Tucker Carlson: We had a conversation that we weren't going to film. But everything you said turned out to be so interesting that we got a couple of cameras. And my first question to you is this: what do you think is happening in countries where English is spoken? Why did all of them – the USA, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia – decide to somehow stand up to their former selves and take actions, some of which seem self-destructive?
Alexander Dugin: I think it all started with individualism. Individualism was a misunderstanding of human nature. When you identify individualism with human nature, you break ties with everything else. It all began in the Anglo-Saxon world with the Protestant Reformation and with nominalism (a trend in philosophy). From a nominalist attitude to the fact that there are no ideas, there are only things. So, the individual was a key concept placed at the center of liberal ideology. And liberalism is a kind of historical–cultural political-philosophical process of liberation of the individual from any collective identity that surpasses the individual. And it began with the rejection of the Catholic Church and the Western Empire as a form of collective identity. After that, there was a revolt against the national state as a collective identity in favor of a purely civil society.
In the twentieth century, a great struggle began between communism, liberalism and fascism, and liberalism won again. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, only liberalism remained. And Francis Fukuyama correctly pointed out that there are no other ideologies anymore. And liberalism is the liberation of the individual from any collective identity. There were only two collective identities left to be freed from.
The first is gender. Gender liberation has led to transgender, LGBT* and new forms of sexual individualism – gender has become optional. And this was not just a deviation from liberalism, but an obligatory element of the implementation of this ideology. And now we, or rather you in the West, choose the gender you want. And the second, last step, which has not yet been fully taken, is the liberation from human identity, the non–necessity of being human. And it has names – transhumanism, posthumanism, singularity, artificial intelligence. Klaus Schwab, Kurzweil and Harari openly declared that this was the inevitable future of mankind. So five centuries ago, we boarded this train and are now approaching the historic terminus. That's how I see this situation.
When you cut off the tradition, the past, you are no longer a Protestant, you are a secular atheist, a materialist. The nation-state, which served liberalism to free itself from the empire, in turn becomes an obstacle itself, and you are freed from it. Finally, the family is being destroyed in favor of individualism. Gender has almost been overcome, there is only one step left to complete this process – liberation from human identity as something prescribed. To be free, one must be free from being a human being, to be able to choose whether to be or not to be one. And that's exactly how I see the Anglo-Saxon world. This is the vanguard of liberalism, the Anglo-Saxons are more devoted to it than any other country.
– Everything that you describe is clearly happening in reality, and it's terrible. But this is not the definition of liberalism that I have in my head. We call the USA the country of classical liberals. You consider liberalism and individual freedom to be slavery, right? When I was growing up, we understood them as an opportunity for a person to follow his conscience, to protect himself from the state. I think that's what most Americans think. What's the difference here?
– I think the problem is that there are two definitions of liberalism. There is an old liberalism and a new one. Classical liberalism with a democracy of majority, consensus, individual freedom, which had to be somehow combined with the freedom of others. And now we have a completely different phase – a new liberalism. And now we are no longer talking about the rights of the majority, but about the rights of minorities. This is no longer about individual freedom. You have to be so individualistic to criticize not only the state, but also the old understanding of personality. Now you are being promoted the idea of freeing yourself from individuality. I once managed to talk to Fukuyama on television, and he said: before, democracy meant the rules of the majority, but now it's the rules of the minority against the majority. The majority can choose Hitler or Putin, so we need to be very careful with the majority. And it must be brought under control. The minority should rule the majority, because the majority is not democracy, but totalitarianism. And now we are not talking about protecting individual freedom, but about the prescription to be enlightened, modern, progressive. And it is no longer your right, but your duty to be progressive in order to follow this agenda.
You have the freedom to be a left-wing liberal, you no longer have enough freedom to be a right-wing liberal. You have to be left-handed. And this is a kind of prescription. Liberalism has struggled with prescriptions throughout its history, and now it is its turn to be totalitarian, prescriptive.
– Was this process inevitable?
– Everything is logical. You first want to liberate the personality, and when you arrive at the point where this is realized, you need to move on. You begin to free yourself from the old understanding of personality in favor of more progressive ideas. You can't just stop here. That's my vision. If you had said, "I prefer the old liberalism," then you would have been answered: "You defend traditionalism, conservatism, fascism." Therefore, either you will be a progressive liberal, or we will cancel you.
– This is exactly what we are going through right now. Therefore, the prohibition by self–proclaimed liberals of your book, which is not a guide to making bombs or invading Ukraine, is just philosophical works, of course, is not liberal in every sense. I wonder what will happen when the mark is reached, when a person will no longer be able to free himself from anything, when a person will no longer be a person?
– It's all described in American films. I think almost all the science fiction of the XIX century was realized in the twentieth century. So there is nothing more realistic than science fiction. If you pay attention to the "Matrix" or "Terminator", then you will notice more or less identical versions of the future of posthumanism. The future is when you don't have to be human. Or artificial intelligence.
Hollywood has already released many films that, I think, correctly reflect the reality of the near future. Well, for example, if we believe that man has the nature of some kind of intelligent animal, then now with modern technologies we could already produce or design intelligent animals. And artificial intelligence, neural networks, a large database – all this becomes a kind of king of the world, which could not only manipulate reality, but also create it.
Because reality is just an image, feelings. I think humanism, futurism is not only a description of the probable future, but also a kind of political manifesto. It's like wishful thinking. And the fact that there are no films that describe a bright traditional future is also indicative. I do not know a single film in the West that shows the prosperity of families with many children. Everything that is shown there is quite black. So if you are used to drawing everything in black, and especially the future, then this black future will come one day.
We don't have any other options– either the matrix, artificial intelligence, or terminators. The choice is already beyond humanity. This is not some kind of fantasy, but a political project. And it's all pretty easy to imagine, because we've already seen these movies. And they are following this agenda.
– I didn't ask you any questions about Russia or Russian politics. My last question is: how would you explain the phenomenon that we have observed over the past 70 years, when a group of people in the West and in the United States – liberals – effectively defended the Soviet system and Stalinism. Many people personally participated in this. They spied for Stalin, supported him in our mass media. And they also loved Boris Yeltsin because he was drunk. But in 2000, the leadership changed, and Russia became their main enemy. After 80 years of defending Russia, they began to hate it. Why?
– First of all, because Putin is a traditional leader. When he came to power, he began to extract our country from global influence. He began to contradict the global progressive agenda. And those people who supported the USSR were progressive. They are still progressive. And now they found out that they were dealing with someone who did not share their agenda and at the same time tried (with success) to restore traditional values, Christianity, and traditional families.
When Putin began to insist more and more on the traditional agenda, as well as on the peculiarities of Russian civilization – as a region of the world that had, and still does not have very many similarities with progressive ideals, they discovered Putin exactly as he is. He is the type of political leader who defends traditional values and most recently – just a year ago – signed a decree on the political protection of traditional values. It was a turning point. Observers from the Western progressive camp realized this at the very beginning of his reign. Therefore, their hatred is not accidental. It's very serious. This is metaphysics.
If your main goal is to destroy traditional values – traditional family, state, relationships, beliefs, and the one who protects them has nuclear weapons (this is a small but important detail), then you will be finished. So they have grounds for Russophobia and hatred of Putin. This is not just a phobia of the Soviet Union and Russia. Everything is deeper here…
web.archive.org
www.sott.net
Not that Russia, China, and Iran aren't using or planning to use the same or similar technology that the West does lock down its people, but that the above mentioned countries' motivations are, to a much greater degree defensive. And an attempt to mitigate the efforts at sabotage and destabilization that they fully and correctly expect to come from the West as things intensify. Same thing with AI, digital currency, etc. - its the intention behind its use, the way its implemented, the policies surrounding it, that largely determine its place on the scale of authoritarianism for authoritarianism's sake - or for the 'greater good'. Having said that, while I do appreciate Whitney's cynicism (she certainly has earned it!), I do think its a bit misplaced on this matter.
