Is Dugin Fascist, Neo Marxist, or What? | Stephen Hicks at the Museum of the Second WW

[@jcr4runner]

I would be great if people reading these opinions would read a book by Dugin, so they can see that Hicks probably skim read 4PT and then eisegeted his own biases into the text, that is, cherrypicked, distorted, caricatured, etc.

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

Like how? Give us an example, concrete one, let it be as long as possible.

[@safardebon9720]

@@AsadAli-jc5tg You can't read a book??

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

@@safardebon9720 Well I can, but so many other books are in my reading quene, so I thought someone would tell me the gist of it, for example I've read that Dugin considers blacks and middle easterners bestial people.

[@mfcorp9608]

I totally agree. In this presentation he brings up quotes, lets you read them & then blatantly misinterprets them. He has no interest in giving Dugin a fair analysis - he is giving a biases misrepresentation of his ideas. Given the political situation he is probably incentivised to give Dugin a bad interpretation

[@jcr4runner]

@@AsadAli-jc5tg Sorry I didn't see this until now. I will make this brief. The first one is that Dugin is explicitly anti-fascist in 4PT. Prior to 2009, Dugin believed that there were redeemable aspects of communism and fascism. For fascism, he said that nationalism as far as the love of one's own people, and the love of history of one's own nation is a redeemable quality. But in 4PT he goes into a lot of detail explaining how if you remove the political subject of racism from fascism, it fails to be fascism any longer. He says that it is like an animal that has its most important internal organ torn out. It will fail to exist. So people just ignore statements like that and they claim that Dugin is certainly fascist. Which is just a blatant lie or ignorance from not having read him.

[@DioscuriA85]

What bothers me most about the champions of Liberal-modernity: they can’t be honest enough to admit that their ideology is post-human/anti-human.

[@karlnord1429]

Interestingly this is an Americanization of Liberalism. We accepted the brutalist aesthetics and the Brits stuck to their traditions. Americans were always more Germanic, more fundamentalist (which meant revolutionary), and less trusting of tradition.

[@alexanderscott2456]

It's not at all clear what group you're referring to. Are you referring to Leftists, the "woke", the very few defenders of free markets, or anyone who is opposed to the criminal Russian regime? It would be nice if comments like this make an implicit, vague statement explicit and clear.

[@DioscuriA85]

@@alexanderscott2456 I wouldn’t say we’re talking about groups rather ideologies. The underlying metaphysic of Liberalism proliferates at the societal level in a variety of ways. Liberalism pervades the entire political spectrum in the United States.

[@alexanderscott2456]

@@DioscuriA85 If you're using the term "Liberalism" that broadly, it sounds like a package deal to include Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin, or even Reagan and Thatcher. It doesn't sound like you're only referring to woke lunatics.

[@DioscuriA85]

@@alexanderscott2456 That is correct. That’s not to demonize people. I’m stating: At the deepest levels of being, Liberal-modernity is not in accordance with what we actually are as human beings.

[@markcounseling]

Hicks imo, despite his considerable intellect, is too concrete and sectarian a thinker to even begin to understand Dugin. But I'd love to see a Millerman vs. Hicks battle.

[@thereignofthezero225]

🤪

[@markcounseling]

@@thereignofthezero225 Zounds! The "zany" Emoji. I offer you this: 😘

[@thereignofthezero225]

I'd imagine that battle would result in something very similar to the Hicks vs. Thaddeus Russell debate 😄

[@markcounseling]

@@thereignofthezero225 Absolutely not. Russell is a lightweight labile atheist postmodernist, God bless him. Millerman is a middleweight mystic postliberal traditionalist, 6'9" and he trains jiu jitsu. He would place Hicks in an intellectual headlock so tight Hicks'd be like: 🤪. And Millerman would be like: 🥱.

[@thereignofthezero225]

@@markcounseling I'll check him out

[@carltyden78]

Jeez, if this is the standard of American philosophers, then that civilization is absolutely screwed.

[@mfcorp9608]

I agree

[@AikanaroSauron]

Only americans. Don't equate the US with the rest of the world. We are happy without the US and their "philosophers".

[@oldsachem]

Today in the US anyone not Woke is cancelled, excluded from any positions of power in government, the legal and justice system, corporate hierarchy, organized labor, academia, Big Cyber, mass media, social media, education from pre-school through graduate universities, even sports.

[@timelston4260]

That's a problem, and so is the rightist reactionary fascism led by Trump. Let's defeat them both!

[@SuperDrainBamage]

And you think Dugin is not woke?

[@tankiebot704]

​@@SuperDrainBamage yes hes traditional nor woke

[@thanoskoutroumbas356]

If he gets canceled by all those then all these are corrupt or terrorized (which is the same). Do as Solzhenitsyn said. "The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world." Keep speaking the truth.

[@alexanderscott2456]

OP is an apologist for a malevolent dictatorship. He's no better than the woke scum he pretends to hate.

[@vaibhavsajith4267]

1997 dugin is a different person from the 4th political theory dugin

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Yes, about 10% different at most.

[@vaibhavsajith4267]

@@StephenHicksPhilosopher no.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

@@vaibhavsajith4267 : Go for it, and lay out the major differences you see.

[@Petronium123]

what has changed about him? I also know that he met Leon Degrelle at some point.

[@vaibhavsajith4267]

@@Petronium123 he's suggested a whole new paradigm to fight liberalism because both communism and fascism failed according to him

[@Bread_Butter]

Individualism is restricted within the overall goals of the state. This is a factor whether you are in the USA, UK , Russia or any society on earth. So wheel and come again. your argument starts on a bias premise.

[@radiozelaza]

Jünger was not a fan of Nazis

[@zzoliche]

Hey, I have no problem with liberals critiquing Dugin. Understandable and appropriate. But to have so egregiously misrepresented Dugin's thought like this is an unconscionable hatchet job. He makes no effort to discuss Dugin's ideas and arguments in context, with nuance, or in some cases simply accurately. He literally never even says what the fourth political theory even is, which is kind of peculiar. But then doing so would undermine Hicks' key misrepresentation. Also, for his closing claims about Dugin's lack of original scholarship, maybe he might have mentioned the dozens of volumes published by Dugin covering the enthnosociology of most of the world's major cultures. Anyone who comes away from this video thinking they understand Dugin have been done a terrible disservice by Hicks.

[@אביאבי-ש7ב]

Non russian does not understand that these two things: Rossianin Russki It seams that lecturer makes this mistake

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

I see, Indigenous and Slavic.

[@sergeymanakov6267]

Much of what has been said is far from reality. It is obvious that the speaker is extremely poorly familiar with factology and does not represent Russian realities and the language used by Dugin and about Dugin at all.

[@isokabooks3758]

Why am I listening to mediated Dugin as if I can't read the original?

[@itsallminor6133]

Because the book takes longer and isn't very good

[@ziadkhalaf198]

I think Millerman read f Dugin is more accurate.

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

It would not be an overstatement to say that we're living in the days and times of Dugin. May God be with us as we fight Liberalism and Liberal-Leftism, and may every Russian lives to save each hair of Dugin's beard.

[@Coastfog]

Lmao, that's the dumbest sht I've read all day, and there was some *dumb sht* , I tell ya...

[@MG-ye1hu]

To call Heidegger a Nazi is not entirely appropriate. While he was indeed at the beginning drawn to them and thought they represent some of his own ideas, he grew more and more disappointed and even hostile towards them over time.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Heidegger was a Ph.D. and highly versed in political developments. He joined the Nazi Party and became its most-famous academic exponent. He did not do well as a political activist and so backed out of day-to-day politicking. He never, ever, expressed disagreement with Nazi philosophy or recanted his activism.

[@MG-ye1hu]

@@StephenHicksPhilosopher It's a little bit more complicated. There were parts in Nazi ideology (I would not call it a philosophy), namely a strong anti-intellectual streak (expressed in the book burning) that he reprehended. And in the "Schwarzen Hefte" are some very critical remarks about the Nazis which clearly show his disappointment and estrangement. However, to be clear, I would never deny that there are strong ideological ties of Heidegger's philosophy and Nazi ideology.

[@gghost1224]

Being a National Socialist or Nazi does not mean agreeing 100% with the regime about everything, there are different forms of NS and different National Socialists put their own spin on the ideology

[@MG-ye1hu]

@@gghost1224 I'm not the defender of Heidegger and consider some aspects of his philosophy as rather problematic myself. But talking about philosophy means looking for thoughts and their nuances. And putting a label like Nazi on Heidegger has rather the purpose to dismiss him and his philosophy altogether. And I think this is not what philosophy should be about.

[@karlnord1429]

@Hicks, Dugin is not racist. I think it is important to point out how his ideas of ethnicity are not based on genetics. This does imply much better historical outcomes (e.x., Franco was much better than Hitler).

[@TobiasC-mg4zk]

He’s incredibly racist against Ukrainian people. He calls for them to be genocided. He’s quite adamant about the idea that his Eurasian novorossiya Russification project can’t exist as long as Ukrainian people exist.

[@rossdouthard6216]

Very interesting lecture.

[@cryptoemcee]

Thanks.

[@slamacful]

I have heard an expression to describe the Dubin - type thinkers - they are redbrowns.

[@markraftis]

Thank you, Prof. Hicks I just saw Dugan talk to Tucker Carlson about an interesting talk. I can see were Dugan is coming from he lives in Russia. I guess he would look for a fourth way. Communism did not work, fascism was crushed. Well liberalism has taken a beating from WWI and WWII. Fascism was supposed to be the third way.

[@picassomicasso1]

He’s none of the the above, read his works. He’s a brilliant mind and is making a valid case that’s perhaps too deep for western intellects. There are Russians around the world, hence the borderless metaphor

[@itsallminor6133]

I read dugin. I have like hardly anything i picked up worth anything. Mostly a waste of time. I give him credit for a slightly different spin on the limits of freedom in liberalism. Other than that. Yah. Nothing...

[@gghost1224]

@@itsallminor6133What are you talking about lol, there is nothing liberal about his writings or ideas

[@itsallminor6133]

@@gghost1224 guess you haven't read it

[@gghost1224]

@@itsallminor6133 I have read it, and much more. He is as illiberal you get and his whole ideology is based on anti-liberal thinkers and ideologies, combining neo-fascism and neo-Stalinism, both are radical rejections of liberalism, his own ideology is a revolutionary traditionalist revolt against modernism, liberal-capitalism and marxist materialism.

[@craxd1]

The more I look into Dugin, I am reminded of third-way politics, which is pushed by some in the west.

[@tankiebot704]

Dugin is based

[@KratomFlavoredAdidas]

What's the difference?

[@gghost1224]

There is a big difference

[@johnsmithe1379]

As an ex-Objectivist I find this criticism slanderous and ridiculous.

[@williamtell1477]

BREAKING NEWS: Hoe's mad.

[@jcr4runner]

Pretty obviously "or what" is the correct answer.

I dont know whats this canadian pseudophilosopher read, but I presume it was a Jordan Peterson review of Dugin work or sort. What a waste of time!

[@PabloMuerteUno]

Going back to Mussolini: "Fascism is corporatism" Hence USA is becoming more fascists by day

[@karlnord1429]

That is not corporations but the state as "corporeal body" which is an idea that goes back to at least Plato. It's the idea that the judiciary is the kidneys, the philosopher is the mind, and the vanguard is the immune system, etc. Corporatism was very popular for most of human history. Honestly there is something to learn from it in the modern age as the failure of institutions of government (or their success) is not limited to democratic government. The success of Louis IV's economic policies and then the problems they create in encouraging the French revolution are a lesson for modern times.

[@gghost1224]

That quote is fake but corporatism in fascism does not mean capitalist corporations it refers to trade unions or guilds, read more please…

[@bavundra]

I have a major problem with this video. It is too damn short! :)

[@lebenstraum666]

Heidegger saw the lies of Western philosophy in his Parmenides and Heraclitus works.

[@danielsacilotto3196]

I'm having trouble localizing this kind of talk. It's too stupid to be seriously academic, and too abstract to be an intervention into public discourse. Who is his audience? It seems like he is trying to be an ideologue, but just coming across as hopelessly boring and silly.

[@eurasianheathen109]

26:53 Dugin also refers to Francis Fukuyama quite a bit more than these other philosophers

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

But Fukuyama was a conservative.

[@JMichael-o7g]

It seems that Hicks has missed the point that Dugin explicitly rejects these perspectives as a part of his premise. So what is his motive in using only what Dugin himself would consider illegitimate (and perjorative in this instance) categories? Is he envious? Is he poltical? Perhaps the Crown has advised him to pursue this faux criticism. It certainly seems to agree with British and western european demonization of all virtue in Russian advances in any sense. If you dont know what Dugin "is", perhaps respectful dialogue would help give clarity, rathet than pretentioys rhetoric that obfuscates rational discussion and injects a suggestion of deranged authoritarianism. Dugin invites ideas. Hicks seems intent reconstructing Dugins inquiry with contrived suspicions.

[@zeroonetime]

ALL THE ABOVE.

[@itsallminor6133]

I like Heidegger. I found dugin more comical than anything.

[@dachurchofeppie850]

Excellent.

[@xappuxok]

He makes a mockery of Dugin's philosophy.

[@itsallminor6133]

It does that on its own. Have you read it?

[@ozzy5146]

thank you for this. But it is a straw man to paint early america/locke as some sort of free market libertarians.

[@SavingCommunitiesDS]

Why is that? They are not perfectly libertarian, just as there is no perfect circle, but I think they represent major advances in libertarian thought.

[@ozzy5146]

@@SavingCommunitiesDS Locke was a majoritarian. and the majority could treat free enterprise as they best judged. So was the United states. No regime of "individual rights."

[@SavingCommunitiesDS]

@@ozzy5146, the two are not mutually exclusive. He was comparing the majority to kings who never respected individual rights.

[@ozzy5146]

@@SavingCommunitiesDS But Locke had absolutely no problem with the majorities in parliament to define freedom any way they wanted. And any such restriction on individual freedom can be considered "fascist." So whatever problem Hicks has with Dugin can also be applied to locke! Or, of course, Jefferson. In fact, to anything short of anarchy!

[@budroe4057]

@@ozzy5146 A flippant and facile response if I've ever seen one. Loaded with hyperbole, exaggerations, and misappropriated, or undefined and abstract terminology.

[@stephensuddick1896]

He's alone. That's what he is.

[@johnarmitage6225]

What an appalling caricature of Dugins thought this lecture is, Hicks comes across as a first year undergraduate way out of his depth

[@LongDefiant]

Yeeesh, bro. I'm just getting into Dugin, but this didn't sound right.

[@6saturnacaprisun156]

You're wrong about Dugin. Fourth theory will rise

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

God willingly, God willingly.

[@newdawnrising8110]

Fascism is not socialism. It’s the opposite. Dugin didn’t say this. He is smarter then that.

[@johnbatson8779]

You are wrong, fascism is the ultimate nationalistic socialism

[@gghost1224]

Dugin has said fascism is socialism many times including his 1997 essay called "Fascism: Borderless and Red" and it is true. Nationalism + socialism = fascism

[@GeorgeKopelas]

Dugin also copied a lot from my book "Society in a Market Economy" published during 1997. There is nothing original in his books and theory.

[@gghost1224]

Dugin has not even read your book

[@GeorgeKopelas]

@@gghost1224 You are not in a position to know that. Dugin substituted the word liberarism for individualism and capitalism (as they were described in my book) and came up with a theory that actually makes no sense!

[@tonyfrench2574]

Marx revealed the matrix that would give the results he prophesied. Nothing happens by emperical evidence and practice but because Marx reveals it. Too narrow to cover the true course of culture, society and economics and to wide to provide any mechanisms Marxism is another theoretical humbug.

[@lubomirmazal9693]

…… well I have to admit, that I sense a very serious neoliberal propaganda from words of this eloquent gentleman. Maybe he has some political aspirations. He is applying signals or resemblances of fasism somewhere , they do not exist.

[@gghost1224]

Wtf are you talking about lol, yes they do exist everywhere in Dugins writings, did you not watch the video?

[@patrickvernon4766]

You can just read what he writes… not very hard.

[@brucehazen8982]

I commend Hicks for unmasking this fascist.

[@gghost1224]

Unmasking? He used to be openly fascist lol

[@bobschmitz3882]

This guy suggests that Dugin promotes fascism. This is twisting his words. He even contradicts his own ppt slides!

[@bobschmitz3882]

The 2nd part of the lecture is better. Spiritual is not the same as religion. Russians have more sense of community than Anglo saxons. Marxism, liberalism and fascism are very materialistic and are lacking spiritually.

[@gghost1224]

Dugin does promote fascism, he went from being openly fascist to rebranding the Third Position/Third Way

[@bobschmitz3882]

@@gghost1224 Not anymore really. People do move on. Not that I am a follower, but the guy is a great thinker. It is better to form an opinion that sticking labels on writers, undoubtedly for later cancelling...

[@bobschmitz3882]

One of the major differences is that fascist/ nazi is racist and secular, while Dugin sees spirituality as a major driving force. He is old believer-Orthodox now.

[@user18428]

Imagine this guy is getting paid by some university for such type of "analysis"

[@tonyfrench2574]

Dugin philosphizes about the aeroplane but he never builds it let alone flies it.

[@joeruf6526]

LOL! It's parody. Great move Canada. Putting a disciple of Alisa Rosenbaum to defend liberalism. What a joke. I disagree with Dugin but he buries this guy intellectually and in his understanding of philosophy.

[@itsallminor6133]

We don't know the audience. Possible he's simplifying for audience

[@joeruf6526]

@@itsallminor6133 possibly. But there's something comical about taking anyone from Ayn Rands ideology seriously. lol! I mean isn't everyone's boomer uncle dead at this point or too old and embarrassed to defend such positions?

[@newdawnrising8110]

For me Dugan's 4th Political Theory seems like an ideology that is forced and artificial. It is basically what we see in Russia today, which is a new form of fascism for Oligarchs per se'. His idea of this fourth system is just an attempt to solve the age old Russian identity crisis the culture has lived under for centuries. Russians being neither totally European nor totally Asian thus identify as a kind of Eurasian culture. Dugin explains all the various values of the traditional Russian culture and all that is fine and good, but it doesn't make it a political theory. It is a cultural identity or description of values shared among a majority of the Russian population. From there it becomes its own form of Liberalism citing the importance of recognizing various cultures and their unique traits and values. His rejection of racism though is a joke. Russians' are some of the most racist ppl in the world. And especially the nationalists that would most identify with Dugin's ideas. The 4th political theory is a form of super nationalism and cultural supremacy at the end of the day. This theory would identify the Russian culture and ethnic group as superior to all other cultures and with the "Divine Right" to rule the world. Dugin explains his idea of Eurasians' as a culture with Russia at it center. Other cultures are to be accepted and offered a kind of buy in to the Russian lead Eurasian union. Many of these idea spin off of Mackinder's "World Island theory". Basically I see this 4th political theory as an attempt to define what it means to be Russian. It is not a political theory that can be applied to other non Russian cultures in my opinion. It is a kind of hodgepodge of Russian identity politics and liberalism. What he fails to recognize is that this ideology can not be adopted by other cultures. Rather it fits into the idea of Liberalism just fine. ie. If you want to practice what ever political ideology you wish, then that is fine. You just can not force it onto other countries. Liberalism is a kind of live and let live ideology. It is a form of moral and political relativism but it is a rule based order so that all the different cultures can live in as much harmony as possible. The problem for Dugin and Putin is that they are not the head of the present world order. Therefore they criticize Liberalism with its moral relativism and general open society attitude toward minorities as corrupt and decadent and not in line with traditional Russian values. The fact is that we have a pluralist culture all around the world as cultures and peoples continue to mix and immigrate to various countries all over the world. Russians and other traditional cultures can criticize the values of others but still operate under the same law and a general capitalistic economy. That is that not all cultural values will agree, but liberals agree on basics of human rights but it doesn't insist that anyone have the same economic or moral or social values. Cultures have the freedom to be or become who they wish to be. Just don't step on the rights of others Sovereignty and self determination. Liberals can accept Dugin and his 4th political theory as long as they know that it applies to themselves alone and can not be forced on other cultures or peoples. But as we have seen Putin has no respect for other culture or their rights or sovereignty. He believes that might makes right but only when it is him exercising his might and power that matters. The power of the idea of liberalism will not be argued away. The ideology is inclusive inviting all to come together and work together to make a better world. We the US are not trying to tell others what to do except to abide by the laws of the world community that has set international law . This is what the Russians refuse to do bc they still live in the 18th century and want to build an empire again. That simply can not be accepted by the world community. Land can not be taken by force and we need an international force to maintain these laws of respecting the sovereignty of our neighbors to be as they choose. Dugin is trying to justify empire building again for the Russians. And this is what the Liberal order can not let them do through the use of violence.

[@BlackAdam-wk6cm]

He is sh...:)

[@BlackAdam-wk6cm]

Fascist only in a different way. You explained this well. The character is the son of a KGB officer. It has 100% something to do with Putin. His idea is to invade Ukraine. He mentioned it for a long time and it finally happened. I don't like him at all. Greetings.

[@princebuster93]

@ NewDawn, thanks for that, it’s unbelievable how many Putin lovers there are in Britain and the alt media in general. If you read the Bible and do a study of eschatology, we are definitely seeing a world wide exposure of all these Dictators intentions. A lot of people are caught up in this “ Great Awakening “ mindset, which is the false light of Lucifer. The people of the world are being set up to be deceived by the Anti Christ, Dear Leader that is coming with great miracles, wonders, charm and promises of economic prosperity for all. Thank God, he is going to send witnesses warning people to repent of their unbelief and turn back to Jesus Christ, the Saviour of their soul, who died on the cross for their sins

[@gghost1224]

@@newdawnrising8110 Nothing about his ideology is liberal he is as anti-liberal you get

[@larysarowland2958]

Dugin like Ivan Ilyin is a fascist and a russian conservative nationalist ( even more he is the nazist) and Putin likes both of them....however Italian Fascist party was a revolutanary party...'Bordeless an our land" - Dugin...."Russia does not have borders"-Putin...

[@dannydetonator]

What's funny is, you're arguably right. If we take Umberto Eco's or Lawrence Britt's definitions of fascism, the ultimate goal of Dugin fits on a scale. I've only read exerts of aIlyin, and plan on reading his descriptions of "superior Russian." If you knw accepNot classical, but novel way of postmodern fascism. Hut you hit nail on the head with Ilyin, as in Russian supremacist evolving ideology, it's not Dugin, but Ilyin, which putin takes most methodics from, by both ananalyzing his actions and rethorics and leaked info from Kremlin shaika, as Putin did admit it beimg on top of the list. He carefully crafted his favourite 15 writers, Ilyin was among them, Dugin wasn't. That's hidfen on purpose. Some might argue, that this Dugins thought salad is not actual Nazism, but only if we take '30s Nazism definition: he don't spell it out to copy all of that failed quagmire. Howeber denying rhetoric connections, he suggests the very methods between the limes. And Kremlin already uses them, in own suitability. Like their Roskomnadzor with trollfarms are a modern coppy of aGoebbels office, and muvh more powrrful. That's why we have so much Russophilic tankies in the world and in these comments. The youth camps, perversed education system and history textbooks, collectivism and Grdtapo agents among own population, mindless repeating and slogans, talking points, casus-belli, the list is endless. Only thing - it's not Aryan supremacy, it's 'Russian' supremacy, not even based on ethnicity for most. It's based on ideology and 'way of being', with same postmodern spin on "homo sovieticus". Everyone can become a 'Russian', if sing by their book, that's why anyone can get the new label of "rashist". The less you know their accurate history, the betger. You just have to accept "the special Russian truth" and that's it. No thinkung, logic necessary and God forbid you find a healthy reason or common sense. But, if you live in thrir path of restoring the Empire, like me - you either accept the ideology of slaves, or -- . Ask Timofei Sergeytsev, about "What to do with " them who resist. The final solution of people who betrays Russian 'plan'. I bet most of those here, same as in '30s Europe (and many in US) are led to love Dugin's methaphysical cocktail are the ones dismissing democracy, all the things Dugin 'seems' to reject for a western mind, and unknowingly push for new fascism . Accusing the other side of their own traits, out of reason. That's why tankues who don't admit their preference for fascist system are now called 'sczizofascists'. The trend started in Russia: they religiously believe their holy war against 'fascist Ukraine' and would extend the frontline to all western border, as all neighbours there have long been labeled fascists. The more someone resist their bloody power show, the more fasco or Nazi they are. Dugin is not an innovative phylosopher. The reason why you see all these quotes and paraphrasing, is because his theory and ideology is a postmodern Frankenstein. It's carefully crafted to be appealing to certain values and demography, which has neen ever growing, probably unexpectedly. I don't despair or find surprising for loud voices giving support for Russia from genuine westerners, among massive trollfarm fake voices. What i find sombre is, that even after getting apparantly educated academically, the more you go into rashist fascism, the more you love it, at least from a distance. Grass is allways greener.. and some will happily move to Russia . Usually the black-ptropaganda quagmire and conspiracys flow from most ignorant, or pseudo-anything victims. And actually it's not so different in these comments. Most of 'intelligent' discussers are pseudo-intelligent ignorant fascism sympathisers or confused in post-truth, post-fact conservatives or extremists. They pretend to be high up educated philosophers themselves, but lack of understanding Russian and historic extreme-spectrum ideas show trough. You have to get to know the region and people on both sides of Russias border to go deeper tgan this or correctly getting Dugins thought. As of this deep as in the lecture, it passes for framework. Those who think he is the greatest philosopher and we live in 'his times', sorry to disapoint you. He rhashed and served what tankies like also for reasons of effective populism in society driven by engagement and increasingly confused. Newertheless it's the sign of times, if horrifying to see people who unknowingly justify return to the past dressed in whatever suits their beliefs. This is not progress, but regress to demolish basic human rights,

[@dannydetonator]

..as defined by centuries of writing them in blood. Dugin wants to abolish rules-based order and instil new rules, defined by the 'big man'. And that's exactly what ageing Putin - and all his supporters are dreaming of. We stand in their way and don't know yet how they'll react and how many will try to join them. I never thought this is where postmodernism leads, allthough read a book of warning against it, which seemed written by a conservative. Please, friends of books, read "1984". Read the description of double-thought, double-speech and the state of the world. And particulary think about newspeech - but in a syntax form. Simplifying things and making them mantra. One example today is Rashists not only calling everyone who disagrees Nazis and fascists, but terms like Kyiv regime and US regime. Rare of them know

[@dannydetonator]

.. that it's against definition of regime, if you know what i mean. After few hundred times hearing it, no way of convincing them that it's them, who have a regime, not somewhere in Europe. And same goes for 1st world tankies. This is a warning to all. Don't fall in these traps, get to know sides fighting for your sympathy and appealing with propaganda personally. Harder to do with Russians, but given a chance - talk ti them, to Ukrainians, to any real Palestinians ("") though), Israelis, Iranians, Chinese, Azerbaijanis,

[@dannydetonator]

..Balltic people, etc. Most will know the hustory, if nit necessarily Dugin's work. But they'll be able to explain where he is coming from. Excuse the multi-reply essay, and especially spelling mistake. You'll have decypher this with eyeball spellcheck - unfortunately i'm on my reserve phone, which doesn't display text while i write replies, often glitches that keyboard disappear and i can't edit that mess, only deleete. Be safe.

[@gghost1224]

@@dannydetonatorUmberto Eco has been debunked

[@howardhilliard9286]

"Ethnos" - Identify politics. How we know you well in the USA.

[@dolmena]

ahaha. what a hilarious name of the video.

[@oldsachem]

Amazing the similarities between the tenets of Dugin's national fascist ideology and that of the Woke anarchists.

[@craxd1]

Third-way politics, which really was a new fourth type. I believe this Russian form is a similar, but more stringent form of mixing the left and right than in the US and UK, but it has the same roots. Both Clinton and Blair supported third-way, and Blair used Sweden as a model. Blair was also big on "social justice" and so were the Clintons, which we can see the results of today. Look for Antifa's banner in Minneapolis on February 18, 2017, in the Antifa Wikipedia article. Notice the colors: red banner, white circle, with black symbols. Much of what they use have always mimicked this. It was several years ago, but I read an article from the CFR about how the national socialists and socialists got their heads together, and come to an agreement, which they agreed to pursue.

[@dannydetonator]

Complete opposites. Only thing common is seeming notion of end of rules based order. Anarchist want end of authority, not international rules as Dugin. And this way of thinking, is exactly what he preaches. Irony has never been so great, because this is a cult. Sczizofascist is your new name.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Hmmm... 1) The principle difference between civilizations is the degree of trust: meaning the trustworthiness of each individual in personal, private, social, economic, and political life.. Russia is a low trust civilization. China is a lower trust civilization. Iindia is an even lower trust civilization. The middle east (MENA) is a much much lower trust civilization. The subsaharan africa is a trustless civilization. The Japanese, South Koreans, and the Europeans (mostly northern europeans) are the only high trust civilizations. 2) Russia is a low trust civ. Duggin is looking for a justification for russian imperial authoritarianism that is necessary for a low trust population to maintain a geographic extreme of eleven time zones, when there is no means of political, social, economic, cultural, competition against competitors. In other words, (just like canandians virtue signal over americans) Russians need a means of exctusing their untrustworthiness and not developing trustworthiness. 3) Those civilizations that experimented with communism and socialism 'blew the window' of modernizing, where they hade but a century to sieze their share of incentives to create a majority middle class society, before market differences between civlizations eliminated any chance of advantage. Now they have built up consumption, but they have no capital to use to transform, and no market means of transformation. So most will choose like Dugin to double down on ideology religion or authority to compensate. Some others will knuckle under (india) and develop quickly. Others more slowly.

[@budroe4057]

Consider that, Mr. Ozzy here, cannot reconcile (or aknowledge) natural law as an operative force, let alone any universal, cosmic moral order, either existentially or ontologically. This may be evident in his remarks regarding JL, where in the period a major crux was the move from the objective to the subjective.

[@dannydetonator]

@Nikolaievich9837 Damn, kremlinbot, your FANfarm slavedrivers really care about what westerners think about your genocidal sczizofascists..

[@franklogrim8510]

This is so bad 🤣🤣

[@itsallminor6133]

The book is too

[@grosbeak6130]

I usually like Stephen Hicks, but something is missing here, or something is off with him here.

[@amiradil1060]

Western capitalism is fascism as well because it is based on colonialism, imperialism, slavery, genocide and hegemony, be it cultural, political or economic.

[@lebenstraum666]

The liberal veneer needed to.make it seem acceptable.

[@ozzy5146]

Any "should" is religious. Including whatever liberalism recommends.

[@thereignofthezero225]

What a strange creature

[@karlnord1429]

When an animal feels hungry, they are "shoulding" in the same way as when a man feels hungry. "Should" is an evolved thing, like all the things in man.

[@ozzy5146]

@@karlnord1429 there's a difference between doing something and saying the thing SHOULD be done. Animals can't SAY what is right or wrong. that's the difference.

[@karlnord1429]

@@ozzy5146 Animals communicate desire all the time. Right and wrong---as human concepts---are abstractions of basic desire. If you kick a dog it will growl. If you kick a man he will as well. Somehow, though, I think dogs end up killing each other less than humans kill each other. So how good are these religious abstractions in practice when confronted with man's tyrannical nature?

[@ozzy5146]

@@karlnord1429 dogs can't be philosophers because they have very limited abilities to communicate. Thus, they never make "should" arguments.

[@seviwolfowicz4110]

Putin should not be listening to Dugin. This philosophy only leads to suffering.

[@hazelwray4184]

He isn't

[@thereignofthezero225]

@@hazelwray4184 I was wondering about that. Haven't looked into it, but I hope you're right

[@tankiebot704]

Wrong, dugin is great

[@thereignofthezero225]

@Tankie Bot doubtful, but I'll investigate

[@thereignofthezero225]

@@tankiebot704 I investigated and determined you are wrong. Good luck figuring that out for yourself.

[@voiceofchina1788]

why Dugin needs this medium who looks twice as wise?