russia. The suicide rates of that time in Russia were huge. It
was just desolation across the entire nation. This was a calamity for the Russian people, and it's because the system under which they lived was one which was against God. Dugin has to admit, well, on our analysis at least, he doesn't have to do anything; but we would suggest that communism was a far worse evil. The prophecy of Ezekiel doesn't condemn Magog in the same way, does it? No, it's almost absent. The whole of chapter 38
and then going into chapter 39 is about Gog, how God will destroy the Communist system. Then it's almost a throwaway comment about Magog. It says, "And I will send a fire on Magog and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles. And they shall know that I am the Lord." So God will establish His sovereignty, over Gog as well, over capitalism, particularly those who dwell in the islands, which is a very apt description of England I think, and the United Kingdom.
So, what do you feel now is Russia's relationship with Magog? So we're saying Soviet Russia was Gog, and God set His face against it. This was a prophecy, and the Second Khalifa said specifically that God will end the system. That's exactly right. This is not a prophecy that was made after communism fell, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, the second Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community put this at the end of his book "The Economic System of Islam"
which was published in 1945. It was actually a speech delivered on February 26th 1945. So, that shows you the prescience because that was actually at the end of World War II. How well timed. You know around that time the Americans were considering bombing the Soviets with a nuke, and immediately switching to war. So Soviet Russia was not the behemoth it would become. So then the Russian people essentially became part of Magog, if you will, by default,
because they adopted capitalism. This is what Dugin's warning is about, I think, to some extent, or his sense. I think he has an intuition that something is amiss. We haven't got a real alternative. And in that sense, the Ukraine war has actually done the Russians a massive favour. It has totally dispelled and broken for the Russian people the obsession
that they have had since the fall of communism to become Western. I think they're still in the rich cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, for example, there is still that sense that they are Western, they're not Asian, but in the rural areas, and from what I've read and what I've come across, it seems to me that there's a much greater revulsion for the West than there ever has been.
And that they are now determinedly not Western. The fact that Dugin, who is probably their top international public intellectual (I don't know what goes on domestically, but internationally he's the face of Russian philosophy), and he is hyper anti-Western, says a lot. He is looking for an alternative, a fourth political theory, which he tries to construct. But unless he understands that it is from Christianity that this disease spread, the disease of atheism,
if you will, then he will never actually be able to overcome it. He himself is a great proponent of Orthodox Christianity, and they wear it as a badge of pride. But it should send shivers down their spine that the West were exactly like this. Who could have imagined current social trends in the West 60-70 years ago? Well, some people could have, but it wouldn't have been the majority. No,
exactly. You know, the church-going Americans going every Sunday. Even in the Simpsons, made in the '90s, it was still a staple of white/yellow American culture. So, you know, things have changed so much, and they will suffer the same fate, both culturally and economically. Let's talk about the economics briefly. We have a whole interview on this called something about Islamic Finance, Islamic economics,
with Tarek El Diwany. There are a few tenets of it which are different, but the essential idea of it, and this is why you have to have a real ideology or belief system with a foundation, in order to replace liberalism. Because Islam actually has a foundation in God. It says that God is the Sovereign, and everything belongs to God. Ultimately, everything is His, to the extent that we belong to God. When someone dies Muslim says, "To Him
do we belong and to Him shall we return," we were never our own. We are not our own; we are God's. If we are to excavate anything, it is simply to expunge our own ego and realize that essence
of belonging to God. That's what Islam is: submission to God. Islam has this idea that all the wealth of the earth and everything that one can produce wealth out of belongs to God and thus – which is self-evident when you really think about it; you didn't put it there, you didn't make it in the furnace of the stars, you didn't create yourself, and you didn't create yourself to discover it. Were it not for the mercy of God, you wouldn't
have even found it. So, literally from root to branch, it's God's belonging. As such, the Islamic philosophy is therefore that it belongs to mankind as a whole, and thus it should be employed for the good of mankind. But it doesn't endorse communism because it respects
private property as long as it's within the limits of being towards the common good. But if private property is amassed or used in a way to such an extent that it becomes antisocial, then the state, which becomes a de-facto representative in the interest of the people, has the ability to take that away. That's manifested most clearly in the wealth tax of Islam, the Zakat. So, tell us about that and also its relationship with interest. Well it's anti-interest. So
you have money; you get more money. You have debt; you go more in debt. Zakat is you have assets; you lose them. You don't have assets; you get them. It's a wealth tax which is funneled and directed at taking not income but wealth, which is unused wealth. It's not just people's wealth; it's if you're not using your wealth and it lies unused for more than a year. One fortieth of it each year, if it's above a certain threshold, must be circulated back to the pool.
The idea is that as rich people accumulate wealth and they take it out of circulation by putting it in expensive paintings, expensive houses, expensive cars, expensive yachts, then that money actually disappears into the sinkholes of wealth and tax havens. Exactly what happens. And what Islam seeks to do is take a portion out each year from these so that they're circulated. Obviously, the consequence will be that if you're rich and you have a nice big yacht and you're going to
have to pay one fortieth of its value pretty much every single year, you're going to sell it. You're going to think, well, I need to make money from my money, so I'm going to invest it into society. That investment is also a major part of how Islamic banking works, which is that the engine of investment is equity finance. It is basically, "I will give you money, and I will take a share in your company, your profits, and your losses." In your profits and your losses.
And that's different from debt because debt, you have to pay it back no matter what. It doesn't tie the investor's interests to the interests of the society and of the company and of the person because they're going to make their money back whatever. That's exactly why the banking system has become so overinflated and dominant. The banks literally now, at this point in Western history, they make up money, they then give it to you at no cost to them, and then you have to pay them back
with interest. And if you fail to do that, they'll take your house. It's literally the biggest scam in human history. It's incredible. It's literally making stuff up and saying, "Now give me real stuff. I've got some made up stuff, can you give me real stuff?" "I typed it, come on!" So, there is a necessity, therefore, for Russia to avoid the fate of the West – to get back to Russia – it has to recognize the diagnosis and then it has to give a prescription which is going
to cure that diagnosis, which is going to cure that disease. Now, the disease is Paulinism, which is the notion that man is disconnected from God's laws. You got one of two choices: you go to Judaism, which has kind of become a bit of a fossilized religion, I would say,
or even in many ways by its own adherents, with those who call themselves Jewish. Well, because it still clings to this notion of the Jews as a special people, and I think that's probably the most anathema aspect of – anathematizing aspect – why do I have to use words like "anathematizing"? It's probably one of the most off-putting – out of place aspects of Judaism; the notion that the children of Jacob are very special, and everybody else is less special by
definition. And let's not genetically test the Palestinians. Definitely not, right? Islam is a very different religion because Islam recognizes the truth of all other religions. To be a Muslim, you have to believe Jesus was from God. It's not local; it's universalist. It believes Moses was from God, and in fact, the Quran says that there is no people to whom a Warner or a prophet has not been sent, even the Russians.
Even the Russians. That would be a really nice line to end the whole thing on.. but no, we can continue. Even the Russians, even the Native Americans, the First Nation people in Canada, let's use all the PC terms. Even the Australian Aboriginals, even the non-American Indians,
even the Europeans. The biggest and the greatest fulfillment of this perspective of Universalist Islam is in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The founder of our community emphasized this point as part of the eschatological prophecies of Islam, which perhaps you can elaborate on in relation to the coming of the Mahdi. And really what I want you to cover is the universality of Islam Ahmadiyya, and the eschatological view of Islam in relation to the rise of Christianity.
Well, I have to give a bit of a preamble because I think this really goes back to... how we know things. This goes back to Dugin and how he has a strange sense of a coming transition and a finality towards liberalism. He firmly believes that modernity, as in Western liberalism, is coming to an end. He wrote this article, maybe we can bring it up, about the rise of multipolarity. He called it "Six Civilizations Versus One." Under BRICS, which is essentially
a political alliance, a geopolitical alliance – well it's explicitly not an alliance. It's explicitly a trading bloc. But it's a meeting of so many different civilizations, as Dugin puts it, versus one. And I think he writes that even now, they may still be the most powerful. But he then goes on to do something very strange, which is he goes through all the eschatologies, the end-time prophecies, and end-time views of all these different faiths. He has this massive article
that goes through all these different religions. For Dugin, the idea of time as being linear is something he associates with Western liberalism and modernity, this idea of progress and things always getting better over time. He's interested in how different cultures cope with time. On that point, Islam has an interesting two aspects. On the one hand, it says, "By the
passing of time, man is in a state of loss." So it does believe that time marches forward and, in an individual's life, one loses the opportunity to do good as time goes on, so use that time wisely. But also within Islamic philosophy is this idea of a cyclical nature of time, in the sense that you have cycles of humanity, of prophethood, 7,000-year cycles whereby a prophet
starts, and then eventually ends. In between, you have these mountains of prophets, with the greatest Prophet, we believe, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. So you have these cycles and eras of change and transition, eras of darkness followed by eras of light associated with the proximity and distance to a prophet. In the biblical, to an extent,
but more explicitly in Islamic philosophy, we are in a great transition period. We are in end-times, the final millennium, the seventh millennium since Adam, who is not the first man according to Islam, but the first prophet. We believe that the Earth has been around for about 4 billion years and that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. So when we say 7,000 years, we do not mean that the planet Earth has just been here for 7,000 years. Okay, can everybody just relax?
So that's one cycle within the broader history of humanity. We are in this final millennium, and this was the prophesied time – the final millennium of this cycle, not of the universe. We are in the final millennium of humanity. This final millennium is a time when there is the prophesied great battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. This is remarkable because
it is seen throughout so many religious cultures. In fact, every religious culture has this. You look at Norse mythology, where you have a time when there will be a great battle between good and evil, and all the heroes coming back. After that, you'll have a single man and a single woman left,
and they repopulate the Earth in an era of peace. Even in their religious culture you have clear religious messages: Thor is clearly a Prophet, the All-Father is clearly God, Loki is clearly Satan, you know, 'The Trickster', the mischievous one that leads you astray... And in Christian belief, you have Jesus coming back and the Rapture. Dugin goes on to talk about Islamic belief. Let's go to what he said with regards to his view. I just had it taken down. Oh,
okay. Read out, yeah, just you have to read maybe just some of it and summarize. Let's go back to it, if that's alright. He covers both Sunnism and Shiism. 'In Sunnism, the end of the world is not described in detail, and the visions of the coming leader of the Islamic community, the Mahdi, pale before the description of the Last Judgment that God (Allah) will administer at the end of time. Nevertheless, this figure is there and is described in some
detail in the hadiths. It is about the emergence of a military and political leader of the Islamic world who will restore justice, order, and piety that had fallen into decay by the end of time.' He goes on to say that 'the Mahdi will defeat the Dajjal, the liar,' the Empire of Lies, 'and establish Islamic rule. A peculiar version of Islamic eschatology is also
professed by supporters of ISIS. Various figures in Islam have proclaimed the role of the Mahdi; most recently, the head of the Turkish PMC Sadat, Adnan Tanriverdi proclaimed Erdogan the Mahdi.' What did he say about Ibn Arabi as well? He says, "The authoritative Sufi view specifies that the Mahdi will be assisted in ruling by viziers, forming the basis of the eschatological
government. According to him, all viziers of this metaphysical government as assistants and projections of the unified power will come from non-Arab Islamic communities." Very interesting. It even talked about the Jamaat, I didn't even know that. Talking about the odeh-daar, the office holders are mentioned by Ibn Arabi which is very strange. So, what do you make of this? Well, I find this very interesting because he's clearly got some
knowledge on this; he's been reading about this. He is correct in respect to some of the things he said, well he has given a good characterization of the Sunni belief. But we would argue that the original Islamic belief, which is not represented well by the contemporary Sunni belief, is that Jesus, peace be upon him, has died, has passed away. Thus, the prophecies by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and those by Jesus himself in the Bible about his second coming,
are metaphorical. They don't mean that Jesus is literally going to come back. Rather, Jesus is going to come back in the same way that Elijah came back. Elijah did not return physically from the heavens, but he came back in the spirit and power of Elijah in John the Baptist. John the
Baptist was a new person, a normal person. Jesus said that this is the Elijah the Jews had been waiting for, when the Jews were waiting for a physical return of Elijah from several hundred years earlier, 600 years earlier, he came in the spirit and power of Elijah rather than in a physical form. So, what's the underlying message there? If you don't get it, I'll tell you.
The underlying message there is that the Muslims will become like the Jews. You don't need a Jesus unless you have the same disease, in the sense of the moral disease, the spiritual elements that the Jews had at the time of Jesus. Which was? Extremism, politicization of their religion, literalism, a failure of morals, a lack of morality,
and an obsession with nationhood as the principal expression of religiosity. Their religion became nationalized, became a national project, not a spiritual project but a material project, that God was expected to deliver unto them political and economic rule. He's exactly said that the Mahdi is there to restore justice, order, and piety, but he's also to be an emergent military and political leader of the Islamic world,
which is actually incorrect. A lot of the Hadith literature upon the Imam Mahdi are actually corrupted. It's an example of how Muslims have used the original concept to politicize a religious figure. Why? Because in the few centuries after the Prophet's death, peace be upon him, they were trying to say that this person is the Mahdi or this person will be from the family of the Mahdi, supporting their own political leaders in their own times.
But the reliable Hadith are sparse, and they tell us about the Mahdi and the Messiah. One of them, for instance, one of the famous ones, says that there will be no Mahdi, no guided leader except Jesus, peace be upon him. Well that's in Ibn Majah which many, particularly Salafis,
regard as a weak narration by many Salafis. Well there's another in Sahih Bukhari that says the Imam will come from among you - "How will it be with you when the son of Mary descends upon you and will be the Imam from among you?" Absolutely, also there's a clear narration in Musnad Ahmed, which says the Messiah will himself be the Mahdi.
the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that the Muslims will become like the Jews of Jesus's time, as one shoe is equal to another shoe. Such that if a Jew had committed adultery with his mother, in the same way, there will be one among my community who
will do the same. In other words, the sins of the two communities would parallel each other. Just as Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the mirror of Moses, and the greater manifestation of Moses, who brought a greater law than Moses, similarly, there would be a Messiah for him, Muhammad, as there was for Moses. He would appear in exactly the same timeframe,
in the 13th century after the Prophet Muhammad, as Jesus came 13 centuries after Moses. And the founder of that individual was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. So the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is that eschatological movement which is there to conquer the great liar. Now, what is the great liar? He's referenced it in his articles. Let's just say what he said again. He says the Mahdi will defeat the Dajjal, the Liar, and establish
Islamic rule. The Mahdi, we believe, is Imam Mahdi, who was born in 1835, died in 1908, and founded the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889. He said that the Dajjal? He said it was Paulinism, specifically Pauline Christianity. And that was in actual fact... HE identified it, we haven't come up with this whole thing that Paulinism is the rot at the centre of Western civilization. He said it,
right? We're not inventing anything here; we're just telling you what he said. So, he said that Paulinism is the rot which destroyed, Jesus's Judaism as it was propagated. It didn't destroy it, what I meant is it corrupted it or sought to corrupt it, and then it destroyed the church, and now it's been destroying Western civilization. Okay, and that is the diagnosis which Dugin has to recognize. So, how he, in particular,
defeated it, how he defeated it, was in one of two ways. First of all, people always conceive of these religious metaphors as a literal event, as in boom: one person slays another. Can you tell us a little bit about who the Dajjal is in Islamic Hadith literature? What are the signs of the Dajjal? And then that will bolster our claim that it is Paulinism. I'd rather you do it because I want to find a famous vision of the Promised Messiah where he
explained the nature of the Dajjal, so if you can tell us that, and I'll find this. Okay, fine. So the Dajjal, according to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as he's correctly pointed out, means the great liar. It means the one whose lies are overlapping, like bricks, such that a large wall is created which has hundreds of thousands of lies which overlap each other and support each other. That's the meaning of Dajjal, and it originates from a word which
refers to minting coins with false gold. You mint a coin, and you think it's gold, but actually, it's false gold. It's a bit like monetary fraud, counterfeit truth, which is what the church is. Absolutely. So what you have, therefore, is that Dajjaliyyat means the liar, and the signs of the Dajjal the Prophet Muhammad gave were extraordinary. He said that the Dajjal will be a giant who will be blind in the right eye, but his left eye will be so piercing that he will be
able to see the treasures of the earth and the resources of the earth. He'll have a mountain of bread with him and a mountain of food. Those nations that subject themselves to him, he will send them the food, and those nations that do not subject themselves to him, he will withhold the food and bring about crises. Sounding familiar... That sounds pretty familiar. Sanctions, right? And he said that civilization, that's what the giant represents,
the Dajjal, that civilization will be... The Dajjal, which means a civilization, will have "k-f-r" written on his head. Which just means he will be an out-and-out... he won't be a Muslim; it will be a non-Muslim nation you're looking for. And he said the sign of the Dajjal will be his donkey. It might sound a bit weird – a giant with a donkey in one eye – what's going on with this? But bear with me. This lying giant will have a
donkey so large that it will have one foot in the East and one foot in the West. He will eat fire and breathe smoke. The donkey will make a month's journey on land into a day and will be able to travel over water very fast. It will be able to jump from one part of the earth to another. And I think one of them talks about how , 'it will run like the clouds' and have the moon
on its forehead. So if you haven't got it yet, this donkey is the internal combustion engine, and if you haven't got it yet you should probably go to sleep, because if you're didn't get that... So the donkey symbolizes the modes of travel. This is not just in the Hadith literature; it's in the Quran as well. God says in the Quran that He will bring about modes of transportation of which you are yet unaware. It also says in Al-Takwir (The Overthrowing), a wonderful chapter that gives
all of the signs of modern-day as the signs of the latter days, signs of the Mahdi. And you can read that in Revelation, Rationality Knowledge of Truth [by Mirza Tahir Ahmad]. So, the long and short of it is that the Dajjal, whom he would slay, will be marked out by his mode of transportation. It will eat fire and breathe smoke and travel fast over land, sea, and air. It's talking about modern modes of travel as the great sign of that nation.
What does the right eye being blind and the left eye seeing the earth mean? Well In Islamic prophecies and visions, the right signifies religion and the left signifies the world. So, the right eye being blind means it will be a nation that is spiritually blind, but its left eye will be so piercing that it will be able to see the treasures of
the earth. It means they will be driven by resource accumulation, like fossil fuels, gold, minerals, etc. It's a perfect description of Western imperialism. Specifically because... Western culture as well. No I wouldn't say, all aspects of Western culture, specifically Christianity, I would say, and its child atheism. Because the question is,
where do we get Christianity from in that story? The Dajjal is a term which means the great liar, and in the Holy Quran, the greatest lie that is stated, it says, "This is the greatest lie,' such a lie that would rend the heavens apart, right, and rend the Earth beneath our feet, is the idea that God has a son. This is described in Surah Al-Maryam, and Surah Al-Kahf, as such a lie that
it would rend the actual fabric of nature. And it is a lie which actually destroyed the fabric of Western society and Western belief in God. Because the irrational nature of the Trinity and the corrupted Bible put people off the Bible and Christianity so thoroughly, they went off all religion, and they became completely atheistic. They adopted this new religion of freedom instead. So, it is a lie which has destroyed the spiritual quality of the West completely.
I know you mentioned this earlier, but I want to give you some of the words of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and what he said about the Dajjal. This
was in 1893, in his book of revelations, which was... compiled after this death. He said, "I beseeched Allah the high and threw myself before Him, desiring that the mystery of descent might be resolved, and that the true interpretation of the Antichrist might be revealed, so that I should know it with the certainty of knowledge and should see it with the certainty of sight. His favour then turned towards my instruction, my understanding, and it was revealed to me. I was
taught..."and I'll go on a bit. He spoke about the Antichrist and said, "As to the Antichrist, now listen, I will explain to you the reality on the basis of the clear and pure revelation that I have received. Then understand, my dear ones, that it has been disclosed to me that the reference to the Antichrist, the Dajjal, (the great liar). as one individual, is not designed to indicate his personal individuality but his unity as a species, meaning thereby that in that species there will be
a unity of ideas, as is indeed indicated by the word 'Dajjal' itself. And in this name, there are many signs for those who reflect. The meaning of the word... Dajjal is a chain of deceptive ideas. The links of which are so attached to each other as if it was a structure of equal sized bricks of the same colour, quality, and strength." That's where I got that from, OK. "Some of them firmly overlapping others and further strengthened by being plastered on the
outside." So, it's an edifice of lies, built on lies, an empire, one would say, of lies. Yes, as a recent Russian description of the West had it. I thought it is highly, highly highly apt. So, this is the great disorder that all of these prophets of different eras warned about, and they said that there will be a spiritual battle. They tended to say that they, as a prophet, would come back in the latter days. And this is exactly what Dugin was getting at. He spoke about the Kalki
Avatar, the final Avatar. Did he speak about the Kalki Avatar? Yeah. Really? Yeah, he goes through how there will be, you know, the final manifestation of Krishna will come, and I think he goes to Buddha as well. All of these religions prophesy the second coming or the arrival of someone else in their form, or many of them at least, who will fight this final spiritual battle. We believe that Islam is that final religion for all people and for all times, and thus the one who
was to come would come within Islam. He would be a prophet that would be a representative of all of these previous prophets because he himself is a reflection of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who is the Master Prophet. That's right, and this is how we see Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who lived from 1835 to 1908. He didn't claim to
have a new law, a new Sharia. He didn't come with a new Quran or anything like that. He came as a spiritual reflection of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and one who would fight the manifestation of Satan as it had fully manifested in civilizational and cultural form by the 19th and then the 20th century. And he was there to fight it, and he did fight it. What was the nature of that fight? It was a spiritual battle. So, what are the weapons? Prayer. Prayer, that's right.
People often mis-take these prophecies because they speak of battle. Even the prophecy of Ezekiel about communism is about, "I will put hooks into their jaws, and I will come with an army, and I'll decimate..." These are metaphors that speak to the spiritual battle that occurs. The meaning of battle actually is deeper than a physical battle. A physical battle is one outer representation of a conflict which is deeper.
That's absolutely right. That's a very good point. And the greatest proof that this — a lot of people say, "Oh, Ahmadis, everything's metaphorical to you," right? It's not true. The death of Jesus is pretty literal. The death of Jesus is pretty literal in the Quran. And we're going to go through one... "No, that one's metaphorical." So then we'll go through one prophecy of the Promised Messiah, the founder of our community,
about Russia in particular, which is fulfilled to the tee. The key point I want to highlight is that the weapon of prayer is actually mentioned in the Hadith literature; that when Jesus comes, God will tell him, "I have created two nations which no people can contest, Gog and Magog. So don't even try to contest them, don't try and fight them, but pray, and your prayers will melt them as salt dissolves in water." This is in the Hadith of Sahih Muslim.
I can bring that up... or people can look for it. There's a very famous Hadith about the coming of the Messiah, and it's the long one in Sahih Muslim. It states that the method of the coming of the Messiah is explicitly not to fight them. God actually tells the Messiah when he comes, "Do not fight them. Pray, and your prayer will melt them as salt dissolves in water." They're the fighters; they're the ones who cause this disorder in the world.
So, you know, Muslims, as he's talked about the Sunni view, which is to come and be a military and political leader, it's directly contrary to what the Prophet Muhammad actually said. The Prophet Muhammad said that the Messiah would come and establish the abolition of the necessity for war. 'Yadaul Harb' is what he says in Sahih Bukhari. So he would stop war. This is the true meaning of the Messiah, and the founder of our community was that
individual. Let's get a picture at some point of the founder of the community — I can do that now. But you wanted to talk about one prophecy which is particularly relevant to the Russians, which talked about the Tsar, but it was a prophecy which he made, I believe, in 1905, originally in the form of a poem. This is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who lived from 1835 to 1908, and it's now the single biggest united Muslim community in the world.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made a shocking prophecy about a great calamity or earthquake, which would take place, and he wrote a poem about it... Why don't you tell us a little bit about the poem? We don't have to go through the whole poem, but some of the highlights of it. I would like to go through the poem. I think it's a pretty important poem. So, he basically, maybe you can bring it up again, please. This is April 15th,
1905. Can you see it? Is it big enough? I think it's big enough, isn't it? Yes. "I saw in my dream last night that there was a severe earthquake which seemed more terrible than the last one." And then, the next day, he writes this poem. He says, "A sign will appear sometime from now. Today is April 15th, 1905. Which will overwhelm villages, towns, and meadows. The wrath of God will bring about a revolution in mankind. The naked one
will have no time to fasten his trousers. Suddenly, a calamity, literally earthquake, will severely shake them all – be they humans, trees, rocks, or oceans. In the twinkling of an eye, the land will be turned upside down, and streams of blood will flow like the water of a rivulet. Those whose night garments were white as jasmine will be in the morning as if clad in red like the sycamore tree. Men shall lose their senses, and birds their consciousness, and
nightingales and pigeons will forget their song. That hour will bear heavily upon every traveller, and wayfarers will lose their way in confusion and delirium. With the blood of the dead, the running waters of the highland streams will turn red like bistort syrup. The terror of it will exhaust everyone, great and small, and even the Tsar at that hour will be in a pitiable state." Let's read that again: "The terror of it will exhaust everyone, great and small, and even
the Tsar at that hour will be in a pitiable state. That Divine sign will be a specimen of terror. The sky will attack with a drawn hatchet. Hasten not to repudiate this, thou undiscerning fool, for my truthfulness depends entirely on the fulfillment of this sign. This is a prophecy based on divine revelation and will doubtlessly be fulfilled. Wait then a while in righteousness and steadfastness."
And he states in a note appended to it: "Divine revelation has repeatedly employed the word 'earthquake' in this context and has indicated that the earthquake will indeed be an example of the Judgment Day. However, it should be termed the 'Earthquake of Judgment.' I am not able to apply
the word 'earthquake' with certainty upon its actual manifestation. It is possible that it may not be a common earthquake, but some other dire calamity which would be an example of Judgment Day, the like of which has not been witnessed before" – very important – "and which would bring about great destruction of life and property. If no such extraordinary sign appears while people have not openly reformed their way of life, I shall, in such a case, have been proven false."
I mean, wow. Just going through that prophecy, he said it would happen fast. He goes on to say that an unprecedented world calamity would happen within 16 years of 1905, so he was saying an unprecedented world calamity was going to happen within 16 years of 1905, in which the Tsar of Russia would be in a pitiable state... That was based, as far as I understand, on his assumption that it'd be in his lifetime, and that was the upper
limit of how long he thought he would live. But it is remarkable that, even though he was then told it wouldn't be during his lifetime, it was still fulfilled in that timeframe. Correct, correct. So, he was then taught a prayer in 1906, which is, "Oh my Lord, do not let me see the earthquake of the Judgment Day." He was taught a prayer to pray not to see
it, because it was such a terrible thing that it would affect him. Presumably, God wanted to spare him from seeing such a calamity affect mankind, for whom he had prayed so fervently in his life, of whom he cared so deeply. But all of the features of this are clearly about World War I. He says it's not certainly an earthquake. Earthquakes don't affect the whole world. He said it'll affect everyone. It'll be unprecedented, never happened before, the first of its kind — it will happen fast.
He began by saying, "It'll happen and fast. The wrath of God will bring a revolution in mankind, such that the naked one will have no time to fasten his trousers. Suddenly, a calamity will severely shake them all." And then he goes, "Blood will flow like a rivulet..." Can we just pause there? I mean, famously, World War I happened in a rapid fashion, totally unexpected. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, and boom, Europe was in
war... within a few days. "In the twinkling of an eye, the land will be turned upside down." So, that's referring to trench warfare. "The land will be turned upside down, and out of it, streams of blood will flow like the water of a rivulet." That's the Somme, to a tee. That was actually seen literally in some towns. And that was seen, particularly at Gallipoli — the description of what happened to the British soldiers was that the sea was red for 100
meters or 100 yards out. I can't remember the literal word-for-word description. But imagine how much water there is in the ocean, in the sea, on a seashore. The metric tons of water there for it to have been made red up to 100 yards or 100 meters out is an extraordinary thing. And he says, "Men shall lose their senses." You know, shell shock was the first time PTSD was recognized as a syndrome, as a diagnosis, born in World War I from its perspective.
"And birds their consciousness. Nightingales and pigeons will forget their song. "This is literally like what happened. I mean, there's that wonderful piece of work by Bilal Tahir in the Review of Religions. It's a wonderful publication which everyone should have a look at. It was founded by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community himself. So, reviewofreligions.org has an article where it actually documents how this literally happened. Birds did literally forget their songs,
and there was some chaos within some migrations of birds. I mean, I spent a long time trying to find a poem by an English poet who'd been in World War I, who wrote a poem about the birds forgetting their song that I'd read when I was in school, and I could not find it. It's always annoyed me. But even English poets have written about how the effect on bird life that the trench warfare had. It goes on to say that travelers will be affected, "The blood of the dead,
the running waters of highlands, will turn red." And famously, travel pathways, by ocean, were particularly destroyed. And then the key point he says is that, "The terror of it will exhaust everyone, great and small, and even the Tsar at that hour will be in a pitiable state." And he goes on to say, "That divine sign will be a specimen
of terror. The sky will attack with a drawn sword," which is exactly... the first time you saw aerial warfare, which was in World War I. Then he says, "Do not hasten to repudiate this, thou undiscerning fool, for my truthfulness depends entirely on the fulfillment of this sign." So, a worldwide calamity which will cause a revolution, and the Tsar will be in a pitiable state. How was... I mean, that's particularly relevant in every aspect to
Russia and the Russian experience. Can you tell us a bit about that? Well, the Tsar was in a pitiable state, is a perfect description because it wasn't just that... It doesn't refer to, it doesn't say Nicholas II, right? I think it was Tsar Nicholas II. He doesn't say him by name; it refers to his station and so refers to the institution. That's a good point. And the institution was removed from office with the Bolshevik
Revolution in 1917. And the prophecy was made in 1905, correct, when the Tsar was still relatively pretty secure, and he was actually enormously wealthy. And he was extremely loved, even at the beginning of World War I, the Tsar was extraordinarily well-loved in 1914. So, his downfall was very sudden, very unexpected. People say, "Oh well, anyone can prophesy against the Tsar." It's not just the Tsar; it's the Tsar in the context of
every other aspect of this prophecy. And in 1905, the Tsar was the greatest ruler of a landed empire, over the largest area possibly that the world had ever seen, right? Because of the size of Russia and the size of the Tsar's authority. And then what happened is he was taken from power, put under state arrest in a nice stately home, and then he was increasingly put into more and more confined and difficult circumstances
and homes. Eventually, his children were basically executed by Bolshevik guards, under instruction from the Bolshevik government. They just took him and his family, and they executed them. The story of how they were executed is harrowing. It’s written by one of the guards, so we have in detail all of the features of the pitiable state, you see. And that's also part of the fulfillment of this because we know exactly what happened to them.
It's harrowing. It's absolutely harrowing. I mean, anybody can read it. You know, they tried to kill the little girls, and the little girls had diamonds sewn into their dresses, maybe just because that was their wealth, maybe it was on purpose. So a lot of the bullets ricocheted off them, in which case the guards had to go and stab them with their bayonets. Little girls, young women. He had four daughters, I think,
three or four daughters. It's very, very harrowing and definitely in a pitiable state. Okay, and we know about it. That's also an aspect of the prophecy I hadn't appreciated before, which is that if we just found out that the Tsar had died and been executed, and there was no written record of how he died and what happened, we couldn't say that this was... I think that record was found later, but I can't remember whether it was or not. When it was found is irrelevant; we have it now.
So, this is specifically relevant for Russia, and I would say it's... you know, it's very difficult to say which is his greatest prophecy because each one, you go through them in life, and you're like, "Oh, this is actually his best prophecy." And then a year later, you're like, "This is his best prophecy," because every one is such extraordinary. But this one was marked out as a particular sign of his truth, upon which his truth relied.
Yeah, and it referred to one of the greatest and most calamitous events in human history, possibly the... especially because it itself gave birth to the Second World War, in a way. You can say they're kind of part of the same war, in a way, part one, part two. So, this is something which I think is a sign for the Russians as well. The Russians now, as they stand,
and as Dugin represents, are looking for that fourth political theory. They are looking for a way out of becoming Western, an antidote to becoming Western, a way out of following the path of the West. They need an antidote to this civilization, because their own civilization, which they historically had in Soviet Russia, has now fallen. So, what are they to become?
In the interim, they have become more Orthodox Christian, but maybe they even see the writing on the wall that this won't last forever, and they need to find something else. What we are saying is that Islam, and Islam Ahmadiyya in particular, is that something else. It is both universalist, and it allows for national pride and national progress. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said famously, "Love of one's nation is part of your
faith." Islam is very patriotic, you know, because it's just another way of serving your neighbor at the end of the day. It's serving those around you and those to whom you have a link, be it through your tongue, or ethnicity, or anything else, or through your common practices and values. So, Islam is that answer that Dugin and others are looking for. I think it's high time the Russians came to true spirituality.
That's absolutely right. So, you know, the founder of our Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, he... you might want to say, well, how did he slay the Dajjal? So how did he slay the Dajjal? The biggest way he did it, one of the most obvious ways you can say he did it,
was that he showed in his book "Jesus in India" that Jesus did not die on the cross. So, he attacked Paul's central foundational principle, on which he based the entire destruction of the Judaic law and the notion that a law given by God is a curse not to be followed. He did that by addressing the central core tenet, which is that Jesus died on the cross. He said, "Actually, if you see somebody walking around after an assassination attempt, bearing the
wounds of the assassination attempt, saying, 'I am not a ghost. Feel my wounds here and here, for "For a ghost does not have blood and flesh as I have. Do you have any fish, by the way? I'm pretty hungry," right? If somebody does that to you, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said, it tells you that the man survived the crucifixion attempt. He survived the assassination attempt. It's such a self-evident statement. If you were to see somebody after an assassination attempt, it means they didn't die.
You don't suddenly think, "Did he die and come back to life?" That's not the first thing that comes to mind. The first thing that comes to mind is he survived, especially because he prophesied that he would survive, as Jonah survived. That was his great sign, the sign of Jonah. Jonah survived incredibly adverse situations. What did Jesus say about Jonah? He said,
"My sign is that no sign shall be shown to this wicked generation except the sign of Jonah." So, the sign of Jonah, which is that when he should have died by being thrown into the sea, he was saved in a miraculous way, by being swallowed in the belly of a whale. Jesus, peace be upon him, similarly survived when he should have died. That was the sign of Jonah. But if you say that he died and came back to life, you've contradicted the sign of Jonah,
and thus Jesus is not true. It's a tight fit. So, by showing that Jesus, in actual fact, survived the crucifixion, he migrated to the East to find the lost tribes of Israel who are scattered over the East. And he went so far as to even demonstrate where the tomb of Jesus is in Kashmir. He identified it, and you can still visit the tomb of Jesus if the Indian government will let you. It's there. There's a BBC documentary on it. They showed
it. And the BBC are extremely authoritative, and never tell a lie, so it must be true! Actually, that BBC documentary, I think, is a really fantastic job. We even interviewed the director of that BBC documentary. If the BBC has done bad work; this is great work. So, definitely check it out. It's on YouTube. Though we do not advocate watching pirated documentaries, try and find the original. Well, I think we used it, but you will struggle, I promise you
that. It's on YouTube, just watch it on YouTube. We used it in one of our videos under fair use. Um, yes, we did. That's true. So, one can watch that. So, you're saying that, you know, the Russians are clinging at the moment to the Orthodox Church, but Jesus has been shown to have died, yes, by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. He was not crucified, he survived crucifixion, died a natural death, just in a different place, which completely cuts the
legs off the idea that he's the Son of God. Thus, if Russia, and thus Russia will be ill-fated if they stick to Christianity and some progressive atheism in their major cities. They will suffer the same decline that the West has suffered. So, Dugin and any other Russian philosophers, and any other ordinary Russians, if they're looking for something else, look towards Islam Ahmadiyya, in particular. It has exactly what they want. It has that middle way,
and even in the economic sphere. I mean, you know, why don't you explain, in terms of... you know, Dugin has identified interest as a major issue, but I still don't think he understands why, per se. And then BRICS is also thought to be creating its own currency, the equivalent of, you know, Keynes' Bancor, or a fulfillment of it. So, the question is, what's that going to be tied
to? People are saying a basket of commodities, and certainly gold is going to be all. As long as they have interest anywhere within their system, their system will unravel exactly as the Western system unravelled. Why? Because interest again is a universal acid in the economic sphere. It will slowly dilute and destroy everything that comes before it. Because once you accept the idea that a commodity can have a receipt, but that receipt can be replicated without the replication of the
commodity, you have created an inflationary system. And you have delinked your currency, i.e., your receipts, from the base asset. Because as the base asset grows like this, the receipts grow like this. And that is essentially what has happened to the Western system, to the point where that mismatch became so great that Nixon said, "Well, let's do away with the farce altogether.
Let's just agree that we're going off receipts." Yeah, because France sent his gunships to America to demand his gold back, because they were like, "You're just printing money for the Vietnam War. But that is something which is inevitable. That was the origin of Western banking in London and in the Dutch banks and stuff, it was this process of too many receipts... yeah. And that is what interest is, that's what 'riba' is. Interest demands that you print more receipts year on year,
without the commodity, the base asset, increasing. It demands it. Right. And especially when you create the money as debt. It's not like debt is a... yeah, then the receipt giver can issue debt at will and demand it back, even though they don't have the assets to back it up. Yeah, so Russia's going to go... enslaves them, absolutely.
So, the Russian currency system is going to go exactly the same trajectory. And they may try and mitigate it by having a basket of commodities, etc. Doesn't matter what the commodity is. It doesn't matter what the commodity is because it's not the commodity that matters, the currency. You could have a currency based on oil, but if it was actually based
on a one-to-one conversion, it could still work. Right. But if you have any currency, based on any commodity, but you allow for receipts and currency to be multiplied, which interest demands... because interest says time creates money, so as time goes on, you have to give me more money, where are you going to get money from? I'm going to have to get some more receipts, even though the actual thing hasn't changed. So the banks have to print more. The
banks have to print more year on year. And this is what we spoke about at length with Tariq El-Diwany, yeah, a wonderful interview. And we are hoping, God willing, to do another one at some point if he'll let us. Don't think he will... he's trying to stay out of the limelight. Not that we're in much limelight, but no, we're in that very hot light. Yeah. So, you know, this is an inevitable process,
and BRICS will unravel financially unless they do something different. But they are basically, the whole BRICS thing is, 'We're going to join together and do what the West did but against the West.' You know, 'We're going to be Christian but against their atheism, even though they were Christian. 'We're going to have a commodity currency against their fiat currency,' even though they once had commodity currencies. You're going to have the same fate.
Yeah, and most fundamentally, without real spiritual religious law that regulates your people and your social culture, then your quality of government will decline in the same way. You will end up in the same moral trappings, and you'll have the same issues. Yeah, you are not special. This is something which every nation needs to learn. You are not fundamentally special or different. We are all humans, and we all have one God. And the only
salvation we ever have is submission to that one God through His laws. The Russian experience will be no different. The Chinese experience will be no different from the Western experience if they go down the same path. Yeah, I agree, I agree. Alrighty, well, I think that was the preamble done, right? When are we going to get into it?" Pretty soon. Thank you very much for watching. Do we have any comments we need to cover? I mean, you know, let me wrap up this video, and then we'll do that.
Alright. Thank you very much for watching this video. Please check out our many social medias on Twitter, on Facebook, on... sorry, on X, on Facebook, on Instagram, on TikTok. And subscribe. Make sure you like and give us some comments below, particularly if you're in Russia. Even if you post in Russian, we will use Google Translate and hope that's good enough, and try and reply to
you. But for now, thank you so much for watching. And finally, the last thing that we want to say is that Alexander Dugin, if you do want to come on to the show and discuss some of the ideas, we would be very happy to talk further with you about the contents of today and anything else that you wanted to discuss. Peace be upon you. Peace be on you.