Aleksandr Dugin Fourth Political Theory Lecture 

Yes, to me it reminds me of what it meant democracy for the Greeks. Liberalism for who?

Liberalism for the multinational corporations so the can have free reign to loot and exploit people. That's what they fighting for, not that they want to make the world a better place for everyone!

Funny this was true when you posted it but now everyone is talking about Dugin.

Dogan gets way more coverage than his pathetic ideas deserve

It seems so, good to see a real slav chime in on it.

Watching it now after having watched the Keith Woods video on the same subject which just came out.

ℹ️

I am. I’m always searching new ideas which should lead us , the mankind , out of this stupid senseless global society. We must be transcendental as Heidegger teaches us. Holzweg ! Why not ?

I’ve known about this theory for a while turns out he is genocidal but in the final analysis the orthodox world will prevail in the decadent west Glory to Sultanine and God in the highest arch angels and peace to his people on earth

2022

I have only ever heard about him as a Boogeyman so I have just imagined him as a new Rasputin…it is swell and quite refreshing to get a straightforward perspective 👍🏻

If you find Dugin's idea "a special kind of truth .. one you must accept" puzzling, then the talk "Evaluating Russia by a Finnish Intelligence officer" explains cultural outlooks which are alien to Western thinking.

@@RobBCactiveThank you for this reccomendation. A year on and I'm glad to have found this comment.

Pretty nice science fiction but fir real geopolitics more like a joke

@@raakareiska9804 🤦‍♂️.. "you can lead a person to info, but you can't make him think" -canadian prepper

@@jdlflagstone6980 "You can larp imagination geopolitics but beware of car bombs" - Sun Tzu

Wait till you read the book "Hyperborean Theory" by Aleksandr Dugin. In the first chapter, he describes all black people as "non-humans," "the bestial race," "dumb and stupid." In next chapters, you want to read what he says about Arabs, Latin Americans, non-white Asians.

Are you kidding? This guy is a self-avowed 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚖𝚞𝚗𝚒𝚜𝚝 and tendentious extremist. I seriously doubt 𝑬𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒂 would associate with the likes of him.

@@hyperboreanarchives7299 Did you and I watch different videos? I'm pretty sure he argued AGAINST communism at several points. Mere collectivism does not a communist make.

@@danieldavis6288 He was a founding member of 𝑵𝑨𝒁𝑩𝑶𝑳 and just because he claims to renounce it now in order to subvert and infiltrate does not mean his abjuration is genuine. So forgive me if I remain Incredulous and advise you to do the same.

@@hyperboreanarchives7299 I have no idea what that is or means, but the context isn't lost. I'll take it under advisement.

@@danieldavis6288 That's all I could expect, thank you for hearing me out. Best of luck on your journey and remember to stay skeptical.

I think there's been periods of somewhat peaceful unipolar power separated by periods of countries fighting to see who gets dominance for the next period of unipolar power. With multiple powers, each one wants an advantage over the other and at some point one sanctions the other or take a key piece of land and the balance either gets restored or it tips to one side making a unipolar world again. Eventually it will always tip one way or the other. I suppose it's an interesting idea, but more likely what "multi-polar world" really just means "let's start the cycle again and see who gets to rule the next unipolar world". We will likely have a unipolar world, for a generation or two, but we will also likely have very hard times ahead for a generation or two beforehand... US isn't going to allow a multi polar world without a fight..

This guy is a joke in his "geopolitics"

what are you a liberal? The 4th position is against individualism, it hates liberalism due to the "individualism" or some shit idk this is all clown shit. I do agree a transhumanist future would very very bad, though I don't care for individuality and such when it pertains to this matter, more so the enlarged gap in power it would bring down upon civilization, a kind of power whose clutches might never be able to be gotten rid of when formed.

I see nothing bad about a transhumanist future as long as its a technocommunist one

@@tyemich8820 The main downside I see to transhumanism would be an extension of the human capability. Current every person who has ever lived would fucking *die* if you shot them in the head enough times. If humanity could get to a point where this is not the case the equality of death under which we all live will be disturbed. This could have some bad bad consequences due to the new imbalances in power that'd come about. idk this is just my perspective

@@revi.talose.8643 I see what you mean. Currently, the amount of wealth and power you get can depend on your capabilities. If people are born with grossly different capabilities, that will create a caste society, like in the movie Gattaca, but I'm hoping that by then it won't matter that much because Marxism would start making sense, and everyone would get according to their needs, because most work would be done by robots and there are free things.

@@tyemich8820 yes exactly, I've seen a lot of marxists praise transhumanism, or even a post human society as a potentially good thing, when I think the real dangers it poses of reifying class is very much underlooked. And this is an issue I don't think you could fix this by simply implementing a marxist framework, instead active anti-transhuman action might be needed.

Me too

Same lol

Me too wtf lol. We’re getting spied on 😂

Supposedly, at one point, Dugin said that in order for the multipolar world to emerge, The US Empire had to be neutralized, and that Russia, and other civilizations who are in conflict with America, should pursue this neutralization by exacerbating America’s racial and ideological conflicts. The implication (to people who think he’s a “honey trap”) is that wants Russia to fund white nationalists organizations inside the US , not to restore America to some type of folkish past, but just to make trouble, and eventually end up dead or in jail. I should say, if there was any evidence that Russia really was funding US white nationalists, I think we would have heard about it by now.

@@cobrastriesand7693 This makes more sense. Thanks!

@@cobrastriesand7693 not necessarily funding, but influencing

@@lynlee6861 From what I’ve seen of the controversy, Dugin really did write that Russia should cultivate American white nationalist, along with other kinds of malcontents, in order to weaken America - though again there is no evidence this actually happened. A few years latter, reactionaries (particularly Keith Woods) started critiquing white nationalism from a Duginist perspective, so the white nationalist (particularly Greg Johnson) shot back that “Duginism was a Russian scheme to sabotage white nationalism”, which to me personally, seems like a willful misreading, but WNs have a bad habit of assuming that anyone who disagrees with them, is doing so in order to hurt them. Whereas it seems to me like Dugin simply doesn’t care about the future of the “white race” in North America Anyway, that’s the controversy that I’m familiar with.

@@cobrastriesand7693 The beauty of modern intelligence work is that you no longer have to transfer a pile of cash to have a foreign actor work toward your desired goal.

They aren't brilliant, they are just rebranded authoritarian neo-imperialist talking points

@@GIhomie this just shows me how you don’t understand dugin or amything that is talked about in this video

@@latviankhan2989 I have actually read Dugins work and not just watched some western Kids video about him. There is a reason why neo-nazis here in eastern Europe love him and his work. If you are blind to the blatant expansionist&imperialist agendas he has written about, the regressive authoritarian policies that are supposed to strip people of their basic rights gradually i see why you would be naive enough to say something as uneducated as that. You probably read Mein Kampf and tought it was brilliant work of political philosophy by some austrian dude who had a little weird thing towards the jews, but otherwise an ok dude.

@@GIhomie Maybe, but thats not how I understood it.

@@sanjam.4251 that is understandable as it is not meant to be an overly obvious agenda of his "philosophy" except in his book: Foundations of geopolitics, where the imperialist talking points are clear. But of course there are many more examples of these agendas in his works, some statements are of course more masks off than others. But over all his Works are regressive authoritarian propaganda pieces.

That's what the make you to believe but the reality is that there is such thing as class and through out man's history we have had this sort of class struggle, so according to your thinking if all are equal why do your leaders always have to come from a certain class of people.

@@jamesmiller2735 Yes. "Rule of Law" is really "Rule of Lawmakers". Equality under the law is a theoretical position not borne out in reality.

@Myname Isunavailable nah Dugin is not fascist. You're just politically uneducated

Just a rebranded neo fascist

@Myname Isunavailable But... He is not

What? How is it hard to? It's literally rebranded fascism - he does admit he is a fascist and a bolshevik, his party was called "National-Bolshevik". Guys, please, head out of the sand. It's blatant Russian propaganda, this is the guy that whispers in Putin's ear.

Not really, god isn’t real so there’s no logical basis for theology therefore the Orthodox Church nor is Russia in the imperial context a singular race or existence. His own philosophy is built on this contradiction by drawing a contrast between a lack of historical foundation for the Russian people in the past, and then simultaneously claiming one does exist / should exist.

What’s the new left ? How is it different to the old left or current woke left ?

@@lachlanmcdonald3016 : Perhaps it's a misnomer to say 'new left.' I think a more apt description would be alternative left as opposed to the 'establishment left.'

@@lachlanmcdonald3016 Basically they’re progressive greens.

I’m a leftist and I fully agree with his critique of Marxist communism.

@@soggybread5853 I'm confused about his critique of Marxism, I haven't read much Marx only the Manifesto amd Das Kapital, why is his critique of your ideas fair?

I haven't read Dugin, but I've watched his ten-hour long lecture on liberalism, and here's how I remember his take on the individual falling apart. He claims that with progress, humans will get more brain augmenting implants and gene modifications on one hand and become more connected with neural interfaces (sharing thoughts, like in the Avatar movie) on the other, that the boundaries of the personality will stop making any sense. Why he thinks that it should cause the individual to fall into smaller pieces (some analogy of grey goo) rather than become some sort of godlike superhuman, is beyond me. Guess it's just the sort of values he chooses to adhere to as an Old-Rite Eastern Orthodox Christian fundamentalist. I'm thinking that if you asked him, he'd say something along the lines of "God wanted it that way in the Bible" or "we invent fire, we be playing God". His ideas about multipolarity and preserving independent cultures are pretty cool though

@@tyemich8820 A lot of people seem to hear about Dugin, but not about Alain de Benoist which talks similiar things but he did it earlier.

His is not wrong about humans being more ethnocentric than liberal, just imagine yourself been a white boy in a black locker room, won't you fell awkward or just look at what happened during covid-19 pandemic we literally closed our borders seeking to secure ourselves first before helping other nations, that is pure ethnocentric action and it's in our instinct.

Dugin is right that’s why all of your Marxist Leninist heroes like Stalin and Mao were also “basically fascists” Because that shit don’t work and the only way to stand up against liberalism is to appeal to the ethnocentrism of a people with a past

Libgen

Go to the Arktos website

Amazon removed his books from the sale. also YT deleted Dugin's channel without explanation.

@@elizedajose4217 This I could expect! :(( YT bunned KenFM - the most popular blog of alternative information in German. It had absolutely brilliant intellectual level and never had hate speaches. KenFm internet site exists still.

@@elizedajose4217 then it must be worth reading. Free and open society at work /smh

Frankly doesn't Darwinism / understanding of evolution display most of that?

​@@casteretpollux That is an interesting point. it implies though that the mechanism, if you will, of evolution in "creating" or being open in incremental change, within a given moment in time, accounts for (captures?) the notion of a possibility space, IN THE SAME WAY, that say human understanding in openness to the world as in a context situated cognitive openness accounts for action possibilities. This takes the problem into the area of debates form 19th and 20th century, say between an evolutionary naturalism and historical or hermeneutic understating in the philosophy of history. This debate frames a evolutionary mechanism as determined, contrasted with human action in a context which implies agency and human understanding of possibility as affordances say. This can be tracked as the old problem of determinism and freedom, history as governed by universal laws of change verses human action which has a cognitive understanding of affordance and can be free not just to different choices but can change the possibility frame of choice its self, and so change the space of possible choices. In philosophy of history we could and do compare both say Marxist materialism and the free market "survival of the fittest" model. both involve incremental change of quantity which can change quality (Hegel), both involve notions of progress and a changing possibility space, but agents in both are mostly understood as determined by these laws as they bear in on the context. alternatively an hermeneutic approach says we cannot understand history and event without taking as central the agent and their knowledge and context for action their "reasons for actions" as opposed to an external to the agent scientific account of reason which to make an account has to reduce the agent reason to its own vocabulary or eliminate it form the account. This is debated in a modern context between say C. G. Hempel's account of historical determinism as events placed deductively under laws (nomologically), and criticisms by first Peter Winch and G.H. von Wright and Donald Davidson. what begins to emerge here is that there are incompatible semantic spaces here, the space of reason as nomological and the space of reasons as justifications by actual agents being their. (See John McDowell Mind and World for more contemporary version of the problem. in terms of naturalism v normativity. the notion of a space of reason is from W. Sellars who was at Chicago with Hemple for a while). The late 20th century left continental traditions on this problem wanted to escape from Marxist determinism to give an account of real human action that could create or avail themselves of different possibilities, Marx view of determined history (and so agent passivity) being replaced by clever revolutionary action in context laden events. in this context such notions of possibility and change are central say to Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze. My interest is in the double notions of "possibility space" being employed here. this i frame following from one of my supervisors on Foucault on historical a priori and Deleuze possibility in imagination for comparison with Sellars on error. it becomes clear that these are different space when we consider the radically different possibilities of error open in these spaces, which shows them incongruent. The consequence is that past events cannot be radically really thought radically otherwise, when we make the situation we are in as possibility space. if where we are is the consequence of genuine past radical anomic changes in the possibility space then imagining that event as otherwise is semantically incorrect if we must express our actions and explanations in terms of the semantic framed possibilities now. this then means talk of the past being different could have been otherwise is a very narrow uptake now compared to what was possible then. this means moves and arguments day about retroactive justice and compensation are deeply semantically misguided. people subject to this error tend to think an agent in the past has a choice in the same way an agent has choice now choices in the present and so can be evaluated by current standards. in fact we had better think of agent context of aesthetic judgement, not choice. Its my overly intellectual version of one of those time travel paradox movies like original "Planet of the Apes" and "Continuum". now for evolutionary explanation, it would translate to "thinking" an evolutionary event of change in the past can be kind of "rerun" with a different outcome. Someone might even think that in a laboratory they can do genetic engineering and make possible organisms now that evolution did not take up-advantage in the past. not just getting the dinosaurs back but creatures that never were, into the present. Evolution is regulated by difference between a creature and its environment. the ontology of a creature for evolution is difficult since its being form this point of view is not in itself but in relation to other creatures and environments. This appears to be the same as say thinking an agent in a situation is in relation not an ontology, but the space of agent reasons is a semantic world with an "ontology" drawn though and within a semantic "field" and those reasons are impossible to understand without notions of agent ontology as freedom and importantly authority authorship and responsibility. the space of evolution has no responsibility only relations while the space of judgment must necessarily turn on agents and responsibilities. for me different notions of error are key to recognitions of different spaces and purposes. Incidentally my radical Darwinists naturalist friend tells me that Darwin got the theory form Adam Smith. so when say Thatcher and Regan used Darwin's vocabulary as justification for free market economics it wasn't the mere rhetorical move critics said it was. No easy answer to your proposal but I hope this was of interest. Thank for your comment.

p.s can you talk of "error" in evolution or in free market economics. What could "correct" and error even mean without a standard imposed from the past or the future? to paraphrase Wittgenstein it is only with respect to humans that we can talk about error, the conflation is a bad incongruent mixed metaphor.

p.p.s. In the free market we have a space of the illegal "contract". where would such a space exist in evolution. two different conceptions of "law".

p.p.p.s. in common talk, people make metaphors between two objects and events. M is like T. this can be seen as mere subjective association and rhetoric the similarity between the "surfaces" of two images. Now law was meant to both curb the subjective association or even in 20th century remove metaphor altogether. the idea is we can replace the metaphor with laws, but then the laws mediate between two events . the laws do this through general terms and rules. what's interesting is that the problem now of subjectivity becomes the problem of interpretation of the laws general terms and rules. it reopen the problem of the normativity of law in a new dimension of normative and error and subjective law, president, case and rule. behi9nd the surface grammar though is the cosmology of laws so its not the problem people think it is, its a different problem.

Слишком злодейский персонаж, чтобы его игнорировать.

Lots of people read Dugin I found the forth political theory a philosophical view of the world, my take away from the book was there is a difference between the west and east, one point I felt was as we in the west could always jump on a boat and move away from aggression and war, like here in Ireland, but the east land people would have to work and think harder before aggression and war. Land people neighbors are close and you just can't jump on a boat and run away. So the east does produce deep thinking philosophers.

There is a discord for patrons if you join the patreon

@@grimsithe oh very cool. Thank you for the info!

The American culture is dominating the world. So to save their cultures, ancient civilisations have to oppose to the young American McDonald's culture. And as a French, I agree with him. Americans can't understand with their 200years of existence China, Russia, Persia etc...

exactly, this is what Dugin's glorifiers blind themselves into. In my mind it is the same pile of twisted vile intellectualised ideologies. Capitalism, liberalism aren't perfect systems for sure, but I still wait for someone to devise a strong doctrine that could solve these problems while simultaneosly not turning into authoritarian, radical far-right or fascist ideologies that in reality could easily result in humanitarian disasters. Until then, I can't take these attempts seriously, it seems dishonest.

Are you sure you wanna believe in this?I mean...“end of times”,what times anyway?

@@rodrigoferreira9527 the end of what was left of our republic for sure. the end of any type of illusion of freedom. total slavery

@@ryancannella6386 holy s$&#@ man...what a f$#@. Slaves for whom?...

@@rodrigoferreira9527 well that's a good question.. much speculation about who or which group is at the top of the pyramid. jesuits, zionists, freemasons, committee of 300. more likely what I think. is we will be slaves to Artificial Intelligence

@@ryancannella6386 I don’t work with speculation,though I consider these kinds of possibilities out of the academical campus. The egipcians arians are behind of this hierarchical society,in my personal opinion.

@Momcilo Nevesky oh! I guess that makes sense. 😊 What's your origin? In Serbia we also have a name "Momčilo", but I don't remember seeing it elsewhere.

@Momcilo Nevesky lol! Nice man, take care and thank you for the video!

@Momcilo Nevesky momcilo gavric, ww1, or momcilo djujic, ww2?

P.S. There is another way to justify forming strategic alliance with antichrist nations, which is to elevate NATIONALISM above faith (as is happening under Putin).

Four arrows of time To give an example of one Liberalism believes in the arrow of time being forward progress into the future but the fascist is going into the past the Taoist is kept drawn in his bow (present)

Have you notice aggressive totalitarian Woke leftism? Try again.

@@jankragt7789 'aggressive totalitarian Woke leftisM' Good gravy....

Dugin is influenced by Alain de Benoist who wrote a lot about the problems of capitalism and modernity in his book Manifesto for a European Renaissance

@@ajdinekmescic2638 i mean more so from the Deleuzean, ie Nick Land perspective. Only albeit

No they are completely opposite, Dugin is pointing towards eternal principles grounded in traditionalism that are unaffected by any notions of progress while Fukuyama sees history and principles as becoming irrelevant and forgotten in the shifting sands of progress and the market. There is no pipeline between Trotskyism and fascism whatsoever. Although it is very nice to see leftists denouncing Trotskyism as subversive to real communism but there is no chance at understanding Trotskyism through a class lens. After they defanged CPUSA they became Straussians and zionists and make up most of the CFR(council on foreign relations). In the Soviet Union they had a horrible vision for non Jews when they came here they quickly understood that the old road of revolution is much harder than joining up with the most abhorrent international capitalists to serve Jewry so they switched up on a dime.

@@Jordan-mn2ty The only chance of understanding Trotskyism and Stalinism or Duginism is through a class lens. All political movements have infiltrators, defectors and regressions as well as advances. So what is your point ? Apart from sharing with us that you are anti-semitic?

@@Jordan-mn2ty History has proven Fukuyama to be a fool. It seems very likely it is doing the same service to Dugin.

When You say _'emancipatory'_ and _'individualistic'_ , You are arguing from a _modernist_ perspective (e.g. 'Anarchism' in it's widest sense) - which may produce legitimate criticism of _traditional_ societies, but is foremost a _political ideology_ , itself. The best You can do is likely to compare these _opposing_ views.