Dugin's 4th Political Theory

[europa arise]

Red Ice Radio - Alexandr Dugin - Hour 1 - The Fourth Political Theory & Blind Western Liberalism



March 27, 2015
Aleksandr Dugin (Putin's BFF) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an advisor to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters, being a vocal advocate of a return of Russian power to the global stage, to act as a counterweight to American domination. Dugin joins us to speak about the subject of his book, The Fourth Political Theory. He begins with an overview of this political vision, one that is a fundamental criticism of liberalism in all forms, but does not fall into communism, nationalism or fascism. Dugin explains the need for critically thinking people in the world to imagine an alternative to liberalism, and how this very confusing and destructive ideology is truly a totalitarian way of thinking. We consider the key liberalist issues as being tests to see how far people are willing to go to completely give up traditional values, and we look at the globalist capital system that is exacerbating the identity crisis of the west. In the second half, Dugin details the fine points of Eurasianism, a vision of world history based on geopolitics and the virility of diverse civilizations. We look at Russia’s place amongst the global elite, her unwavering sovereignty that will ultimately resist globalization, and a deeply rooted cultural dimension that cannot be divided from Europe. Dugin speaks of the US’s constant meddling and manufacturing of conflicts between Russia and Europe, and we discuss the importance of creating a strong European cooperative to balance the liberalist power monopoly. In conclusion, Dugin notes his contributions to Putin’s current ideology and the rising influence of the Forth Political Theory in liberating Russia from the globalist grip.

---
"one of the most dangerous human beings on the planet today" - Glenn Beck

4PT
Red Ice
The Fourth Political Theory - book

Alexander Dugin: Russian nationalist philosopher targeted in new US sanctions list International Business Times, Article

 

[europa arise]

[h=1]Red Ice Radio - Joaquin Flores - Hour 1 - Political Syncretism Where Radical Left Meets Traditional[/h]

Joaquin Flores is an American expat living in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank, where his work centers on Eastern European, Eurasian, and Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing the psychology of the propaganda wars and cutting through the noise of 'information overload.' He also serves as the Europe-wide coordinator for New Resistance, a US based revolutionary movement. In the first hour, Joaquin explains the impetus for the founding of the Center for Syncretic Studies, formed in 2013 as platform from which to view the various social and ideological movements that exist today with a broad lens. We discuss the commonality between the radical and progressive left and the radical and paleo-conservative right, which hold the same values and also see the same things wrong with society. Then, Joaquin breaks down the divide and conquer tactics of our leaders, the dictatorship that exists within the US, and the importance of waking up to the delusion that there will be a government reform. In the second hour we consider what it is that can be done by the people in the USA to overcome the dilemmas of Government. Joaquin gives some insight into commonly held criticisms of the Powers That Be, the US’s misinterpretation of revolutions around the globe, and the importance of getting past the idea that the mainstream view is the majority. Then, we examine the propaganda surrounding multiculturalism and the deracination that is occurring within European cultures. Later, Joaquin talks about the media war that is occurring within the Ukraine and Russia, Operation: Gladio, and the New Inter Nationalists. Further, we deliberate the Ukrainian Civil War, US involvement with Pravy Sektor Coup, the push for a Ukrainian failed state, and the role of Islam in this artificially created social movement. In conclusion, Joaquin describes how The New Media is the primary weapon in 4th generation warfare.


openrevolt.info
syncreticstudies.com
fortruss.blogspot.com

 

[r3volution 3.0]

To the extent that Dugin's idea is even coherent, it sounds like socially conservative socialism.

Stalin meets Santorum.

A pro-life USSR.

No thanks

And if my assessment is correct, then the idea is not at all new. There have been "Christian socialist" parties and movements for eons.

The first socialist movements were of that kind, actually.

 

[Ronin Truth]

What happened to the first 3 theories?

 

[europa arise]

What happened to the first 3 theories?

1. Liberalism - Alive and kicking (you door down to steal your guns and children)
2. Communism - Dead
3. Fascism - Stone cold
4. Duginism - exploding in Putin's day dreams?

I think that is correct

To the extent that Dugin's idea is even coherent, it sounds like socially conservative socialism.

Stalin meets Santorum.

A pro-life USSR.

No thanks

And if my assessment is correct, then the idea is not at all new. There have been "Christian socialist" parties and movements for eons.

The first socialist movements were of that kind, actually.

Sounds right. Do you agree/disagree with some of his other positions?

1. Francis Fukuyama argues all population groups are on the same Liberal Democrat/civilizational ladder, just on different levels of the ladder. Dugin argues groups may be on completely different ladders entirely. Not sure if that makes sense. Dugin believes in true diversity/One size does not fit all Fukuyama believes in mono-culture/cookie cutter. Pygmy's will not necessarily develop in the same direction as Pushtin's economically, politically, socially, spiritually, etc where as Fukuyama says they must.


2. The natural evolution of Liberalism is post-humanism (or what I call tranny-transhumanism)

Post Racial - Race is a social construct therefore we must blend all the Races out of existence.

Post Gender - Gender is a social construct therefore we must blend both Genders out of existence. (androgyny/hermaphroditic)

Post Human - Humanity is a social construct therefore we must blend Humanity out of existence. (Mineral-man: human+robotics=Cyborgs) and (Animal-man : human+animals=Chimera's plus god knows what else)

 

[Ronin Truth]

1. Liberalism - Alive and kicking (you door down to steal your guns and children)
2. Communism - Dead
3. Fascism - Stone cold
4. Duginism - exploding in Putin's day dreams?

I think that is correct



Sounds right. Do you agree/disagree with some of his other positions?

1. Francis Fukuyama argues all population groups are on the same Liberal Democrat/civilization ladder, just on different levels of the ladder. Dugin argues groups may be on completely different ladders entirely. Not sure if that makes sense. One size does not fit all/cookie cutter. Pygmy's will not necessarily develop in the same direct as Pushtin's economically, politically, socially, spiritually, etc where as Fukuyama says they must.


2. The natural evolution of Liberalism is post-humanism (or what I call tranny-transhumanism)

Post Racial - Race is a social construct therefore we must blend all the Races out of existence.

Post Gender - Gender is a social construct therefore we must blend both Genders out of existence. (androgyny/hermaphroditic)

Post Human - Humanity is a social construct therefore we must blend Humanity out of existence. (Mineral-man: human+robotics=Cyborgs) and (Animal-man : human+animals=Chimera's, plus god knows what else)

Nah, the neo-cons are just way too heavy on the Trotskyites, and the CON, for my preferences.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Sounds right. Do you agree/disagree with some of his other positions?

1. Francis Fukuyama argues all population groups are on the same Liberal Democrat/civilizational ladder, just on different levels of the ladder. Dugin argues groups may be on completely different ladders entirely. Not sure if that makes sense. Dugin believes in true diversity/One size does not fit all Fukuyama believes in mono-culture/cookie cutter. Pygmy's will not necessarily develop in the same direction as Pushtin's economically, politically, socially, spiritually, etc where as Fukuyama says they must.

Fukuyama's completely wrong.

For him (a liberal democract) to posit liberal democracy as the telos of human history is just wishful thinking.

No better than Marxist rubbish about the inevitable revolution.

2. The natural evolution of Liberalism is post-humanism (or what I call tranny-transhumanism)

Post Racial - Race is a social construct therefore we must blend all the Races out of existence.

Post Gender - Gender is a social construct therefore we must blend both Genders out of existence. (androgyny/hermaphroditic)

Post Human - Humanity is a social construct therefore we must blend Humanity out of existence. (Mineral-man: human+robotics=Cyborgs) and (Animal-man : human+animals=Chimera's, plus god knows what else)

Those things are not social constructs and the idea of eliminating them is horrifying.

I would only object to the claim that this emerges out of liberalism, depending on what is meant by that term.

If he means what goes by that name today (which is actually democratic socialism), then yes it's a natural outgrowth of that.

But if he means the doctrine of laissez faire, i.e. classical liberalism, then he's quite mistaken - there's no reason whatsoever for those deranged egalitarian movements to emerge out of classical liberalism, and to have the state actively promoting such movements is impossible by definition in a laissez faire social order.

 

[osan]

OK, listened to first twelve minutes. He talks a lot but says little.

HOWEVER - around the 12:20-minute mark he finally says something worth hearing, basically saying that FREEDOM is the natural state of a man, expressed in terms of his dignity.

Not bad, as far as it goes.

ETA: Holy crap... after that mark, he paints a completely false picture of liberalism - mixing some truth with falsehoods. His speak of collectivism is crap.

ETA-2: Guy is ignorant and a kook. I gave up at 31 minutes.

 

[europa arise]

Those things are not social constructs and the idea of eliminating them is horrifying.

They sure are.

I would only object to the claim that this emerges out of liberalism, depending on what is meant by that term.

If he means what goes by that name today (which is actually democratic socialism), then yes it's a natural outgrowth of that.

But if he means the doctrine of laissez faire, i.e. classical liberalism, then he's quite mistaken - there's no reason whatsoever for those deranged egalitarian movements to emerge out of classical liberalism, and to have the state actively promoting such movements is impossible by definition in a laissez faire social order.

When I first heard Dugin say that is a natural evolution of Liberalism it pissed me off. I thought to myself George Washington and the founders were nothing like that. They had at least some tribalist tendency's "ourselves and our prosperity" and were not rootless hyper-individualists. But my next though was, well would that be a natural evolution for GW's great great great .... grandchildren?

I am also not sure if Dugin is also referring to ancient tendencies of the Anglo-Saxon/Nordic/Germanic/or even cro-magnons who may have developed differently from Eastern Europeans?

So perhaps the hyper-individualists strain of Jean Jacques Rousseau type of Liberalism would lead to that. What would you call his beliefs? democratic socialism?

What similarities and differences does classical liberalism and Rousseau have with each other?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

EDIT: Need to Define Terms

...to avoid any possible confusion

Classical Liberalism (nowadays called libertarianism) = free market capitalism, laissez faire
Modern Liberalism (nowadays just called liberalism) = democratic socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-laissez faire

When I first heard Dugin say that is a natural evolution of Liberalism it pissed me off. I thought to myself George Washington and the founders were nothing like that. They had at least some tribalist tendency's "ourselves and our prosperity" and were not rootless hyper-individualists. But my next though was, well would that be a natural evolution for GW's great great great .... grandchildren?

I think I understand what you're saying.

Liberalism (in the classical sense) on its face does not encourage leftist culture, but must there not be something deep within it which does, which eventually expresses itself given enough time - since, after all, this leftist culture was born out of a (classical) liberal society?

My response would be: Yes, the society out of which cultural leftism emerged was (classically) liberal, but it was also democratic. That, I think, is the root of cultural leftism.

After all, what is cultural leftism? Its essence, the commonality that you see through all its variations, is egalitarianism - that is also the essence of democracy.

Whereas egalitarianism is completely alien to classical liberalism.

It is a great historical tragedy that democracy arose at the same time as classical liberalism; the former destroyed the latter and then unleashed cultural leftism.

So perhaps the hyper-individualists strain of Jean Jacques Rousseau type of Liberalism would lead to that. What would you call his beliefs? democratic socialism?

Yes. Rousseau was not a classical liberal. He was a socialist (and a degenerate moron, if you ask me).

You will find very few if any libertarians (the modern day descendent of the classical liberals) with anything positive to say about Rousseau.

What similarities and differences does classical liberalism and Rousseau have with each other?

Rousseau was a socialist, pure and simple. He rejected private property and laissez faire.

He belongs in the egalitarian nutjob tradition (w/ characters like Fourier, Saint-Simon, Marx, etc) not the classical liberal tradition (Turgot, Constant, Bastiat, Mises, etc).

 

[europa arise]

The rich will become ‘God-like cyborgs’: Historian claims the wealthy will transform into a new type of human within 200 years

• Comments made by Yuval Harari from Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Claims humans are unable to resist temptation to 'upgrade' themselves
• 'It will be the greatest evolution in biology since the appearance of life'
  
  

By Ellie Zolfagharifard For Dailymail.com
Published: 12:11 EST, 25 May 2015

The rich are set to become God-like cyborgs in what could be the 'biggest evolution in biology' since life emerged.
This is according to Yuval Noah Harari, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who believes the radical shift will take place in the next 200 years.
Using biotechnology and genetic engineering, Professor Harari claims the wealthy will transform into a new type of divine, immortal human with complete power over life and death.


He argues that humans are unable to resist the temptation to 'upgrade' themselves, according to a report by Sarah Knapton in the Telegraph.
'We are programmed to be dissatisfied,' said Professor Harari, during a recent speech at the Hay literary festival in Wales.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...m-new-type-human-200-years.html#ixzz3bfYgNBcs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​