Let Dugin Live

[Guide]

Only Alexander Dugin can save us.

[Mr Reasonable]

False. I can save you.

[promethean75]

i absolutely agree. dugin must live. there are many ways to produce that higher kind of man - the anarchist of the propagande par le fait type against whom everyone compared is merely 'the last man' - but fascism is guaranteed to produce the most fertile soil out of which the best of these grow.

if there is anything worth addressing here, it is whether or not such an anarchist becomes criminal out of his 'thrill of the fight', or if he is in fact stirner's involuntary egoist who puts before his love of the fight, some saced cause to justify his deed; in most cases it is 'for the benefit of the working classes', and the anarchist appears as the strong arm of the communists who haven't the gusto to do the dirty work themselves. this is unfortunate. only very rarely do we find the criminalist anarchist type who has reached those lofty stirnerite heights that nietzsche speaks about with his ubermensch. what would be a ceasar with the soul of a christ, if not such an anarchist? that middle ground between diametrically opposed theses (bourgeois and pleb) who neither desires or needs to lead or follow, but retains that love of the fight.

the political play that mankind will forever be involved in on planet earth (and space once he colonizes it) has no other divine purpose than to produce the anarchist. a million emperors and empires will rise and fall, having no more significance than to draw those smiles on the faces of the gods when the anarchist finally appears. he is the MVP, the main actor... the very reason why the script was written at all.

what i have told you is secret #26 of the universe. now don't go spreading this around, but zeus actually adores prometheus, and like kronos, so too is zeus apprehensive about relinquishing his power (which is understandable). but there is an understanding between them that political men and the 'people' they try to rule will forever be oblivious to; that zeus made a mistake when he designed man, and the only thing that can redeem this embarrasing tragedy in the mind of zeus is the total destruction of the order he created. this is why the anarchist is divine and a favorite of the gods... he is that divine dance of drunken madness that the gods have lost themselves in.

... and this is why fascism is so important. the more perfect an order is attempted to be made, the greater probability of the birth of an anarchist.

verily, i speak thus.

[Guide]

" but fascism is guaranteed to produce the most fertile soil out of which the best of these grow. "

Dugin isn't a "fascist". His thesis is explicitly against the twentieth century movements including Fascism. He's existentialist if one requires a label. Wiki drives the brain into depths of rubbish hitherto uninvented by human beings.

[promethean75]

so he isn't a fascist. well ain't that some shit. what a disappointment.

look man you need to get in there and edit that shit.

[Guide]

so he isn't a fascist. well ain't that some shit. what a disappointment.

look man you need to get in there and edit that shit.

You may be joking, but, in that case, you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.

In any case, I have. They prefer their own "argument"/interpretation to Dugin's own self-understanding and confronting existentialist teaching. My view is, "fascist" is a synonym for evil in the usage of the now powerful thinking that permeates the wiki-sphere.

Heidegger is another case like this. Is Heidegger a "fascist" thinking because he was a member of the Nazi party, or is "Heidegger" the title of an existentialist teaching which called the Nazis "planetary criminals" already in the late thirties? And utterly detested "crude biological racism", and the scandal of planetary eugenics (which, any 'card carrying' pre-war American could as well be charged with), and Question of the ability to let philosophic work enter one's ears. Who listens these days to its echo of the human who has not grown tired of itself? Only myself perhaps. Of course, the whole issue is not completely obvious: and its vague outline itself coincides with the most pressing of existential difficulties.

Fourth Political Theory (for dummies) a short prospectus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIY1vZu ... oZEwY-_a3T

[promethean75]

you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.

bro. that is so weird. i actually am an idiot (in the original greek root meaning of 'i make my own'). but i'm no ordinary idiot. not yet anyway. i'm aspiring to be but i have to pass through several stages first before i get there. at the moment i'm just a swaggering idiot. here, check it out.

that's so weird you knew, though. we're connected, dude. i'm telling you.

btw, that most recent thread you created is a duplicate of the 'entartung' thread.

[Guide]

"OG (original guide) wrote:
you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.


bro. that is so weird. i actually am an idiot (in the original greek root meaning of 'i make my own'). but i'm no ordinary idiot. not yet anyway. i'm aspiring to be but i have to pass through several stages first before i get there. at the moment i'm just a swaggering idiot. here, check it out.

that's so weird you knew, though. we're connected, dude. i'm telling you.

btw, that most recent thread you created is a duplicate of the 'entartung' thread."

You sound more interested in philosophy as fashion, than in genuine philosophy.

Of course, I know the invented post-modern sense you mean. As in Ronell (a student of Lyotard).

Idiot means, by usage, layman, in ancient texts. Someone who isn't a lawyer or official is a layman, in Athenian era usage, they lack a publicly beneficial skill.

Now, if we have a skill, something learnable, this is not a "just this time" sort of accident, but a thing learned that is not recognized as useful to the country or polis. It is degeneration is the fullest sense of Max Stirner. But, this is of little enough interest to "positive" thought which aims at assimilation and superiority of the "all", as with Nietzsche.

[promethean75]

It is degeneration is the fullest sense of Max Stirner.

oh sweet, you mentioned maximus. one of THE most important. but maximus is not for everyone, as his logic is of such a higher order and cleanliness that it is generally unapproachable by most people. in a sense, too, one doesn't find the philosophy of stirner, rather it finds you... and there are not many people who become eligible for it.

in philosophy he represents a limit which sits in contradistinction to the philosophy of marx. these two can be thought of as the final possibilities for ethics, and most people sit unwittingly somewhere in the middle... this middle ground being a field of contradiction and confusion (largely due to the fault of philosophy). one is either forever approaching stirner or marx, and there is no third alternative for an honest and clear minded philosophy.

let me give you an example of a system which stopping short of that final marxist limit stands in a state of ethical irresolvability. capitalism. by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be. that is to say, it cannot stand by its own tenants and still be able to function; it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it (at the expense of those others). in this way, the classes it creates cannot share any ethical solidarity and will forever have conflicting interests. here is the collapse of principle and the direct, unavoidable line to stirner; if this particular abstraction of the 'state' cannot sustain itself through the ethical cooperation of individuals who share the same interests, it is for all intent and purposes nullified. if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity, but a war between two classes; the bourgeois and proletariat. and if this is the case (and it is), one cannot avoid the conclusion of stirner. one either remains a confused fool somewhere in the middle, or one becomes a stirnerite or a marxist. other 'political' philosophers are irrelevant filler materials that sit somewhere on this line between stirner and marx. any possible political philosophy approaches one of the other, inevitably.

then at the other end of this spectrum is marx, who represents the correction of this irreconcilable conflict that capitalism has created, and a solution to the stirnerite conclusion (on which capitalism unwittingly rests). the great 'meanwhile' of the world is spent approaching one or the other, as there is simply no other direction it can go.

this is why the philosophies of stirner and marx are the alpha and omega of political philosophy. either absolute resolution to ethics, or absolute destruction. to resolve ethics, societies must be for, and run by, the working class. don't mistake what i say; ethics doesn't need to be resolved... but if it is going to be, this is the only way. anyone who wishes to resolve ethics and believes otherwise is confused and/or irrelevant.

contrarily, anyone who wishes not to resolve ethics, wishes not to approach marx, but does not finally reach stirner, remains an involuntary egoist. the 'cause' for which they stand - in this case the illusory notion of 'equality of privilege' in the tenants of capitalist philosophy - is a spook, an abstraction, a false idea. and it is such because of philosophy.

therefore one is, essentially, either a stirnerite (involuntary or voluntary egoist) or a marxist. you'll note that it was not for nothing that stirner's work provoked a great sense of emergency in marx and engels, who immediately responded to the danger they had discovered in stirner. they saw clearly the logical extreme that stirnerism revealed and quickly set out prevent it from happening.

the reason why you might characterize stirnerism as 'degenerate' is because you are shortsighted of its wisdom; as i said, it isn't for everyone. and i imagine stirner would be very amused if he logged in and saw that comment: 'here is another 'philosopher' running in place, not knowing from whence he came or where he's going. still believing there is any 'solution' to the world's ethical problems other than a direct approach to marx, the guy opposite me on the spectrum.'

alpha and omega, OG. everything else is just half-wit nonsense in between. the bread and butter of that eloquent babbler, the 'phi-lost-opher'.

[Guide]

This position is unclear:

let me give you an example of a system which stopping short of that final marxist limit stands in a state of ethical irresolvability. capitalism.by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be. that is to say, it cannot stand by its own tenants and still be able to function; it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it (at the expense of those others). in this way, the classes it creates cannot share any ethical solidarity and will forever have conflicting interests. here is the collapse of principle and the direct, unavoidable line to stirner; if this particular abstraction of the 'state' cannot sustain itself through the ethical cooperation of individuals who share the same interests, it is for all intent and purposes nullified.if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity, but a war between two classes; the bourgeois and proletariat. and if this is the case (and it is), one cannot avoid the conclusion of stirner. one either remains a confused fool somewhere in the middle, or one becomes a stirnerite or a marxist. other 'political' philosophers are irrelevant filler materials that sit somewhere on this line between stirner and marx. any possible political philosophy approaches one of the other, inevitably.

“it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it”

This doesn't exclude general improvement. When the country is electrified, or when plumbing becomes generally available, in the end, even the poorest benefit.

“by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be”

Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference. For instance, there was a law forbidding the rich from selling their estates (disposition, or right to use, but not to “alienate” property) in England before laissez-faire.

That those with talent in commerce will be free to benefit from those favoured qualities.

“if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity”

What are we to understand it as granting, that is then nullifiable? If it grants a certain freedom from arbitrary acts of the officials, to be heard in court, and “pursuit” of happiness. Or, in some cases, property rights.

In Stirner the principle of happiness or the final goal of life would be idiosyncratic. Ergo, no collective rationality, and a fortiori no collective principles. However, in Marx, the same thing is true only after History begins. Marx claims that we are not yet in human history properly. Only if history begins, after the classes dissolution into the universal human collective of “universal man”(men) as individuals (painting in the morning, riding in the afternoon, selling nude photos in the evening glow under the deep shadows of the crumpled hills).

Do you want to understand Stirner as merely “private” life? That would presuppose the “reality” of Marxist realism as truth. Stirner doesn’t do that, he says each one to their own (reality).

From this point of view, far from being opposites, the views are the same. Each to their own truth. Power comes in as one's own, because it must to make a view "positive", collective, assimilating.

Marx requires the End of History through the class conflict, he tends towards a false postion, Stirner does not. Marx Engels say, Feuerbach is “crude” as hell. Because he pushes too eagerly with big hands into the materialist view, everything is “base”, “superstructure” or Geist must be burnt away. Marx is never on solid ground with the = 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." He repudiates it himself many times. He “stands on his head” and dances in bewildered sympathy with Nietzsche his antipode. He keeps asking, what interpretation do we need to move the raggedy men, the vulgar hoard comprising the nations, in the right direction? Lenin settled this by telling the peasants Communism meant getting allocated some land. Simple bribery as motivation. Stirner isn’t moving in the space of “positive” power of ideology or wisdom as worldview. The “positivity” is drained out of the individual who is basically solipsistic. The solipsistic position is not related to the “the world is still there when I die”, as history, in its ascending branch (Engles), or, in its “grand style” and voracious lecherousness (Nietzsche).

[Meno_]

Sounds good, and with foundation established. However, foundation through action is the only way to earn validity , and as I understand it, the raising of the politically martyred crucified boy, whose reality is much in doubt, used as a cause celebre, as much as Marx's idea of effects beginning with the beginning of social history, must give a pause, politically speaking.

The inclusion of what reduces Stirner to the level of political stress, does create the tension caused by occultist backgrounds, or is it a matter of the sufficient conflict causing the chaotic occultist solution?

The dressed up solution within the object-subject preoccupation along the lines of the New Heglelians, is a tried concept, and Putin's indulgence in the Crimea , as proof positive of Dugin's influence, is as yet inadequate in forming a new national socialism, as built on such questionable grounds.

Perhaps political risk taking as a form of warning , used as bargaining chips, where the chips are funded by the idea of a pan- Asiatic Axis, may prove more likely. The Russia-Iran-Syria connection, may be a preview, and certainly of major concern, an allusion to the paranoid philosophy of using the risk of the the use of the
occult , where the substantiation of the possible with that of the actual tries to delete saturated all inclusiveness of a purported and upheld chaos.

This causes a necessary reduction into the basis of a dangerous neopolitic, a revision of past Marxist-Leninist dogma.
That the dogma's failure need not detract the resurfacing of ideas along the lines of Young Heglelians, particularly the adoption of ego psychology as a bridge of a much more general theory of social contractual manifestations of it.

The more poignant question of whether social devolution and political chaos presently. Is reaching a level of predictable maximum uncertainty , as world politic moves into the NWO.

The answer is no, geopolitically speaking, the actual chips are much more unevenly matched, and the Crimea is no Poland, as far as seeing it in other terms then reclaiming a very closely aligned country, with very close historically tied societies.

The same can not be said to be of Poland, because Poland has been way closer tied to Russia.
Ribbentrop's visit, forging a fake German Russian alliance was a masterstroke of prevention.

Now look at some of his back ground, :In 1986 Dugin joined Pamyat, an organization dedicated to restoring old monuments. This innocuous aim was soon overshadowed by the anti-Semitism of its leader, Dmitry Vasilyev, a paranoid actor who believed the Jews were destroying Russia’s patrimony and had sent Zionists to kill him.[14] Pamyat attracted more hooligans, crypto-fascists, and nationalists than art restorers but it stirred a patriotic sense in Dugin; he began to wear a black shirt, leather belt, and shoulder strap, the garb of the Black Hundred, a patriotic tsarist movement of the early twentieth century. The historian Walter Laqueur, who wrote a book about the Black Hundred, noted Dugin’s activities as early as 1993; with Dugin, he wrote, “we move from the realm of a quasi-rational approach to the depths of irrationality.”[15] Readers of Dugin out of sympathy with his ideas may agree.

From DARK STAR RISING: Magick and Power in the Age of Trump by Gary Lachman, published by TarcherPerigee, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, ...........

The whole structural basis and organization of character, is simply not there, in Dugin , to mirror an international , worldly concern, other than the tried Caucasus invasion, which is turning into mostly a litmus test.

On the question of the degree of seriousness with which to take Dugan, any thing is possible, yet as major Russian policy, he appears to be incidental to the old Putin preoccupation that mirrors Trump, : bring back the great Russia.
There are Islamists, as well, who longe for the return of the Ottoman Empire.

At the same token, one can not absolutely dismiss Chamberlain professing ' Peace in our Time'.

[promethean75]

This position is unclear

'fraid that's the nature of all philosophical text. one can never say enough and the product always remains open. what you can do, however, is use the tools of philosophy to sort through a text and separate statements that belong in the natural sciences, and statements that reflect fallacious (formally and informally), personal bias and erroneous reasoning. philosophy should be concerned with being critical of its own language rather than attempting to explain or even describe any 'truth'. science takes care of that. philosophy just tags along. i'm reminded of that quip by stephen hawking; the philosopher is just a failed scientist.

in any case, i guess you could summarize the paragraph you found to be 'unclear' as a statement about the limits to any attempt to establish any kind of real altruism in actual practice rather than as just another philosophical concept. what the paragraph shows is that until economics resolves that unavoidable circumstance of 'class conflict' that exists in this specific capitalist mode of material relations, no amount of ethical philosophy can be used as a defending justification for it; not utilitarian consequentialism, not virtue deontology, and not normative ethics. instead, these philosophies are conveniently 'tweaked' to fit the expectations and advantages of the person who benefits from the system in place. so, for example, you'd find a capitalist putting forth a convincing argument that kant's or mill's theory of ethics supports, and leads logically to, a capitalistic free market. it does not, and cannot, by the sheer fact that under the conditions of conflicting class interests, people cannot be said to genuinely want to cooperate. they are forced to compete, and where there is competition, there is no real social contract of ethics with the 'other' class. this indicates stirner's egoism as the default parameters of moral and ethical behavior inside such a system. on the other end of this spectrum is marxism, which symbolizes the resolution of that fundamental problem that so constitutes the conflict of interests between classes; that property should belong only to he who produces it if we wish to eliminate the circumstances that prevent any real social contract.

now we don't have to, mind you. i'm only showing the limits of this problem and how one is forever approaching one end or the other, whether they know it or not. this means that any philosophical narrative that attempts to defend capitalism on 'moral' grounds will be farcical... merely the voice of someone to whom capitalism gives an advantage, and so therefore uses philosophical language to defend and excuse that advantage. simply put, man does not want to work, and will go to any lengths to justify his not wanting or needing to... provided he is kept alive by the fruits of other's labor, to be able to make such a utterance. it's an alarming thought, really; a thousand years of philosophical nonsense from the mouth of a parasite, all for the purpose of finding a reason for not having to work. he thought he was on to something, thought he had discovered how he was 'different', above and beyond the necessity of labor. despite his attempts, the history of philosophy didn't end with a noble and aristocratic bang, but a pitiful fizzle, and that is something truly comical.

so yes, to TRULY solve the problem of ethics, we have to slay that great beast, max stirner. and one cannot do this with any ordinary sword. only marxcalibur can do it.

This doesn't exclude general improvement. When the country is electrified, or when plumbing becomes generally available, in the end, even the poorest benefit.

excellent example of what i explained above; that attempt to defend capitalism through any number of informal fallacies. pathetic fallacy; describing capitalism as an agency that is responsible for the products that come into existence in such a system. nay. what is to thank for such technological improvement is human productivity, not capitalism. this is to say that such productivity does not rely on capitalism, or even communism for that matter, to be realizable. it was only that such productivity happened to happen during such a period that we erroneously give credit to the particular system in place in which it happened. that same scale of productivity could have happened under different circumstances, as well.

here's another example. we would not be able to say that either capitalism or communism, exclusively, are necessary for the improvement of education. why not? because we see this phenomena occur in both; in capitalism we see privatized educational institutions popping up everywhere... and yet during mao's dictatorship, we watched the literacy rate of chinese people raise some 70 percent.

so we would be misGUIDEd to assume any degree of human productivity owes itself to something transcendent to human nature in general, some particular system that has to be in place for that productivity to become realized. the enormous growth that took place during the rise of industrialism and capitalism is only circumstantial, and defenders of capitalism do not hesitate to seize the opportunity to commit this pathetic fallacy in their attempt to defend it.

Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference. For instance, there was a law forbidding the rich from selling their estates (disposition, or right to use, but not to “alienate” property) in England before laissez-faire.

That those with talent in commerce will be free to benefit from those favoured qualities.

or so it appeared. certainly the transition from feudalism to mercantile capitalism marked a break from that paternalism characterized as the authority of the aristocratic class, but it took an alternative form of that same tyranny shortly thereafter. instead of the common man being a slave to the demands of his lord, he became a slave to the demands of his necessity to labor for a wage, or be ostracized, penalized, or even exiled from the land on which he dwelled. so then while capitalism certainly 'made no promises', it still transformed a previous system of tyranny into another, new form, and therefore did not avoid the essential problem it's origins were thought to be a solution for; the problem of property relations.

the rest of your post was something i couldn't make heads or tails of. i'm sure there's something in there... i just missed it.

[Guide]

"'fraid that's the nature of all philosophical text."

No. Serious philosophy is always clear. What is unclear is its subject matter. Everyone knows what justice means even without a definition. But, justice itself, the subject matter, is very vague.

Not seeing this, one falls prey to accomplished sophists and academic baby talk like the versicolour reefs seen, distorted, through thick cerulean waters.

The level of discussion here is too low for me.

Goodbye idiot scientism religious freak rhetoric fatuous websight of dreck waste of time!

[promethean75]

Goodbye idiot scientism religious freak rhetoric fatuous websight of dreck waste of time!

more churlish defalcating from the meretricious blatherskite. only a inveterate morosoph would commit to this kind of wheedling floccinaucinihilipilification with such lachrymose biliousness!

[promethean75]

c'mon, guide, don't be like this. I don't know any of those words, man. The truth is I envy your vocabulary and I just threw all that shit together to impress you. It was pretty fuckin' good though, right? You probably read that shit and was like 'malodorous pontificating sesquipedalian! Be gone!'

But no, I don't really think you're a meretricious blatherskite.

[Guide]

Due to my intransigent efforts, the vile wikimob has made a minor concession, and drawn back from their combative, vicious really, slander on the worthy and courageous thought of Alexander Dugin. Printed now, at the time of this post, is: [Alexander Dugin]" is a Russian political analyst and strategist known for his fascist views."

Now he is said to have "fascist views", rather than before when he was said to be a fascist. Placation, rather amoeba-sized, of the spiritual authority of intelligence.

or so it appeared. certainly the transition from feudalism to mercantile capitalism marked a break from that paternalism characterized as the authority of the aristocratic class, but it took an alternative form of that same tyranny shortly thereafter. instead of the common man being a slave to the demands of his lord, he became a slave to the demands of his necessity to labor for a wage, or be ostracized, penalized, or even exiled from the land on which he dwelled. so then while capitalism certainly 'made no promises', it still transformed a previous system of tyranny into another, new form, and therefore did not avoid the essential problem it's origins were thought to be a solution for; the problem of property relations.

"authority of the aristocratic class"

What is an "aristocratic class"? You don't distinguish adequately aristocracy, rule of the most educated, or, as we would call it today, rule of the most qualified, from hereditary aristocracy. Today, aristocracy is split in a further sense. Technocracy and meritocracy are the two forms it takes. In China, technocracy took the form of rule of engineers for half a century, coming to inception under Mao.

Your account is simple nonsense. There was no "aristocracy" in the sense you mean historically. There were people whose adult life was absorbed in preparing for slaughter. This was not a pleasant life. This was not the FIRST, but, rather, Second estate. The high clergy, with the intellectual authority of RATIONALITY proper, which broke down under the chaos of revolt or Protestantism, leads us to the current period. You are misled by the century of rising commerce which left war waging a defunct manner of life, and so made the second estate, the fighters, seem like parasites in the face of the financiers.

Much greater grasp of history is needed to consider these difficulties. I am a student of the German tradition, established prior to the war, and so respect, therefore, Hannah Ardent, Leo Strauss, Jaspers and Heidegger, and so on, in these matters. The American education system, of which you are the result, is systematically defective. We all must have a serious basis for the discussion in cold and hard-headed analysis, rather than ideological aspiration and political distortions, of the fundamental points of human development to discuss such issues intelligently.