Quote notes (#90)

Robert Zubrin’s intense (and appalled) discussion of Alexander Dugin’s revolt against the New Atlantis climaxes:

In short, Dugin’s Eurasianism is a satanic cult.

Despite inevitable NRO simplifications, it’s a gripping read throughout.

(Much of interest also in the obstreperous comment thread.)

ADDED: Gregory Hood on Zubrin on Dugin.

June 19, 2014admin 26 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Arcane , Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

26 Responses to this entry

  • Alex Says:

    Satanic cult fight! Fifty quatloos on Atlantis.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Soren Kay wins for best comment. And I like Dugin.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 7:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Contemplationist Says:

    But what does the Yo Force portend for NRx?

    [Reply]

    Stirner (@heresiologist) Reply:

    Admin anticipated Yo Force with Speckle.

    Release the Patent Trolls!

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 8:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote notes (#90) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 9:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Yuray Says:

    Robert Zubrin reads like a typical liberal Westerner so entranced by his own delusions that his mind has rotted. To believe that Russia is an evil empire run by a Satanic cult is the opposite of reality, and a hyperbolous one at that. Check his comparisons of Russia to Hitler in the comments — tired progressive hysterics over “fascism” and “evil.” Tired hysterics, that, as always, end up in death. The leftist is, first and foremost, a hypocrite.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    It’s funny though how Russian propaganda calls Ukrainian fascists, while at the same time chief Kremlin ideologue calls for more fascism.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Not quite. Zubrin is an unreconstructed Cold Warrior.
    And what modern leftist would call something a Satanic cult? Not just as a pejorative either. Zubrin means it seriously. You guys are flipping out because that’s just the sort of thing that’s not done these days.
    His unawareness of, or refusal to, abide by the Cathedral conventions for acceptable discourse–I find it endearing.
    Now, there’s no question that Zubrin is usually hysterical and doesn’t know from foreign policy.
    I just find it, uh, interesting . . . that some of the finger pointing and hooting here is undistinguishable from proggy talk.

    [Reply]

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    Zubrin is a liberal Westerner just like [virtually] all Westerners are liberal Westerners. I can substitute “liberal” for “modernist,” “progressive” or whatever word you want to use for the hook-line-and-sinker types of the Kali Yuga. His rant about how Russia is going to destroy “freedom” and establish “tyranny” and “evil” is indistinguishable from proggy talk (despite the theological dress-up), not us pointing out the insanity.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
    — Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    That article is far too hysterical and politically biased to be taken seriously.
    Nevertheless there’s some truth to it.

    To me, Dugin’s theories are ridiculous (if not even revolting). Especially his ideas of a Turkic-Slavic alliance, from the standpoint from someone from a slavic/mediterranean country, is quite funny. To an actual slavic traditionalist it should actually be disgusting. An actual slavic traditionalist should probably demand his public execution. Nonetheless Dugin is somewhat smart in that regard as his ideas do make sense to an extent in the current political climate.

    A warning to any enthusiastic traditionalists, Dugin is not a traditionalist. The problem is that modern traditionalists, especially in the west, are gullible and some of them can actually see Dugin as a traditionalist. That is a grave mistake. (a lot will probably commit it nonetheless)
    Dugin is not a traditionalist. Dugin is a communist and to add on to that a fascist. That is an abomination that could have only arisen from the ruins of Soviet Russia.

    Dugin is actually much more dangerous than immediately obvious. It is not obvious to anglo-american traditionalists how dangerous he is because they are preoccupied with their own problems and also because they don’t actually have a close interaction and familiarity with slavic culture. And because of the spectacular failure of western conservative media to provide an appropriate criticism of him, Dugin initally can seem as an ally. Be wary though.

    One should always be careful with russians. If for no other reason, just keep in mind that russians only care about expanding their empire. They couldn’t care less about the survival of traditionalism.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Well nothing associated with the Euro New Right is authentically traditionalist. That’s why the guy who runs gornahoor.net is always so exasperated whenever someone in the comments section tries to bring up Alain de Benoist’s paganism or says something nice about Dominique Venner. They’re far from traditionalists; they just flirt with the ideas to some extent, and mere flirtation cannot suffice for any authentic tradition. Dugin comes from the ENR way of thinking, but he has drawn a line in the sand between the West and everyone else, particularly his country.

    What I like about Dugin is that he lays bare the complete irreconcilability between Eastern Europe and the West. It strikes me as odd that some of Dugin’s fans seem to be Russophiles and quasi-White Nationalists who think that all ethnicities of the white race can join together and somehow get along. I think that Dugin makes it very clear that such aims are impossible.

    If we’re gauging the approach toward the decadence of the current establishment, Dugin’s continuation of the geopolitical-theoretical divide between land & sea is apt to describe what’s happening. Dugin advocates the “land way” of doing things, while — it seems to me from afar — the NRx guys advocate the “sea way.” I’m not inwardly attached to NRx, but from what it seems, they may possess the only grammar through which Anglo-Saxons, worldwide cosmopolitans, and Jews with some degree of dignity remaining can assert themselves.

    What I can’t really figure out is if the confrontation between these sorts of values — in their idealized, self-assertive forms — will ever occur, or if it will occur before the collapse of today’s establishment, or if they’ll clash when trying to feed upon the carcass of the current order.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    “It strikes me as odd that some of Dugin’s fans seem to be Russophiles and quasi-White Nationalists who think that all ethnicities of the white race can join together and somehow get along. I think that Dugin makes it very clear that such aims are impossible.”

    That’s the funniest thing about anglo-american ehtno-nationalists. Even when espousing nationalism they are unmistakably universalist.

    What do you exactly mean by the “land” and “sea” way of doing things?

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Those are Dugin terms, I think but he’s not the only one to see them as significant. Mahan was basically in the Land/Sea tradition too. The idea is that there are continental agricultural/industrial volkish land powers that seek empire and there are offshore-balancer commercial cosmopolitanish deracinated sea powers that seek a kind of free trade mercantile hegemony. The UK and then the US are the seapowers, whereas the land powers were first the French, then the Germans, then the Russians.

    Neener Reply:

    @Hurlock

    Are you familiar with Golistyn’s work New Lies for Old? If not, you should read it in light of Dugin (check out the Amazon reviews for tl;dr).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 9:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    At least Dugin understands that liberalism is nihilistic and negative in character. As useful as the comparison with a religion is, there’s nothing more confused than conceiving of liberalism as moral or (worse) moralising. That leads to the juvenile tendency to reject it on the grounds that “they want to tell us what to do” (and hence the desire to reject the cure, which is being told what to do, broadly speaking). Liberalism, as a project, seeks to throw off your (imaginary) shackles so you can be free. They’re honest about that. Or, rather, as honest as somebody can be when speaking nonsense. Dugin doesn’t understand how this state of affairs came about, which is why he underestimates liberalism, for it is not merely illiberalism that liberalism opposes, but meaning and, hence, humanity. Liberalism is nihilistic in the strongest sense of seeking the destruction of man. It does this because it misconceives of society, culture, tradition, ethics, etc, as consisting of constraints on the individual (the imaginary shackles). This is because it has a Cartesian conception of the individual. Man in the ‘state of nature’ is complete and society can only constrain him, so society must be destroyed. So liberalism doesn’t need an illiberal enemy: everything is illiberal, all meaning is illiberal, all cultures are illiberal, liberalism itself is illiberal and any society it can create remains illiberal. To be a human being rather than an animal (or a feral human being, without culture or language, and incapable of meaningful behaviour) is, according to liberalism, to be oppressed by others. Meaning itself is, for the liberal, a form of oppression. Every liberal argument comes down to: who are you to impose on me your idea of who I am or the significance of what I do?

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    This is wrong.

    If liberalism was pure nihilism liberals wouldn’t be complaining about “white privilege”, “male privilege” and so on. To me liberalism does not seem nihilistic at all. It indeed has a very strong positive utopian project and the more it becomes obvious that it’s unachievable, the more aggressive and fierce they become in pursuing it. Modern liberalism has an explicitly positive idealistic ideology. They are very much concerned about certain groups gaining more and more positive rights. In fact I’d say that liberals are quite opposed to nihilism. And because their project is in fact evil and insane, people are tempted to call them nihilists, because it’s commonly understood by most people that nihilists are evil and insane. The truth value of that assertions is of course another question, but I think it is a mistake to equate liberalism with nihilism just because it’s evil and insane. It’s a non sequitur.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    Liberalism isn’t self-consciously nihilistic, it takes itself to be and presents itself as a positive project, but it is nihilistic, because it (unknowingly) seeks to “liberate” people from meaning. It uses moralistic language, but it is a purely nihilistic trend in our society.

    A movement that was self-consciously nihilistic wouldn’t be a problem, since it would be ineffectual. Liberalism spreads by confusing people, so they think they’re doing something positive, but they’re actually doing something wholly negative and destructive. That’s why it’s so evil.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I don’t see them liberating anyone from any meaning. I don’t see them liberating anyone from anything. Their rhetoric is indeed very often one about ‘liberating’ us from evil meaning. Liberals may like to pretend they are liberating, but their ‘liberation’ ends up simply creating new progressive norms, which happen to be virulently oppressive, and putting them in place of the old. What liberals do is use nihilism against meaning they don’t like and then supplant that meaning with their own.
    Actual nihilism would in fact tend to scare progressives.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I don’t think there’s much difference between nihilism and ‘fiat justitia ruat caelum’ when your definition of justitia is madly impossible

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Which kind of “nihilism” are you talking about? Wikipedia distinguishes among
    (1) Epistemological, (2) Existential, (3) Metaphysical, (4) Mereological, (5) Moral, and (6) Political nihilism.

    If “nihilism” means no objective basis for morality (morality is grounded in subjective human values rather than something objective, outside of human society), “liberals” (i.e. progressives) may very well be “nihilists”, at least when they’re talking about multiculturalism, and how everyone who disagrees with them is objectively wrong. But as Handle likes to point out, they inconsistently switch into “moral scientism” whenever it suits them, pretending that their moral tastes are objectively right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I think moral nihilism is the topic at hand here.
    That switch they do, is the key. At most you can call liberals inconsistent nihilists which still doesn’t make them actual nihilists. Liberals use nihilism as a tool against ideologies they dislike, but at the same time they act as if that doesn’t apply to their moral values which are apparently absolute. So for example a liberal appears nihilistic towards traditional values and he might indeed employ nihilism as a tool to deny the truth value of those values, but on the topic of his own progressive values the liberal is unmistakeably deontological.
    An actual nihilist would look and sound very differently from the present day progressive. The funny thing about that is that actual nihilists are extremely rare, to be almost impossible to find. Most of what you will see today are wannabe hipster nihilist and let’s not confuse actual consistent nihilists with them. Progressive are in the hipster nihilist category. They see nihilism as a tool to destroy anything they don’t like, so they use it, but their understanding of the actual philosophy of nihilism is probably in the negative.
    Of course progressives obviously don’t care about consistency and lack of contradiction, otherwise they would have dropped their religion a long time ago.

    scientism Reply:

    @Hurlock I think it’s a stretch to call what progressives promote “values.” Actually, most modern moral philosophy is nihilistic; consequentialism is best viewed as devising ways to live together without right and wrong, rationalist deontology is similar. Yes, philosophers often present themselves as providing foundations for morality, but that’s an incoherent project anyway. Frequently they explicitly claim that “traditional” morality is “wrong” (or oppressive or mere opinion or metaphysically implausible or whatever) and they’re trying to replace it. If you remove the illegitimate use of the word “traditional”, then they’re simply trying to replace morality with an amoral system of living together.

    Alrenous Reply:

    scientism,

    Can you define ‘meaning’?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 11:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    Lesser Bull

    The terms Dugin is using are ‘new’ although his general theory seems like a well-known historical fact. Indeed you can divide nations along those lines not only in the modern world, but in the medieval and ancient one as well. Although in the modern era such a division is most mature and obvious. A small correction though, I think in more recent ages it was the Dutch who were the first cosmopolitan maritime commercial sea power in opposition to big land empires and then it was England (in fact under an obvious Dutch influence) and then the US.

    Although I am still not exactly sure what the “land way” of doing things looks like, as it seems to me that the ‘land’ nations have some very stark differences among themselves. In contrast the ‘sea’ nations have seemed much more alike each other through history. Indeed it seems that most of the commonalities between some ‘land’ nations are contained in that they are not ‘sea’ nations.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    The terms aren’t really new, he’s basically sustaining the theorizing on the land/sea dichotomy done by Haushofer and Carl Schmitt and some English guys before them. There’s no particular way for land powers to do things — I guess that was a hasty simplification on my part — but the orientation of land powers, in terms of their source of wealth and geospatial placement, leads them to have value structures more or less at odds with mercantilist nations.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2014 at 9:37 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment