Video of the Day 
Alexander Dugin, “The Eurasian Project & The Fourth Political Theory: Toward a Multi-Polar World”

8 Comments

1. daniel
   Posted September 27, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

   Dugin’s notion of returning to pre-modern, eternal verities, sounds too much like the modernist quest for foundational truths.

   I might accept it somewhat as one option among an array of post modern choices, but I don’t hear him emphasizing the most important premodern reconstruction of all: our native European peoples (which we, with modernist hindsight, would recognize as the organization of our DNA).

   To assert a pre-modern tradition other than that, to cover all in defiance of modernity will not suffice; this is a sort of foundational quest that assimilates and therefore takes us back to modernist pursuit. It is rather not some premodern essence other than the race (what I call the White class) that we should be focused to protect and advance. The White race, as a classification, admittedly draws lines, but encompasses and is accountable to its empirical grounding while it partakes of a hermeneutic transcendence of the myopic, empirical focus of modernity. Also in defiance of modernity, it stays within nature and human concern by turning back from Cartesian and Archimedean notions which would transcend nature.

   Hence, the White class protects our ecological flexibility, qualitative disbursements and developments within the life-span and in our evolution.

   More, it fosters our culture and creativity. As we protect and advance the White class (race) on the basis of its/our interest, there is no reason for us to be quite so limited by one way of negotiating our traditions and advances.

   Just as not all premodern traditions were pejorative, so too, not everything modern and not all tendencies of modernity are negative and destructive to our race.

   The key is to gauge modernization only inasmuch as it serves the interest of our race in its various contingents.

   Dasein, there being, is certainly an important notion in undoing the Cartesian notion of individual, detached self, but even more articulate of a guiding need, is Midt-Dasein, as O’Meara has pointed out. There-being-amid the White class and White sub classifications (by classifications I do not mean economic hierarchies but horizontal delimitations among the White class much like regions of the White biological Nations) is a meaningful reward and freedom for different White ways of being in the world, in the White class, for those who adopt this post modern project of the White class.

   http://www.whitenewsnow.com/lounge-white-patriots/32824-euro-d-n-nation.html

   Reply
2. phil white
   Posted September 27, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

   I’ve not gotten though the whole hour. There was trouble down loading at 46 min in. But after skipping to minute 50 I got the part where he talked about using pre-modern concepts like the eternity of God versus liberalisms “God is dead.”
   He may be on to something. I’ve read in Chittums CWII a quote from an author where he stated that when a people is under great stress they tend to revert to older folk ways.
   This also sounds a bit like the Biblical description of a revival of faith in the End Times.

   Reply
3. Chechar
   Posted September 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

   This man is a race denier. He said starting at 1:03:55:

   “National Socialism recognizes race as an historical actor… We should not repeat their errors because… race is something that is not proven theoretically. It is a kind of construction. Ethnic groups exist. But the idea of race is not theoretically defined and cannot serve as political agenda.”

   I liked his critique of liberalism though.

   Reply
   • fnn
     Posted September 28, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

     Not surprising, both Hendrik Verwoerd and Enoch Powell were race deniers.

     And the South in 1875:
     http://tinyurl.com/9eo9q3g :

     The following, then, are the conclusions I draw from my observations in the Cotton
     States :
     1. There is not, in any of the States of which I speak, any desire for a new war;any hostility to the Union ; any even remote wish to re-enslave the blacks ; any hope or expectation of repealing any constitutional amendment, or in any way curtailing the rights of the blacks as citizens. The former
     slave-holders understand perfectly that the blacks can not be re-enslaved. ” They have been free, and they would drive us out of the country if they thought we were about to re-enslave them. They are a quiet and peaceable people, except when they are exasperated; but then they are terrible. A
     black mob is a ruthless and savage thing,” said a Southern man to me; and another remarked, ” If ever you, in the North, want to re-enslave the negroes, you must give us three months’ notice, so that we may all move out, with our wives and children. They were a source of constant anxiety to
     us when we held them in slavery. To attempt to re-enslave them would be only to invite them to murder us, and lay the country waste.”

     In Mississippi alone did I find politicians silly enough to talk about the Caucasian race, and the natural incapacity of the negro for self-government ; and even there the best Republicans told me that these noisy Democratic demagogues were but a small though aggressive and not unpowerful, minority ; and even in Mississippi, a strong Republican, a Federal law officer, an honest
     and faithful man, assured me that the northern half of the State, which, with the exception
     of the region lying about Vicksburg, is the most prone to occasional violence and disorder, was, when I was there, to his personal knowledge, as peaceful and orderly as any part of New York or Ohio.

     Reply
   • Stronza
     Posted September 28, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

     Any critique of liberalism would automatically include dismissal of his statement about race.

     Maybe “race” isn’t “theoretically defined”, but races as they are popularly known certainly can, and sometimes do, identify with all the ethnic groups within their race for political purposes. Even if race isn’t theoretically provable, so what. Look at all the pan-African organizations out there. Same with aboriginals, i.e., Indians, with their “first nations” tribes. Ojibway, Micmac, Haida, Huron, Iroquois, Blackfoot and a hundred others – they appear to consider themselves, government deals with them, and the public sees them, as all one.

     Reply
   • Sandy
     Posted September 30, 2012 at 3:07 am | Permalink

     Reading Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory the man is certainly states that we must definitively reject all forms of racism and then he goes on to write that those individuals who insist on using only the latest ipod are the new racists. From that and other statements he makes I am left with the impression that by racist he means people who regard themselves as superior to others. I am not quite half way through the book but I don’t think he wants to blend the races or the cultures – only a racist would insist on imposing his culture on others.

     Reply
4. daniel
   Posted September 28, 2012 at 1:52 am | Permalink

   “Hence, the White class protects our ecological flexibility, qualitative disbursements and developments within the life-span and in our evolution.”

   A little better:

   Hence, the White class protects our ecological flexibility, qualitative disbursements and developmental processes within the life-span and in our evolution.

   Reply
5. Drexler
   Posted October 3, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

   I think we need an operative and consensual definition of liberalism. Simple Old Left categories like Left-wing and Right-wing bourgeois liberalism will not do. Even Revilo Oliver recognized the difference between the 20th century Marxists and American conservatives. Listen to Oliver’s speech called The Road Ahead, where yes, he acknowledges the failure of conservatism in America, but not without great sympathy for its long struggle “to avert the subversion and capture of their nation.” Oliver also had a lot of good words to say about Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

   Reply