Yes! They always twist our language around with words like ‘care’ as in gender reassignment.
We need to care about the climate—which we can do nothing about other than stress about it and give our saviors more money so their big brains can solve the problem.
Brave New World, 1984, we have moved beyond that, the future is quite bleak. Enjoy your memories of the past. Putin is hated because he stands up for his country and the people. He is not a bumbling robot like the Docile Mannequin in DC, or the narcississtic Mr. Freeze up here in Kanauckistan.
Ukraine is (obviously) a totalitarian/nazi-supporting authoritarian regime. They were before Russia invaded, and they still are. (The fact that Russia is, as well, does not change that.) The only thing is, Ukraine is smarter about buying off support in the West. Amazon is sickening. Again, no surprise here, but no less sickening.
The deathly lure of ever increasing power and wealth is a human disease... 'Empire' is the name of the game humanity refuses to let go of, be it in the form of a Babylonian, Persian, Roman, English, French, Chinese, Russian, American or UN (another Tower of Babel) format. It is good to remember the German fable of the 'Fisherman and his wife'... the fisherman who caught the 'lucky fish' and was granted a wish for returning him to the sea, tells the story of the Fisherman's wife who kept asking (demanding) for ever increasing amounts of power and wealth, never satisfied with what she had, after it had been granted. Finally, after the frustration of the one granting her wishes becomes exasperated, she and her husband are returned to their original state poverty of the 'hovel'. (P.S. Her husband was also a coward in not refusing her.)
I’m not onboard with Japan. The whole continent of Africa seems to have a systemic problem too. For sure nursing homes in Philly literally hire them for their nastiness.
1) Dugin seems to be working up to, but never getting around to actually expressing, the idea that the locus of rights should in effect be tribes rather than individuals. He seems to regard this as the opposite of Neo-Communism. (By "Neo-Communism" I mean re-framing "oppression" in terms of groups rather than class, and presenting "justice" in terms of re-distribution of status rather than "the workers controlling the means of production.) But this view is, as my way of putting things has hopefully made clear, very similar to Neo-Communism. The main difference is a single ethnic identity, like "Russians" in the case of Russia (if I have understood Dugin correctly), versus the various sub-identities that Neo-Communists revel (or wallow) in. But that is 2ndary. At the primary level, Dugin's Tribalism is suspiciously close to the "Liberalism" he condemns.
2) Nothing in Liberalism that implies that the "infinite regress" definitions favored by the Neo-Communists, such as "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman", are legitimate. Mere rationality demands that such definitions must be dismissed out of hand.
3) Dugin also seems to regard two "differents" as "sames". A nation-state based on ethnicity/language, for example Hungary, is not the same thing as a nation-state with a single official language but without a corresponding ethnic identity. This is what America long ago became, and what the UK began to become after WWII. Speaking English is not necessarily the same thing as regarding oneself as a member of the English "tribe". For reasons of practicality, a nation-state should ideally have only one official language. The more the un-merrier: any "extra" official languages will (all things being equal) create "out-group hostility" between groups. They will also, if there is any semi-clear territorial divide, motivate secessionism.
4) Nothing about "Russia for Russians" implies that, in Russia, "taxation without representation" is somehow not tyranny.
Overall, I think that philosophers tend to talk themselves in circles by thinking in words that they do not clearly define in their own somewhat addled heads. And I think that is what has happened here.
That is why, as TC noted, what Dugin calls Liberalism should be called Il-Liberalism. It is a matter of definition, of course, as Dugin noted. But two things as different as Liberalism and Il-Liberalism should not be shoved into the same conceptual tent. Any definition that does that is overly broad.
Looks Orwellian to me where words are redefined to be opposite of their previous meaning. Amazes me that it is happening so broadly in time and space and so few journalists are publishing opposition.
Like "saving democracy" meaning "ending democracy". Beyond that, there is a "systemic" problem with 1) non-definition of terms, and 2) shifting meaning of terms. Like I say, the Far Left never met a fallacy it didn't like: "Through the miracle of fallacies, any desired conclusion can be reached!"
"your book ... not a manual for bomb making or invading Ukraine..." Tucker obviously hsn't read Foundations of Geopolitics. to wit:
"On the key question of Ukraine, Dugin underlines: "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning. It has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness" (377). "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions," he warns, "represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics" (348). And he adds that, "[T]he independent existence of Ukraine (especially within its present borders) can make sense only as a 'sanitary cordon'" (379). However, as we have seen, for Dugin all such "sanitary cordons" are inadmissible.
Dugin speculates that three extreme western regions of Ukraine--Volynia, Galicia, and Trans- Carpathia--heavily populated with Uniates and other Catholics, could be permitted to form an independent "Western Ukrainian Federation." But this area must not under any circumstances be permitted to fall under Atlanticist control (382). With the exception of these three western regions, Ukraine, like Belorussia, is seen as an integral part of Eurasia-Russia." https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics (page references to the original Russian version of Foundations of Geopolitics)
My bet is that Tucker is referring to Dugin's 2012 book, The Fourth Political Theory, which indeed has none of this in it. Dugin is a nationalist/fascist, which he hints at in this interview, and if you're familiar with his works, both in English and Russian, is plain to see.
Your English is getting better. BTW, it's "the USA" and "the West" rather than "USA" and "West", that's a common mistake for native speakers of Russian. Also, you don't need to buy Foundations of Geopolitics, you can get it for free, online, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20060101010117/http://arctogaia.com/public/osnovygeo/
For some reason or other, there's never been a good English translation, at least none I've seen.
I think there’s been plenty of translations, but mostly only through the mouths of USA neocons. Then even that became too dangerous for those supporting the continuation of the Ukraine conflict, it would seem.
It’s also quite apparent you are unable to defend the book banning of this person you dislike. At least we know you agree with that, as most free thinking Americans do.
You didn’t answer Matt’s question about who is the fascist. Seems to me that banning books is a fascist trait. And fuck any spelling or grammatical mistakes I made.
Wow. THAT was most interesting.
Progressives are, in effect, and using the guise of “liberalism”, actually weaponizing it to turn against humanity itself.
The tyranny of the minority.
Yes! They always twist our language around with words like ‘care’ as in gender reassignment.
We need to care about the climate—which we can do nothing about other than stress about it and give our saviors more money so their big brains can solve the problem.
Brave New World, 1984, we have moved beyond that, the future is quite bleak. Enjoy your memories of the past. Putin is hated because he stands up for his country and the people. He is not a bumbling robot like the Docile Mannequin in DC, or the narcississtic Mr. Freeze up here in Kanauckistan.
I remember when Canadians were tough and proud. Now that’s just a punch line.
Ukraine is (obviously) a totalitarian/nazi-supporting authoritarian regime. They were before Russia invaded, and they still are. (The fact that Russia is, as well, does not change that.) The only thing is, Ukraine is smarter about buying off support in the West. Amazon is sickening. Again, no surprise here, but no less sickening.
Very interesting discussion.
The deathly lure of ever increasing power and wealth is a human disease... 'Empire' is the name of the game humanity refuses to let go of, be it in the form of a Babylonian, Persian, Roman, English, French, Chinese, Russian, American or UN (another Tower of Babel) format. It is good to remember the German fable of the 'Fisherman and his wife'... the fisherman who caught the 'lucky fish' and was granted a wish for returning him to the sea, tells the story of the Fisherman's wife who kept asking (demanding) for ever increasing amounts of power and wealth, never satisfied with what she had, after it had been granted. Finally, after the frustration of the one granting her wishes becomes exasperated, she and her husband are returned to their original state poverty of the 'hovel'. (P.S. Her husband was also a coward in not refusing her.)
Germany has a long history of producing real bitches.
Germany, Japan... I'm sure there are many I have forgotten.
I’m not onboard with Japan. The whole continent of Africa seems to have a systemic problem too. For sure nursing homes in Philly literally hire them for their nastiness.
The truth is dangerous all over the world.
Just a few quick points ...
1) Dugin seems to be working up to, but never getting around to actually expressing, the idea that the locus of rights should in effect be tribes rather than individuals. He seems to regard this as the opposite of Neo-Communism. (By "Neo-Communism" I mean re-framing "oppression" in terms of groups rather than class, and presenting "justice" in terms of re-distribution of status rather than "the workers controlling the means of production.) But this view is, as my way of putting things has hopefully made clear, very similar to Neo-Communism. The main difference is a single ethnic identity, like "Russians" in the case of Russia (if I have understood Dugin correctly), versus the various sub-identities that Neo-Communists revel (or wallow) in. But that is 2ndary. At the primary level, Dugin's Tribalism is suspiciously close to the "Liberalism" he condemns.
2) Nothing in Liberalism that implies that the "infinite regress" definitions favored by the Neo-Communists, such as "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman", are legitimate. Mere rationality demands that such definitions must be dismissed out of hand.
3) Dugin also seems to regard two "differents" as "sames". A nation-state based on ethnicity/language, for example Hungary, is not the same thing as a nation-state with a single official language but without a corresponding ethnic identity. This is what America long ago became, and what the UK began to become after WWII. Speaking English is not necessarily the same thing as regarding oneself as a member of the English "tribe". For reasons of practicality, a nation-state should ideally have only one official language. The more the un-merrier: any "extra" official languages will (all things being equal) create "out-group hostility" between groups. They will also, if there is any semi-clear territorial divide, motivate secessionism.
4) Nothing about "Russia for Russians" implies that, in Russia, "taxation without representation" is somehow not tyranny.
Overall, I think that philosophers tend to talk themselves in circles by thinking in words that they do not clearly define in their own somewhat addled heads. And I think that is what has happened here.
Number 2 can get you arrested in Scotland, mate.
That is why, as TC noted, what Dugin calls Liberalism should be called Il-Liberalism. It is a matter of definition, of course, as Dugin noted. But two things as different as Liberalism and Il-Liberalism should not be shoved into the same conceptual tent. Any definition that does that is overly broad.
Looks Orwellian to me where words are redefined to be opposite of their previous meaning. Amazes me that it is happening so broadly in time and space and so few journalists are publishing opposition.
Like "saving democracy" meaning "ending democracy". Beyond that, there is a "systemic" problem with 1) non-definition of terms, and 2) shifting meaning of terms. Like I say, the Far Left never met a fallacy it didn't like: "Through the miracle of fallacies, any desired conclusion can be reached!"
Fantastic interview, Thank you for posting this, I would have missed it.
Interesting that anthroposophy says that the next epoch will belong to the Slavs.
What’s the secret to a strong nation? Family & Faith, something leaders are doing their best to get us to turn our backs on.
Oh, and sound money backed by real assets—meaning no central bank fiat system. No more money-lenders.
After the fall of the Soviet Union he was the founder of a new Bolshevik party; economic control without the compromises...
These folks tend not to change. He hated the West then, so...
Another, deeper take on Dugin: https://www.stephenhicks.org/2023/03/11/is-alexander-dugin-fascist-neo-marxist-or-what-professor-hicks-lecture-in-gdansk-poland-now-online/
His books are great. Thank you, Sasha Stone, for the easy link.
Very well done..thank you for an eye opening interview!
Tyranny of the oligarchy.
And Zelensky was born in to the oligarchy.
"your book ... not a manual for bomb making or invading Ukraine..." Tucker obviously hsn't read Foundations of Geopolitics. to wit:
"On the key question of Ukraine, Dugin underlines: "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning. It has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness" (377). "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions," he warns, "represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics" (348). And he adds that, "[T]he independent existence of Ukraine (especially within its present borders) can make sense only as a 'sanitary cordon'" (379). However, as we have seen, for Dugin all such "sanitary cordons" are inadmissible.
Dugin speculates that three extreme western regions of Ukraine--Volynia, Galicia, and Trans- Carpathia--heavily populated with Uniates and other Catholics, could be permitted to form an independent "Western Ukrainian Federation." But this area must not under any circumstances be permitted to fall under Atlanticist control (382). With the exception of these three western regions, Ukraine, like Belorussia, is seen as an integral part of Eurasia-Russia." https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics (page references to the original Russian version of Foundations of Geopolitics)
My bet is that Tucker is referring to Dugin's 2012 book, The Fourth Political Theory, which indeed has none of this in it. Dugin is a nationalist/fascist, which he hints at in this interview, and if you're familiar with his works, both in English and Russian, is plain to see.
Dugin’s books are banned in USA and only available in West through private sellers. Remind me again who is the fascist?
Your English is getting better. BTW, it's "the USA" and "the West" rather than "USA" and "West", that's a common mistake for native speakers of Russian. Also, you don't need to buy Foundations of Geopolitics, you can get it for free, online, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20060101010117/http://arctogaia.com/public/osnovygeo/
For some reason or other, there's never been a good English translation, at least none I've seen.
I think there’s been plenty of translations, but mostly only through the mouths of USA neocons. Then even that became too dangerous for those supporting the continuation of the Ukraine conflict, it would seem.
It’s also quite apparent you are unable to defend the book banning of this person you dislike. At least we know you agree with that, as most free thinking Americans do.
You didn’t answer Matt’s question about who is the fascist. Seems to me that banning books is a fascist trait. And fuck any spelling or grammatical mistakes I made.
You only have to look at the pedigree of Ukraine’s president to know who is in charge.
Fascinating and cogent discussion.
I don’t read books like that anyway but I still don’t like the idea of books like that getting banned.