interesting dichotomy, but I think (as far as can be known) in the soul itself pleasure and responsibility are not opposites, only in our attempts to live with and for the soul do we come into a problem with this, as humans. It's a question of allegiance, and rightly you imply pleasure allegiance is a move into concrete ego. But from the soul perspective, the pleasure in a Michelangelo painting or a Bach fugue is also deep and human.
@@spridgejuice Not a Christian take at all. As a Christian, we understand that there is a separation between the transcendental or eternal and the material/flesh. The flesh exists in a corrupted/fallen state and to say otherwise is the peak of human arrogance. While pleasure itself is not evil, in and of itself, evil is a corrupting and deceptive force ergo so while it's certainly possible to use pleasure "responsibly"- the passions often lead to evil on both a physical and metaphysical level. We can take pleasure in painting a canvas, but Michael Angelo's art itself is a physical representation of a metaphysical and transcendent truth. Whereas, American modern art is a degenerate force as it's a representation of the human ego as demonstrated by the need to "explain" the art or how to "interpret" the art by a given artist. One could take "pleasure" in either one, but modern art is a trojan horse which allows the artist to memetically corrupt the minds of your children through the insistence that your children surrender their critical thinking skills to the "sophisticated art masters" who will explain to them how they are supposed to interpret the art. Instead of art being a representation of the transcendent, art is now a form of leftist propaganda which imposes itself upon the viewer, paid for by the American tax dollars.
By radically privileging the individual, which leads to an atomized society, pride becomes inevitable and even championed as a virtue. Pride corrodes the soul to the point of it not being acknowledged to exist.
The neoliberals don't need confession because they are delusional self-justifying and self-forgiving monsters. They are opportunistic spiritually. Moloch. Succubus. Pick your demon.
@Some Guy Well, this is the world the oligarchs envisioned when they got rid of monarchies back then in the 18th century with the french revolution. Now we are witnessing where the liberal democracy system of government put us.
The contemporary world is very badly beaten by corruption, greed, arrogance, envy, extreme left and extreme right, all sorts of other extreme movements. Not all that different from the way it has always been.
@@stevenoverlord that what i hate about this, the people talking liberty are full of shit, and the guy dislike intensity is actually making an effort. the afghani is the most lucid tho.
“My friend” is the most condescending start to a sentence possible. Every time these people open their mouths they answer the question with a resounding yes
Odd that the biggest opponent of collective identity is the guy who belongs to the group that takes the most advantage of collective identity (Mr Fuzzy Head)
The "who cares" sums the difficulty. Some do care about things other than Western metaphysical tradtions of what man's essence is. Sad. Dugin is Obi wan Kenobi here. A lone swordsman of the blood of truth.
Yeah it was pure sophistry. He was simultaneously able to: 1) completely evade the substantive issue of a fundamental disagreement in the meaning of terms and 2:) to miss the relevance of cultural background in defining them.
@@pauloferreira7543 Tradition doesn't mean something like Nietzche's "monumental" history or a reverence for Confederate flags for Dugin and myself. It terms the counter will of Liberalism understood as a conciouness everyone of the European Dasein respond to as a reality of their conscience. Traditionalism, in our sense, if I may take the liberty to speak for Mr. Dugin, is, whatever else it may be, a war for the negotiation with a Nato-bloc market informational enlightened slave cybernetic existence.
@@letdaseinlive Dugin speak about liberalism as if that is a perrogative of the west... He forget in 1825, and in 1917 that revolution arise as a liberal one, the sad side of that its the liberal ground was eroded... My point here is, were are the Russian liberals that overtrow the Tzar, that almost overthrow Nicolas I... Are liberalism a way of the west or a need of the soul
@@pauloferreira7543 The SRs, Pytor Tkachev and Lenin were not simply liberals. Doestoevsky himself already approved the killing of the Tsars. And the awakening of the people. Dugin is referring, whatever else he refers to, to Locke and the change of the sense of idea from the Platonic to the Cartesian experimental meaning as a degenerate theological nominalism leading to cybernetic ethics of adjustment, Weber etc. Remember, the Soviet avant gaurde was radically utopian mystical (cf Boris Groys and so on). Dugin doesn't regard Hobbes as an enemy. So we aren't simply speaking of the social contract. But of the interpretation of Dasein as a liquid and mobile economic unit or raw material for nuclear physics and transhumanism.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the liberal point-of-view, it seems to me that the liberal perspective would have much greater credibility if the liberals on the panel actually responded to what Dugin was saying as opposed to trying to talk over him and re-asserting a premise as settled fact that was itself the subject of debate. There is also a discernible passive-aggressiveness to Wiesltier's style of argument that suggests a deeper mean-spiritedness than the mean-spiritedness that he accuses his opponents of having.
@@n661 sorry but are you actually defending Dugin? The man is literally a Nazi!! All he wants is the resurrection of Tsarism in Russia. I’m just shocked none of the Liberals on the panel didn’t stab him.
They are protecting their elitism like the tyrants they are, but hey they are better than you according to themselves. Populist concerns are dismissed for that reason
The future that Dugin has envisioned under liberalism doesn't seem controversial but I think it is something that everyone can agree with especially with the way the West has been going on.
Dugin pointed out that there might be different interpretations for the same word in different cultures and countries. This brought him trouble. A paradigmatic video which shows the true colors of liberals.
But liberals would say that's necessarily so, since we are limited in our understanding and our abilities, which is precisely the impetus behind liberalism. All that we know is that we know nothing is the clarion call of liberalism and the thing we know most of all is that you know nothing either.
@@zootsoot2006 I dont deny that they realize this, but do they often try to understand what that kind of ideology would do to a society? The liberals say, “all we can know about metaphysics is that we can know nothing.” well if that’s the case, how do you know that statement to be true? don’t you see how skeptical liberalism is just as ideological as any other ideology? Because it is the dominant ideology in the west, it is taken for granted as “just the way things are”. but is there any real justification for that?
@@enchantingamerica2100 Yep, liberalism is a heady concoction, not really suited to most people in society, which is its greatest irony and weakness. It's fundamentally paradoxical, and yet it works and has produced the greatest and wealthiest societies in history. What it was about at it's beginning, at least, was allowing each individual to find their own idea of truth, though unfortunately that's devolved into its opposite, whereby if you don't believe in the current trend then you're an apostate. But this is the natural way of human society. But the liberal dream is still that, a dream we should fight for because there's nothing else that's better, as long as we want to bring God into the world and don't wilfully choose to descend into Hades.
@@zootsoot2006 I am glad you agree with the inadequacies of liberalism but I would go beyond saying that the liberal dream is just a fool’s errand. I would say that it is an ideology which breads societal ills that are unique to it. No earthly system is perfect, but each have their unique faults and benefits, and I think Liberalism, while abundant in material benefits, has alienated us to each other. Robust community, and anti-metaphysical individualistic liberalism are incompatible.
@@zootsoot2006 you may know nothing because your perspective is a ahistorical and confined to the present moment. If you bother to study history you would know the west is in deep decline and is at the Caligula stage of empire. How can we know this, through the rise or gender bending which featured in both the late Roman Republic and the Weimar Republic. The LGBTQ crowd think they are new and cutting edge, but in fact this cycle has happened before.
What most people really mean by liberalism is liberty from public distractions and from collective obligations in order to focus on purely individual pursuits - most of which are of course devoted to those twain supreme expressions of all human endeavour: money-making and instant self-gratification.
Mrs. Pazira demonstrates how an "Afghan woman" can look like in a free liberal world. 💅👠💄🎓 The question is who pays for her luxurious look. The answer is that these are people in Bangladesh, India, China or Russia, who grow cotton and silk, sew clothes and shoes for a fraction of western wages. Liberalism is fed by the desire of privileges and opulent life. In reality however only the countries that followed their civilization codes have reached prosperity. Those which followed liberal propaganda fell in the abyss of economic and cultural degradation and full dependence. Spreading of liberal ideas is thus, in its core, a well designed neocolonialism strategy of the West.
Really? What does classical liberalism, i.e. individual liberty, have to do with working for a fraction of Western wages? Is it possible that it has a lot more to do with corruption and illiberalism in those countries? Your very concern about them is an outgrowth of liberalism. Would it be better if you didn't think of them as human beings endowed with the same rights as you? Also, would they be better off if they lose those jobs and have no work at all?
@@Kurtlane To speak about individual liberties per se, without taking in account global economic situation, when big capitals multiply themselves at the expense of weaker competitors and destroy anything (countries, treaties, people) that threaten them, is simply a deception.
@@DC-dk1bo I lived for longer periods in Russia and in Germany. In Russia I felt MUCH more freedom of thought and even of speech than in Germany. In Russia people were open and kind, they think and work faster and have more humour than Germans. In Russia streets are safe, food is delicious and theaters are amazing. Germans are better organized, pettier and more persistent. All your knowledge about Russia is completely false (if you didn't visit the country and don't understand the language) because the information in the West is filtered and censored.
@@DC-dk1bo thank you for sharing your experience. The last dictator in Russia died in 1953. I don't think you have so old friends that they remember this time. Even if Russians think the way your gradpa did ( I don't know what you mean, at least I hope your grandpa had a university degree) it's no reason to think that your new consumer oriented mentality is anyway better than the other mentalities
@@DC-dk1bo I disagree with you. Putin wasn't dictator untill February 24. I didn't know that in Brazil you get the same filtering of news as in the USA. Try something different: ruclips.net/video/XUVxdM5giKE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rMzZ_lVHv_A/видео.html
In what way would this be the case? Hypothetically you could have a single human alone in the world what identity would he have that is coercive? If it is a belief in the limits of ones body then you are simply equivocating on what we mean by identity. Existing as what we call a human clearly does not require coercion unless you consider our existence as limited beings as coercion, which again would be equivocating on what we mean when we use that word.
And you see transhumanism where? For me a country that say human rights should not be observed, or individual liberties are less important than tradition... for me that is worse than transhumanism
@@myopicman No, you are completely free to not eat, or to otherwise act in such a way that leads to your death, but you must do these things to continue being a human. Likewise a religious person must believe some things or perform certain rituals to remain religious. It's not equivocating to point out that there is some humanity that is coercive, it's like with any identity, there is something that identity is, and you can abandon it, yet you are coerced by it.
It seems that this Russian joke is true “if you try to describe in English any social theory you will end up with liberalism”. Somehow Dugin’s ideas well presented and understood in Russian, are not really communicated in any sensible way in this debate.
This is so true lol. Maybe the English language of today is so ridden with politically-driven reinterpreting of the words themselves through centuries, that this is inevitable.
@Тусим с Тимом Керби yep, I also have noticed the difference in impression Dugin makes when he speaks Russian and English. Unfortunately Dugin is in no way Nabokov (in terms of the language mastery), and when he presents his thoughts in English he looks quite dimly
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 trust me it is, I’ve had to re learn a bunch of words (like nature isn’t the green stuff on the road, but something that creates and sustains itself) to make sense of a traditional worldview. Here’s a heads up on how to do this; use the ancient definition of things, we’re already doing that out of necessity but it’s a good tip. Luke smith has some good content on this topic as well.
@@kurtkrienke2956 not sure what label “national chuvenism” refers to but what I mean is that different languages rooted in unique cultures have different expression power when it comes to expressing various ideas.
"I know when I am free". That's an interesting quote. Do you really? Well, in what do you base your concept of freedom in order to consider you "free"? Not only it differentiates from civilization to civilization, but there are essential differences inside a civilization, for example, if you're a christian your idea of being free is essentially different from the idea that a liberal areligious would have, and so on. Also, if we have uncensored speech, how do we know that the ontology of our civilization's way of thinking is actually the universally correct one? How do we know that our western "rationalism" is actually "reason"? It seems to me these people do not comprehend how their language and the way their language is formed is the central question of our political and cultural differences of thinking. As it is obvious, they believe THEIR LANGUAGE is absolute, universal, and besides all the western ideological differences, the only true tool to finding the truth. It's essential ideological imperialism.
Dugin is saying this: the individual exists only in respect "the Other" and thus their existence in predicated on it. What Dugin is saying is that nothing exists as an isolated individual or signular solitude. The Russian essentially deny Descartes' cogito (and for good reason) because to digtinguish this "I" entails a preceeding "Other". Therefore, "I" owes his very existence to "Him"... the group... the Other... God...
What about "Liberty from starvation, liberty from homelessness, liberty from poverty in general"? People also need these liberties to flourish. You are not exactly free to pursue your goals when your basic needs are not being met.
Well, liberals usually defend negative rights not positive rights, hence why they don't say "liberty from starvation, liberty from homelessness etc...". And what you are basically saying is that we have to be free of suffering. That's impossible, we can work to make a better world and all that, but saying that libertarians are wrong because poverty exist doesn't seem a great argument to me
for liberalism the smallest unit of society is the individual and not the original family unit, so everything is focused on liberating the one person without thinking about the consequences it has on the family, the children it raises, and the future of the nation that protects the liberties to begin with. essentially liberalism has made itself the most important thing uncompromisingly and unfortunately once certain liberties are out of the bag their is no putting them back in.
Do you know anyone that live alone forever? No? So in some way people form groups, families, etc... The fact your liberties are protected, doesnt mean that you are free to do whatever you fell free to do. Your freedom ends when colide with mine and vice versa. Liberalism doesnt mean niilism
There is in the Russian language a wise expression: “Где родился, там и пригодился» [gde rodilsya, tam i prigodilsya], which translates to an English equivalent, “you’re useful, where you’re born.” In a deep sense of the meaning of what Freedom means for the Slavic collective, one must fulfill a destiny that is in alignment with the genetic imprint through which the soul has incorporated itself. This is what “spiritual determinism” teaches us about the ultimate value of freedom, which nonetheless is rooted in the corporeality of the body. I agree that man & woman should be free to roam and explore both physical realms and metaphysical realms, however the danger of abandonment of one’s genetic roots is the ultimate price that is paid by a “lost” soul.
@@ericy726 somewhere in another part of this debate maybe, Leon said "this is dialectical dematerialism" after Dugin finished his argument against Leon, can u plz ellaborate what he meant by dialectical dematerialism?
@@TuuguuSMD you are not exaggerating. becoz 'liberals' are generally very hostile if they label you as a fascist, communist or anyone that they find to be incompatible with the course of humanity.
Father Seraphim Rose diagnoses the effects of Liberalism beautifully in his book on Nihilism. He breaks it into roughly 4 progressive stages: *Step 1. Surface Level Liberalism (Seemingly innocuous loosening of moral and political restraint in the name of freedom and progress)* *Step 2. Realism/Materialism (Rampant exploration of the depths of material phenomena as seen in the obsession with "science")* *Step 3. Vitalism (Neglected and ailing souls look to once denounced pagan, New Age and esoteric "spiritual" practices to fill the infinite rift that God once had in them, leading to abuse of psychedelics and obsession with "visitations" from so-called "aliens" and so forth)* *Step 4. Destruction (Nihilism fully formed in the masses who, like malignant cancer cells, resolve to destroying everything in sight, attempting to drown reality itself into non-reality)* _So, is liberalism soulless?_ Yes, there is nothing more devastating to the human soul.
just caught this. surprised no one has mentioned that he was fired from several jobs after admitting to serial sexual abuse inluding attempted rape. he also refused to promote women at his publication apparently, his definition freedom and individuality does not extend to half the race.
"Liberty from", sounds like this guy is gonna use religion and race to avoid accountability. Why doesnt he just say, "Iiberty from accountability." Someone liberate Leon from hogging the table time. Arrogant.
The example of the Pakistani that had the US constitution in his pocket was enlightening. Why? Because the American philosopher lauded him for using it as an universal instruction to go from one particular culture to another. So self centered as only a Yankee could be.
Also, they would agree that every civilization has defects and so does America and that every civilization has good sides, but never ever an American finding solace in another country say Pakistan for say an exit from ever increasing economic rat race among people, however small in number, would get cited as an example by Western thinkers.
@@paxvobiscum9859 Lol, who told you that? Dugin is an Evolian traditionalist, an orthodox christian, Plato's big fan, his thoughts are all about THE Truth. I think you misinterpreted his words. When he says something like you said, he usually means the postmodern paradigm
@@joraldthewizard2327 No, I'm not mistaken. I've heard him advocate for relativism and against absolutism more times than I can count. He has literally stated on many occasions, 'there is not one truth, but many different truths.' This is cultural Marxist thinking. And did you hear him call Kabbalah the highest manifestation of human potential, or something to that effect, during this debate? Like Evola, Dugin is into occultism/Eastern mysticism/paganism which is basically Luciferianism. This explains his adherence to the erroneous doctrines of relativism, if not being an advocate of cultural Marxism.
Mr Dugin is saying let’s get the human to his best potential and use what we have.. the other side, liberalism is saying , let’s destroy the human and therefore prepare the human for transhumanism..
I like debates like this. I'm from Indonesia . I love to debate things that are worth discussing. because debating is very important and should be in every topic. a lot can really make us more insightful, mentally test, test courage in opinion, and can understand the mind more critically.
When I was in elementary school, we learned from history. That ancient Greece during its decline had an elite class of intellectuals. Who were so blinded by their own egos, that they were simply unable to analyze in any common sense way, let alone solve, the accumulation of problems. As a child that looked up to grown ups, i did not understand how that is possible. Watching and listening to these idiots, i finally understand how is it possible. How egomaniacs will fall, all along finger pointing blame among them selves. How Ego/lie/evil got them in the grip. So hard. So firm. That with all their intellect, experience and life of hard work and learning, didn`t do absolutely nothing good for them. They never truly matured. Their spirit is left behind. They never really developed it, from their cradles. They just like to imagine it. It makes me sad. To watch human kind still so childish, yet so arrogant. Same disappointment when i realized 21st century will be no different, than any other from the past. Savage egomaniacs race. Even "mothers". All the good they have, is an act. Selfish one also. Nothing more. It is pure Gods grace, patience and love that we still are given a chance. It gives me a thought, it is only a chance, for few souls worth saving. After that, may God show mercy on our poor souls. God bless you.
Agreed. I think they're all kind of narcissistic and in love with their own ideas. But, you don't become a public intellectual by seeking to better understand people, you become a public intellectual by making proclamations.
Dugin seems like the man who went sail to the end of the world and reach in Cape Bojador and his ship was wrecked all the time he try to go foward. Then he came back home and he start to advise others not to go there because is the end of world, and a place of destruction. The same argument he put when he goes on and on from one emancipation to another till you liberate from yourself, wich means the end of human , the lost of our values. The man who advise the others from the Bojador danger, was called in Portuguese literature "velho do restelo" ou "old man of Restelo" (the Dugins archetype) , and eventhough it was very convincing, there were a few Portuguese that went on and manage to overcame that old Cape Bojador, and start the era of "descobrimentos" or as i say it the Era of Globalisation. Freedom is not the end of anything, but the beggining of something!
@@gundissalinus look all this national soul, only exist after the french revolution. Before that no one care for the nation, but for the king, or lord, or region. I understand that G globalization have some cons, but that is the only way for human race respect it self. Globalization doesnt end the different cultures, even my country have different cultures inside off it.
Language and the expression of thought in a given language is the issue in this discussion. Americans, who basically have no national identity, and therefore little or no linguistic cohesion, have no other choice than to adhere to individualism that inevitablly leads to so called liberalism. Russiain society on the other hand, is the complete opposite, and I dare say that the conflict between these two opposite poles is linguistic because the same word in the two languages have a completely different MEANING.
It's true...it's difficult to compare the ideologies of an civilisational state, developed over centuries, even millenia, with that of a migrant state...
At the core, the difference between the liberal and 'Russian' anthropology is: the first places human Earthly existence as the ultimate good while the second finds it an obscene individualistic and materialistic reduction. Dugin draws on cultural relativism to claim that the liberal defense of individual freedom is but one among many possible interpretations of being, and that other interpretations should also be respected and accepted. The problem, however, lies here: the 'Russian' anthropology (Dugin's) is based on the assumption that earthly existence is not an end in itself, and that there are values that trenscend it and, in the name of which, lives can be taken or sacrificed. This ultimate consequence is, from a liberal standpoint, unnaceptable.
LEon Weinseltier argues freedom is ultimately expressed by placing no limits on big goals of which a culture that believes in Superman and/or World Control. Freedom is attained when manipulated into serving no ones end game. We all gave and Individual right to the pursuit to thier own happiness. We have a right to set limits to any individauls goal that applies it will on others. Goals of World Control ir domination are inhumane and evil. We don't need a Superman or Super leader.
Goodness gracious, is Wiesltier a walking meme or what? Aside from the obvious kosher attributes, it’s all just emotionally charged rhetoric dressed over in pretentious bourgeois liberal moanings. He just doesn’t get it. He states: “Who cares where it comes from…as long as it can be shown to be politically fair?” My, that’s a rather fascinated bit of rhetoric coming from him. Ever seen Wiesltier’s other videos where he waxes poetic about the necessity for the state of Israel and the exceptionalism of Jwz?? This is a man who claims to be an “impenitent Zionist”. But the second Dugin mentions Orthodoxy and identity, he immediately interjects. He demands Dugin simply “forget that it’s Western”, which is a rather typical tactic that his ilk just love to utilise in order to shut down all rational debate. He’s as boring as Zizek. Dugin, as usual, could mop the floor with all of them.
The view of liberalism, the view of freedom, the view of man, should be approached geographically, then anthropologically, then linguistically, then only can we abord it universally. In Africa the individual can not be taken out of the clan then the community then the tribe. For Africans, in relation to identity, there is no African, and it's only because of the recent history that Africans have begun to africanize. My individuality in Africa is only so biologically. When I am juged or critized, it will always come down to my family (the nuclear, then atomic, then molecular one), and if I am sentenced to prison, I the biological agent will be in prison but each members of the community even tribe will suffer with me and for me even though I am serving physically my sentence alone. What happens is the clan even the community will do everything to get me out, or at least will make sure that my stay in prison be as confortable as possible. So, I agree with the Russian argument of looking at liberalism from a geographical stand point...
My main problems with liberals is arrogance,and refusal to listen and understand their ignorance,they will be making points and went on to explain them to you when they have already lost you at the meaning of what they are trying to explain
They do not understand that every individual decision is made at the expense of the collective..sometimes it's a good thing and sometimes it isn't...so the idea of dislocating an individual from the collective is naive at best and irresponsible at worst. Liberalism that blindly celebrates the individual gives no ground to laws or morality...for the dissolution of these rules is the manifestation of the Western ideal of liberalism in its extreme..In the context of France, you're free to insult someone's religion....and in the U.S. you 'enjoy' the freedom to own a gun...these clearly are moral infringements in other geographical areas...so where do you draw the line? You just can't. Liberalism is hence hegemonic when applied across all cultures because you simply cannot have universal laws.
@@n661 Amen! May I add, in light of your development, we can assert that "Liberalism" is more than some phylosophy or ideology. It is a culture, the culture of the west. And any culture to be imposed on the rest of the world is an attempt at uniformisation of the world. That in its core is straight violation of human rights, principles of fraternity and a violation of internal rule of law -since international rule of law recognizes the cross the board similarities and acknowledge the specificities linked to regions and cultures-...
@@nicolibakasongo2077 Yes, that's a very good point. Any attempt to uniformise the world is against intrinsic human rights and fascist in its principle.
There is no soul in "...isms". As a soul is attributed to one single living being. While "...isms" is attributed to a system/idea used by more than one.
6:15 I think there’s a basic concept of an understanding, as a human being in whatever geography or many be, that I know when I’m free to think, when I am free to express that thought, and when I’m free to move about. And if you’re Trying to tell me that is subject to geography, to certain historical boundaries, then I have a big problem with that.” - Liberal hegemonic worldview
For you people get stoned, beheaded, trade as slave, killed by their critic, killed by religion, is never always wrong, it depends on the geography... in some places its tradition... that is you worldview?
@@pauloferreira7543 3:23 Dugan gives a response to your question. It's a question of anthropology, which is something at a metaphysical level which many in the West do not understand because the West has a secular worldview.
@@MoiLibertyWestern Russia and Eastern Russia, and South of Russia Federation its very diferent people... So what anthropology you are talking, only 50millions of the people that live in russia are Russians. Russia is an empire, still today. This kind of speech is very oriented to justify traditionalism, the same way that happens in Austro Hugarian empire, Ottoman empire, Portuguese empire, German empire... By that base you can justify all kind of brutality in order to preserv tradition.... North Korea cult of lider, is tradition... China mandate from heaven for all chinease is tradition that justify the comunist party policy. All of these happens because tradition... What nobody tells you is in 1917 China revolution against emperor was under Liberal values, not tradition... In 1825 in 26 December Russia went trough a revolution under the same values of American Revolution... Anthropology tells where we are from, the future doesnt care for our anthropology, but for our creativity, our willing to change for better, with justice for all... Thats why all revolutions are made.
@@pauloferreira7543 It is either intentional lie or wrong information (where did you get this?). ~80% in Russia are Russians. Don't even compare this with Austria-Hungary, there only 20% was Austrian. And about the same percentage of Hungarian. Thats absolutely different story.
I believe this was a reference to "The Empire and the Five Kings" by Bernard-Henri Levy, in which the Empire is American/Western Liberalism (broadly defined) and the 5 Kings are its challengers in his belief (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and Sunni Radicalism). Dugin declared that he was speaking for the "5 Kings" when debating BHL.
There are concepts: you can chose if they are universal or not... You believe that in anywhere in the world no women should be stone to dead after an adultery, than you found that concept as universal... if you believe that its ok to respect the local tradition, than you believe that concept is relative... there are infinite concepts, its up to you to found them universal or relative...
@@FreddieGamingHD Why you asking this? Women have been stone to death because the murderers that rule the countries, by those who claim to be the defenders of cultural heritage of their nation... I dont know why those dont go into a cave and phrase the cultural heritage of our ancestors that walk in four legs...
Freedom and democracy are two very good words always in the mouth of some people. it looks like they all live in the paradise, rather then the real human word. it is better they could stand on the earth and talk freedom and democracy. and another point is, in different nation, there are different define about freedom and democracy, there no standard answer to it. it is very surprise that some people from US or Europe think their define is standard answer, and if some one is not in line with them is wrong. like a religion. however, this platform is very good, the different people from different area could exchange ideas and thinking, it is far better than war or cold war happening between each other directly. so the dispute here is worth.
You can have democracy and dont have freedom... The question here isnt freedom, is the absolut value of human rights should be absolut, or relative in order to respect tradition?
Honestly, all I see here is the same thing I've concluded time and time again. We need to unify and combine - that doesn't mean stomping out ANY idea belonging to the opposite force of which you're unifying with.. Unification does not mean direct destruction. Destruction does occur, but only in the unification process. By finding similarities in process, and then combning the two ideas in to one superior idea, is where the destruction of the old idea comes in to play. Because it no longer exists, by PROGRESSING in to something NEW. We need to redirect.. Instead of two waves crashing in to each other and cancelling each other out, we need to choose a direction, and continue on that way, to become a true force to be reckoned with, TOGETHER. I've seen so many good men and women argue.. It's always over the details, over machinations of our imagination.. One might concluded that I'm a sexist, because I didn't say "women and men," some might even insist that anything that came from this discussion is "patriarchal" because there are only two women at the table in this video.. We put words and ideas in others mouths and heads before we even know them.. This needs to go.. When we can do this, we CAN direct our ideas together.. I'll cheer, and most likely have a heart attack out of pure joy and disbelief, the day that the Hobbesian mindset DIES. We can die together, because I'll have nothing left to try and fix. LOL. I'll be bored! I'm no creator. More of a fixer..
The response at the end to Dugin's comment: "The history of liberalism is liberation from collective identity" is brilliant. Simply pointing out that some semblance of identity is inevitable is not the same as being coerced into an "identity". If you are adopting a cultural ideal such as, for example; politeness then even if your place of birth was not consensual, your continued consent with that behaviour is consensual. In the example of politeness it would be the difference between having manners because you want to for X cultural reason and being forced into being polite by a government or society at threat of violence. The fact that anyone would render trivial criticisms at liberalism such as "it is empty" is hilarious to me when compared to the alternatives proposed. I can certainly imagine you would have a much more profound sense of emptiness when being tortured for your beliefs or being killed for your membership of a certain ethnic group. The point seems entirely moot, especially when any other criticisms of it being "imperial" are similarly brought up, the liberal such as myself would simply agree that if liberal governments are doing such it is generally bad, but I would simply ask you for what reason other than a liberal one are you defending the cultural survival of evil ideologies? If you do think that the individual holds no weight and it is simply different societal standards what would be the evil of a liberal democracy going and forcing its way of life on a traditionalist nation? Are you simply only concerned with the preservation of individual cultures regardless of outcome? If so why do you care about that over the individual or some other standard? At the very least you're likely to care about the suffering of your own people, why not others?
Your argument makes sense only within your a liberal perspective Maybe I can help clarify - you asked what would be the great evil of a liberal democracy forcing its way of life on a traditional nation - it’s not the question that a traditional person would ask - instead they recognize that there are always inferior ways of life that are going to press upon you so you recognize you are in a constant battle for truth. There is a both a cowardice and arrogance to liberalism - it is both afraid and avoidant of confrontation and also thinks it is capable of solving problems by conceptual and theoretical thinking. I always get the sense that liberals don’t want to get their hands dirty. I understand why - it’s incarnated and present which comes with real consequences and that can be terrifying but it’s the only way to test and live truth. “Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.”
These liberals are so rude they keep interrupting Dugan if I was him I would get up and walk out there is no talking to these people they are too far gone to help them see a different point of view than their own
Bro the old guy saying collective identity isn't coercion. How can you be so blind.When you are in a mob, you do not think for yourself you follow what the masses do, if you question them you are exercized from the group. Of course it's coercion, you are forced to adhere to "fit" in.
You can chose to be a Yankees fan or that was impose on you? He said that not all collective identity is coercion... So in your opinion, even your group of friend is coercion lol... Even the fact i am Portuguese isnt coercion, because i could go and live in other place... some of collective identity is chosen, other are imposed.... but not all
We shall impose global (neo)liberalism unto you and ye shall like it. Verily we say unto you: ye shall love our vision of liberty, or ye shall surely perish - you’re welcome. 👍🏦🗽
the problem is how you introduce liberalism. my guess is that most countries want to adopt liberalism in the same way in which it was adopted in the us and then more than century later in europe, that is, without coercion, sanctions etc.
The American system of Government is considered an experiment. It would be not too difficult to argue that the experiment has not been too successful. The experiment has produced a society which has inbred racism in its police force, 300 mass murders to year August 2022, violence and murder in most of its larger cities where citizens fear to walk after dusk, it has the largest incarceration rate per capita in the world, an enormous inequality in wealth where a very small group own most of the countries wealth, the Judiciary at the highest levels are political appointments and impartial judgements are not made, Jerry mongering is absurd, the Electoral college is unfair ( small states have the same number of delegates as highly populated states ), America has tried to enforce its strange constitution on countries who are far from ready for a democratic system with tragic results in the middle east, Asia, south America etc, America loved free trade in the twentieth century but many now want tarrifs on imports, and so on and on. Be firm but not so bloody confrontational my fellow Westerners.
white haired guy (Mr Wieseltier): According to The New York Times: "Several women... said they were humiliated when Mr. Wieseltier sloppily kissed them on the mouth, sometimes in front of other staff members. Others said he discussed his sex life, once describing the breasts of a former girlfriend in detail. Mr. Wieseltier made passes at female staffers, they said, and pressed them for details about their own sexual encounters. Mr. Wieseltier often commented on what women wore to the office, the former staff members said, telling them that their dresses were not tight enough. One woman said he left a note on her desk thanking her for the miniskirt she wore to the office that day. She said she never wore a skirt to the office again"
Comparing Western philoshophy to other civilizations specifically Eastern philoshophy is like talking to a Master Engineer about your local wallmart shop mechanic
Dugin, brave warrior... You and me will live to see your utopia of a multipolar world becoming reality... The golden age when soul virtues and the untangible are the greatest resource of all... After seeing this, I felt your pain when inside the cage that is this debate, and because of it, you have my deepest respect.
@@chad3232132 Perhaps... Still a brighter future than a world ruled by America and its lies. The world is not a zero sum: as long as moscow rules "locally", other nations will be left alone and will rule themselves. European "issues" dont matter anymore.
@@chad3232132 Russia is Russia. Its not a relevant question, but rather a stupid one... Russia didnt start the smo to get territory... Nato wanted to be everywhere, but couldnt. - As for "what defines Russia" - Putin's reasoning is simple and effective: Allies can help a lot more than forcing friendly nations to cope and pretending everything is great. Europe is over.
I think I've got an idea of what freedom and democracy are but.. liberalism ? From what I read about Wieseltier harassment should be normal on liberalism, isn't it?
7:50 “cult of origins and roots is an insult to the soul” says a darn fool who does not understand that the root of the individual is the soul, the logos, which allows this very dialogue. If you don’t believe that, tell me who killed Plato? Or if you are religious, who can kill God? Don’t be silly.
He said roots are important, but also branches... You dont realise that branchs goes farest compare to roots, thats why he claim to many roots and small branchs is a problem...
Liberal democracy actually robs the one of their individual differences. However, that is my opinion, which is usually right, once you apply common sense. Thank you.
But who is right or not is relative according to Dugin himself. So if we use his logic everyone in the debate and in the world is right, and also wrong. It is just lazy thinking.
@@otnoirhc your comment is 100% useless. paul simply expressed that he agrees with dugins points in this video that doesn't mean he agrees with everything dugin ever said. You should point out dugins relativism to hundreds of other commenters under this video that will surely show them!
Leon Wiesltier takes up an example of a Pakistani person, in effect a branching soul, that came from Pakistan but fell in love with America and became its patriot. All well and good so far, but then he conflates that with proof of universal values or that there is something universal in his desire. Its exactly the opposite. American values may have fit him, he chose them and appropriated them and may defend them stronger than a native patriot. But the only way those values of "freedom" or "liberty" per the american sense could be universal is if you presuppose that which indeed is Dugins criticism: That American values = universal values and that they indeed are superior to all others, or more "innate" to all humans irrespective of where they are born. Now you may do that, but then you acknowledge Dugins criticism which is the imposition of American values upon the world. The paradox here would be that America then doesn´t have any values of its own, that it is soulless and without tradition and that all of its basis if any is universalist. Even this would be acknowedging that Dugin is right, for he see´s america as incarnation of modernity. Anyway, Dugin may still be wrong in wanting it undone. But the more I think about it the more I see sense in Dugins critique, not that i agree with it.
6:19 there is a shared theoretical concept of the soul and freedom, but when you try to apply it to implement democracy within a culture, you have to use language, which contains within it culturally-specific notions of freedom and the human experience.
It is soulless because it is founded upon pleasure and not responsibility
interesting dichotomy, but I think (as far as can be known) in the soul itself pleasure and responsibility are not opposites, only in our attempts to live with and for the soul do we come into a problem with this, as humans. It's a question of allegiance, and rightly you imply pleasure allegiance is a move into concrete ego. But from the soul perspective, the pleasure in a Michelangelo painting or a Bach fugue is also deep and human.
This is just the beginning of the problem.
Show me why responsibility is more important to the functioning of the soul than pleasure.
@@spridgejuice Not a Christian take at all. As a Christian, we understand that there is a separation between the transcendental or eternal and the material/flesh. The flesh exists in a corrupted/fallen state and to say otherwise is the peak of human arrogance. While pleasure itself is not evil, in and of itself, evil is a corrupting and deceptive force ergo so while it's certainly possible to use pleasure "responsibly"- the passions often lead to evil on both a physical and metaphysical level. We can take pleasure in painting a canvas, but Michael Angelo's art itself is a physical representation of a metaphysical and transcendent truth. Whereas, American modern art is a degenerate force as it's a representation of the human ego as demonstrated by the need to "explain" the art or how to "interpret" the art by a given artist. One could take "pleasure" in either one, but modern art is a trojan horse which allows the artist to memetically corrupt the minds of your children through the insistence that your children surrender their critical thinking skills to the "sophisticated art masters" who will explain to them how they are supposed to interpret the art. Instead of art being a representation of the transcendent, art is now a form of leftist propaganda which imposes itself upon the viewer, paid for by the American tax dollars.
@@KaiWatson because pleasure is not what the heart yearns for, what it years for is significance, and significance can only come from duty.
Is it possible defend liberalism without coming across as supremely arrogant, or is this in fact inbuilt to the position?
By radically privileging the individual, which leads to an atomized society, pride becomes inevitable and even championed as a virtue. Pride corrodes the soul to the point of it not being acknowledged to exist.
Sargon comes to mind
@@panokostouros7609 Beautifully put!
@@panokostouros7609 that's the point, which is why this semite champions it
Pride is built into Liberalism itself.
Dugin is talking on a completely different level than the others.
Lower level
@@vandarkholme8548for neo-liberals
@@vandarkholme8548higher level
@@vandarkholme8548 Higher
That's because he is. It's Dugin with second rate children of that third rate imitator of Kojeve called Fukuyama.
This spiritual apologetics of liberal democracy I find disturbing.
Oh Hey Penis, it's cash
It's pure Luciferianism. Disturbing indeed.
The neoliberals don't need confession because they are delusional self-justifying and self-forgiving monsters. They are opportunistic spiritually. Moloch. Succubus. Pick your demon.
Given that Lucifer isn’t real, disturbing indeed.
What you mean about Liberal Democracy?
If the contemporary world is the inevitable result of the liberal project, I think one would have to affirm that, yes, liberalism is in fact soulless.
An emotionally, psychologically and culturally fractured world is easier for parasitic oligarchs to control
It actually kinda is haha.
@Some Guy Well, this is the world the oligarchs envisioned when they got rid of monarchies back then in the 18th century with the french revolution. Now we are witnessing where the liberal democracy system of government put us.
The contemporary world is very badly beaten by corruption, greed, arrogance, envy, extreme left and extreme right, all sorts of other extreme movements. Not all that different from the way it has always been.
There is a direct line from the deracinated enlightenment to trans kids...
Dugin is a beast for taking all of these maniacs on at once, and doing it in his second language.
I think English is his 5th language but the point stands. 😂
Talking in his 304th language fluently
@@christiankalinkina239 while knowing they haven't read a single one of his 297 books
@@harryjester282 As amazing as his linguistic skills are, his level of patience is perhaps even more impressive
@@sd40t-23 Alexander Dugin is True Philosopher, Sun of the Russian Philosophy
Holy moly that liberal guy likes to hear himself talk.
He's a con man. Con men talk a lot
He's a con man. Con men talk a lot
Why, yes, it is.
The problem here is that everyone in that room apart from Dugin is thinking within a prescribed box.
He is as well. He's just using a different box.
@@JadeoftheGlade Fair point, as we all are.
Dugin’s box is at least open to other boxes. The Liberal box, without any legitimate authority, declares itself supreme and universal. It is neither.
Yes and Dugins point IS that he is thinking within a box and that universalism is a lie
Dugin and Blinken at the same table. Ι am surprised it is possible in our reality.
that’s why Dugin made it to the sanction list without being an oligarch or a being a state official.
He has been “directly uncovered” by Blinkin lol
In the clip from this same channel title 'Proxy wars' Blinken actually say to Dugin 'we will leave world alone when Russia leave world alone' lol
Dugin against 4 liberals that all have similar views.
Blinkens words in this round table have been completely discredited, as well as everything he's done.
@@stevenoverlord that what i hate about this, the people talking liberty are full of shit, and the guy dislike intensity is actually making an effort. the afghani is the most lucid tho.
“My friend” is the most condescending start to a sentence possible. Every time these people open their mouths they answer the question with a resounding yes
In England we call our enemies mates and our mates cunts.
Odd that the biggest opponent of collective identity is the guy who belongs to the group that takes the most advantage of collective identity (Mr Fuzzy Head)
@@asdf1991asdf seems like he nose a lot.
So true!
Typical
I am PROUD of you BROTHER
I don't think he is against collective identity, he just does not believe it has to be at the cost of removing liberalism
The "who cares" sums the difficulty. Some do care about things other than Western metaphysical tradtions of what man's essence is. Sad. Dugin is Obi wan Kenobi here. A lone swordsman of the blood of truth.
Yeah it was pure sophistry. He was simultaneously able to: 1) completely evade the substantive issue of a fundamental disagreement in the meaning of terms and 2:) to miss the relevance of cultural background in defining them.
It sums that there are things greater than tradition.
@@pauloferreira7543 Tradition doesn't mean something like Nietzche's "monumental" history or a reverence for Confederate flags for Dugin and myself. It terms the counter will of Liberalism understood as a conciouness everyone of the European Dasein respond to as a reality of their conscience. Traditionalism, in our sense, if I may take the liberty to speak for Mr. Dugin, is, whatever else it may be, a war for the negotiation with a Nato-bloc market informational enlightened slave cybernetic existence.
@@letdaseinlive Dugin speak about liberalism as if that is a perrogative of the west... He forget in 1825, and in 1917 that revolution arise as a liberal one, the sad side of that its the liberal ground was eroded... My point here is, were are the Russian liberals that overtrow the Tzar, that almost overthrow Nicolas I... Are liberalism a way of the west or a need of the soul
@@pauloferreira7543 The SRs, Pytor Tkachev and Lenin were not simply liberals. Doestoevsky himself already approved the killing of the Tsars. And the awakening of the people. Dugin is referring, whatever else he refers to, to Locke and the change of the sense of idea from the Platonic to the Cartesian experimental meaning as a degenerate theological nominalism leading to cybernetic ethics of adjustment, Weber etc.
Remember, the Soviet avant gaurde was radically utopian mystical (cf Boris Groys and so on). Dugin doesn't regard Hobbes as an enemy. So we aren't simply speaking of the social contract. But of the interpretation of Dasein as a liquid and mobile economic unit or raw material for nuclear physics and transhumanism.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the liberal point-of-view, it seems to me that the liberal perspective would have much greater credibility if the liberals on the panel actually responded to what Dugin was saying as opposed to trying to talk over him and re-asserting a premise as settled fact that was itself the subject of debate. There is also a discernible passive-aggressiveness to Wiesltier's style of argument that suggests a deeper mean-spiritedness than the mean-spiritedness that he accuses his opponents of having.
They were unable to respond because they were simply not of the same level, not that they were mean-spirited.
@@n661 sorry but are you actually defending Dugin? The man is literally a Nazi!! All he wants is the resurrection of Tsarism in Russia. I’m just shocked none of the Liberals on the panel didn’t stab him.
They are protecting their elitism like the tyrants they are, but hey they are better than you according to themselves. Populist concerns are dismissed for that reason
Nazi type rhetoric is pretty mean spirited.
@@lindakelley2676 sorry? Are your feelings hurt because I called Dugin what he actually is, a Nazi! 😏😏
The future that Dugin has envisioned under liberalism doesn't seem controversial but I think it is something that everyone can agree with especially with the way the West has been going on.
Dugin pointed out that there might be different interpretations for the same word in different cultures and countries. This brought him trouble. A paradigmatic video which shows the true colors of liberals.
Yes, I think his biggest mistake is trying to redefine the concept of truth.
Some cultures are better than others
alexander dugins you are awesome...great debate congratulations
Dugin’s last point was highly cogent. The thing with liberals is that they never follow their own ideology to it’s logical conclusion.
But liberals would say that's necessarily so, since we are limited in our understanding and our abilities, which is precisely the impetus behind liberalism. All that we know is that we know nothing is the clarion call of liberalism and the thing we know most of all is that you know nothing either.
@@zootsoot2006 I dont deny that they realize this, but do they often try to understand what that kind of ideology would do to a society? The liberals say, “all we can know about metaphysics is that we can know nothing.” well if that’s the case, how do you know that statement to be true? don’t you see how skeptical liberalism is just as ideological as any other ideology? Because it is the dominant ideology in the west, it is taken for granted as “just the way things are”. but is there any real justification for that?
@@enchantingamerica2100 Yep, liberalism is a heady concoction, not really suited to most people in society, which is its greatest irony and weakness. It's fundamentally paradoxical, and yet it works and has produced the greatest and wealthiest societies in history. What it was about at it's beginning, at least, was allowing each individual to find their own idea of truth, though unfortunately that's devolved into its opposite, whereby if you don't believe in the current trend then you're an apostate. But this is the natural way of human society. But the liberal dream is still that, a dream we should fight for because there's nothing else that's better, as long as we want to bring God into the world and don't wilfully choose to descend into Hades.
@@zootsoot2006 I am glad you agree with the inadequacies of liberalism but I would go beyond saying that the liberal dream is just a fool’s errand. I would say that it is an ideology which breads societal ills that are unique to it. No earthly system is perfect, but each have their unique faults and benefits, and I think Liberalism, while abundant in material benefits, has alienated us to each other. Robust community, and anti-metaphysical individualistic liberalism are incompatible.
@@zootsoot2006 you may know nothing because your perspective is a ahistorical and confined to the present moment. If you bother to study history you would know the west is in deep decline and is at the Caligula stage of empire. How can we know this, through the rise or gender bending which featured in both the late Roman Republic and the Weimar Republic. The LGBTQ crowd think they are new and cutting edge, but in fact this cycle has happened before.
What most people really mean by liberalism is liberty from public distractions and from collective obligations in order to focus on purely individual pursuits - most of which are of course devoted to those twain supreme expressions of all human endeavour: money-making and instant self-gratification.
Yes. Yes. But what about enumerated civil liberties? Like Bill of rights. I like that stuff
Same old rotten liberal cliches.
Mrs. Pazira demonstrates how an "Afghan woman" can look like in a free liberal world. 💅👠💄🎓 The question is who pays for her luxurious look. The answer is that these are people in Bangladesh, India, China or Russia, who grow cotton and silk, sew clothes and shoes for a fraction of western wages.
Liberalism is fed by the desire of privileges and opulent life. In reality however only the countries that followed their civilization codes have reached prosperity. Those which followed liberal propaganda fell in the abyss of economic and cultural degradation and full dependence.
Spreading of liberal ideas is thus, in its core, a well designed neocolonialism strategy of the West.
Really? What does classical liberalism, i.e. individual liberty, have to do with working for a fraction of Western wages? Is it possible that it has a lot more to do with corruption and illiberalism in those countries?
Your very concern about them is an outgrowth of liberalism. Would it be better if you didn't think of them as human beings endowed with the same rights as you?
Also, would they be better off if they lose those jobs and have no work at all?
@@Kurtlane To speak about individual liberties per se, without taking in account global economic situation, when big capitals multiply themselves at the expense of weaker competitors and destroy anything (countries, treaties, people) that threaten them, is simply a deception.
@@DC-dk1bo I lived for longer periods in Russia and in Germany. In Russia I felt MUCH more freedom of thought and even of speech than in Germany. In Russia people were open and kind, they think and work faster and have more humour than Germans. In Russia streets are safe, food is delicious and theaters are amazing. Germans are better organized, pettier and more persistent.
All your knowledge about Russia is completely false (if you didn't visit the country and don't understand the language) because the information in the West is filtered and censored.
@@DC-dk1bo thank you for sharing your experience.
The last dictator in Russia died in 1953. I don't think you have so old friends that they remember this time.
Even if Russians think the way your gradpa did ( I don't know what you mean, at least I hope your grandpa had a university degree) it's no reason to think that your new consumer oriented mentality is anyway better than the other mentalities
@@DC-dk1bo I disagree with you. Putin wasn't dictator untill February 24. I didn't know that in Brazil you get the same filtering of news as in the USA.
Try something different:
ruclips.net/video/XUVxdM5giKE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rMzZ_lVHv_A/видео.html
Transhumanism argument is unbreakable. Every identity is coersive in some way, and that also applies to being human.
In what way would this be the case? Hypothetically you could have a single human alone in the world what identity would he have that is coercive? If it is a belief in the limits of ones body then you are simply equivocating on what we mean by identity. Existing as what we call a human clearly does not require coercion unless you consider our existence as limited beings as coercion, which again would be equivocating on what we mean when we use that word.
And you see transhumanism where? For me a country that say human rights should not be observed, or individual liberties are less important than tradition... for me that is worse than transhumanism
explain your assertion. go.
@@myopicman No, you are completely free to not eat, or to otherwise act in such a way that leads to your death, but you must do these things to continue being a human. Likewise a religious person must believe some things or perform certain rituals to remain religious. It's not equivocating to point out that there is some humanity that is coercive, it's like with any identity, there is something that identity is, and you can abandon it, yet you are coerced by it.
It seems that this Russian joke is true “if you try to describe in English any social theory you will end up with liberalism”. Somehow Dugin’s ideas well presented and understood in Russian, are not really communicated in any sensible way in this debate.
This is so true lol. Maybe the English language of today is so ridden with politically-driven reinterpreting of the words themselves through centuries, that this is inevitable.
@Тусим с Тимом Керби yep, I also have noticed the difference in impression Dugin makes when he speaks Russian and English. Unfortunately Dugin is in no way Nabokov (in terms of the language mastery), and when he presents his thoughts in English he looks quite dimly
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 trust me it is, I’ve had to re learn a bunch of words (like nature isn’t the green stuff on the road, but something that creates and sustains itself) to make sense of a traditional worldview. Here’s a heads up on how to do this; use the ancient definition of things, we’re already doing that out of necessity but it’s a good tip. Luke smith has some good content on this topic as well.
The ideas themselves being old, warmed over national chauvinism are doing their part in this as well.
@@kurtkrienke2956 not sure what label “national chuvenism” refers to but what I mean is that different languages rooted in unique cultures have different expression power when it comes to expressing various ideas.
I love how upset Dugin makes the mandarins of the cathedral with his vigorous defense of the local and particular in culture.
Everything Dugin says is like chinese to these libs.
bullshit!
A lot of what Goebbels said was like Chinese to us Americans back then, for the same reason: it's complete and utter garbage.
"I know when I am free".
That's an interesting quote. Do you really? Well, in what do you base your concept of freedom in order to consider you "free"? Not only it differentiates from civilization to civilization, but there are essential differences inside a civilization, for example, if you're a christian your idea of being free is essentially different from the idea that a liberal areligious would have, and so on. Also, if we have uncensored speech, how do we know that the ontology of our civilization's way of thinking is actually the universally correct one? How do we know that our western "rationalism" is actually "reason"? It seems to me these people do not comprehend how their language and the way their language is formed is the central question of our political and cultural differences of thinking. As it is obvious, they believe THEIR LANGUAGE is absolute, universal, and besides all the western ideological differences, the only true tool to finding the truth. It's essential ideological imperialism.
By your assumption, we should go back to the old fashion traditions, of enslavement, serfdom...
@@pauloferreira7543 Maybe.
@@dorbis1168 That is pure niihilism
@@dorbis1168 Maybe you go first and became a slave just for the sake of the argument
Im "free" to work, pay taxes a d generally fit in with LIBERAL social norms..lol
Dugin is saying this: the individual exists only in respect "the Other" and thus their existence in predicated on it. What Dugin is saying is that nothing exists as an isolated individual or signular solitude. The Russian essentially deny Descartes' cogito (and for good reason) because to digtinguish this "I" entails a preceeding "Other". Therefore, "I" owes his very existence to "Him"... the group... the Other... God...
What about "Liberty from starvation, liberty from homelessness, liberty from poverty in general"? People also need these liberties to flourish. You are not exactly free to pursue your goals when your basic needs are not being met.
Exactly
Well, liberals usually defend negative rights not positive rights, hence why they don't say "liberty from starvation, liberty from homelessness etc...". And what you are basically saying is that we have to be free of suffering. That's impossible, we can work to make a better world and all that, but saying that libertarians are wrong because poverty exist doesn't seem a great argument to me
Ever heard of sanctions
UBI for all!
@@celvinscott502 Absolutely!
Liberty from boomers rubbing microphones on collars!
Lol
😂
People think the russian guy is crazy, but i think he is looking far ahead than the rest
Exactly..he follows liberalism to its natural conclusion and you eventually get to TRANShumanism
Let Dugin speak!
Hell no
This comment section is lit.
based indeed
for liberalism the smallest unit of society is the individual and not the original family unit, so everything is focused on liberating the one person without thinking about the consequences it has on the family, the children it raises, and the future of the nation that protects the liberties to begin with. essentially liberalism has made itself the most important thing uncompromisingly and unfortunately once certain liberties are out of the bag their is no putting them back in.
Do you know anyone that live alone forever? No? So in some way people form groups, families, etc... The fact your liberties are protected, doesnt mean that you are free to do whatever you fell free to do. Your freedom ends when colide with mine and vice versa. Liberalism doesnt mean niilism
There is in the Russian language a wise expression: “Где родился, там и пригодился» [gde rodilsya, tam i prigodilsya], which translates to an English equivalent, “you’re useful, where you’re born.” In a deep sense of the meaning of what Freedom means for the Slavic collective, one must fulfill a destiny that is in alignment with the genetic imprint through which the soul has incorporated itself. This is what “spiritual determinism” teaches us about the ultimate value of freedom, which nonetheless is rooted in the corporeality of the body. I agree that man & woman should be free to roam and explore both physical realms and metaphysical realms, however the danger of abandonment of one’s genetic roots is the ultimate price that is paid by a “lost” soul.
Глупое выражение, не зависит душа ни от какого места
Dugin is the only one with anything interesting
Yeah very often people get excited to see a car crash
Dugin intellect is waaaaaaay above than these plants around him!
Dugin is frequently known as "Putin's brain." How's that working out in Ukraine these days?
@@chad3232132 you will see..
@@chad3232132And yet you slander anything Russian. You know nothing.
@@chad3232132It's working quite well, isn't it?
Why it feels like Leon and Pazira are very hostile towards Dugin...
Coz self-claimed liberals are never more tolerant when they face the 'fascists' and 'communists' in their opinion...
@@ericy726 somewhere in another part of this debate maybe, Leon said "this is dialectical dematerialism" after Dugin finished his argument against Leon, can u plz ellaborate what he meant by dialectical dematerialism?
@@TuuguuSMD I have no idea.... the only thing I can feel is the same as yours, which is that they are both very hostile towards Dugin...
@@ericy726 I thought i was exaggerating due to my sympathy towards Dugin.
@@TuuguuSMD you are not exaggerating. becoz 'liberals' are generally very hostile if they label you as a fascist, communist or anyone that they find to be incompatible with the course of humanity.
Look how they recoil and attack Alexandr when he speaks the truths
his truth!😉
@@stefansteffens8089 nice try
Father Seraphim Rose diagnoses the effects of Liberalism beautifully in his book on Nihilism. He breaks it into roughly 4 progressive stages:
*Step 1. Surface Level Liberalism (Seemingly innocuous loosening of moral and political restraint in the name of freedom and progress)*
*Step 2. Realism/Materialism (Rampant exploration of the depths of material phenomena as seen in the obsession with "science")*
*Step 3. Vitalism (Neglected and ailing souls look to once denounced pagan, New Age and esoteric "spiritual" practices to fill the infinite rift that God once had in them, leading to abuse of psychedelics and obsession with "visitations" from so-called "aliens" and so forth)*
*Step 4. Destruction (Nihilism fully formed in the masses who, like malignant cancer cells, resolve to destroying everything in sight, attempting to drown reality itself into non-reality)*
_So, is liberalism soulless?_ Yes, there is nothing more devastating to the human soul.
I would recommend to all one really good book to read and it is "Why we fight - Manifesto of European resistance" by Guillaume Faye
Those days are long gone. GO RUSSIA! GOD PUTIN! GO DUGIN! TRUE HEROES OF THE EAST
What else would you recommend? New the the space and frankly I feel like I've been blind for some time.
@@phonkphonk I'd recommend 'The Cave and the Light' by Arthur Herman
There is a sad blindness that I have more or less just realised in the last week or so of the people in my society.
the Jewish - he is almost a rabi- lol is talking about how ALL OTHER "roots" are bad ,except for his own.
just caught this. surprised no one has mentioned that he was fired from several jobs after admitting to serial sexual abuse inluding attempted rape. he also refused to promote women at his publication apparently, his definition freedom and individuality does not extend to half the race.
Tony Blinken in this discussion asserted the US media is “free”.
The Church Committee proved this wrong almost 50 years ago.
They are free to accept as much money from billionaires as they want
"Liberty from", sounds like this guy is gonna use religion and race to avoid accountability. Why doesnt he just say, "Iiberty from accountability."
Someone liberate Leon from hogging the table time. Arrogant.
The example of the Pakistani that had the US constitution in his pocket was enlightening. Why? Because the American philosopher lauded him for using it as an universal instruction to go from one particular culture to another. So self centered as only a Yankee could be.
Also, they would agree that every civilization has defects and so does America and that every civilization has good sides, but never ever an American finding solace in another country say Pakistan for say an exit from ever increasing economic rat race among people, however small in number, would get cited as an example by Western thinkers.
LOL Dugin was so frustrated by these fools
Ultimately they are TRANShumanists (when you follow their ideology to its logical conclusion)
It might appear that Mr Dugin is dominated in this discussion but he's actually the one with the truth
Lol How ironic. According to Dugin "the truth" doesn't exist. Only "a truth", which actually negates the definition of the term truth.
@@paxvobiscum9859 Lol, who told you that? Dugin is an Evolian traditionalist, an orthodox christian, Plato's big fan, his thoughts are all about THE Truth.
I think you misinterpreted his words. When he says something like you said, he usually means the postmodern paradigm
@@joraldthewizard2327 No, I'm not mistaken. I've heard him advocate for relativism and against absolutism more times than I can count. He has literally stated on many occasions, 'there is not one truth, but many different truths.' This is cultural Marxist thinking. And did you hear him call Kabbalah the highest manifestation of human potential, or something to that effect, during this debate? Like Evola, Dugin is into occultism/Eastern mysticism/paganism which is basically Luciferianism. This explains his adherence to the erroneous doctrines of relativism, if not being an advocate of cultural Marxism.
If you say so
Mr Dugin does not believe in truth. So how can he be the one with the truth?
Mr Dugin is saying let’s get the human to his best potential and use what we have.. the other side, liberalism is saying , let’s destroy the human and therefore prepare the human for transhumanism..
Fun fact: Georgian word for "liberty" literally translates as "lordship over one's self".
It probably works the same in other languages: SVOBODA = “svoy Bog dal”; SOUVERAIN = “sous votre règne »
these people are not promoting "liberalism", but "elitism" which in itself becomes undemocratic.
very powerful. The key is the true role of people
I like debates like this. I'm from Indonesia . I love to debate things that are worth discussing. because debating is very important and should be in every topic. a lot can really make us more insightful, mentally test, test courage in opinion, and can understand the mind more critically.
I love Indonesian people. Love from Bangladesh
I love Indonesian people. Love from Bangladesh
When I was in elementary school, we learned from history. That ancient Greece during its decline had an elite class of intellectuals. Who were so blinded by their own egos, that they were simply unable to analyze in any common sense way, let alone solve, the accumulation of problems.
As a child that looked up to grown ups, i did not understand how that is possible.
Watching and listening to these idiots, i finally understand how is it possible. How egomaniacs will fall, all along finger pointing blame among them selves. How Ego/lie/evil got them in the grip. So hard. So firm. That with all their intellect, experience and life of hard work and learning, didn`t do absolutely nothing good for them. They never truly matured. Their spirit is left behind. They never really developed it, from their cradles. They just like to imagine it.
It makes me sad. To watch human kind still so childish, yet so arrogant. Same disappointment when i realized 21st century will be no different, than any other from the past. Savage egomaniacs race. Even "mothers". All the good they have, is an act. Selfish one also. Nothing more.
It is pure Gods grace, patience and love that we still are given a chance. It gives me a thought, it is only a chance, for few souls worth saving. After that, may God show mercy on our poor souls.
God bless you.
Its odd how no one asks each other questions or clarifications
Agreed. I think they're all kind of narcissistic and in love with their own ideas. But, you don't become a public intellectual by seeking to better understand people, you become a public intellectual by making proclamations.
Dugin seems like the man who went sail to the end of the world and reach in Cape Bojador and his ship was wrecked all the time he try to go foward. Then he came back home and he start to advise others not to go there because is the end of world, and a place of destruction. The same argument he put when he goes on and on from one emancipation to another till you liberate from yourself, wich means the end of human , the lost of our values. The man who advise the others from the Bojador danger, was called in Portuguese literature "velho do restelo" ou "old man of Restelo" (the Dugins archetype) , and eventhough it was very convincing, there were a few Portuguese that went on and manage to overcame that old Cape Bojador, and start the era of "descobrimentos" or as i say it the Era of Globalisation. Freedom is not the end of anything, but the beggining of something!
@@gundissalinus look all this national soul, only exist after the french revolution. Before that no one care for the nation, but for the king, or lord, or region. I understand that G
globalization have some cons, but that is the only way for human race respect it self. Globalization doesnt end the different cultures, even my country have different cultures inside off it.
Language and the expression of thought in a given language is the issue in this discussion.
Americans, who basically have no national identity, and therefore little or no linguistic cohesion, have no other choice than to adhere to individualism that inevitablly leads to so called liberalism. Russiain society on the other hand, is the complete opposite, and I dare say that the conflict between these two opposite poles is linguistic because the same word in the two languages have a completely different MEANING.
It's true...it's difficult to compare the ideologies of an civilisational state, developed over centuries, even millenia, with that of a migrant state...
Great comment
I dont know anything really about Dugin, but it was a delight hearing some novelty inbetween the limp praise of liberalism.
Why is Mr Dugin being put on the backfoot? Almost as if they're attempting to prevent his arguments from developing or hitting home.
I think one could say that in a society were everyone is liberal, liberalism is a collective identity, or atleast could be
Do your really see this? After vax mandates?
At the core, the difference between the liberal and 'Russian' anthropology is: the first places human Earthly existence as the ultimate good while the second finds it an obscene individualistic and materialistic reduction. Dugin draws on cultural relativism to claim that the liberal defense of individual freedom is but one among many possible interpretations of being, and that other interpretations should also be respected and accepted. The problem, however, lies here: the 'Russian' anthropology (Dugin's) is based on the assumption that earthly existence is not an end in itself, and that there are values that trenscend it and, in the name of which, lives can be taken or sacrificed. This ultimate consequence is, from a liberal standpoint, unnaceptable.
ironically, human existence cannot find itself good within itself, it requires something from the outside.
Mr fuzzy head is extremely arrogant.
LEon Weinseltier argues freedom is ultimately expressed by placing no limits on big goals of which a culture that believes in Superman and/or World Control.
Freedom is attained when manipulated into serving no ones end game. We all gave and Individual right to the pursuit to thier own happiness.
We have a right to set limits to any individauls goal that applies it will on others.
Goals of World Control ir domination are inhumane and evil. We don't need a Superman or Super leader.
Goodness gracious, is Wiesltier a walking meme or what? Aside from the obvious kosher attributes, it’s all just emotionally charged rhetoric dressed over in pretentious bourgeois liberal moanings. He just doesn’t get it.
He states: “Who cares where it comes from…as long as it can be shown to be politically fair?” My, that’s a rather fascinated bit of rhetoric coming from him. Ever seen Wiesltier’s other videos where he waxes poetic about the necessity for the state of Israel and the exceptionalism of Jwz?? This is a man who claims to be an “impenitent Zionist”. But the second Dugin mentions Orthodoxy and identity, he immediately interjects. He demands Dugin simply “forget that it’s Western”, which is a rather typical tactic that his ilk just love to utilise in order to shut down all rational debate.
He’s as boring as Zizek. Dugin, as usual, could mop the floor with all of them.
the jewish american is a Closed Box.. he cant just wrap the idea of a different world view, than Western worldview.
The view of liberalism, the view of freedom, the view of man, should be approached geographically, then anthropologically, then linguistically, then only can we abord it universally. In Africa the individual can not be taken out of the clan then the community then the tribe. For Africans, in relation to identity, there is no African, and it's only because of the recent history that Africans have begun to africanize. My individuality in Africa is only so biologically. When I am juged or critized, it will always come down to my family (the nuclear, then atomic, then molecular one), and if I am sentenced to prison, I the biological agent will be in prison but each members of the community even tribe will suffer with me and for me even though I am serving physically my sentence alone. What happens is the clan even the community will do everything to get me out, or at least will make sure that my stay in prison be as confortable as possible.
So, I agree with the Russian argument of looking at liberalism from a geographical stand point...
Excellent point!
My main problems with liberals is arrogance,and refusal to listen and understand their ignorance,they will be making points and went on to explain them to you when they have already lost you at the meaning of what they are trying to explain
They do not understand that every individual decision is made at the expense of the collective..sometimes it's a good thing and sometimes it isn't...so the idea of dislocating an individual from the collective is naive at best and irresponsible at worst. Liberalism that blindly celebrates the individual gives no ground to laws or morality...for the dissolution of these rules is the manifestation of the Western ideal of liberalism in its extreme..In the context of France, you're free to insult someone's religion....and in the U.S. you 'enjoy' the freedom to own a gun...these clearly are moral infringements in other geographical areas...so where do you draw the line? You just can't. Liberalism is hence hegemonic when applied across all cultures because you simply cannot have universal laws.
@@n661 Amen! May I add, in light of your development, we can assert that "Liberalism" is more than some phylosophy or ideology. It is a culture, the culture of the west. And any culture to be imposed on the rest of the world is an attempt at uniformisation of the world. That in its core is straight violation of human rights, principles of fraternity and a violation of internal rule of law -since international rule of law recognizes the cross the board similarities and acknowledge the specificities linked to regions and cultures-...
@@nicolibakasongo2077 Yes, that's a very good point. Any attempt to uniformise the world is against intrinsic human rights and fascist in its principle.
There is no soul in "...isms". As a soul is attributed to one single living being. While "...isms" is attributed to a system/idea used by more than one.
E. Michael Jones needed to be at this table.
Why does nexus put on such amazing events with genuinely interesting clashes of thought just to cut the videos when it starts to get interesting.
6:15 I think there’s a basic concept of an understanding, as a human being in whatever geography or many be, that I know when I’m free to think, when I am free to express that thought, and when I’m free to move about.
And if you’re Trying to tell me that is subject to geography, to certain historical boundaries, then I have a big problem with that.”
- Liberal hegemonic worldview
Liberals seek to monopolise through universality. Hence the imperialism we’ve seen from America for centuries.
For you people get stoned, beheaded, trade as slave, killed by their critic, killed by religion, is never always wrong, it depends on the geography... in some places its tradition... that is you worldview?
@@pauloferreira7543 3:23 Dugan gives a response to your question. It's a question of anthropology, which is something at a metaphysical level which many in the West do not understand because the West has a secular worldview.
@@MoiLibertyWestern Russia and Eastern Russia, and South of Russia Federation its very diferent people... So what anthropology you are talking, only 50millions of the people that live in russia are Russians. Russia is an empire, still today. This kind of speech is very oriented to justify traditionalism, the same way that happens in Austro Hugarian empire, Ottoman empire, Portuguese empire, German empire... By that base you can justify all kind of brutality in order to preserv tradition.... North Korea cult of lider, is tradition... China mandate from heaven for all chinease is tradition that justify the comunist party policy. All of these happens because tradition... What nobody tells you is in 1917 China revolution against emperor was under Liberal values, not tradition... In 1825 in 26 December Russia went trough a revolution under the same values of American Revolution... Anthropology tells where we are from, the future doesnt care for our anthropology, but for our creativity, our willing to change for better, with justice for all... Thats why all revolutions are made.
@@pauloferreira7543 It is either intentional lie or wrong information (where did you get this?).
~80% in Russia are Russians.
Don't even compare this with Austria-Hungary, there only 20% was Austrian. And about the same percentage of Hungarian. Thats absolutely different story.
Anybody have a source for this "5 Evil Empires" talk or paradigm that they are referencing from around 5:29 to 6:20?
I believe this was a reference to "The Empire and the Five Kings" by Bernard-Henri Levy, in which the Empire is American/Western Liberalism (broadly defined) and the 5 Kings are its challengers in his belief (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and Sunni Radicalism). Dugin declared that he was speaking for the "5 Kings" when debating BHL.
Does a bear deficate in the woods?
This debate is the sheer proof that there is no universal definition whatsoever. This is a eternal battle.
There are concepts: you can chose if they are universal or not... You believe that in anywhere in the world no women should be stone to dead after an adultery, than you found that concept as universal... if you believe that its ok to respect the local tradition, than you believe that concept is relative... there are infinite concepts, its up to you to found them universal or relative...
@@pauloferreira7543 Dugin says : "nooo i want to be able to stone them nothing is universal !!!! "
@@pauloferreira7543 why is always women stoned to death?
@@FreddieGamingHD Why you asking this? Women have been stone to death because the murderers that rule the countries, by those who claim to be the defenders of cultural heritage of their nation... I dont know why those dont go into a cave and phrase the cultural heritage of our ancestors that walk in four legs...
Dugin. The Legend.
Hell no
SVABODA
SVOBODA тогда уж...
Sloboda in serbian my friend.
Derp derp derpbdi derp derp derp but I am a LIBERAL derp derp. Dugan just walk out there's no talking to those people
Freedom and democracy are two very good words always in the mouth of some people. it looks like they all live in the paradise, rather then the real human word. it is better they could stand on the earth and talk freedom and democracy. and another point is, in different nation, there are different define about freedom and democracy, there no standard answer to it. it is very surprise that some people from US or Europe think their define is standard answer, and if some one is not in line with them is wrong. like a religion.
however, this platform is very good, the different people from different area could exchange ideas and thinking, it is far better than war or cold war happening between each other directly. so the dispute here is worth.
You can have democracy and dont have freedom... The question here isnt freedom, is the absolut value of human rights should be absolut, or relative in order to respect tradition?
Mr. Russian Man, people are not plants, get it?????
Honestly, all I see here is the same thing I've concluded time and time again. We need to unify and combine - that doesn't mean stomping out ANY idea belonging to the opposite force of which you're unifying with.. Unification does not mean direct destruction. Destruction does occur, but only in the unification process. By finding similarities in process, and then combning the two ideas in to one superior idea, is where the destruction of the old idea comes in to play. Because it no longer exists, by PROGRESSING in to something NEW. We need to redirect.. Instead of two waves crashing in to each other and cancelling each other out, we need to choose a direction, and continue on that way, to become a true force to be reckoned with, TOGETHER.
I've seen so many good men and women argue.. It's always over the details, over machinations of our imagination.. One might concluded that I'm a sexist, because I didn't say "women and men," some might even insist that anything that came from this discussion is "patriarchal" because there are only two women at the table in this video.. We put words and ideas in others mouths and heads before we even know them.. This needs to go.. When we can do this, we CAN direct our ideas together.. I'll cheer, and most likely have a heart attack out of pure joy and disbelief, the day that the Hobbesian mindset DIES. We can die together, because I'll have nothing left to try and fix. LOL. I'll be bored! I'm no creator. More of a fixer..
The response at the end to Dugin's comment: "The history of liberalism is liberation from collective identity" is brilliant. Simply pointing out that some semblance of identity is inevitable is not the same as being coerced into an "identity". If you are adopting a cultural ideal such as, for example; politeness then even if your place of birth was not consensual, your continued consent with that behaviour is consensual. In the example of politeness it would be the difference between having manners because you want to for X cultural reason and being forced into being polite by a government or society at threat of violence.
The fact that anyone would render trivial criticisms at liberalism such as "it is empty" is hilarious to me when compared to the alternatives proposed. I can certainly imagine you would have a much more profound sense of emptiness when being tortured for your beliefs or being killed for your membership of a certain ethnic group. The point seems entirely moot, especially when any other criticisms of it being "imperial" are similarly brought up, the liberal such as myself would simply agree that if liberal governments are doing such it is generally bad, but I would simply ask you for what reason other than a liberal one are you defending the cultural survival of evil ideologies? If you do think that the individual holds no weight and it is simply different societal standards what would be the evil of a liberal democracy going and forcing its way of life on a traditionalist nation? Are you simply only concerned with the preservation of individual cultures regardless of outcome? If so why do you care about that over the individual or some other standard? At the very least you're likely to care about the suffering of your own people, why not others?
Idiot . Lol
This is why debates are useless at most .
What matters is effect and process.
Your argument makes sense only within your a liberal perspective
Maybe I can help clarify - you asked what would be the great evil of a liberal democracy forcing its way of life on a traditional nation - it’s not the question that a traditional person would ask - instead they recognize that there are always inferior ways of life that are going to press upon you so you recognize you are in a constant battle for truth.
There is a both a cowardice and arrogance to liberalism - it is both afraid and avoidant of confrontation and also thinks it is capable of solving problems by conceptual and theoretical thinking.
I always get the sense that liberals don’t want to get their hands dirty. I understand why - it’s incarnated and present which comes with real consequences and that can be terrifying but it’s the only way to test and live truth.
“Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.”
These liberals are so rude they keep interrupting Dugan if I was him I would get up and walk out there is no talking to these people they are too far gone to help them see a different point of view than their own
Yes.
Das ist so cool, ich liebe es, dieser Runde zuzuhören.
I hate Dugin but these guys do not let him speak
That's what liberals do when their ideas are threatened
Bro the old guy saying collective identity isn't coercion. How can you be so blind.When you are in a mob, you do not think for yourself you follow what the masses do, if you question them you are exercized from the group. Of course it's coercion, you are forced to adhere to "fit" in.
they are all OLD dude!
You can chose to be a Yankees fan or that was impose on you? He said that not all collective identity is coercion... So in your opinion, even your group of friend is coercion lol... Even the fact i am Portuguese isnt coercion, because i could go and live in other place... some of collective identity is chosen, other are imposed.... but not all
We shall impose global (neo)liberalism unto you and ye shall like it. Verily we say unto you: ye shall love our vision of liberty, or ye shall surely perish - you’re welcome. 👍🏦🗽
the problem is how you introduce liberalism. my guess is that most countries want to adopt liberalism in the same way in which it was adopted in the us and then more than century later in europe, that is, without coercion, sanctions etc.
The American system of Government is considered an experiment. It would be not too difficult to argue that the experiment has not been too successful. The experiment has produced a society which has inbred racism in its police force, 300 mass murders to year August 2022, violence and murder in most of its larger cities where citizens fear to walk after dusk, it has the largest incarceration rate per capita in the world, an enormous inequality in wealth where a very small group own most of the countries wealth, the Judiciary at the highest levels are political appointments and impartial judgements are not made, Jerry mongering is absurd, the Electoral college is unfair ( small states have the same number of delegates as highly populated states ), America has tried to enforce its strange constitution on countries who are far from ready for a democratic system with tragic results in the middle east, Asia, south America etc, America loved free trade in the twentieth century but many now want tarrifs on imports, and so on and on. Be firm but not so bloody confrontational my fellow Westerners.
white haired guy (Mr Wieseltier):
According to The New York Times: "Several women... said they were humiliated when Mr. Wieseltier sloppily kissed them on the mouth, sometimes in front of other staff members. Others said he discussed his sex life, once describing the breasts of a former girlfriend in detail. Mr. Wieseltier made passes at female staffers, they said, and pressed them for details about their own sexual encounters. Mr. Wieseltier often commented on what women wore to the office, the former staff members said, telling them that their dresses were not tight enough. One woman said he left a note on her desk thanking her for the miniskirt she wore to the office that day. She said she never wore a skirt to the office again"
Religiosity and sexual abuse go hand in hand.
The girl in the purple is validating AD’s position. These people hate Trump so much, that they are blind.
Comparing Western philoshophy to other civilizations specifically Eastern philoshophy is like talking to a Master Engineer about your local wallmart shop mechanic
Dugin, brave warrior... You and me will live to see your utopia of a multipolar world becoming reality... The golden age when soul virtues and the untangible are the greatest resource of all... After seeing this, I felt your pain when inside the cage that is this debate, and because of it, you have my deepest respect.
U SOUND LIKE A CULTURAL MARXIST
What a load of horseshit. Dugin's "utopia" is nothing more than Eurasia ruled by Moscow.
@@chad3232132 Perhaps... Still a brighter future than a world ruled by America and its lies.
The world is not a zero sum: as long as moscow rules "locally", other nations will be left alone and will rule themselves.
European "issues" dont matter anymore.
@@orcsdavai6764 What constitutes Russia ruling "locally"? Does this mean Russia ruling over Ukraine? Georgia? Eastern Europe?
@@chad3232132 Russia is Russia. Its not a relevant question, but rather a stupid one...
Russia didnt start the smo to get territory... Nato wanted to be everywhere, but couldnt.
- As for "what defines Russia" -
Putin's reasoning is simple and effective: Allies can help a lot more than forcing friendly nations to cope and pretending everything is great.
Europe is over.
I think I've got an idea of what freedom and democracy are but.. liberalism ? From what I read about Wieseltier harassment should be normal on liberalism, isn't it?
7:50 “cult of origins and roots is an insult to the soul” says a darn fool who does not understand that the root of the individual is the soul, the logos, which allows this very dialogue.
If you don’t believe that, tell me who killed Plato?
Or if you are religious, who can kill God? Don’t be silly.
He said roots are important, but also branches... You dont realise that branchs goes farest compare to roots, thats why he claim to many roots and small branchs is a problem...
Poor Dugin, having to endure this quantity of bullshit in a single go.
Liberal democracy actually robs the one of their individual differences. However, that is my opinion, which is usually right, once you apply common sense. Thank you.
I think that is Portugal fault when they beggan globalisation
Why they talk about liberalism and democracy as if they were the same thing. They are supposed to be the thinkers.
The guy with white hair is the perfect example why people are beginning to dislike liberalism. Very arrogant and condescending.
An arrogant bully in an unconcious bubble
Liberalism is not the same as freedom. Communitarianism is not the same as servitude.
Dugin is right.
Dugin is real liberal and democrat something that this totalitarian neoliberals are not.
But who is right or not is relative according to Dugin himself. So if we use his logic everyone in the debate and in the world is right, and also wrong. It is just lazy thinking.
@@otnoirhc your comment is 100% useless. paul simply expressed that he agrees with dugins points in this video that doesn't mean he agrees with everything dugin ever said. You should point out dugins relativism to hundreds of other commenters under this video that will surely show them!
About what? How are Dugin's (Putin's brain) fantasies of Eurasia dominated by Moscow working out right now in Ukraine?
Leon Wiesltier takes up an example of a Pakistani person, in effect a branching soul, that came from Pakistan but fell in love with America and became its patriot. All well and good so far, but then he conflates that with proof of universal values or that there is something universal in his desire.
Its exactly the opposite. American values may have fit him, he chose them and appropriated them and may defend them stronger than a native patriot. But the only way those values of "freedom" or "liberty" per the american sense could be universal is if you presuppose that which indeed is Dugins criticism: That American values = universal values and that they indeed are superior to all others, or more "innate" to all humans irrespective of where they are born.
Now you may do that, but then you acknowledge Dugins criticism which is the imposition of American values upon the world.
The paradox here would be that America then doesn´t have any values of its own, that it is soulless and without tradition and that all of its basis if any is universalist. Even this would be acknowedging that Dugin is right, for he see´s america as incarnation of modernity.
Anyway, Dugin may still be wrong in wanting it undone. But the more I think about it the more I see sense in Dugins critique, not that i agree with it.
Dugin is a Titan surrounded by a table of smoothbrains
6:19 there is a shared theoretical concept of the soul and freedom, but when you try to apply it to implement democracy within a culture, you have to use language, which contains within it culturally-specific notions of freedom and the human experience.