Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

even if they, like me, know nothing about Dugin and Duginism.

Same here. I literally know nothing about Duginism, haven't read his books, nor do I intend to, and couldn't sit through ten minutes of any of his interviews. He's just another Christian imbecile who fabricates grand and labyrinthine fantasy narratives to tiptoe around the real issue of race and Zog.

Plus, what these retards don't know is that Dugin is a nobody in Russia. He's such a nobody that he was fired even from his sociology professorship at Moscow state. This is supposedly the grey eminence of Russia who's serving as Putin's brain.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You might know even more than I do. I didn't know he identified as Christian.

I didn't know he was a sociology Professor either. I assumed that his 'Ethnosociology' had nothing to do with sociology in the sense of the social science practiced in the academe, but he must have understood sociology, the social science, well enough to have became a Professor.

All I can think of is that his 'Fourth Political Theory' is practically another form of third-positionism or 'third political theory', and that he supposedly admitted that.

That he claimed that being Russian was solely to do with 'spirit' (in practice, simply ideas) and not gene/race/ancestry.

That he supposedly believes in something called 'chaos theory', meaning that he wants to support all kinds of people with mutually contradicting interests so that they may destroy each other. That makes him sound like some sort of cartoon villain to the point that I have trouble accepting that one. I think it relates to the similarly strange idea of him being a secret Satanist.

Like you, I fail to see how this guy is Putin's brain or the 'real leader' of the 'global Far-Right' or whatever the hell else the Western media accuses him of being. He seems like an obvious bogeyman, blown out of proportion to be a kind of Bond villain and evil mastermind. More of a bogeyman even than David Duke.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I literally know nothing about Duginism, haven't read his books

Of all of his books, I have only read the Political Platonism essay collection, which was actually interesting. I hope to revisit it sometime. Dugin makes some intelligent and even innovative observations occasionally, but unfortunately he seems to be a schizo so there's a lot of nonsense mixed in with the good stuff as well. His broader political project more generally is also incoherent, which I suppose is to be expected when he's trying to synthesise every major political ideology with ancient Hellenic thought, Heidegger, Traditionalism and his own weird spiritual, mythological and geopolitical ideas about a semi-pagan, semi-Christian Eurasian empire etc. When he starts talking about stuff like "Dark Logos" and other such nonsense it becomes extremely obvious that he's gone off the deep end.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

ancient Hellenic thought, Heidegger, Traditionalism and his own weird spiritual, mythological and geopolitical ideas about a semi-pagan, semi-Christian Eurasian empire etc. When he starts talking about stuff like "Dark Logos" and other such nonsense it becomes extremely obvious that he's gone off the deep end.

It's just a bunch of nonsense. I disapprove of this whole philosophical approach to statesmanship and politics altogether. You form states or systems in consideration of what's practical. Are these borders practical economically, demographically, and militarily? Will this system of government/societal organization help me achieve my aim?

States that build themselves around trying to conform to a philosophy and ideology are unsuccessful for the most part. Nazism, Bolshevism, and the French revolutionary regime all fell due to this flaw.

In the Soviet Union, the party's desire to stay true to the teachings of Marx and the spirit of communism prevented it from ever undertaking the necessary reforms and making the USSR an economically viable empire. It ultimately collapsed due to this.

In Nazi Germany, Hitler's obsession with seizing land from the slavic untermenschen led to brutal treatment of the slavic peoples of the USSR. People that could've been allies against bolshevism. It also barred the Germans from ever managing to reach an honorable and separate peace with the USSR. Hitler to his last days held onto his retarded delusions about striking a deal with his Germanic English cousins.

France similarly drove out the country's upper class and brought the country to civil war and economic collapse due to their obsession with individual liberty and destroying the catholic church.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's just a bunch of nonsense. I disapprove of this whole philosophical approach to statesmanship and politics altogether. You form states or systems in consideration of what's practical. Are these borders practical economically, demographically, and militarily? Will this system of government/societal organization help me achieve my aim?

That's an implicitly philosophical approach, though. In order to know what system suits your aims, you first need to articulate what those aims are. It's about means and ends. Philosophy, or perhaps, a specific category of philosophy, deals with the ends and provides the principles. The implementation is what is left up to practice.

In the Soviet Union, the party's desire to stay true to the teachings of Marx and the spirit of communism prevented it from ever undertaking the necessary reforms and making the USSR an economically viable empire. It ultimately collapsed due to this.

I must disagree with you here. Beginning with Khruschev and "de-Stalinisation" there was a drift towards revisionism and that is what ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. Faithfulness to the traditional interpretation of Marxism-Leninism would have most certainly preserved the state. Gorbachev was a liberal reformer, and obviously liberal reforms do not mix well with a communist system. China provides a counter-example to this, since in China communist elites successfully initiated various economic reforms and still retained power. If those reforms helped or hindered the cause of Marxism in China remains to be seen.

As to France, I think you are mostly right, but it's worth noting that French liberals genuinely didn't care about an illiberal France, and that their intransigence ultimately meant that they got their way.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's an implicitly philosophical approach, though. In order to know what system suits your aims, you first need to articulate what those aims are. It's about means and ends. Philosophy, or perhaps, a specific category of philosophy, deals with the ends and provides the principles. The implementation is what is left up to practice.

Fair point. I'll concede that what your objective is shaped by thought and philosophy.

I personally have somewhat of a crude and grug view of this. In my mind, the government's job is to ensure that dharma or the right order of the world is maintained in the state. This right order of the world is essentially making a moral society and ensuring outcomes that are in line with morality.

How do you derive morality you say? Imo, true and objective morality can only derive from two sources:

A. Biological adaptiveness: That which is good for the survival and flourishing of the group and the individual is good and moral. Things like patriarchy, nationalism, strong families, moralizing art and culture, eugenics, martial values and a culture of masculinity. That which is maladaptive for the group is immoral/evil. Feminism, cosmopolitanism, post-modern art, sexual degeneracy, dysgenics, pacifism and hedonism for example.

B. Natural law: There are certain patterns that repeat in history. Societies that abandon values like patriarchy, asabiya, nationalism, religiosity, worship of ancestors, martial values, eugenics, modesty and martial values decline and collapse. Those that abide by them flourish. You gauge from this that it is God's will that these values be adhered to. This is how the universe is designed and you must abide by these principles. It is the right order of things.

Both these viewpoints are essentially the same thing and are different routes to the same destination. If you are of a scientific persuasion and you prefer reason and solid evidence, you can take the Darwinian approach. If you don't like such materialism and prefer a more spiritual outlook on the world, take the natural rights approach.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my mind, the government's job is to ensure that dharma or the right order of the world is maintained in the state. This right order of the world is essentially making a moral society and ensuring outcomes that are in line with morality.

This is a beautiful way to express it, but in the original context of your terminology there is an entire Brahmin caste dedicated to unpicking what this dharma is. For the other castes, such spiritual and/or philosophical considerations aren't really relevant, but that's because the Brahmins take care of this important duty.

I can't accept your ideas about morality, but I will discuss that in the other thread.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Idk if you're reading Rolo Slavskiy, but this anti-ideological pragmatic approach requires some basic ideas about what is good in order to establish goals (otherwise you would establish random goals). This is ideological by itself.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who is Rolo Slavskiy? I have never heard of him before.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/

The first articles are pretty good. He used to talk about Russia and the war. Now it seems that he decided to push this authocratic-antideological agenda which, I believe, it's just a way to fit in the United Russia platform. The same goes for Dugin however, I'm pretty sure that most of his inconsistencies derive from the effort to go along with Putin.