“Demonic Texture”: Corrosive Subtext of Dugin’s 4th Political Theory

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Han Fei says:

    In your video you namedropped Prohanov and Shevkunov as potential followers of A. Dugin. Did Shevkunov (Fr. Tikhon) have anything to do with Dugin? From what I’ve seen, and I watched and liked his Byzantine documentary, Shevkunov strikes me as a typical reactionary monarchist. I haven’t spotted him having any dealings with Mamleyev’s circle, out which Dugin and certain other postmodern Russian figures hail from. To know that such a highly placed person in the ROC has a connection with what essentially amounts to an LHP occult doctrine is quite unsettling to say the least.

    On a side note but perhaps related very closely to this matter, Stephen Pinker released his latest book “Enlightenment Now”. The object of the book by this progressive author was to counter certain popular strands of thought taking hold in the Anglosphere, popularized by the likes of Jordan Petersen. This would of course make him an apologist for an ideology of modernity that seems to be coming under duress, an irony of which I’m afraid he’s not quite cognizant. Needless to say, the work wasn’t met with much fanfare. Academics generally ripped it apart and a progressive site, the Nation, issued a scathing review.

    What strikes me about the “reason and science” crowd is not that they’re necessarily wrong in their intellectual method, but that they lack (or more correctly, totally discount) the value of imagination. They simply consigned all margins of debate to the limits of acceptable thought. Any point raised outside of that framework, they simply hold up as self evident of being absurd, obnoxious and beyond reasoned discussion. Pinker chews into post-modernism as much as he does into the emerging “back to the roots” trends, without minding that post-modernism is a necessary and inevitable consequence of his empirical-rationalist mindset. This will work up to the point where the opponent of the debate is willing to be civil. But what if he isn’t? The defense of “modernity” will then be akin to positional warfare with picket lines. Intellectual arrogance can only take one so far.

    One of the very apt criticisms raised by the Nation review was that science does not necessarily give us categories of normativity. Case in point is racist eugenics. It wasn’t because of bad science that this was almost universally rejected, but that it goes contrary to certain fundamental human principles. And of course the experience of the horrors of the 20th century, of experimentation unchained from any ethical consideration played a key role in the development of secular ethics. So we chose, in the name of secular humanism, to adhere to a certain set of principles which precede scientific observation and the conclusions which stem from it. And yet if one accepts Pinker’s line of reasoning, this is entirely arbitrary. What is stopping us from in fact saying – it is worth to kill 100 inferior humans to bring forth 1 superior human? What’s to stop us from quantifying the value of human life and rendering optimal the value of that quantity? Science already has plenty of models for that. I’m sure Pinker would, deep down, be quite receptive to the notion of 50-60 million of his countrymen disappearing from the face of the planet, if he knew that their inclination, and in consequence, votes, was a crucial impediment to future scientific progress.

    When you remove the “predicate” to human action, anything is permissible. Human existence and purpose is decanted into the optimization of the evolutionary drive for biological ascendance as embodied in the will to power. If that’s not a blueprint for a new totalitarian ideology that will sweep the sclerotic modernity aside, I don’t know what is. Unlike Pinker, who strikes me as a reactionary apologist for a system of ideas which doesn’t offer anything of value to the post-modern man, Dugin is more cunning. He does not aim to create a Russian specific ideology, he is merely translating this ideology into effective language that Russians can understand. Remember when I told you there was only one globalism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *