Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

It's an explicitly self-serving stance to argue that we need to be "patriotic socialists" in the imperial core, like labor aristocrats were all going to jump on the CPI bandwagon because they waved the flag.

Anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ1sk4yo7qg

I don't expect anyone to watch this 2 hour stream because I sure as Hell won't, but the first 15 minutes are enough to see where it's going. Haz is real shook up by Dukina's assassination and the reaction to it, and now he's declaring that all "leftists" want to kill "us." He's also saying that they need to stop engaging with leftists online like they're going to, what, cloister themselves into their own bubble? Do they think the average American even knows who Dugin is? This poo poo is spinning out of control insanely fast, and it's going to waste a lot of time having to re-educate people who buy into this garbage.

I don't even get who they think they're trying to reach out to anymore. If this split in the online left is going to be over Dugin how can they claim to even be patriotic socialists? Dugin is the based anti-imperialist anti-American Eurasianist thought leader. Whatever else you can say about him he's explicitly anti-American. Who the Hell is any of this even for?

I just skipped ahead a bit and listened to a random part, and this is very funny:

quote:

"As you guys know, I'm a thinker myself. There's no difference between me and Daria"

I'm a thinker, myself!

edit: They want to rape your family!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy
the dishonesty of dugin's defenders who don't just explicitly describe themselves as fascists is that they say "oh, that fascist stuff was just in the 90s, he's changed." you have to be a complete chump to believe that. and you can only look back a few years where he was networking with people who'd later become employed propagandists for the azov battalion. it's probably better to describe this as a split in the fascist international over russia/ukraine

https://twitter.com/MaupinAFA/status/1516143172795174919
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1523525769833893888

MLSM
Apr 3, 2021

by Azathoth
Why is everything so stupid

Ringo Roadagain
Mar 27, 2010

MLSM posted:

Why is everything so stupid

internet

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy
i'm not sure what's funnier, timothy snyder (author of "bloodlands") giving a fellowship at a program he controlled (!) to a wicca-fash goth siren in the ukrainian freikorps' overseas skinhead recruitment department (!!), or the fact that the same wicca-fash siren used to do similar kind of work for dugin's journal and attended conferences in moscow at a program he controlled (!!!)

SSJ_naruto_2003
Oct 12, 2012



I kind of tuned out of the gray zone when they started going absolutely antivaxx over covid. Is it good again or are there any other options for non lovely news outlets.

Comrade Koba
Jul 2, 2007

SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:

I kind of tuned out of the gray zone when they started going absolutely antivaxx over covid. Is it good again or are there any other options for non lovely news outlets.

iirc that was only max blumenthal who went insane over covid, and I think it was more about mandates and restrictions than vaccines (but I might be wrong).

in any case the original GZ split up and ben norton is now doing his own thing.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:

I kind of tuned out of the gray zone when they started going absolutely antivaxx over covid. Is it good again or are there any other options for non lovely news outlets.
i stopped reading it so much as well but they published a good article by lindsey snell the other day interviewing ukrainian soldiers

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/18/ukraine-veterans-us-aid-soldiers-war/

Not So Fast
Dec 27, 2007


SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:

I kind of tuned out of the gray zone when they started going absolutely antivaxx over covid. Is it good again or are there any other options for non lovely news outlets.

Breakthrough news with Rania Khalek are good, they have a solid focus on anti-imperialism and developing countries

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy
as much as max blumenthal will piss me off about something, he does actual journalism and is commissioning / editing it as a boutique publisher which is not easy to do and that also really pisses off the bad guys. he is actually causing problems for them, which is more than can be said for most people who just yap into a webcam.

also, i can't think of anything he has said that is outright false or deliberately dishonest. he might have a warped perspective about vaccines, but that's a different thing from just telling lies or being intellectually dishonest.

BrutalistMcDonalds has issued a correction as of 08:56 on Aug 29, 2022

SSJ_naruto_2003
Oct 12, 2012



Not So Fast posted:

Breakthrough news with Rania Khalek are good, they have a solid focus on anti-imperialism and developing countries

Oh yeah I've liked her stuff, think she was on a few episodes of radio war nerd

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010

HELL SERPENT
Lipstick Apathy
There's really not going to be such a thing as a media org that never misses. I could say WSWS has fairly good COVID reporting, but then they're rape apologists. A recent piece from Jacobin on the Philippine elections was excellent, plus Branco Marcetic's pre-war coverage of Ukraine, and some others, but then there's way too much "here's Latest Movie analyzed socialistically". ProPublica has done some great exposes, but also brag about how they uncovered too many COVID school shutdowns in the NY public school system and were bragging about how their investigation put a stop to it.

You just have to learn to filter out the good stuff from the bad.

Tankbuster
Oct 1, 2021

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

a wicca-fash goth siren

I thought wiccans weren't the racist ones.

AnimeIsTrash
Jun 30, 2018
Probation
Can't post for 15 hours!

gradenko_2000 posted:

You just have to learn to filter out the good stuff from the bad.

This and maxs brain worms about Covid have never made it on the site afaik.

V. Illych L.
Apr 11, 2008

ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

once you stop being able to rely on consensus curation, you start having to do reality-adjusting yourself, which is incredibly difficult to do consistently. by divorcing from the hegemonic discourse you place yourself in a situation where you must make up your own mind on all sorts of issues and inevitably you're going to end up with some rather idiosyncratic views - when this happens collectively you get counter-narratives which can often collapse into simple conspiracy theory stuff like qanon. blumenthal's been mostly on his own tangent - you see something similar on the right with guys like peter hitchens clambering to a stone dead ideology of social consevativism, but that outside perspective does often give him a clearer view of some situation than many mainstream reporters simply because he's forced to actively look at what's going on and try to make up his mind. when you do this sort of thing you will often be wrong, but you'll be wrong on your own terms in ways which you can usually defend in an honest way, which is a somewhat different kind of wrong from the way the mainstream is wrong - when the mainstream is wrong, it is *institutionally* wrong and that is much worse than some person being a crank.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

You know he can be a fed and be correct that Alexander Dugin is a fascist. The bad guys can sometimes be correct. I also don't consider myself a "revolutionary" whatever that is supposed to mean. Do I look like Che?

Note “wannabe”. Also how was a man who denounces racism a fascist? Truthfully the only place that ideology exists is Ukraine. Hmm that just with likely Fairfax approval murdered this man’s daughter. But look this is why I say the left is a dead end. Labor has a future but it isn’t from a willfully compromised increasingly cultish movement that prioritises symbols over actual victory.


Speaking of the Grayzone

Jackson Hinkle had Max Blumenthal on to talk about the foreign policy machinations of the enemy. As well as how they have their goblins controlling Wired,TDB, and Rolling Stone. I’ll add I think Blenenthel is a bit to sour on America’s situation. But a great interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uYmEy5yR2U

Crowsbeak has issued a correction as of 14:58 on Aug 29, 2022

Pablo Nergigante
Apr 16, 2002

Crowsbeak posted:

Note “wannabe”. Also how was a man who denounces racism a fascist? Truthfully the only place that ideology exists is Ukraine. Hmm that just with likely Fairfax approval murdered this man’s daughter. But look this is why I say the left is a dead end. Labor has a future but it isn’t from a willfully compromised increasingly cultish movement that prioritises symbols over actual victory.


Speaking of the Grayzone

Jackson Hinkle had Max Blumenthal on to talk about the foreign policy machinations of the enemy. As well as how they have their goblins controlling Wired,TDB, and Rolling Stone. I’ll add I think Blenenthel is a bit to sour on America’s situation. But a great interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uYmEy5yR2U

Guess who's back, back again
Crowsbeak's back, he's braindead
Guess who's back, guess who's back?
Guess who's back, guess who's back?
Guess who's back, guess who's back?
Guess who's back?

AnimeIsTrash
Jun 30, 2018
Probation
Can't post for 15 hours!
can one of our iks shoot crowsbeak with a rocket launcher

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

(and can't post for 18 days!)

The newest Radio War Nerd has Mark Ames relating an anecdote about seeing Dugin at the Nazbol arthaus in the 90s trying to preach esoteric fascist spritualism to punks and street kids while getting nothing back but confused stares.


Crowsbeak posted:

I’ll add I think Blenenthel is a bit to sour on America’s situation.

do your synapses go dark when you think of Amerikkka badly?

Pablo Nergigante
Apr 16, 2002

Crowsbeak posted:

Labor has a future but it isn’t from a willfully compromised increasingly cultish movement that prioritises symbols over actual victory.

You're describing patsoc, the movement that wants to gently caress the flag

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Crowsbeak posted:

Note “wannabe”. Also how was a man who denounces racism a fascist?

Atatürk denounced Hitler and racism but he was a racist and a fascist, for example

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The newest Radio War Nerd has Mark Ames relating an anecdote about seeing Dugin at the Nazbol arthaus in the 90s trying to preach esoteric fascist spritualism to punks and street kids while getting nothing back but confused stares.

do your synapses go dark when you think of Amerikkka badly?

I mean he just said he thought that the west as a whole including America was probably not going to be able to easily reverse as in the next ten years the insane trajectory it’s on. I think the system will fall apart in that time. But I can understand why he has a sour outlook especially when you see the quasi fascist stuff being contemplated in Europe to deal with energy protestors as well as the fact the democrats are attacking labor at home with the GOP’s help.


mawarannahr posted:

Atatürk denounced Hitler and racism but he was a racist and a fascist, for example

So now fascism means racism. Does that make every power that takes part in WW1 fascist? Does that make PRI Mexico fascist? Like it’s a word that effectively has no meaning. I’ll apply it to people who actually honor Mussolini, Ceucescu, Arrow Cross, Or Hitler.

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

(and can't post for 18 days!)

Atatürk carried out the most successful ethnic cleansing campaign of modern history.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

Pablo Nergigante posted:

You're describing patsoc, the movement that wants to gently caress the flag

So why would it be bad if Socialism flew the flag of the USA? When it flies the flag of Bolivar? Or the flag of Bonaparte or the flag slave owner Tulon? Historical continuity is a good thing.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Atatürk carried out the most successful ethnic cleansing campaign of modern history.

Yes. And neo colonialists did the same in Africa. PRI did it in Mexico. Hell Stalin did so to Crimeans, Volga Germans and Chechens for rebellion in WW2. Were they all fascist? Liberal Romanticiat Bulgarians, and Greeks, as well as Serbian conservative nationalists all did ethnically cleanse Turks from their lands, were they Fascists? George Washington also did something similar to the Iroquois for siding with Britain was he a fascist? Hell, we’ve got Cromwell displacing the Irish for being Catholic. Was that fascism? Terms have to have context to mean anything.

Crowsbeak has issued a correction as of 15:38 on Aug 29, 2022

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Crowsbeak posted:

So now fascism means racism. Does that make every power that takes part in WW1 fascist? Does that make PRI Mexico fascist? Like it’s a word that effectively has no meaning. I’ll apply it to people who actually honor Mussolini, Ceucescu, Arrow Cross, Or Hitler.

Atatürk was a racist and a fascist in the corporatist sense, and by other definitions. and a murderer of communists.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

mawarannahr posted:

Atatürk was a racist and a fascist in the corporatist sense, and by other definitions. and a murderer of communists.

He hated communists so much he made extensive ties to the USSR. Also, if Corpratism is fascism are we now arguing that post ww2 europe was fascist? Was PRI of Mexico fascist? Was America during ww2 fascist?

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Crowsbeak posted:

He hated communists so much he made extensive ties to the USSR. Also, if Corpratism is fascism are we now arguing that post ww2 europe was fascist? Was PRI of Mexico fascist? Was America during ww2 fascist?

the Bolsheviks helped fund the Turkish war of independence because it worked out for them, since they had a common enemy in the imperialists.

Kemal was fine with taking gold and ammo etc from the communists but did not brook their presence inside Turkey. that’s why he had the founder of the communist party of Turkey (along with some of his comrades) rowed out and drowned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Subhi

quote:

Suphi was killed by Sailor Yahya together with his communist comrades while traveling to Batumi in the Black Sea on 28 January 1921.

if you want to find more stuff about this in English I think Bülent Gökay goes into it. most of the history is untranslated through.

Pablo Nergigante
Apr 16, 2002

Crowsbeak posted:

So why would it be bad if Socialism flew the flag of the USA? When it flies the flag of Bolivar? Or the flag of Bonaparte or the flag slave owner Tulon? Historical continuity is a good thing.

Why would it be bad if Germany flew the flag of the Third Reich?

the white hand
Nov 12, 2016

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

Pablo Nergigante posted:

Why would it be bad if Germany flew the flag of the Third Reich?

I mean why would the Germans want to associate their flag with a regime that lasted 12 years of their thousand year long history that famously ended with Germany dismantled, as well as a pariah state. I mean it be quite weird to want to associate with that.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

mawarannahr posted:

the Bolsheviks helped fund the Turkish war of independence because it worked out for them, since they had a common enemy in the imperialists.

Kemal was fine with taking gold and ammo etc from the communists but did not brook their presence inside Turkey. that’s why he had the founder of the communist party of Turkey (along with some of his comrades) rowed out and drowned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Subhi

if you want to find more stuff about this in English I think Bülent Gökay goes into it. most of the history is untranslated through.

Kemal also did not brook ultranationalists, Liberal pluralists, or religious fundamentalism. Sounds like a secular Authoritarian to me. Much like the PRI in Mexico. These terms require context to make sense.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Crowsbeak posted:

Kemal also did not brook ultranationalists, Liberal pluralists, or religious fundamentalism. Sounds like a secular Authoritarian to me. Much like the PRI in Mexico. These terms require context to make sense.

nice whataboutism. He was a racist and a fascist though, however you look at it

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

mawarannahr posted:

nice whataboutism. He was a racist and a fascist though, however you look at it

Whaboutiem matters when you make this specific claim that Attaturk somehow qualified under a system that historically engaged in the idea of national rejuvenation through conquest and was noted for its adamant, international anti communism. He made alliances when few would with said communists and actually suppressed real fascists in his own country. I’d say you don’t know what you’re talking about.

StashAugustine
Mar 24, 2013

Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

you know who else made alliances of convenience with communists and suppressed troublesome domestic fascists

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

StashAugustine posted:

you know who else made alliances of convenience with communists and suppressed troublesome domestic fascists
Churchill.

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

Crowsbeak posted:

So now fascism means racism. Does that make every power that takes part in WW1 fascist? Does that make PRI Mexico fascist? Like it’s a word that effectively has no meaning. I’ll apply it to people who actually honor Mussolini, Ceucescu, Arrow Cross, Or Hitler.

Better apply it to Dugin then because he's praised the Waffen-SS, the Strassers, and Reinhard Heydrich as shining examples of the kind of "Eurasianism" that he envisions for the future:

quote:

Dugin is a prolific Russian publicist who has caused attention in the West by the virulence of his fanatic anti-Westernism, above all anti-Americanism. There is a lot of paranoia and conspirology flying around today in Moscow, where it has become commonplace to think that the United States is, in one way or another, responsible for most, if not all, of Russia's (or even the world's) recent misfortunes.

Dugin is distinct even within this context in that he once claimed that the KGB had been an agency of “Atlanticism” – i.e. of the U.S. government – and in his open praise for certain aspects and figures of the Nazi movement. He presents himself as the chief ideologist of the pan-continental Euro-Asiatic movement of “Eurasianism,” and heir to a mysterious “Eurasian Order” that existed, in secret, for centuries. In 1991-1992, Dugin wrote his programmatic article “The Great War of the Continents,” in which he claimed that the representatives of this order could be found in the Abwehr, the Third Reich's counter-intelligence service, and especially in the Sicherheitsdienst, the security service of the SS. Dugin called its chief Reinhard Heydrich (1904-1942, an organizer of the Holocaust) a “convinced Eurasianist,” who, allegedly, fell victim to an intrigue by the “Atlanticists.”

In his 1992 article “Left Nationalism,” Dugin defended fascism as not having anything to do with extreme nationalism. It was, according to Dugin, “by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology.” The “excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans,” explains Dugin, “while Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes.”

In spite of this and many other statements by Dugin condemning the Third Reich's atrocities, in his 1992 article “Conservative Revolution,” Dugin called the “Waffen-SS and especially the scientific sector of this organization, Ahnenerbe, ‘an intellectual oasis in the framework of the National Socialist regime.'” He presented himself as a follower of the “Third Way” and called National Socialism “the fullest and most total realization” of the Third Way.

In his 1997 article “Fascism – Borderless and Red,” Dugin hailed the arrival in Russia of a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.” Further affirmative phrases can be found in Dugin's numerous other writings on Russian and international fascism.

[...]

Recently, Dugin has adapted his own rhetoric to mainstream Russian discourse and now often presents himself as a “radical centrist” or even ardent “anti-fascist.” One might add though that, as late as 2006, he praised in public the German ultra-nationalist brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser who had helped Hitler build up the NSDAP in the 1920s (before they left the Nazi party because of a personal conflict with the Führer, in the early 1930s). In March 2008, Dugin's website Evrazia.org confirmed “Dugin's sympathies for the Strasser [brothers].”

https://web.archive.org/web/2016041...arty-2008-04-15

It is for reasons like this that it is widely accepted that Dugin is a fascist. Here's a scholar talking about it with regards to his most famous book, the Foundations of Geopolitics:

quote:

The second line of inquiry deals with the relationship between formal geopolitics and neo-fascism (understood, after Griffin, 1995, as a movement adapting original fascist ideas to post-war conditions, and more particularly in this context, to postCold War conditions). There are two elements to this. The first concerns the definition of fascism itself. If anything, fascism has proven a more difficult and contentious term than geopolitics, as testified by the immense literature on the subject (the collections edited by Laqueur (1996) and Griffin (1995, 1998) provide useful introductions to fascist writings and interpretations of fascism). I proceed from the argument that, while recognizing the inherent dangers of rationalizing and normalizing a phenomenon widely considered to be illegitimate, it is useful to consider Dugin in relation to what might be thought of as a broad fascist tradition, understood in terms of a particular constellation of ideas generally characterized by extreme reaction to the experience of modernity, articulated around a mythic core which “in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism”, where palingenesis relates to the idea of rebirth (Griffin, 1995, p. 4; see also Griffin, 1991). Many writers and activists who can be argued to lie within this tradition reject the fascist label themselves, particularly in Russia where the term is generally thought applicable only to the Nazi regime. Fascism then becomes an alien phenomenon. Dugin adopts this approach to the term (see his response to the charge levelled by Yanov, 1995, at arctogaia.com/public/txt-yanov.htm), although he does profess sympathy and liking for early periods within Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, while, he argues, the former retained its avant gardism and the latter its socialism (Dugin, 1995). The second element, then, is the historical relationship between fascism and Geopolitics, and particularly the experience of Geopolitik in Weimar and Nazi Germany (Bassin, 1987; see also Murhpy, 1997).

Bassin argues strongly that the racial doctrines that defined so much of the Nazi variant of fascism were ultimately incompatible with the environmental determinism and materialism of Geopolitik, and that this incompatibility was an important component in the demise of the German geopoliticians. Similarly, Dugin repeatedly criticizes the Nazis for their prioritization of race over space, again enabling him to avoid the narrow fascist label, and side with the ‘dissidents of fascism.’ He has also criticized the post-Soviet Russian National Unity movement, a national-socialist organization loosely based on the Nazi model. If racial doctrine is an essential component of fascism, then Dugin is certainly not a fascist. But Dugin certainly makes reference to many writers (such as Carl Schmitt and Oswald Spengler) from whom fascists draw considerable inspiration, and recycles several other fascist themes. If Dugin cannot be considered a fascist in the narrow historical sense of the word, he certainly inhabits a closely related ideological space, referring to the supremacy of will as well as environmental determinism. In some senses, then, I argue, Dugin can be considered a neo-fascist, as well as a geopolitician.

Alan Ingram, "Alexander Dugin: geopolitics and neo-fascism in post-Soviet Russia," Political Geography 20 (2001): 1029-1051.

Or here's a philosopher going back to basic principles to show in elaborate detail that contemporary (i.e., 2010s) Dugin reads Nazi theorists like Heidegger to reach the same fascist conclusions as them, even if he names those conclusions by different terms or points them at different enemies.

quote:

If Roger Griffin’s famous definition is to be followed, a thought becomes “fascist” – that so contested, and so polemical a notion – when it posits as the one thing needful a national rebirth (palingenesis) from liberal corruption, engendered by malign external and internal agents (like the Jews for Nazism, but immigrants and Moslems today).51 For this reason, Griffin has been consistently sceptical that we can insulate a benevolent interwar “conservative revolution” from the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler, in contrast to Dugin and others in the Nouvelle Droite.52

By itself, the sufficiency of Griffin’s definition can however be contested in different ways. What concerns us here is that, taken by itself, it overlooks a further, distinct or even “archê-fascistic” set of motifs which emerge with great clarity in Dugin’s reading of Heidegger. These motifs centre around what can be termed the polemical militarization of thought and language.53 War in such a polemical vision is the deepest truth of human things, and perhaps of all things. As such, the truest or most authentic regime will involve permanent, total mobilization against the internal and external foes, rather than an inauthentic pining for a peace whose ultimate fruits can only be “decay” and a falling away from the deepest sources (38). Let us now track what Dominic Losurdo calls this “ideology of war” as it emerges in Dugin’s reading of Heidegger, and the way that it intersects with Dugin’s Eurasianist appropriation of Heidegger’s eschatological Seyngeschichte to yield extreme political consequences.54

In Heidegger’s 1933–1934 lectures on Heraclitus’ saying “war is the father of all things”, Heidegger notoriously designated Kampf, Krieg or Polemos as “the essence of truth”.55 It is in this context that, in an astonishing passage delivered in the months after the first measures against German Jews had been implemented, the thinker also chillingly calls for a long campaign against the unnamed “inner enemy” of the Volk aiming at their “total annihilation” (völligen Vernichtung).56 Whereas the thought contained in this passage continues to be avoided by most liberal Heidegger commentators (the text was for a long time unavailable), when we turn to Part II of Martin Heidegger: Philosophy of Another Beginning, we see quickly that Dugin feels no such timidity. His advertised submission to the authority of the greatest philosopher holds true here also, if not above all, remembering that Dugin is himself the author of a 1994 Philosophy of War (Filosofiia voiny) (16–18).57 Especially intriguing is how Dugin places his own most radically “polemical” reflections in this vein in the central Part of his own work, ostensibly on Heidegger’ postwar works, which more liberal readers of the latter have tended to see as apolitical, or even as opening a way towards (albeit always somewhat ill-defined) progressive avenues.

[...]

The task of describing what has become of the fourfold today, and the denizens of postmodernity, Dugin tells us, is “terrifying” (295). He has the good grace to “thank God” that Heidegger himself did not live long enough to have to witness what it now falls to Dugin to decry (265).63 The later modern world has filled the divine sky with satellite dishes mirroring back the vacuous culture industries to an earth denuded of all significance and mystery. The gods have long ago fled, in a process looking back to Plato’s crowding of the heavens with ontical Ideas. The very “God” of das Man (with the inverted commas) is a lazy, peace-loving deus otiotis (357). As for human beings, Dugin darkly echoes Primo Levi when he waxes mordant on the “eviscerated man creating images on the screen … Who is he? After all, we cannot call ‘this’ a ‘man’ from any one of the topographies known to us” (264). He is instead a new “chimera of a man beast”: or again, in a standard reference for thinkers of the anti-liberal Right, the “Last Man” announced by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathrustra. 64 Such a figure has the dignity of neither “beast” nor “demon” (265). He is at once an Ubermensch-technician “loading information streams with data” at the same time as he is a consumer-Untermensch enslaved to the endless ephemera of “fashion” (268) and engaged in a vacuous “internautic wandering through simulated winking objects; staring at the screen … ” (265). At most, such a chimerical animal of the species homo sapiens can aspire to modest, wholly unheroic, bourgeois virtues (357). But the civic virtues and practical reason celebrated by ancients or moderns are “worse than poison” for the absent, nameless Gods of the Russian Heideggerian (242)65 who “ … observe men through the light of war … on the other side of SeynBeing” (212).

In the “final light” issuing from out of the violent heart of the fourfold, the distinctions between war and peace, life and death, liberal and totalitarian regimes cannot hold. Dugin’s book is silent about how the Nazism Heidegger happened to have embraced engaged in “genocide” of an unprecedented scale, reducing human beings to things in order to then annihilate them and deny their very memory. The term “genocide” is reserved in Philosophy of Another Beginning for contemporary Western societies. Through the unfolding of Western metaphysics into the technological age, Western man in toto “becomes irritated with natural things (these he tries to exterminate as a class)” (256), Dugin claims. As for the ceaseless becoming of fashion, “the change in things is their death factory, their planned and systematic genocide. Behind the entropy of things, behind the transition to the regime of total simulacrum, stands a culture’s readiness to completely annihilate Geviert” (269). To be sure, it is nonhuman things which are being “annihilated” here, en masse (258). But then, the use of these terms (extermination, genocide, death factory) associated for seven decades with the Nazis’ mass murder of human beings, in a work on a philosopher closely associated with National Socialism, but to describe the planned obsolescence of objects serves to whitewash these terms’ moral, historical and human charge. For those with ears to hear, Dugin is quietly suggesting that the liberal-modern “annihilation” of the fourfold, and non-human things is far worse than killing decadent human beings, just as Heidegger after the war would suggest that the “so-called ‘guilt’” for the Shoah paled in the face of Germany’s “guilt” for having failed to achieve its historical mission.66

[...]

In a classic study of totalitarian language, Julian Young has maintained that the dehumanization of human beings is one of its most distinct forms.71 What Dugin’s work highlights is how the perspective of the History of Being, by taking aim at the putative ontological grounds of ethicopolitical actions, provides a fertile, possible basis for such dehumanization. Dugin in fact passes beyond his teacher in this register when he claims that in Postmodernity, the earth ceases even to be Gestell, a stockpile of standing resources (including “human resources”) for technological domination. Now, it has become “a garbage dump” (266); a place where we bury waste, including “bodies who died or were cremated”, in a suggestive open disjunction (266). This garbage dump preeminently includes “human garbage” (266): in Dugin’s terms, “those very Nietzschean ‘people of the End’ who ‘obtained happiness’ … identical people with tattoos and piercing, chatting, drinking beer, using the internet, and doing drugs” (266), “the slaves of tolerant, alienating, nihilating, and poisonous fashions”, etc. (278). “The Last Men are men of the End”, Dugin intones: “y producing mountains of garbage, they become garbage themselves … ” (262)72 Or else, they are as insects or vermin: “simply swarming amidst its ruins [the ruins of the fourfold], stealing everything they can” (262).73

Given Dugin’s political perspective, this astonishing dehumanizing hyperbole is telling. Liberals may lecture the Russians and other non-Western peoples concerning “tolerance” and “human rights”, it will allow him to argue. They may loudly criticize the infractions non-liberal regimes visit upon their subjects, up to and including the annihilation of political foes or minorities. Yet Dugin’s post-Heideggerian appeal to an ontological critique of (post)modernity as the age of completed nihilism, like Heidegger’s Bremen remarks, relativizes all distinctions between liberal regimes, with their putative individual and group rights, and the most militant, openly illiberal regimes wherein individuals have no such protections from executive discretion, such as that which has emerged since the millennium in his motherland, Russia.74 To the extent that subjects within liberal regimes can be presented as already in effect less-than-human, “in essence” soulless, vapid and empty – indeed, “dying without dying” (277), an “unrecognized dying” (258), as Dugin will rhapsodise – any concern becomes void for the greater civil and political rights they may enjoy, relative to subjects in openly authoritarian regimes.

Indeed, the open emergence of regimes that would seek to physically exterminate designated enemies is in essence no worse than liberal nations with their humanitarian lawyers, international courts and globe-trotting NGOs. As we have seen, when viewed through the lens of Duginian-Heideggerian fundamental ontology, the latter’s moralism conceals their role in spreading the night of Seynsvergessenheit, and preventing the new beginning Heidegger’s thought directs us to discern. Any regime that should use war to challenge the present international order may likewise be represented, given Dugin’s Heideggerianism, as engaged in the ontological project of liberating us from the “death-giving constructions of man’s rational mind” (256). This is an epochal task in whose name anything can be forgiven.

[...]

Our aim here has accordingly been to take Dugin’s credentials as a commentator on Heidegger’s philosophy unapologetically seriously. We agree with Millerman that “it should be a conclusion, not an a priori position, that Dugin’s concepts and projects are best understood as fascistic”.78 Nevertheless, as we have tried to show as we moved from Part 1 to Part 2 of our analysis, this conclusion can safely be reached a posteriori, when we look at Dugin’s reading of Heidegger on authenticity and the Geviert, and his post-Heideggerian presentation of the postmodern world in the darkling light of the History of Seyn. Of course, the term “fascism” has by now become so polemicized that it threatens to generate more heat than light, and is perhaps best left aside. [b]What Dugin’s reading of Heidegger makes manifest, in any event, is that he is committed to a “philosophy of war”, an unrelentingly radical criticism of the decadence of modern culture, which is presented as already “death-dealing” and totalitarian, and whose denizens are depicted as already effectively dead, trash, or subhuman; and moved by an apocalyptic hope for an eschatological “regeneration” of humankind, led by the Russian narod79, if they can be made aware by his post-Heideggerian prophetology of their own trans-epochal mandate to launch “another beginning”. For such a politico-philosophical vision, the term “conservative revolutionary”, let alone “traditionalism”, is not radical enough.80


Matthew Sharpe, "In the Crosshairs of the Fourfold: Critical Thoughts on Aleksandr Dugin’s Heidegger," Critical Horizons 21, no. 2 (2020): 167-187.

Your hair-splitting over what really is fascism anyway, maaaan, in some insane attempt to defend Alexander Dugin even after people have repeatedly shown you to be completely wrong is bizarre and tiresome and dominating a thread that could otherwise be talking about something else. Kindly shut up about it or I will probe you until you get the hint.

vyelkin has issued a correction as of 17:28 on Aug 29, 2022

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy
dugin is a "real fascism hasn't been tried" type. italian fascism wasn't "officially" racist for awhile either and there were prominent members of the fascist party who opposed the adoption of "racial" laws although they placed a special role in history for italians. dugin also started out in obscure anti-communist circles that were wrapped up in "esoteric traditionalist" thinkers like guenon and "super-fascist" evola, joined pamyat, but was expelled from that organization to then spend years networking for european far-right figures like benoist and thiriart

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

Crowsbeak posted:

Also how was a man who denounces racism a fascist?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

skipmyseashells
Nov 14, 2020
Probation
Can't post for 13 hours!
hitlerite mods coming in to stop real anti imperialists? you hate George Washington

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply