"Liberalism give us the freedom to be liberal and takes away the freedom to be illiberal." This is expressed by my peers by the admonition to "be intolerant to intolerance." The misstep here is that intolerance toward intolerance denies that there may be circumstances and contexts in which intolerance is perfectly appropriate. Unnecessarily dangerous or unsafe behavior, drug abuse, sex with and sexualization of minors, etc. The list is actually quite long. The better formulation is to discern what types of attitudes, moral sentiments and actions are necessary in every context- a much more demanding project, which is why it's eschewed for a low-resolution rubric of so-called militant tolerance.
"The better formulation is to discern what types of attitudes, moral sentiments and actions are necessary in every context- a much more demanding project" Imo you hit the jackpot there, but this project has already been undertaken 1400 years ago.
“When liberalism is compared to itself, it becomes totalitarian. It begins to show its inner negativity and it begins to manifest its totalitarian nature.” Looking at the world today, this quote seems incredibly prescient.
Your bet would be wrong. I am fairly liberal, depending on the issue, though definitely not progressive. When Dugin talks about liberal totalitarianism he is referring to progressivism.
@@MD-md4th he’s referring to broad political theories not specific ones. Liberalism fascism and socialism as dugin describes is exposed to encompass every ideological player of the 20/21st century. He’s not making a point about a specific type of liberalism he’s talking liberalism as a broad ideological lens. Dugin explains there is no major government today that is not liberal. So my bet was wrong you’re a centrist who’s take way was progressivism bad.
He is not referring to broad political theories. This man’s English is not the greatest, requiring knowledge of the issues he discusses as well as some intuition as to what he is trying to say. If you listen closely, he expresses the idea that liberalism has changed, or more accurately, that a core has emerged, like a Trojan Horse. When he speaks of the difference between “liberalism” and “modernity”, modernity being the cult of the individual, modernity is progressivism. He is referring to the progressive delusions of people like Woodrow Wilson, and post-war globalists including Neocons, who yearn for the dominance of Western ideas, institutions, and ultimately social norms worldwide, seeking to subjugate all who resist. He doesn’t say “there is no major government today that is not liberal”, which is objectively false, he suggests liberalism is on the path to dominance, which is valid though still questionable. You will notice he mentions Francis Fukuyama, a pre-eminent neocon. Neocons are the quintessential modernists of which he speaks, supporting liberal social policy as well as well as classical liberal, aka neoliberal economic policy. The worst of both worlds. As for your assertion that I am a centrist whose take away is that progressivism is bad, yes! You are correct. And yet I am not against progressivism in the old-school sense of basic rights and safety nets. I am against it in the sense of the cult of the individual, where each identity can essentially create their own society within society, using coercion to force acceptance. There cannot be an endless multitude of arbitrary systems. The end result will be a brutal backlash against the interlopers, or dissolution and collapse.
Liberalism as it is practiced in the United States and other western countries contains a deep contradiction. On one hand, it is humanitarian, concerned with human rights and democracy, with gender and racial equality. But the real economic/political dynamism of American-style liberalism is predatory capitalism, which flattens everything in its path. So, we have the impoverishment of the US working classes, "race" war on the physical as well as cultural level, and the undermining of America's educational, healthcare and physical infrastructure in the name of bigger profits for the biggest corporations. Economic inequality will destroy liberalism, NOT Alex. Dugin's ideas.
Yes. I agree. When something seems to don't work, people usually wants to destroy it, when a better solution is to improve it, since the current state of things was born to solve past problems. Destroying the current state of things opens the doors to old dangers that have been already solved. For me, the opinion of trying to destroy something just because it's imperfect and is going to the wrong path is a mistake, and I think this mistake is rooted on psychological lazyness: it's easier to build something new, because trying to understand the problem is harder. Destroying doesn't require understanding, while improving does.
Agreed. Individual freedom must be restricted not just by that of other individuals but also by a safety net that ensures that losers do not go down below a certain human standard and that they have an opportunity to rise. But human rights, a notion arisen from the hard lessons of history, can only be enforced within liberal regimes. Any collectivist regime crushes individuals or colectivities that challenge it.
The plot-twist will come in 400 years when we accept that economic inequality is a reality of human existence and that as a matter of fact despite the hypocrisy of the Epstein and Davos crowds that as a matter of fact it is actually a little better when society is governed by educated people. It's the way we purvey a cult of, "meritocracy" that actually justifies global hierarchy. Creating a, "fair meritocracy for deplorables where education can't help you" (ie. Pol Potism, military authoritarianism, MAGAism) won't produce a utopia. It will significantly reduce the number of competent doctors, lawyers, and engineers practicing in the world-- especially those with last names like, "Singh" "Kumar" "Li" or, "Langlois." We need a, "better unfairness" not, "real fairness according to regular people." There's nothing more disgraceful than a country full of pretend poor people complaining that they eat too much cake.
In my opinion he won the debate against Levy (covered by this channel). Always stayed in philosophy ring unlike his opponent who was always trying to steer away from problems that Western liberalism gave birth to.
Emil Sosnin Not that I am an apologist for 'Western liberalism'-----------a vague term after all, therefore all the more convenient for Mr. Dugin's use. But what problems did 'Western liberalism' bring into being that never existed before? Human nature is incredibly stable over time, even if culture is not. Our repertoire of sins has not changed since remotest antiquity. Read the Bible and you will see. The Ten Commandments given to Moses have not become any easier to keep than they were when first written on tablets of stone. In the words of Ecclesiastes, 'there is nothing new under the sun.'
@@jesusislordsavior6343 "never existed" would imply that they "never ocurred" but if we're speaking of "occur with exaggerated frequency" then the answer to your question would be "homosexuality, abortion, miscegenation etc.". America is gomorrah, and if you're a christian you have to accept this fact.
@@violenceisfun I don't seriously object to that characterization. But how you could apply it UNIQUELY to America or even the West, I do not know. Also there are many in America, I believe, who are making a serious effort to resists the tide of godlessness. This set is NOT congruent btw with the set, 'Republicans', though many Republicans would like us to believe that. Let's flee from 'eurocentrism' by all means! On the other hand let's not romanticize non-Western cultures because of the iniquities of the West. (Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Observe the general direction of traffic, as concerns migration. Why are people fleeing islamic societies and coming to the West, EVEN in its degenerate state? They cannot find security or justice in those 'islamic countries'. How many people are migrating the opposite way, to find happiness, contentment, and 'clean living' in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.? Perhaps the sexual morality of muslims is not so good as muslims claim. Their founder was not an exemplar of virtue. Re: abortion--------------here in Canada, immigrants from India (Sikhs mainly at that time) used to get ultrasound exams for pregnant women at public expense, so that they could abort the females. Having to raise a girl meant having to pay a heavy dowry later on. I could tell you stories about immoral, brutal, and mercenary buddhist monks in Asian countries. Bangkok is known as a Mecca for human traffickers. No, the West does not have a monopoly on vice.
@HeerKommando How do you define 'superiority'? People tend to believe that their OWN culture is superior, no matter from where they come. This is a natural extension of their egoism. Haven't you noticed? Chinese think that their way is best. They point to their long history and feel entitled to bully others because of their great demographic weight. Indigenous people in my country think that their way is best, no two ways about; they hate and blame Western culture for their sufferings. And so on. To be sure, I don't agree with their perspective. I am not some kind of cultural masochist who only wishes to knock down his own. But 'the West' is not an entity which developed separately, without relation to any other culture. Nor is it a singular and uniform entity. And it shares many flaws in common with others in the same category, because human nature is remarkably consistent across cultures. No highly influential culture is self-contained. And you must admit the importance of CHRISTIANITY to the development of Western culture! Christianity would not exist apart from its Hebraic roots. You should read the Bible and find out. At the same time, Christianity is NOT LIMITED to the West, for Christ's mission to the world is universal. God's Word stands in judgment over ALL human culture. Read Romans chapters 1-3 in the New Testament and find out. For example: (Romans 1:18) 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness....' (Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
Dugin lost the debate with Levy because of Levy's boasting and pharisaic behaviour. Levy twisted the facts, slandered, interrupted the opponent and tryed to show up his "moral superiority". I will never read Levy's books after seeing his debate with Dugin.
On one hand, he denies the existence of absolute truth, stating that all truth is necessarily relative to a believing subject, on the other hand he believes in the existence of (Platonic?) ideas outside of the mind. You do not see these two convictions go hand in hand very often.
@@bradspitt3896 It is reconciled through Dasein. The lived experience of the being, of the culture, of the civilization, through it’s innate, immutable nature which is encoded in it’s DNA, is how it interprets the eternal Platonic truths that exist outside of the mind. That’s how I see it at least. Because the idea is so new, the picture seems blurry, but I honestly think that there is something there to be further developed with time and greater contributions to the project. Maybe it’s all wrong or maybe it’s the path to salvation. Whatever it is, it’s worth pursuing in the face of the total annihilation presented by liberalism.
@@elon_bust1) whether Dasein (i.e. the being whose being is an issue for it) necessarily has a DNA cannot be known a priori. 2) Also DNA is not unchangable. 3) The claim that truth exists only relative to power relations and is ontologically dependent on thought and cultural practices is irreconcilable with the claim that truth exists independently from power relations and human thought in the realm of ideas. 4)yes liberalism is dangerous but speaking nonsense is no cure against it. Postmodernism is no cure against liberalism, it is the soil on which liberalism grows. If you want to fight the nonsense of liberalism you have to fight nonsense. The only intellectual weapon for that is clear thinking and not pseudo-philosophical obscurantism.
Honestly, he strikes me as an ideologue who uses/says whatever is convenient. Like him using post-modernism as an argument against objective truth, despite the fact that conservatives generally try to discredit post-modernism and moral relativism, often citing it as a reason for a supposed moral decay in modern society.
@@Max_Mustermann You can’t try to understand his approach until you actually read it. Everything he says will seem strange until you understand where he’s coming from.
I watched this video a few times every I watch it I find new things that I missed before. This is one of the few interviews he explains his ideas clearly and to the point. In his Other videos, he can go off a tangent or the points he made difficult to understand.
SAME HERE, THE FIRST TIME I WATCHED I COULDN'T REALLY COMPREHEND HIS MESSAGE BUT THE SECOND TIME I LISTEN I SAW WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY!!!!!!! AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE...
There is a stale taste on individualism that reminds a lot of narcissism. And ideas do connect and make up a culture. Interesting, especially since he puts emphasis on freedom, which maybe I used to confuse with individualism.
From personal experience I can tell quite confidently that, 75% of people criticizing dugin (including Ethnonationalists) don't really understand his ideas. And no, I'm not a dugin Stan, I disagree with him in some cases, but I respect him because we both belong to the wider anti enlightenment tradition.
everything turns around competitive advantage. The liberalism for some ... results in more burden and thus less freedom for others. It is George Orwell pure. If everyone if free to do as they want, some are allowed by life, by each others, to be more free than others. Social hierarchy establishes itself. On the way from 1 ideology to another, for example to liberalism, a number of people feel their growing advantages and join together and they silence opposition (fascism). In this way, indeed, liberalism is perfectly possible to result in fascism.
The first problem with discussions like this is that liberalism, conservatism, far right and far left are not well defined and therefore everyone has their own definition. There may be some agreement about the extremes but in between it can be confusing especially when some use it as a label.
The definition of of conservatism, liberalism and socialism are best understood by the writings of Jean Baptiste Colbert, Adam Smith, and Marx. Colbert felt it was best for the state to interfere in the Economy for the benefit of a few rich Merchants, Smith felt that the state should not interfere at all, and Marx felt the state should interfere for the benefit of all. They're understanding of people were that they are either competitive, cooperative or malleable. They all thought humans were at their best when at work.
@@jackiepie7423 See, I don't see things that way. If you are saying liberalism doesn't want the state to interfere at all that sounds more like libertarian but not liberalism of today's experience. Liberalism wants the state to control everything.
@@bingo7799 libertarians are actually liberals umm to get the best understanding about mercantilism look into what the libertarians have to say about it. they treat it no more kindly than they do communism. just so you know my own biases, i ^hate^ to work, so i none of the above.
My thoughts exactly. What is theory without working definitions? A complete waste of time and mental energy. I chuckle at comments that feign understanding.
The man reveals the real essence of liberalism. He goes beyond the fake facade of its’ definition. However in his lectures he gives proper definitions and the history of their evolvement.
@@alexandrmartynov5281 Mr. Dugin may or may not agree with you that truth is subjective, nevertheless his understanding of it is highly subjective. In one of his more absurd statements, he asserted that there is a particular 'Russian truth'. I happen to think that much of our reasoning is subjective, because we do not possess very much knowledge by which to ascertain truth. Sometimes we are unwilling to use the knowledge that we have. At they very least this is my subjective impression. Jesus would NOT agree with your statement that truth is subjective, therefore I would not either, because I take His word as authoritative: (John 14:6) 'I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.' Certain FACTS about His life (including His Resurrection from the dead) give REASON to believe that He was speaking the OBJECTIVE truth.
@@valueinvestor6715 in fairness, the guy wrote an entire book about his political theory. A mixture of communism and you-know-what. The depth of his work is definitely not given credit because of how he is framed in media, though.
@@АлексейГетманец-м9з I have read some Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Ivan Ilyan, and Pyotr Wrangel. I read Putin's approved biography , currently reading up on Rudolf Hess. Dostoyevsky is unsurpassed, a perfect author.
@@АлексейГетманец-м9з Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are certainly better in Russian, but you can still extract most of their value through good translations. Pushkin, on the other hand, should really be read in Russian if you want to understand why he is so revered in Russia.
This sounds like a random arrangement of common phrases - arguing in this way, you can twist everything: Evil is good, good is evil, etc. Welcome to Orwell's 1984!🤥🙃
Liberalism's troubling present manifestation is in child sexual "liberation" in the form of allowing children (generally via propaganda) to make decisions such as receiving sexual augmentation before they can even grasp the concept in any meaningful way. The nature of Unchecked liberalism tends toward a never ending push into a deconstruction of instinct and reason to the point of degeneracy and societal decay.
@@AlexP-jz9sg I get your point regarding unrestrained Liberalism in general. By the way: Why are they so interested in underage children? Is this due to their inability to find adult mates ? I don´t understand why this provides them with the kind of benefit you described. That´s like eating "green" tomatoes or immature berries. Even for a fringe Liberalist, children should be taboo!
@@Gonzo_-zb5mf He claims that the enemy of freedom is negative liberal freedom which is vague and confusing to say the least. If what he describes as negative freedom is not freedom at all then he should say it is not freedom and call it for what it is which is not liberalism in a true sense but a corrupted idea meant to disguise itself as freedom or liberalism. The people doing evil things under the banner of liberalism are not true liberals and would ultimately corrupt its meaning like what was done to socialism and communism which where paraded as such but actually tended to totalitarianism. Dugin is essentially trying to invent a new ism to counter the existing ideologies that he considers to be anti Russian.
Not to be too much of an apologist, but America's Founding Fathers were well aware that "Liberty" and "Freedom" were only possible/positive if people are virtuous (which shows the intrinsic religiousity of American liberalism, and therefore and the ironies of saying "separation of church and state" when you're really creating a state religion----but that's a bit of a tangent). Point being, they would have largely agreed with Dugin, that "Freedom for > Freedom from"
Joe Essig I'm not American but a northern neighbor, and I don't know much about your 'founding fathers'. Yet your central point makes a lot of sense. I am glad that you acknowledge the 'religiosity' of American liberalism as well as its dominance in American political thought, regardless how Americans choose to LABEL themselves. (Dugin is good with labels within the 'conservative' spectrum, but utterly careless in lumping all 'liberals' together. The bogeyman must not be examined too carefully, lest he fall apart.) Now by 'religious' one does not necessarily imply 'Christian'. For deism was quite popular among intellectuals of the Enlightenment period. I know that Thomas Jefferson was heterodox, for he chopped out parts of the Bible which he didn't like. This shows irreverence and not just selectivity. Those self-styled 'liberals' who equate secularism with agnosticism or atheism are off the mark, and desperately misinterpret 'separation of Church and State'. Indeed I would argue that Church and State were ordained by God for entirely separate purposes, and were never meant to be fused. 'Church' does not refer to 'religious institutions' in general, or even specific denominations, but to the universal body of believers in Jesus Christ throughout the ages. It is an eternal community, whereas the State is a temporal institution. Indeed Europeans who had suffered by the imposition of State religion often found solace on this side of the 'pond'. Contrary to what the hyper-secularists say, separation of Church and State helps preserve the Church from the corruption that excessive involvement with State would bring, more than the other way around. Two problems remain however. One has to do with 'civil religion'. States have an unfortunate way of imposing dominant ideologies on their people, using ceremonies with a 'religious' flavor and often invoking the name of God. When Nation becomes equal to or greater than God in the sight of the people, it is a sure sign of IDOLATRY. Did you ever read Harvey Cox, 'The Secular City' (1965)? In it he discusses the prevalence of 'civil religion' in America AND concurrently in the Soviet Union, with its 'religion' of Marxism-Leninism. The other problem has to do with governmental favoritism in religion which is politically motivated. In Canada, special privileges were accorded to the Catholic church since Confederation, as a concession. These have remained in place for 150 years. Although not alone, the Catholic church was used as a sort of club against the Native population, through the system of residential schools by which children were forcibly removed from their families. A great deal of abuse took place, and consequently the name of Christ was dishonored among the Native population.
@@person10 Does satan not have enough power already? You want to give him more. You need to repent of HISTORICAL REVISIONISM> Jesus of Nazareth DID INDEED die on a Roman cross, under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, at the urging of the Jewish Sanhedrin. He DID INDEED rise from the dead. And with those facts, your religion died 600 years before muhammad invented it. Can you imagine anything more useless than a religion whose basic premises were DISPROVEN long before anyone thought of it?
Yet some of the founders weren’t righteous(Ben Franklin for example). And America “separation of church and state” leads inevitably to a secular (And I foresee) and atheist state
@@Orthodoge You are completely on point in your first statement. Deism was a popular doctrine among intellectuals of the Enlightenment period. On the second point, I would argue that State authority is by its very nature secular (of this world). God ordained the Church as an eternal institution, and according to Romans 13:1 ff., governmental authority as a provisional measure for the ordering of human society. In the immediate context, Christians had to deal with a temporal authority (imperial Rome) which was not exactly friendly. Therefore I would argue that Church and State were inherently separate from the beginning. Theocracy is our ideal as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we shall have it when He comes again. The Law of Moses might be conceived as a blueprint for theocratic government, but the Israelites were unwilling and ultimately unable to bear its demands. Paul says that the Law is a tutor to lead us to Christ. It reveals our inadequacy, our sinful nature. Has not the Church defiled itself at times by excessive preoccupation with secular affairs at the expense of its true ministry of preaching the Gospel to the world? Think of the abuses of the Roman Catholic church, which behaved very much as a temporal authority in medieval Europe, or as a close ally of temporal authority during European colonization of foreign lands. Certainly states which promote atheism as part of a dominant ideology have done tremendous damage. However atheism is a dry-as-dust religion in itself, not very inspiring for the masses. I am not worried about religion PER SE being drowned out. Ultimately, whoever is not for Christ is against Him. Therefore the primary task of the Church in this age is preaching of the Gospel (see Matthew 28:19-20). One also hopes that the Church may speak prophetically on issues of the day, as did the Hebrew prophets of old. In that casea certain distance from secular authority may be required.
Liberalism is the atlantist societies is a myth. All individuals, like in authoritarian managements, are tracked : their accounts , their opinions, their movements are all monitored in the name of fight against terrorism. There is much more freedom in Russia for individuals than in atlantist countries. Russians vote for their president, Europeans never voted for the "president" of Europe, be it Vanderlyen or her predecessors, who, in their name, take decisions that affect their daily life and could even eventually project them in an armed conflict. Europeans have no say in war decisions, the decisions are made by Washington. There is no demos in European democracies.
He has build a future in his head - and related to that he builds his arguments. He also says that it's negative that you cannot be a non-liberal in a liberal society. He believes that there is a kind of higher freedom on the other sides of modernity, communism, fascism and liberalism. At the same time he roots for Russia to become a superpower and to just take what it wants without asking. Maybe this guy just loves authoritarian-ship.
I want to start by writing that there are always legitimate arguments for opposing opinions. I mean it is legitimate for the state to provide drugs and necessities of a civilized live to addicts because it would decrease crime, death, suffering, harassment, dirty streets and have many more positive effects but it coasts tons of money. So why do people differ on this matter ? It’s because we feel different, value different things or didn’t understand a problem extensively which means we didn’t understand all implications of this problem. There are people who feel compassion and genuinely want to help addicts, while others don’t care about druggies but are sick of dangerous addicts and gladly pay for them to stay at home and not pose a threat to them while other people don’t want to help them because they have to pay more taxes. I couldn’t care less about addicts but I am sick of them roaming the streets in a state in which they would do literally everything for a shot which is why I support programs that keep them from causing harm. This kind of demonstrates how insight and feelings determine our opinions and thus worldviews. I absolutely hate how so many people in this world don’t understand their self-interest but instead buy into ready-made intellectual packages that are grounded in some basic premises telling you self-interest is bad and not moral and lead you to pursue someone else’s interests, goals and ideas. They tell you their cause is just and righteous but justice and righteousness can only come from two sources, your feelings and/or your thoughts. To accept feelings as just is hard for me because they are not unchanging in similar or same situations and being unchanging in similar or same situations is a requirement for justice to me. Now imagine a narcissistic entitled personality with no remorse in a situation in which someone playfully mocks him and feelings are justice, what would this lead to ? It would probably lead at least to malicious intent and in the worst case to physical harm towards the person who joked a bit. This can be hardly called justice by everyone. is just an idea
Is it the collective consciousness of the (East) against the collective unconsciousness of the (west) eastern thought: avoid desire, seek truth, transcend pain, - western thought: ignore pain, seek desire. Transcend truth.
If by fabric you mean the humanity destroying concepts he opposes, than thank all the gods there is someone who sees and tells this ship must be abandoned.
He's jealous that Eurasia never grew to supplant the West and now he wants to burn us down, as he projects. Probably the same personality of his authoritarian KGB father.
@@MagneticNorthbound if your assessment of the West's behavior in the last 100 years is anything other than they deserve what's coming to them I don't know to say. Having the opinion that liberalism in the west has become authoritarian is hard to argue against. Chalking it up to jealousy is a bit sophomoric.
Modern lliberalism has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Which is a sound ideology and about freedom. Modern liberalism is more about forcing your ideas on others. Exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
This is the second video I have watched that features Aleksandr Dugin. I find him too attached to simple polarities. It seem Mr Dugin lives in a world which can only be defined in terms of: it's either this or that. I find this a very limited world view. Still, in terms of understanding Vladimir Putin's world view videos such as this are helpful.
@@lambdasun4520 You don't even know what dialectics is. It is pretty common place in philosophy to use the dialectical method. This is not a matter of empiricism. I'm simply stating that you're wrong, because you are.
Liberalism is just one giant contradiction. As Dugin points out "When liberalism is compared to itself, it becomes totalitarian. It begins to show its inner negativity and it begins to manifest its totalitarian nature." The fundamental question you should pose to any liberal, is this dilemma. Should liberalism stay consistent with it's professed value of freedom of thought by having thought and speech be totally unrestricted in every sense, but risk liberalism losing because of this? Or, should liberalism contradict itself and oppress illiberalism in the name of self-preservation? It doesn't matter which one they pick, either way, liberalism loses.
Hi from Russia. Yes, we see supposedly democratic USA imposing full-blown totalitarianism in the world stage. "Liberal hegemony" is a nonsense by definition..You really cannot put this words together.
This is what the Chinese means by Yin and Yang...the basis for the idea of the dialectic in Western philosophy...to this day, masses in the West still don't get it. The Western world is so black and white. Once you hit the extremity of an idea, it immediately contradicts itself. That's the law of nature.
He misses Western nuances. It appears he is trying to make a case for challenging Western elite hegemony, in favor of Russia. In syntax, he is trashing Classical Liberalism, which is not what we have today. Those who hold it are considered "right wing."
I don't think it would loose. If Liberalism is actually the best ideology, they can allow dissent without fear. That's why advocating for Fascism or Communism in the US is and should be legal. Because people will mostly come to the same conclusion that liberalism is the best. Liberalism only becomes negative when it strays from it's purpose of individual rights. Authoritarianism doesnt even consider them in the first place, so that's why I'm very "pro west", we at least have a chance and challenge to uphold people's rights.
That self-preservation you're referring to is what happens to every system once it's function has been fulfilled. It becomes a sort of zombie vampire, living off the herd it's accumulated and the infrastructure it once built but can no longer maintain. Then a crisis is needed to refresh these systems by displacing resources.
Homo Sapiens are faced with particular challenges that transcend cultural identity, various traditions, and specific bibliographies. Are there ways cultural blocks can cooperate to mitigate existential threats that humanity faces? 1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. WOW, that sounds scary indeed!
Because the western Europe countries are being dismantled as we literally speak, come to Ireland and explain your comment to the Irish people, no fear here but disgust ,secterism,, Irish people know how to counter
So liberalism is negative freedom because it is freedom from something. Because of this, it is limiting, and only allows freedom within liberal parameters. The solution he is proposing is freedom from liberalism, which seems to be just as limiting, using his own logic.
@@mihuhih2186 Dogmatics love talking from the ‘we’. I hear a lot of Trotsky’s tone in Dugin ie contradictions, truth seeker and preacher narrative, pseudo intellectualism, and omitting uncomfortable topics.
It would be better if some people just didn't go to work in the morning. Dugin is one of those people. The world would be better without his contributions.
I'm surprised, western headlines made me expect someone ignorant and destructive. Instead of this he brings forth values in his way of thinking, which I am keen to hear, which tone I am missing in Middle Europe. I cannot agree with violence against people who go with liberal sense of freedom. I suppose this truth belongs to an extent in every culture. But within liberalism, this platonic way of conceiving life is being discriminated at this point.
To him "freedom" is listening/adhering to the elite that will rule "in the name and benefit" for the people. He, of course, will belong to the elite; those ruling and enjoying life, and not suffering like the "peasants" they aim to control.
@@pauloferreira7543 It's a stale Bolshevik ideology and he even adheres to it's economic priciples of planned economy. He is completely delusional, and dismissive of the fact that that "system" failed big time.
So it takes 12 minutes for him to say that not everyone is happy with liberalism, he has thought about this, and that if someone indeed was so stupid to bluntly think vanilla liberalism is "the answer" then there might be flaws in this belief. Substantive ideas are what are missing, or maybe I am just too dumb to see them. I would be the first to point out - like him - that "freedom from things" as a basis for freedom leads to pretty complete lack of freedoms in practice, but he doesn't give examples or offer solutions. An example would be the game of monopoly, or more generally crony capitalism. A solution would be social democracy. These ideas however do not sit well if you a) Wish to use your political stance to express how tough guy you are. b) Wish to seem like a groundbreaking philosopher.. in which case a system that has been consistently tested and proven good is not new and exciting. c) Work backwards from your conclusion that the handy oppressive system your master wants to hear is indeed the best for most people.
yea I think he's wrong in saying that after 1991 liberalism became authoritarian and everyone who wouldn't join was illiberal and therefore an enemy ... cause that was exactly the logic of the Cold War since 1946 and liberalism was illiberal all along. so there is no need to turn away from socialism on that basis!
I think his statement that liberalism compared to itself appears totalitarian is interesting but not the knockdown argument he presents it to be. What he means to say is that the current liberal order does not live up to its own standards i.e. being against coercion, and expanding freedom. This is true but I think a shrewd and intelligent liberal observer might retort simply by saying that this is not the fault of liberalism as philosophical thought per se, but the imperfect implementation of it. Furthermore, freedom conceptualized principally as individual is not the totality of liberalism. The problem is that Dugin cannot recognize that liberalism encompasses a broad range of traditions and approaches, not all of them being primarily about an obsession with the atomized self. Freedom of religion in liberal thought seeks to protect individuals AND communities from arbitrary oppression. Dugin and other anti-liberals tend to argue against liberalism by pulling the rug out underneath, so to speak, and demonstrating it's hypocrisy and being uncommitted to the values it purports to be in favor of. But I wonder if such a critique can be advanced without inadvertently assenting to those same principles e.g. liberalism is bad because it isn't liberal. You're taking the very normative standards you're supposedly against and using them to undercut your opponent, while maintaining that those same values (once again that you're supposedly against) would best flower under a different regime. Finally, my biggest problem with anti-liberals is that in the end they themselves are the biggest liberals around. By this I mean that they lament the individualism of modernity or liberalism and in an attempt to move beyond it take the very same ontological rubric of the individual and superimpose it onto the "nation," the "culture," or "race" turning this large collectives of people into one big liberal individual. As Heidegger said of schmitt I say of anti-liberals: they still think like liberals.
Diversity of Moderation & Moderation of Diversity. Buddha said it best: Everything in Moderation. And my improvement: Even Moderation itself. The issue with contemporary liberalism (as I see it) is its a static set of ideals. Dugin maybe arguing for dynamic liberalism that is constantly striving against itself, re-interpreting, re-configuring based on time, place & culture - where there is place for rejecting static liberalism. Static liberalism is just another centralized singular philosophy. Dynamic liberalism is multi-faceted, distributed multiple philosophies.
@@rickrollone1410 I see what you're trying to say, however I think what limits dugin and other anti-liberal thinkers is precisely the fact that they think of themselves in terms of "anti"-Liberalism. Meaning, as I see it, that they're possible range of alternatives to contemporary society is limited to their oppositionality. I'm not sure liberalism has an empty set of ideals. I think it has clear recognizable ideals, the issue is that the protagonists of its philosophy present it as if it were an empty canvas ready to painted by any particular culture regardless of time and place. It sees itself as ideology-less ideology. The reaction to it by antiliberals is precisely that it's hypocritical and does not cultivate a garden of diversity, rather it insidiously demands conformity. A dynamic liberalism isn't the solution, nor is antiliberalism. Whenever a manner of thinking emerges that does not take as axiomatic its rejection of liberalism, but rather recognizes that it simply lacks its content then we will a movement beyond it. The Buddha is perennially insightful.
Дугин против идеологий модерна (либерализм, фашизм, коммунизм. Он считает, что большие города это зло, атеизм - форма деградации. Современный либеральный мир сконцентрирован на потреблении. Не нужно думать, что Дугин выступает против либерализма, он выступает за отказ от последних 2 тысяелетий истории. После принятия Христианства Европа пошла по пути упадка.
@@serdobsky_ Это похоже на философию Ганди. «Семь ошибок мира» Богатство без труда. Удовольствие без совести. Знание без характера. Коммерция без морали. Наука без человечества. Религия без жертв. Политика без принципов. Интересно, насколько на Ганди и Дугина повлиял Толстой? Ганди переписывался с Толстым
the inventor of the post truth worldview. His ideology and it consequences begin to manifest itself more and more. He is certainly not antifascist! He inspires them. Freedom to dicriminate and conquer the weak.
It's ironic that this man thinks his plan would work - when looking at how bad it has gone so far. They are in the top end when regarding opiate users (heroine, cannabis etc.), tuberculoses, AIDS and poverty. Their economy is weak and they have stopped having many children - which means that they very soon will face a severe problem with to many elderly and not enough people fit for work. And half of it's population wants personal freedom. If it wasn't for the nukes and the violent control og it's own people Russia would have been dissolved years ago. Russias GDPD is smaller than Italys, France's and Canadas. It's only half og Germanys GDPD.
He says his ideas are more important than his self …. That is a guy who could get his family killed ….he should understand that his “self” is his family in addition to his own flesh and bones ..so He is lowering the priority of the babies of his family for the sake of ideas …nice :(
"My biography is my bibliography" How grandiose! "I am against all forms of anti-liberalism that belong to the past" "I am challenging from metaphysical grounds outside modernity". This thinker relies on a convoluted mystification. He sees himself as a singular truth teller. But it smacks of the work of a narcissistic autodidact. Oh how I would love to watch alive take down of this guy by Isaiah Berlin. IIsaiah Berlin in his "The Hedgehog and the Fox" -referring to a fragment of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus - distinguishes two types of thinkers: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato), and foxes, who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include William Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Hamlet 1.5 167-168). Here we have another Russian hedgehog! But compared with the great hedgehogs of the past: Plato, Hegel, Marx, he is a shallow thinker whose dangerous verbiage fills a shelf-full of books. But his autodidacticism shows through in the sources he relies on. Many are third rate fascists and German proto Nazis. His reading is incontinent.
If you consider Heideger and Schmitt as third rate fascists then you are beyond ignorant. And if you think that a writer should be influenced by classical thinkers (like Marx or Shakespeare or whatever ) in order to be taken seriously, then you prove his point. And his point is that Liberalism wants to make you think in a certain way, Liberalism doesn't want you to read the thinkers of conservative revolution, that is his totalitarian nature. And no, marx's ideas do not challenge Liberalism any more because modern Marxists are a bunch of pathetic, weak pussies. They are not militant revolutionaries anymore (at least in the west).
He's no different than BLM, Gay pride,Hispanic heritage, and all the months, holidays, and celebrations around identity that exist in the sphere of political correctness. Russia, China,and N.Korea, are the exceptions.Liberalism was always meant to be just an economic incentive, and ironically according to the rate of ratcheting consumerism has become engrained as an actual social idealogy. Humans are for all intents and purposes a herd and thats why we have Globalization exploiting the identity politics and economic potential for absolute power. Liberalism has killed Democracy. Regional Totalitarianism. Blue states like California managing an exodus to eliminate competition to current leadership is the new customized totalitarianism. Its why Newsom can make predictions well into 2035 about climate initiatives which by the way is still and hyper reality narrative. Democracy is dying and that's the idea behind politically correct identity politics and rhetoric around climate and humanism. Power.
Plato believed the way, political and social, to universal human truth and better living was only through freely dialoguing, or dialectical practice, or inquiry -- thus opening the door to pragmatic sciences, and capitalist competition between families and companies, and federal democracy, and checks and balances, and constitutionalism. This is precisely and all that American liberalism was, is, and always will be, and it stands against eons of ubiquitous unitary tyranny. Everything negative Aleksandr attributes to American liberalism here is precisely those points where Soviet Stalinism subverted classical American ideology. Plato would've thought the notion of a specifically 'national truth' to be an oxymoronic absurdity that is against philosophy. Russian territories are so historically and culturally impoverished. There may be no moves left on the board except to capture the current czar and all his bishops, so the pawns have a chance to really and finally experience classical liberalism precisely outside of the monstrous shadow of Russian autocracy, backward Narodist collectivism, and Stalinist compulsive paranoia and total subversion. There is enlightenment in the west beyond these appallingly tiny thought-prisons. I can't emphasize enough that modern westerners look upon nationalism with pity, literally as a form of mental retardation.
He mixes up liberalism with extreem kapitalism, what is the main problem within western society today. Extreem kapitalism within liberalism is the main force behind the USA politics. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, he is against extreem kapitalism...
This fellow is clear as mud at times--WTF is "totalitarian liberalism?!" To me, the word "totalitarian" has a very specific meaning, denoting total control of all aspects of life by a central state.
I imagine He refers to the fact that if you are against immigration, against gay rights, and you are all about keeping your traditions, or against free trade agreements or certain laws against money laundering for instance, or against to influence of ONU , WHO or other international organisms, you will feel the pressure of liberal countries to conform to their vision (in the form of economic pressure, military pressure, political pressure, etc)
A fascist who thinks he is an anti-fascist, a blockhead who thinks he is a philosopher. All of this would be laughable if the baseless babble of this desk criminal had not caused so much suffering in Putin's Russia and in Ukraine.
@@stansmith9293 so you think the corrupt CIA version of government didn't oppress and exploit the people of Ukraine? I would have no problem going to Ukraine and saying anything...mostly I would just tell them to surrender, they have been offered generous terms...If they want to suffer and die for the CIA that is on them..
Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. (J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Introduction)
“The liberty of liberalism is REAL, comparing with communism or fascism. It’s not totalitarianism. When liberalism is compared to itself, it becomes totalitarian.” This is a pretty great observation, but I think in the end we are all totalitarian by nature. There is no escaping the fact that we all want to force what we want on others, especially when we sense the same from them.
M D That WAS one of his best points, showing that he is a human being and not just an ideologue in his understanding of 'freedom'. I like your observation as well. Human nature is essentially selfish and grasping from birth. Christ came to redeem us, not only from the legal penalty of sin, which is eternal judgment, but to effect transformation from within by the Holy Spirit. Only then we may learn how to love in a way which is not entirely selfish and grasping. (James 4:1) 'What is the sourceof quarrels and conflicts among you? is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?'
This is only true due to our education and conditioning. This can be changed / reprogrammed in an open society. Not going to be possible in a closed law based society. Like the mafia controlled Russian Federation. This man is disgusting as his thoughts are
He’s not nearly as disgusting as bug-chasing sodomites debasing other and calling it equal. Or a male swimmer competing against females and demolishing them. While progressives yell non-stop that these monstrosities are basic human rights. That’s disgusting!
A big improvement over much of what I previously heard of him, or from him. The hostile tone was absent. His central thesis, that liberalism is effective only as a negation of flaws inherent to other worldviews, is essentially correct. You can fill it with whatever ethical content you want, or none at all. In fact morally contentless liberalism seems inevitable to me, in de-Christianized Western societies. These are devoted to 'pursuit of happiness' in tandem with ever-increasing material prosperity and technological refinement. Even consciousness of potential disaster (military, environemental, or civilization) cannot persuade the mass of people to change their mind. At the root of all this is failure to recognize God as God, the author and sovereign Lord of history. Has Dugin the philosopher taken account of this aspect of the problem? How can he, when he says that there is no absolute truth, or that there is a 'Russian truth'?
In his religious worldview he believes christianity is the only path to salvation. But by acknowledging this, he isn't falling into religious supremacism and acknowledges that other religions (judaism, islam etc.) can hold the same belief in their religious worldvierw. This isn't to mean that they're right, this is to mean that they have the "right" to say other religions are wrong, just as Orthodox Russians have the same right.
@@violenceisfun 1. Is it right to dissociate Russian Orthodoxy from other 'branches' or aspects of Christianity? Have you read 1st Corinthians 1:10-17? Have you considered the NEW TESTAMENT vision of the Church as the universal Body of Christ, as opposed to the conventional 'sociological' view of the churches as human 'religious institutions'? 2. Is membership in the Body of Christ a function of culture or 'religious choice'? Or is it the result of God's election and the new birth (see John 3:3 and following)? Did God found the Church, or did man? Surely the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) was NOT a work of man. In short, what is the Church? Following from that, what is its mission? Is there anything in Scripture which indicates its mission as making common cause with 'other religions'? What of Deuteronomy 6:4, John 4:22, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19-20, 2nd Corinthians 6:14, etc.? 3. What is it in your opinion that 'unites' the religions? I fail to see the 'unity' which many claim, but rather confusion and bitter disagreement. Only in opposition to Jesus the Messiah do we find unity among non-Christian religions (including pseudo-Christian cults). One does not even need 'religion' in order to establish a moral framework for human behavior. There is something called 'conscience' which the pursuit of vain religion may even quench. See Romans 1:18-32, and consider contemporary events in the Middle East, South Asia, etc.
It sounds more like a attempt to recontextualize the meaning of freedom and the capacity to develop individual autonomy of thinking. If you define that there's no universal law you are automatically allowed to cross barriers of individuality of any being. Limit the concept and meaniing of freedom into a etnic or social culture is failure and vague. Olavo de Carvalho refuted his arguments already and turrned it into a book.
Dugin seems to argue that Liberalism takes the form of pressure to conform and is insufficiently laissez faire to allow for the diversity that would be knowledgable concerning Russia. The argument derives its reputation for being toxic by not administering tolerance for viewpoints, either, so they both argue from being unsafe, almost as a necessary drama.
Why are you always think that Putin and Dugin are friends in one or another way? Putin is Putin, he just always wanted money and power and he eventually got it and Dugin is a philosopher. I don't agree with Dugin about this civilizations idea and other Eurasianist ideas, as well as current government. He founded NazBol party with Limonov, and that party was banned in 2008, because this party organised anti-government mitings. He's ideas is not Putin ideas, I don't think Putin clearly knows who Dugin is. I don't know from who and why this Putin x Dugin this started, but it is clearly BS.
Dugins influence on Putin is hardly overestimated by western public. They dont even know each other personnally. And I really doubt Putin enjoy reading philosophy. Not that kind of man. Smart and tricky, not an intellectual at all.
Возможно ты просто не в состоянии понять, что современный мир идёт к своему упадку. Скоро в Германии будут говорить на турецком, а во Франции на алжирском
"Liberalism give us the freedom to be liberal and takes away the freedom to be illiberal." This is expressed by my peers by the admonition to "be intolerant to intolerance." The misstep here is that intolerance toward intolerance denies that there may be circumstances and contexts in which intolerance is perfectly appropriate. Unnecessarily dangerous or unsafe behavior, drug abuse, sex with and sexualization of minors, etc. The list is actually quite long. The better formulation is to discern what types of attitudes, moral sentiments and actions are necessary in every context- a much more demanding project, which is why it's eschewed for a low-resolution rubric of so-called militant tolerance.
"The better formulation is to discern what types of attitudes, moral sentiments and actions are necessary in every context- a much more demanding project" Imo you hit the jackpot there, but this project has already been undertaken 1400 years ago.
“When liberalism is compared to itself, it becomes totalitarian. It begins to show its inner negativity and it begins to manifest its totalitarian nature.” Looking at the world today, this quote seems incredibly prescient.
this is hegelianism applied
I’m betting theirs a 90% chance you’re a conservative who’s take away was liberalism bad
Your bet would be wrong. I am fairly liberal, depending on the issue, though definitely not progressive. When Dugin talks about liberal totalitarianism he is referring to progressivism.
@@MD-md4th he’s referring to broad political theories not specific ones. Liberalism fascism and socialism as dugin describes is exposed to encompass every ideological player of the 20/21st century. He’s not making a point about a specific type of liberalism he’s talking liberalism as a broad ideological lens. Dugin explains there is no major government today that is not liberal. So my bet was wrong you’re a centrist who’s take way was progressivism bad.
He is not referring to broad political theories. This man’s English is not the greatest, requiring knowledge of the issues he discusses as well as some intuition as to what he is trying to say. If you listen closely, he expresses the idea that liberalism has changed, or more accurately, that a core has emerged, like a Trojan Horse.
When he speaks of the difference between “liberalism” and “modernity”, modernity being the cult of the individual, modernity is progressivism. He is referring to the progressive delusions of people like Woodrow Wilson, and post-war globalists including Neocons, who yearn for the dominance of Western ideas, institutions, and ultimately social norms worldwide, seeking to subjugate all who resist.
He doesn’t say “there is no major government today that is not liberal”, which is objectively false, he suggests liberalism is on the path to dominance, which is valid though still questionable. You will notice he mentions Francis Fukuyama, a pre-eminent neocon. Neocons are the quintessential modernists of which he speaks, supporting liberal social policy as well as well as classical liberal, aka neoliberal economic policy. The worst of both worlds.
As for your assertion that I am a centrist whose take away is that progressivism is bad, yes! You are correct. And yet I am not against progressivism in the old-school sense of basic rights and safety nets. I am against it in the sense of the cult of the individual, where each identity can essentially create their own society within society, using coercion to force acceptance. There cannot be an endless multitude of arbitrary systems. The end result will be a brutal backlash against the interlopers, or dissolution and collapse.
It would be interesting to see him debate Žižek, considering their idiosyncrasies.
i dont understand that last word, but you are probably right
Hell yeah! Not to mention, it'd be far more interesting and intellectually stimulating.
And yes, especially with both their idiosyncratic quirks.... and so on and so on
😆
@@davidcopperfield2278 Dugin always says "aaaaahhhhh..." and Žižek "and so on and so on". Their kind of particular behavior.
I prefer it when the debater are able to speak english, but thats interesting too
He is like Wael Hallaq. They both agree the current modernity and secularism days are numbered.
Liberalism as it is practiced in the United States and other western countries contains a deep contradiction. On one hand, it is humanitarian, concerned with human rights and democracy, with gender and racial equality. But the real economic/political dynamism of American-style liberalism is predatory capitalism, which flattens everything in its path. So, we have the impoverishment of the US working classes, "race" war on the physical as well as cultural level, and the undermining of America's educational, healthcare and physical infrastructure in the name of bigger profits for the biggest corporations. Economic inequality will destroy liberalism, NOT Alex. Dugin's ideas.
Yes. I agree. When something seems to don't work, people usually wants to destroy it, when a better solution is to improve it, since the current state of things was born to solve past problems. Destroying the current state of things opens the doors to old dangers that have been already solved. For me, the opinion of trying to destroy something just because it's imperfect and is going to the wrong path is a mistake, and I think this mistake is rooted on psychological lazyness: it's easier to build something new, because trying to understand the problem is harder. Destroying doesn't require understanding, while improving does.
Agreed. Individual freedom must be restricted not just by that of other individuals but also by a safety net that ensures that losers do not go down below a certain human standard and that they have an opportunity to rise. But human rights, a notion arisen from the hard lessons of history, can only be enforced within liberal regimes. Any collectivist regime crushes individuals or colectivities that challenge it.
The plot-twist will come in 400 years when we accept that economic inequality is a reality of human existence and that as a matter of fact despite the hypocrisy of the Epstein and Davos crowds that as a matter of fact it is actually a little better when society is governed by educated people. It's the way we purvey a cult of, "meritocracy" that actually justifies global hierarchy. Creating a, "fair meritocracy for deplorables where education can't help you" (ie. Pol Potism, military authoritarianism, MAGAism) won't produce a utopia. It will significantly reduce the number of competent doctors, lawyers, and engineers practicing in the world-- especially those with last names like, "Singh" "Kumar" "Li" or, "Langlois." We need a, "better unfairness" not, "real fairness according to regular people."
There's nothing more disgraceful than a country full of pretend poor people complaining that they eat too much cake.
In my opinion he won the debate against Levy (covered by this channel). Always stayed in philosophy ring unlike his opponent who was always trying to steer away from problems that Western liberalism gave birth to.
Emil Sosnin
Not that I am an apologist for 'Western liberalism'-----------a vague term after all,
therefore all the more convenient for Mr. Dugin's use. But what problems did 'Western liberalism' bring into being that never existed before?
Human nature is incredibly stable over time, even if culture is not. Our repertoire of sins has not changed since remotest antiquity. Read the Bible and you will see. The Ten Commandments given to Moses have not become any easier to keep than they were when first written on tablets of stone.
In the words of Ecclesiastes, 'there is nothing new under the sun.'
@@jesusislordsavior6343 "never existed" would imply that they "never ocurred" but if we're speaking of "occur with exaggerated frequency" then the answer to your question would be "homosexuality, abortion, miscegenation etc.". America is gomorrah, and if you're a christian you have to accept this fact.
@@violenceisfun
I don't seriously object to that characterization. But how you could apply
it UNIQUELY to America or even the West, I do not know. Also there are many in America, I believe, who are making a serious effort to resists the tide of godlessness. This set is NOT congruent btw with the set, 'Republicans', though many Republicans would like us to believe that.
Let's flee from 'eurocentrism' by all means! On the other hand let's not romanticize non-Western cultures because of the iniquities of the West.
(Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Observe the general direction of traffic, as concerns migration. Why are people fleeing islamic societies and coming to the West, EVEN in its degenerate state? They cannot find security or justice in those 'islamic countries'. How many people are migrating the opposite way, to find happiness, contentment, and 'clean living' in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.?
Perhaps the sexual morality of muslims is not so good as muslims claim. Their founder was not an exemplar of virtue.
Re: abortion--------------here in Canada, immigrants from India (Sikhs mainly at that time) used to get ultrasound exams for pregnant women at public expense, so that they could abort the females. Having to raise a girl meant having to pay a heavy dowry later on.
I could tell you stories about immoral, brutal, and mercenary buddhist monks in Asian countries.
Bangkok is known as a Mecca for human traffickers.
No, the West does not have a monopoly on vice.
@HeerKommando
How do you define 'superiority'? People tend to believe that their OWN culture is superior, no matter from where they come.
This is a natural extension of their egoism.
Haven't you noticed? Chinese think that their way is best. They point to their long history and feel entitled to bully others because of their great demographic weight. Indigenous people in my country think that their way is best, no two ways about; they hate and blame Western culture for their sufferings. And so on.
To be sure, I don't agree with their perspective. I am not some kind of cultural masochist who only wishes to knock down his own. But 'the West' is not an entity which developed separately, without relation to any other culture. Nor is it a singular and uniform entity. And it shares many flaws in common with others in the same category, because human nature is remarkably consistent across cultures.
No highly influential culture is self-contained. And you must admit the importance of CHRISTIANITY to the development of Western culture! Christianity would not exist apart from its Hebraic roots. You should read the Bible and find out. At the same time, Christianity is NOT LIMITED to the West, for Christ's mission to the world is universal.
God's Word stands in judgment over ALL human culture. Read Romans chapters 1-3 in the New Testament and find out.
For example:
(Romans 1:18) 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness....'
(Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
Dugin lost the debate with Levy because of Levy's boasting and pharisaic behaviour. Levy twisted the facts, slandered, interrupted the opponent and tryed to show up his "moral superiority". I will never read Levy's books after seeing his debate with Dugin.
Current events brought me to Dugin !
Rest in peace to your daughter sir.
burn in hell for defending the mass murder on 262 Ukrainian children
she deserved it and he deserved to be a witness of it
She was a fascist and propagandist advocating for the Ukraine war and mass murder, just like her dad. Nobody should cry a single tear for her
I never heard of this guy before that happened to her. It got me thinking that maybe I should listen to his ideas. Terribly sad thing though.
And also, in 2008 he advocated the war of Russia against my homeland, Georgia. He wanted tanks to roll in our capital.
Dugin give us a "philosophical"/ historical/political/geopolitical analysis as to why your dear leader has had so many liftings
to look better, so?
@@warfumble12 I know right.
What's wrong with liftings? Is it the fact that you can't look good with or without them anyways?
On one hand, he denies the existence of absolute truth, stating that all truth is necessarily relative to a believing subject, on the other hand he believes in the existence of (Platonic?) ideas outside of the mind. You do not see these two convictions go hand in hand very often.
That is something, curious how the heck he would reconcile that.
@@bradspitt3896 It is reconciled through Dasein. The lived experience of the being, of the culture, of the civilization, through it’s innate, immutable nature which is encoded in it’s DNA, is how it interprets the eternal Platonic truths that exist outside of the mind. That’s how I see it at least. Because the idea is so new, the picture seems blurry, but I honestly think that there is something there to be further developed with time and greater contributions to the project. Maybe it’s all wrong or maybe it’s the path to salvation. Whatever it is, it’s worth pursuing in the face of the total annihilation presented by liberalism.
@@elon_bust1) whether Dasein (i.e. the being whose being is an issue for it) necessarily has a DNA cannot be known a priori. 2) Also DNA is not unchangable. 3) The claim that truth exists only relative to power relations and is ontologically dependent on thought and cultural practices is irreconcilable with the claim that truth exists independently from power relations and human thought in the realm of ideas. 4)yes liberalism is dangerous but speaking nonsense is no cure against it. Postmodernism is no cure against liberalism, it is the soil on which liberalism grows. If you want to fight the nonsense of liberalism you have to fight nonsense. The only intellectual weapon for that is clear thinking and not pseudo-philosophical obscurantism.
Honestly, he strikes me as an ideologue who uses/says whatever is convenient. Like him using post-modernism as an argument against objective truth, despite the fact that conservatives generally try to discredit post-modernism and moral relativism, often citing it as a reason for a supposed moral decay in modern society.
@@Max_Mustermann You can’t try to understand his approach until you actually read it. Everything he says will seem strange until you understand where he’s coming from.
I watched this video a few times every I watch it I find new things that I missed before. This is one of the few interviews he explains his ideas clearly and to the point. In his Other videos, he can go off a tangent or the points he made difficult to understand.
Real clown!
SAME HERE, THE FIRST TIME I WATCHED I COULDN'T REALLY COMPREHEND HIS MESSAGE BUT THE SECOND TIME I LISTEN I SAW WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY!!!!!!!
AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE...
@Remember to Remember THAT'S THAT TOLERANT LIBERALISM TALKING 😂😂😂😂😂
There is a stale taste on individualism that reminds a lot of narcissism. And ideas do connect and make up a culture. Interesting, especially since he puts emphasis on freedom, which maybe I used to confuse with individualism.
I heard many videos with Dugan, but have not heard him speak about that the individual and the collective conciousness creates our reality.
From personal experience I can tell quite confidently that, 75% of people criticizing dugin (including Ethnonationalists) don't really understand his ideas. And no, I'm not a dugin Stan, I disagree with him in some cases, but I respect him because we both belong to the wider anti enlightenment tradition.
everything turns around competitive advantage. The liberalism for some ... results in more burden and thus less freedom for others. It is George Orwell pure. If everyone if free to do as they want, some are allowed by life, by each others, to be more free than others. Social hierarchy establishes itself. On the way from 1 ideology to another, for example to liberalism, a number of people feel their growing advantages and join together and they silence opposition (fascism). In this way, indeed, liberalism is perfectly possible to result in fascism.
Liberalism, unlike most other governing styles, makes an exception to uphold the right of bigots (fascists) to freedom of speech..
The first problem with discussions like this is that liberalism, conservatism, far right and far left are not well defined and therefore everyone has their own definition. There may be some agreement about the extremes but in between it can be confusing especially when some use it as a label.
The definition of of conservatism, liberalism and socialism are best understood by the writings of Jean Baptiste Colbert, Adam Smith, and Marx. Colbert felt it was best for the state to interfere in the Economy for the benefit of a few rich Merchants, Smith felt that the state should not interfere at all, and Marx felt the state should interfere for the benefit of all.
They're understanding of people were that they are either competitive, cooperative or malleable. They all thought humans were at their best when at work.
@@jackiepie7423 See, I don't see things that way. If you are saying liberalism doesn't want the state to interfere at all that sounds more like libertarian but not liberalism of today's experience. Liberalism wants the state to control everything.
@@bingo7799 libertarians are actually liberals umm to get the best understanding about mercantilism look into what the libertarians have to say about it. they treat it no more kindly than they do communism. just so you know my own biases, i ^hate^ to work, so i none of the above.
My thoughts exactly. What is theory without working definitions? A complete waste of time and mental energy. I chuckle at comments that feign understanding.
The man reveals the real essence of liberalism. He goes beyond the fake facade of its’ definition. However in his lectures he gives proper definitions and the history of their evolvement.
It would be interesting to see him debate Bullwinkle.
the russians are meaning exactly what they speaking generally...
He's also the founder and president of the Eurasia Party which propagates Russian irredentism; something Putin loves and acts upon.
Sorry for your loss Mr.Dugin. May you find peace
... by her side
Based department
MEN DOES NOT HAVE THE ANSWER!!! ONLY IN “THE WORD”!!!📖🙏❤️🕊🔬
I now understand why we kept hearing how dangerous this guy is: He speaks only logic, reason and truth.
Truth is subjective. Reasoning is too complex. ua-cam.com/video/CdkfEKOVaFc/v-deo.html
When you google his name the first thing that comes up is his wikipedia page, where it says that “Alexandr Dugin is know for his fascist views.”
@@valueinvestor6715, wikipedia? are u even serious?
@@alexandrmartynov5281
Mr. Dugin may or may not agree with you that truth is subjective, nevertheless his understanding of it is highly subjective. In one of his more absurd statements, he asserted that there is a particular 'Russian truth'.
I happen to think that much of our reasoning is subjective, because we do not possess very much knowledge by which to ascertain truth. Sometimes we are unwilling to use the knowledge that we have. At they very least this is my subjective impression.
Jesus would NOT agree with your statement that truth is subjective, therefore I would not either, because I take His word as authoritative:
(John 14:6) 'I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.'
Certain FACTS about His life (including His Resurrection from the dead) give REASON to believe that He was speaking the OBJECTIVE truth.
@@valueinvestor6715 in fairness, the guy wrote an entire book about his political theory. A mixture of communism and you-know-what. The depth of his work is definitely not given credit because of how he is framed in media, though.
Brilliant ‼️‼️
I really wish his books were published in English. Arktos should be all over that.
Some are: Putin vs Putin, Political Platonism, The fourth political theory etc are all in English
Learn Russian and read Dugin, Pushkin, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy :)
@@АлексейГетманец-м9з I have read some Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Ivan Ilyan, and Pyotr Wrangel. I read Putin's approved biography , currently reading up on Rudolf Hess. Dostoyevsky is unsurpassed, a perfect author.
@@АлексейГетманец-м9з Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are certainly better in Russian, but you can still extract most of their value through good translations. Pushkin, on the other hand, should really be read in Russian if you want to understand why he is so revered in Russia.
he has 67 books ,,most of them translated to 10 languages
This man speaks 8 languages!!! He is smarter than the average American.
What a pity that he does not use a single one of these languages to think clearly and to articulate clearly.
Lol my cat is smarter than the average American.
@@chrisn8192 🤣
@@VoxPopuli60 Yeah Yeah.
it doesnt mean his ideology make sense or is good
This sounds like a random arrangement of common phrases - arguing in this way, you can twist everything: Evil is good, good is evil, etc. Welcome to Orwell's 1984!🤥🙃
Liberalism's troubling present manifestation is in child sexual "liberation" in the form of allowing children (generally via propaganda) to make decisions such as receiving sexual augmentation before they can even grasp the concept in any meaningful way. The nature of Unchecked liberalism tends toward a never ending push into a deconstruction of instinct and reason to the point of degeneracy and societal decay.
@@AlexP-jz9sg I get your point regarding unrestrained Liberalism in general. By the way: Why are they so interested in underage children? Is this due to their inability to find adult mates ? I don´t understand why this provides them with the kind of benefit you described. That´s like eating "green" tomatoes or immature berries. Even for a fringe Liberalist, children should be taboo!
@@Gonzo_-zb5mf He claims that the enemy of freedom is negative liberal freedom which is vague and confusing to say the least. If what he describes as negative freedom is not freedom at all then he should say it is not freedom and call it for what it is which is not liberalism in a true sense but a corrupted idea meant to disguise itself as freedom or liberalism. The people doing evil things under the banner of liberalism are not true liberals and would ultimately corrupt its meaning like what was done to socialism and communism which where paraded as such but actually tended to totalitarianism. Dugin is essentially trying to invent a new ism to counter the existing ideologies that he considers to be anti Russian.
Bible quote actually
Not to be too much of an apologist, but America's Founding Fathers were well aware that "Liberty" and "Freedom" were only possible/positive if people are virtuous (which shows the intrinsic religiousity of American liberalism, and therefore and the ironies of saying "separation of church and state" when you're really creating a state religion----but that's a bit of a tangent).
Point being, they would have largely agreed with Dugin, that "Freedom for > Freedom from"
Joe Essig
I'm not American but a northern neighbor, and I don't know much about your 'founding fathers'. Yet your central point makes a lot of sense. I am glad that you acknowledge the 'religiosity' of American liberalism as well as its dominance in American political thought, regardless how Americans choose to LABEL themselves. (Dugin is good with labels within the 'conservative' spectrum, but utterly careless in lumping all 'liberals' together. The bogeyman must not be examined too carefully, lest he fall apart.)
Now by 'religious' one does not necessarily imply 'Christian'. For deism was quite popular among intellectuals of the Enlightenment period. I know that Thomas Jefferson was heterodox, for he chopped out parts of the Bible which he didn't like. This shows irreverence and not just selectivity.
Those self-styled 'liberals' who equate secularism with agnosticism or atheism are off the mark, and desperately misinterpret 'separation of Church and State'. Indeed I would argue that Church and State were ordained by God for entirely separate purposes, and were never meant to be fused. 'Church' does not refer to 'religious institutions' in general, or even specific denominations, but to the universal body of believers in Jesus Christ throughout the ages. It is an eternal community, whereas the State is a temporal institution.
Indeed Europeans who had suffered by the imposition of State religion often found solace on this side of the 'pond'. Contrary to what the hyper-secularists say, separation of Church and State helps preserve the Church from the corruption that excessive involvement with State would bring, more than the other way around.
Two problems remain however. One has to do with 'civil religion'. States have an unfortunate way of imposing dominant ideologies on their people, using ceremonies with a 'religious' flavor and often invoking the name of God. When Nation becomes equal to or greater than God in the sight of the people, it is a sure sign of IDOLATRY. Did you ever read Harvey Cox, 'The Secular City' (1965)? In it he discusses the prevalence of 'civil religion' in America AND concurrently in the Soviet Union, with its 'religion' of Marxism-Leninism.
The other problem has to do with governmental favoritism in religion which is politically motivated. In Canada, special privileges were accorded to the Catholic church since Confederation, as a concession. These have remained in place for 150 years. Although not alone, the Catholic church was used as a sort of club against the Native population, through the system of residential schools by which children were forcibly removed from their families. A great deal of abuse took place, and consequently the name of Christ was dishonored among the Native population.
@@person10
Does satan not have enough power already? You want to give him more.
You need to repent of HISTORICAL REVISIONISM>
Jesus of Nazareth DID INDEED die on a Roman cross, under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, at the urging of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
He DID INDEED rise from the dead.
And with those facts, your religion died 600 years before muhammad invented it. Can you imagine anything more useless than a religion whose basic premises were DISPROVEN long before anyone thought of it?
Yet some of the founders weren’t righteous(Ben Franklin for example). And America “separation of church and state” leads inevitably to a secular (And I foresee) and atheist state
@@Orthodoge
You are completely on point in your first statement. Deism was a popular doctrine among intellectuals of the Enlightenment period.
On the second point, I would argue that State authority is by its very nature secular (of this world). God ordained the Church as an eternal institution, and according to Romans 13:1 ff., governmental authority as a provisional measure for the ordering of human society. In the immediate context, Christians had to deal with a temporal authority (imperial Rome) which was not exactly friendly.
Therefore I would argue that Church and State were inherently separate from the beginning.
Theocracy is our ideal as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we shall have it when He comes again. The Law of Moses might be conceived as a blueprint for theocratic government, but the Israelites were unwilling and ultimately unable to bear its demands. Paul says that the Law is a tutor to lead us to Christ. It reveals our inadequacy, our sinful nature.
Has not the Church defiled itself at times by excessive preoccupation with secular affairs at the expense of its true ministry of preaching the Gospel to the world? Think of the abuses of the Roman Catholic church, which behaved very much as a temporal authority in medieval Europe, or as a close ally of temporal authority during European colonization of foreign lands.
Certainly states which promote atheism as part of a dominant ideology have done tremendous damage. However atheism is a dry-as-dust religion in itself, not very inspiring for the masses. I am not worried about religion PER SE being drowned out.
Ultimately, whoever is not for Christ is against Him. Therefore the primary task of the Church in this age is preaching of the Gospel (see Matthew 28:19-20).
One also hopes that the Church may speak prophetically on issues of the day, as did the Hebrew prophets of old. In that casea certain distance from secular authority may be required.
Except the Founding Fathers were slave owners and some were rapists. They were in no way virtuous .
Liberalism is the atlantist societies is a myth. All individuals, like in authoritarian managements, are tracked : their accounts , their opinions, their movements are all monitored in the name of fight against terrorism. There is much more freedom in Russia for individuals than in atlantist countries. Russians vote for their president, Europeans never voted for the "president" of Europe, be it Vanderlyen or her predecessors, who, in their name, take decisions that affect their daily life and could even eventually project them in an armed conflict. Europeans have no say in war decisions, the decisions are made by Washington. There is no demos in European democracies.
Don't be fooled - by liberalism he means individual rights and freedom.
yes that's what he said and that's one of the limitations he believes liberalism has.
Nope, Liberalism is 'Do what thou wilt' Golden Dawn Luciferian dogma
Does today's liberalism, not allow for a voice of an other VIEW.
Dugin face à BHL.... La propreté face à la misère. Bravo M Dugin
When he say freedom did he saw the situation in Russian
did you Irak , Libya mother fi=ucker and what US did
Great Alexandr Dugin!
He has build a future in his head - and related to that he builds his arguments. He also says that it's negative that you cannot be a non-liberal in a liberal society. He believes that there is a kind of higher freedom on the other sides of modernity, communism, fascism and liberalism. At the same time he roots for Russia to become a superpower and to just take what it wants without asking. Maybe this guy just loves authoritarian-ship.
😂😄So right
He's actually one of the Founders of Nazbol Party
I want to start by writing that there are always legitimate arguments for opposing opinions. I mean it is legitimate for the state to provide drugs and necessities of a civilized live to addicts because it would decrease crime, death, suffering, harassment, dirty streets and have many more positive effects but it coasts tons of money. So why do people differ on this matter ? It’s because we feel different, value different things or didn’t understand a problem extensively which means we didn’t understand all implications of this problem. There are people who feel compassion and genuinely want to help addicts, while others don’t care about druggies but are sick of dangerous addicts and gladly pay for them to stay at home and not pose a threat to them while other people don’t want to help them because they have to pay more taxes. I couldn’t care less about addicts but I am sick of them roaming the streets in a state in which they would do literally everything for a shot which is why I support programs that keep them from causing harm. This kind of demonstrates how insight and feelings determine our opinions and thus worldviews. I absolutely hate how so many people in this world don’t understand their self-interest but instead buy into ready-made intellectual packages that are grounded in some basic premises telling you self-interest is bad and not moral and lead you to pursue someone else’s interests, goals and ideas. They tell you their cause is just and righteous but justice and righteousness can only come from two sources, your feelings and/or your thoughts. To accept feelings as just is hard for me because they are not unchanging in similar or same situations and being unchanging in similar or same situations is a requirement for justice to me. Now imagine a narcissistic entitled personality with no remorse in a situation in which someone playfully mocks him and feelings are justice, what would this lead to ? It would probably lead at least to malicious intent and in the worst case to physical harm towards the person who joked a bit. This can be hardly called justice by everyone.
is just an idea
This guy would demolish Peterson and Zizek, even if they went double dragon.
That's where you are wrong.
It's a shame that it's become so fashionable to think and speak about ideas and thinkers in terms of "destroying" or "demolishing" each other.
Is it the collective consciousness of the
(East) against the collective unconsciousness of the (west) eastern thought: avoid desire, seek truth, transcend pain, - western thought: ignore pain, seek desire.
Transcend truth.
"Suuuuure we're free now, but haven't we lost the freedom to be unfree??? What about unfredom for the sake of the children?!"
Just another brilliant mind pointing out the holes in the sail-cloth while ignoring the fabric that holds the ship together.
If by fabric you mean the humanity destroying concepts he opposes, than thank all the gods there is someone who sees and tells this ship must be abandoned.
Have you ever seen a boat, sir?
Fabric boats. Interesting...
He's jealous that Eurasia never grew to supplant the West and now he wants to burn us down, as he projects. Probably the same personality of his authoritarian KGB father.
@@MagneticNorthbound if your assessment of the West's behavior in the last 100 years is anything other than they deserve what's coming to them I don't know to say. Having the opinion that liberalism in the west has become authoritarian is hard to argue against. Chalking it up to jealousy is a bit sophomoric.
Modern lliberalism has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Which is a sound ideology and about freedom. Modern liberalism is more about forcing your ideas on others. Exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
And in turn neoliberalism is all about plutocracy and kleptocracy ☹️👎
This is the second video I have watched that features Aleksandr Dugin. I find him too attached to simple polarities. It seem Mr Dugin lives in a world which can only be defined in terms of: it's either this or that. I find this a very limited world view. Still, in terms of understanding Vladimir Putin's world view videos such as this are helpful.
that's called dialectics, OR the limited and pseudoscientific mindset of the bolshevist.
@@lambdasun4520 Thank you! Have a great day!
@@lambdasun4520 Thats not true. Dialectics is not pseudoscientific or exclusively bolshevist.
@@epicduckrex994 prove it with empirical data. I'm sure you can't in a convincing way.
@@lambdasun4520 You don't even know what dialectics is. It is pretty common place in philosophy to use the dialectical method. This is not a matter of empiricism. I'm simply stating that you're wrong, because you are.
That sounds a lot more like sociology and history than philosophy.
He is also a sociologist formost.
But philosophy is fundamental to him
No, it's way more philosophical than sociological or historical.
Liberalism is just one giant contradiction. As Dugin points out "When liberalism is compared to itself, it becomes totalitarian. It begins to show its inner negativity and it begins to manifest its totalitarian nature."
The fundamental question you should pose to any liberal, is this dilemma. Should liberalism stay consistent with it's professed value of freedom of thought by having thought and speech be totally unrestricted in every sense, but risk liberalism losing because of this? Or, should liberalism contradict itself and oppress illiberalism in the name of self-preservation? It doesn't matter which one they pick, either way, liberalism loses.
Hi from Russia. Yes, we see supposedly democratic USA imposing full-blown totalitarianism in the world stage.
"Liberal hegemony" is a nonsense by definition..You really cannot put this words together.
This is what the Chinese means by Yin and Yang...the basis for the idea of the dialectic in Western philosophy...to this day, masses in the West still don't get it. The Western world is so black and white. Once you hit the extremity of an idea, it immediately contradicts itself. That's the law of nature.
He misses Western nuances. It appears he is trying to make a case for challenging Western elite hegemony, in favor of Russia.
In syntax, he is trashing Classical Liberalism, which is not what we have today. Those who hold it are considered "right wing."
I don't think it would loose. If Liberalism is actually the best ideology, they can allow dissent without fear.
That's why advocating for Fascism or Communism in the US is and should be legal.
Because people will mostly come to the same conclusion that liberalism is the best. Liberalism only becomes negative when it strays from it's purpose of individual rights. Authoritarianism doesnt even consider them in the first place, so that's why I'm very "pro west", we at least have a chance and challenge to uphold people's rights.
That self-preservation you're referring to is what happens to every system once it's function has been fulfilled. It becomes a sort of zombie vampire, living off the herd it's accumulated and the infrastructure it once built but can no longer maintain. Then a crisis is needed to refresh these systems by displacing resources.
You are only able to say this amount of bullshit in a liberal society.
Russia is not a liberal society.
Not only.
Sehr schön. Thank you very much Herr Dugin
The man is a fucking genious
Homo Sapiens are faced with particular challenges that transcend cultural identity, various traditions, and specific bibliographies. Are there ways cultural blocks can cooperate to mitigate existential threats that humanity faces? 1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. WOW, that sounds scary indeed!
He represents fear and loathing of humanity
He represents the future, soyboy.
Fear and loathing of the current hegemon of course! Because it's EVIL. It's taken his daughter!
Because the western Europe countries are being dismantled as we literally speak, come to Ireland and explain your comment to the Irish people, no fear here but disgust ,secterism,, Irish people know how to counter
what scarf is that?
Thank you for asking the questions that really matter.
This man is a genius.
I made subtitles for Dugin's old address. You can watch on my channel
So liberalism is negative freedom because it is freedom from something. Because of this, it is limiting, and only allows freedom within liberal parameters.
The solution he is proposing is freedom from liberalism, which seems to be just as limiting, using his own logic.
in every Dugin's interview there are always some details that are wrong; assumptions that are not correct
Always talk with proof. We are tired of baseless utterances
@@asiimwesimon268 what do you mean "we"? are there more people behind your nickname?
@@mihuhih2186 Dogmatics love talking from the ‘we’. I hear a lot of Trotsky’s tone in Dugin ie contradictions, truth seeker and preacher narrative, pseudo intellectualism, and omitting uncomfortable topics.
@@mihuhih2186 We are waiting for your correct details..
@@mihuhih2186 as in. Anyone w more than a pseudo intellectual run on sentence.
I love the way he understands this issue, and geopolitics as a whole. He even manages to express it in words.
It would be better if some people just didn't go to work in the morning. Dugin is one of those people. The world would be better without his contributions.
I'm surprised, western headlines made me expect someone ignorant and destructive. Instead of this he brings forth values in his way of thinking, which I am keen to hear, which tone I am missing in Middle Europe. I cannot agree with violence against people who go with liberal sense of freedom. I suppose this truth belongs to an extent in every culture. But within liberalism, this platonic way of conceiving life is being discriminated at this point.
I made subtitles for Dugin's old address. You can watch on my channel
I would like to know what he means by “ real freedom”.
Let's hope we never find out.
Well the one who respect tradition, ortodoxy and nationality... like tsar aleksander I... nothing new here...
To him "freedom" is listening/adhering to the elite that will rule "in the name and benefit" for the people.
He, of course, will belong to the elite; those ruling and enjoying life, and not suffering like the "peasants" they aim to control.
@@lizadowning4389 Seems like Russia in 1850...
@@pauloferreira7543 It's a stale Bolshevik ideology and he even adheres to it's economic priciples of planned economy.
He is completely delusional, and dismissive of the fact that that "system" failed big time.
I like Filology more than filosofy because Filology is based on grammatica of logics
This guy is a loonatic
Philosophy are "levels of not understanding", above that there is only acceptance, solitude and nirvana
So it takes 12 minutes for him to say that not everyone is happy with liberalism, he has thought about this, and that if someone indeed was so stupid to bluntly think vanilla liberalism is "the answer" then there might be flaws in this belief.
Substantive ideas are what are missing, or maybe I am just too dumb to see them.
I would be the first to point out - like him - that "freedom from things" as a basis for freedom leads to pretty complete lack of freedoms in practice, but he doesn't give examples or offer solutions.
An example would be the game of monopoly, or more generally crony capitalism.
A solution would be social democracy.
These ideas however do not sit well if you
a) Wish to use your political stance to express how tough guy you are.
b) Wish to seem like a groundbreaking philosopher.. in which case a system that has been consistently tested and proven good is not new and exciting.
c) Work backwards from your conclusion that the handy oppressive system your master wants to hear is indeed the best for most people.
crony capitalism is capitalism. Sorry, it's your F.
yea I think he's wrong in saying that after 1991 liberalism became authoritarian and everyone who wouldn't join was illiberal and therefore an enemy ... cause that was exactly the logic of the Cold War since 1946 and liberalism was illiberal all along. so there is no need to turn away from socialism on that basis!
I think his statement that liberalism compared to itself appears totalitarian is interesting but not the knockdown argument he presents it to be. What he means to say is that the current liberal order does not live up to its own standards i.e. being against coercion, and expanding freedom.
This is true but I think a shrewd and intelligent liberal observer might retort simply by saying that this is not the fault of liberalism as philosophical thought per se, but the imperfect implementation of it. Furthermore, freedom conceptualized principally as individual is not the totality of liberalism. The problem is that Dugin cannot recognize that liberalism encompasses a broad range of traditions and approaches, not all of them being primarily about an obsession with the atomized self. Freedom of religion in liberal thought seeks to protect individuals AND communities from arbitrary oppression.
Dugin and other anti-liberals tend to argue against liberalism by pulling the rug out underneath, so to speak, and demonstrating it's hypocrisy and being uncommitted to the values it purports to be in favor of. But I wonder if such a critique can be advanced without inadvertently assenting to those same principles e.g. liberalism is bad because it isn't liberal. You're taking the very normative standards you're supposedly against and using them to undercut your opponent, while maintaining that those same values (once again that you're supposedly against) would best flower under a different regime.
Finally, my biggest problem with anti-liberals is that in the end they themselves are the biggest liberals around. By this I mean that they lament the individualism of modernity or liberalism and in an attempt to move beyond it take the very same ontological rubric of the individual and superimpose it onto the "nation," the "culture," or "race" turning this large collectives of people into one big liberal individual. As Heidegger said of schmitt I say of anti-liberals: they still think like liberals.
Diversity of Moderation & Moderation of Diversity.
Buddha said it best: Everything in Moderation.
And my improvement: Even Moderation itself.
The issue with contemporary liberalism (as I see it) is its a static set of ideals.
Dugin maybe arguing for dynamic liberalism that is constantly striving against itself, re-interpreting, re-configuring based on time, place & culture - where there is place for rejecting static liberalism.
Static liberalism is just another centralized singular philosophy.
Dynamic liberalism is multi-faceted, distributed multiple philosophies.
@@rickrollone1410 I see what you're trying to say, however I think what limits dugin and other anti-liberal thinkers is precisely the fact that they think of themselves in terms of "anti"-Liberalism. Meaning, as I see it, that they're possible range of alternatives to contemporary society is limited to their oppositionality.
I'm not sure liberalism has an empty set of ideals. I think it has clear recognizable ideals, the issue is that the protagonists of its philosophy present it as if it were an empty canvas ready to painted by any particular culture regardless of time and place. It sees itself as ideology-less ideology. The reaction to it by antiliberals is precisely that it's hypocritical and does not cultivate a garden of diversity, rather it insidiously demands conformity.
A dynamic liberalism isn't the solution, nor is antiliberalism. Whenever a manner of thinking emerges that does not take as axiomatic its rejection of liberalism, but rather recognizes that it simply lacks its content then we will a movement beyond it.
The Buddha is perennially insightful.
Дугин против идеологий модерна (либерализм, фашизм, коммунизм. Он считает, что большие города это зло, атеизм - форма деградации. Современный либеральный мир сконцентрирован на потреблении. Не нужно думать, что Дугин выступает против либерализма, он выступает за отказ от последних 2 тысяелетий истории. После принятия Христианства Европа пошла по пути упадка.
@@serdobsky_ Это похоже на философию Ганди.
«Семь ошибок мира»
Богатство без труда.
Удовольствие без совести.
Знание без характера.
Коммерция без морали.
Наука без человечества.
Религия без жертв.
Политика без принципов.
Интересно, насколько на Ганди и Дугина повлиял Толстой?
Ганди переписывался с Толстым
"real liberalism has never been tried dude"
His desire to understand is causing the Ukrainians alot of pain.....
the fact that they tried to blow him up for his views suggests that his ideas are more relevant than ever
Cutting edge of thought. Does Dugin have a peer in the West?
Dugin is a grace on human consciousness, любовь из США, большое спасибо
Спасибо, брат
the inventor of the post truth worldview. His ideology and it consequences begin to manifest itself more and more. He is certainly not antifascist! He inspires them. Freedom to dicriminate and conquer the weak.
He talks like a nervous man making excuses.
He talks like a Russian man speaking English.
Why everyone wants to talk about opinion they have west things fashist he is telling the truth about idea he has if you like it or not
It's ironic that this man thinks his plan would work - when looking at how bad it has gone so far. They are in the top end when regarding opiate users (heroine, cannabis etc.), tuberculoses, AIDS and poverty. Their economy is weak and they have stopped having many children - which means that they very soon will face a severe problem with to many elderly and not enough people fit for work. And half of it's population wants personal freedom. If it wasn't for the nukes and the violent control og it's own people Russia would have been dissolved years ago. Russias GDPD is smaller than Italys, France's and Canadas. It's only half og Germanys GDPD.
Looks to me like you describe the state of Russia in the early 90'ies ... things have changed quite a bit
Alexander Dugin hired the "Fantasy Island" TV Show midget actor Herve Villechaize to be his psychic medium psy-op.
All these tainted souls making fun of the death of his daughter…. I pray for You sinners to get healed.
He says his ideas are more important than his self …. That is a guy who could get his family killed ….he should understand that his “self” is his family in addition to his own flesh and bones ..so He is lowering the priority of the babies of his family for the sake of ideas …nice :(
"My biography is my bibliography" How grandiose!
"I am against all forms of anti-liberalism that belong to the past" "I am challenging from metaphysical grounds outside modernity". This thinker relies on a convoluted mystification. He sees himself as a singular truth teller. But it smacks of the work of a narcissistic autodidact. Oh how I would love to watch alive take down of this guy by Isaiah Berlin. IIsaiah Berlin in his "The Hedgehog and the Fox" -referring to a fragment of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus - distinguishes two types of thinkers: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato), and foxes, who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include William Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Hamlet 1.5 167-168). Here we have another Russian hedgehog! But compared with the great hedgehogs of the past: Plato, Hegel, Marx, he is a shallow thinker whose dangerous verbiage fills a shelf-full of books. But his autodidacticism shows through in the sources he relies on. Many are third rate fascists and German proto Nazis. His reading is incontinent.
If you consider Heideger and Schmitt as third rate fascists then you are beyond ignorant. And if you think that a writer should be influenced by classical thinkers (like Marx or Shakespeare or whatever ) in order to be taken seriously, then you prove his point. And his point is that Liberalism wants to make you think in a certain way, Liberalism doesn't want you to read the thinkers of conservative revolution, that is his totalitarian nature. And no, marx's ideas do not challenge Liberalism any more because modern Marxists are a bunch of pathetic, weak pussies. They are not militant revolutionaries anymore (at least in the west).
He's no different than BLM, Gay pride,Hispanic heritage, and all the months, holidays, and celebrations around identity that exist in the sphere of political correctness. Russia, China,and N.Korea, are the exceptions.Liberalism was always meant to be just an economic incentive, and ironically according to the rate of ratcheting consumerism has become engrained as an actual social idealogy. Humans are for all intents and purposes a herd and thats why we have Globalization exploiting the identity politics and economic potential for absolute power. Liberalism has killed Democracy. Regional Totalitarianism. Blue states like California managing an exodus to eliminate competition to current leadership is the new customized totalitarianism. Its why Newsom can make predictions well into 2035 about climate initiatives which by the way is still and hyper reality narrative. Democracy is dying and that's the idea behind politically correct identity politics and rhetoric around climate and humanism. Power.
Plato believed the way, political and social, to universal human truth and better living was only through freely dialoguing, or dialectical practice, or inquiry -- thus opening the door to pragmatic sciences, and capitalist competition between families and companies, and federal democracy, and checks and balances, and constitutionalism. This is precisely and all that American liberalism was, is, and always will be, and it stands against eons of ubiquitous unitary tyranny. Everything negative Aleksandr attributes to American liberalism here is precisely those points where Soviet Stalinism subverted classical American ideology. Plato would've thought the notion of a specifically 'national truth' to be an oxymoronic absurdity that is against philosophy. Russian territories are so historically and culturally impoverished. There may be no moves left on the board except to capture the current czar and all his bishops, so the pawns have a chance to really and finally experience classical liberalism precisely outside of the monstrous shadow of Russian autocracy, backward Narodist collectivism, and Stalinist compulsive paranoia and total subversion. There is enlightenment in the west beyond these appallingly tiny thought-prisons. I can't emphasize enough that modern westerners look upon nationalism with pity, literally as a form of mental retardation.
He mixes up liberalism with extreem kapitalism, what is the main problem within western society today. Extreem kapitalism within liberalism is the main force behind the USA politics. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, he is against extreem kapitalism...
@Nuclear MAGA Nice try and your not Jesus eather.
This fellow is clear as mud at times--WTF is "totalitarian liberalism?!" To me, the word "totalitarian" has a very specific meaning, denoting total control of all aspects of life by a central state.
I imagine He refers to the fact that if you are against immigration, against gay rights, and you are all about keeping your traditions, or against free trade agreements or certain laws against money laundering for instance, or against to influence of ONU , WHO or other international organisms, you will feel the pressure of liberal countries to conform to their vision (in the form of economic pressure, military pressure, political pressure, etc)
He's too deep for you dude...you just don't get it.
Anyone who claims a descriptive word has a specific meaning should be re educated in China
evolve
Yes you are correct about totalitarianism and dugin is correct when he speaks about totalitarian Liberalism.
A fascist who thinks he is an anti-fascist, a blockhead who thinks he is a philosopher. All of this would be laughable if the baseless babble of this desk criminal had not caused so much suffering in Putin's Russia and in Ukraine.
what's the name he said as an example of far left liberal before Sanders at 7:13 ?
My guess is Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
this guy is brilliant I now have to look out of the west for ideas liberalisms only value is superficiality
Go to Ukraine and say this.
@@stansmith9293 so you think the corrupt CIA version of government didn't oppress and exploit the people of Ukraine? I would have no problem going to Ukraine and saying anything...mostly I would just tell them to surrender, they have been offered generous terms...If they want to suffer and die for the CIA that is on them..
Great philosopher Dugin.
dugins ideas are applied to his daughter
262 Ukrainian children are murdered because of his ideas
Dugin , a kind of fascist-light, he gets more attension than he deserves
midwit spotted
Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. (J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Introduction)
When an educated duck speaks English! Just gives me headache!
I made subtitles for Dugin's old address. You can watch on my channel
2:09 3:45 4:21 5:54
He's free from his daughter now
agreed
“The liberty of liberalism is REAL, comparing with communism or fascism. It’s not totalitarianism. When liberalism is compared to itself, it becomes totalitarian.”
This is a pretty great observation, but I think in the end we are all totalitarian by nature. There is no escaping the fact that we all want to force what we want on others, especially when we sense the same from them.
M D
That WAS one of his best points, showing that he is a human being and not just an ideologue in his understanding of 'freedom'. I like your observation as well. Human nature is essentially selfish and grasping from birth. Christ came to redeem us, not only from the legal penalty of sin, which is eternal judgment, but to effect transformation from within by the Holy Spirit. Only then we may learn how to love in a way which is not entirely selfish and grasping.
(James 4:1) 'What is the sourceof quarrels and conflicts among you? is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?'
The best totalitarianism is the totalitarianism of your own conscience.
That's BS. How can something be more totalitarian than himself?
This is only true due to our education and conditioning. This can be changed / reprogrammed in an open society. Not going to be possible in a closed law based society. Like the mafia controlled Russian Federation. This man is disgusting as his thoughts are
He’s not nearly as disgusting as bug-chasing sodomites debasing other and calling it equal. Or a male swimmer competing against females and demolishing them. While progressives yell non-stop that these monstrosities are basic human rights. That’s disgusting!
Rest in peace.
Press F to pay respects 😔☻👻
Press s to shit
Rest in piss may his bones be crushed
A big improvement over much of what I previously heard of him, or from him. The hostile tone was absent. His central thesis, that liberalism is effective only as a negation of flaws inherent to other worldviews, is essentially correct. You can fill it with whatever ethical content you want, or none at all. In fact morally contentless liberalism seems inevitable to me, in de-Christianized Western societies. These are devoted to 'pursuit of happiness' in tandem with ever-increasing material prosperity and technological refinement. Even consciousness of potential disaster (military, environemental, or civilization) cannot persuade the mass of people to change their mind.
At the root of all this is failure to recognize God as God, the author and sovereign Lord of history. Has Dugin the philosopher taken account of this aspect of the problem? How can he, when he says that there is no absolute truth, or that there is a 'Russian truth'?
I agreed with much of what you said. Then all of a sudden I realized that you were me, two years ago. Hello and good-bye.
In his religious worldview he believes christianity is the only path to salvation. But by acknowledging this, he isn't falling into religious supremacism and acknowledges that other religions (judaism, islam etc.) can hold the same belief in their religious worldvierw. This isn't to mean that they're right, this is to mean that they have the "right" to say other religions are wrong, just as Orthodox Russians have the same right.
@@violenceisfun
1. Is it right to dissociate Russian Orthodoxy from other 'branches' or aspects of Christianity? Have you read 1st Corinthians 1:10-17? Have you considered the NEW TESTAMENT vision of the Church as the universal Body of Christ, as opposed to the conventional 'sociological' view of the churches as human 'religious institutions'?
2. Is membership in the Body of Christ a function of culture or 'religious choice'? Or is it the result of God's election and the new birth (see John 3:3 and following)? Did God found the Church, or did man? Surely the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) was NOT a work of man.
In short, what is the Church? Following from that, what is its mission? Is there anything in Scripture which indicates its mission as making common cause with 'other religions'? What of Deuteronomy 6:4,
John 4:22, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19-20, 2nd Corinthians 6:14, etc.?
3. What is it in your opinion that 'unites' the religions? I fail to see the 'unity' which many claim, but rather confusion and bitter disagreement. Only in opposition to Jesus the Messiah do we find unity among non-Christian religions (including pseudo-Christian cults).
One does not even need 'religion' in order to establish a moral framework for human
behavior. There is something called 'conscience' which the pursuit of vain religion may even quench. See Romans 1:18-32, and consider contemporary events in the Middle East, South Asia, etc.
WE LOVE YOU U DUGIN ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Too bad he wasn't driving
He sings the tune that pleases his master. In this sense he is not different than most Western intellectuals.
Really? How so? Which master would that be? Which tune exactly apart from his genuine thoughts?
Dugin is a free and deep mind. His English is unfortunately too poor to express it correspondingly.
It sounds more like a attempt to recontextualize the meaning of freedom and the capacity to develop individual autonomy of thinking. If you define that there's no universal law you are automatically allowed to cross barriers of individuality of any being. Limit the concept and meaniing of freedom into a etnic or social culture is failure and vague. Olavo de Carvalho refuted his arguments already and turrned it into a book.
Dugin seems to argue that Liberalism takes the form of pressure to conform and is insufficiently laissez faire to allow for the diversity that would be knowledgable concerning Russia. The argument derives its reputation for being toxic by not administering tolerance for viewpoints, either, so they both argue from being unsafe, almost as a necessary drama.
I have always said one cannot understand Putin and not know Dugin.
Why are you always think that Putin and Dugin are friends in one or another way?
Putin is Putin, he just always wanted money and power and he eventually got it and Dugin is a philosopher. I don't agree with Dugin about this civilizations idea and other Eurasianist ideas, as well as current government. He founded NazBol party with Limonov, and that party was banned in 2008, because this party organised anti-government mitings.
He's ideas is not Putin ideas, I don't think Putin clearly knows who Dugin is. I don't know from who and why this Putin x Dugin this started, but it is clearly BS.
@@ded_omlt4934 And we are all entitled to our perspective.
@@ded_omlt4934 you don't think putin knows what's going on in his country?
Dugins influence on Putin is hardly overestimated by western public.
They dont even know each other personnally. And I really doubt Putin enjoy reading philosophy. Not that kind of man.
Smart and tricky, not an intellectual at all.
Is this guy supposed to be an intellectual heavyweight in Russia? God help us all...
Возможно ты просто не в состоянии понять, что современный мир идёт к своему упадку. Скоро в Германии будут говорить на турецком, а во Франции на алжирском
This dude is Putin's left testicle. His daughter got blown up because he wasn't driving.
Russian ideas................freedom comes from group agreement, and authoritarian system, that keeps people in line........narrow system
Seems like he is critiquing a certain kind of liberalism, the French/American kind rather than the classical English sort.
Он против всех проявлений либерализма.
@@serdobsky_ he is a fake philosopher