This triggers Veeky Forums

*hero
ftfy

>t. never read Hegel

How much power and influence does Dugin even have? I've seen Russians on this board say that he's their equivalent of Alex Jones, which would make him a crank with a radio program and a legion of fans, but nothing more. Does he hold any real influence over anything the Russian government does?

I know what you’re talking about. The last Dugin thread drew shill/s going so far as to post and praise neocon trash about “Dugin the evil mastermind behind scary Russia”.

Damn al borland looking good

Just out of curiosity do you know where I might be able to find an English translation of an essay of his? Any essay would do, I just want to see what he's about.

Damn right it does. How does he drink anything without it getting filtered by decades-old mustache? I literally just trimmed mine because I'm tired of getting mustache in my mouth. Gotta go with the trusty old Flanders Pushbroom.

For some reason there are some people on Veeky Forums who think that if someone is agaisnt american hegemony (or any kind of postmodern western hegemony whatsoever) then that person must necessarily be a fascist/nazi/buzzword -ist/etc
They tend to forget that the soviet union was all about that and they still love it regardless, they tend to forget that china isn't under the liberal sphere of influence as well and is growing, and it's so weird that they think that way
Especially in this particular case because his work has nothing to do with russian hegemony, he advocates for a multilateral world where all cultures can survive the postmodern challenge and preserve their own historical values
But hey, he's an orthodox isn't he, so yeah, communist russia is okay for them, but a traditional russia makes them scared for some reason

archive.org/details/AlexanderDuginTheFourthPoliticalTheory

That's a pretty long essay lol

>Dugin's probably the closest thing there is to a supervillain mastermind IRL
>Who is George Soros

Eastern European governments and journos like to think he is literally bringing Dark Logos to the minds of the populace. The only people which like ideas that he exposes are old people, who have never heard of him, but remember when Russia was giving us free oil.

Basically the only places where Russia has a chance at influencing geopolitics, he is useless, while he is praised and feared in places where Russia has not chance at doing anything gepolitically(USA, UK and such).

The most popular connection Dugin has with an american personality is Richard Spencer, which is basically nothing(the translator of his books, is former wife of Spencer), like uber nothing.

This is what is called hybrid war by Eastern European NATO officials. Russia has outbusts of causing fear and faking influence, which may or may not be real and they can always deny it.

Given how I live in eastern Europe and this fucker's whole ideology is just a plan to get Russia to butt-fuck us again, of course he triggers me.

Watch at 2x speed: youtube.com/watch?v=CdkfEKOVaFc

Is that you? lol

Are you ukrainian?

Nope, Romanian.
No, it's a channel by a Romanian Stefan Molyneux-like youtuber which I linked because he has a very good intro about Dugin's "philosophy".

Oh, I remember him. The Romanian rocking mr E rip off.
Not a fan.

Why haven't you added a Romanian translation to the Tiger poem thread yet???

>Tiger poem
The fuck is that and why should I care abuot translating it?

Who is mr E?

>Russia to butt-fuck us again
Russia is fought a war in order to take you out of ottoman influence and is directly responsible for the independence of your country, the country that fucked up eastern europe you're reffering to is the soviet union, during a time it was ruled by a georgian man

Moreover, I always see a lot of people quoting people quoting dugin, it's never what he himself really said, or had really written about
I would watch that video if the guy's voice wouldn't drive me crazy, but it makes no sense at all that anyone would take what he says over what dugin says himself

Has fought*

Rocking mr E is a YouTuber

You're confusing Romania with Bulgaria Mr. Smirnov. We had to fight both the Ottomans AND the Russians to gain independence.
>the Soviets
The Russians were fucking us in the ass for centuries before the Soviets.

I know what I'm talking about, I can prove it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence
If you don't know about that, there's no problem, it's always a good day to learn something new

not the guy you're replying to but russia engaged in these balkan wars for the sake of pan-slavic ideals, which meant in practice that they were fought to establish a "paternalistic"(depending on opinion) overlordship over other slavic peoples.

There were 2 Romanian wars of independence Mr. Smirnov. Don't pretend to teach me my own history. We were allied briefly out of convenience in 1877.
And you still fucked us in the ass even in that war, when you occupied a part of Romania as a "payment" for your services.
Thanks but no thanks. I am quite familiar with your kind and you are not to be trusted.

Fuck Russians.

You could say that, would even agree to some extent, but disregarding dugin's work based on his russian nationality by associating his work to the things stalin did in eastern europe under the soviet union makes no sense at all
The country that helped liberating south eastern european countries from turkish dominion wasn't the same country that starved ukrainians to death under stalin

Give me the link of the "second war"
I'm not talking opinions here

>Give me the link of the "second war"
The one from 1878, right after the one with the Turks. Like I said, you got us mixed up with the Bulgarians. Romanias already started to loathe Russian in 1878 for the "little" payment you got out of occupying big chunks of the Romanian Principalities. The Russians denied our part in the peace negotiations with the Turks (planning to occupy the Principalities), so we also had to fight the Russians, who only then acceded to peace talks and recognising the independence of the Romanian Principalities (while still keeping some parts of Moldavia).

Here's another tidbit: Napoleon is held in great esteem by Romanians because his foolish escapades in Russia nonetheless saved our asses from your savagery in 1812.

I pray for the day Russia is dead.

The Russian's confusion stems from the fact that he considers the war in 1877 as the same with the war in 1878, with the Ottomans, since formally, the territory of Romania was in the Ottoman Empire until the recognition of independence in 1878, neglecting the fact that Romanians had to fight the Russians also to get them to admit that independence.

>isregarding dugin's work based on his russian nationality
I forgot to call you out on that. I'm not shitting on him because he's Russian. I am shitting on him because he's a lying, bloodthirsty, imperialistic Russian. I'm sure there are good people in Russia. Dugin is not one of them.

You're either a dupe or a shill.
So fuck off.

Where's the link? I see only opinions. Romania has got its independence in the treaty of Berlin, signed in 1878, as the conclusion of the russian turkish war. Giving romania, serbia and bulgaria independence was a condition that was demanded to the conclusion of the treaty. You read that right, independence, not annexation.
I can prove that, once again.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Berlin_(1878)
The balkans and romania were occupied by/under the dominion of turks for around 400 years, not by russians. Eastern europe was occupied by the soviet union, not by russia.

Yet this is a big deal for you to discuss over what a russian author has to say in matters of geopolitics
Makes no sense at all

>Giving romania, serbia and bulgaria independence was a condition that was demanded to the conclusion of the treaty. You read that right, independence, not annexation.
That treaty of Berlin was only signed after we fought you and you gave up because you had already suffered too many losses, after which you acknowledge the Romanian Principalities as a party in the peace negotiations. Prior to that, the Russian Empire was planning to annex the territory of Romania from the Ottomans as spoils of war, to which we said no.

>Yet this is a big deal for you to discuss over what a russian author has to say in matters of geopolitics
I am merely explaining to you that we have nothing to be grateful to you for when it comes to our independence. My reasons for loathing Dugin are only tangentially related to this. The past is the past. Dugin is a pernicious influence in the present. See once again.

>On April 16 [O.S. April 4] 1877, Romania and the Russian Empire signed a treaty at Bucharest under which Russian troops were allowed to pass through Romanian territory, with the condition that Russia respected the integrity of Romania. The mobilization began, and about 120,000 soldiers were massed in the south of the country to defend against an eventual attack of the Ottoman forces from south of the Danube. On April 24 [O.S. April 12] 1877, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire and its troops entered Romania through the newly built Eiffel Bridge.
Russians passing through your territory so you could get independence isn't occupation

You are shitting on him because he's russian. You didn't even say a thing about his ideals, you also started this discussion by linking a 1 hour video of a guy totally biased against him
You're not being reasonable and your posts are very emotional

Romanians also contributed troops. Fuck ouuta here with your wikipedia quotations. And you keep missing the part where that's the 1877 war, not the 1878 one with the Russians. The Russians were intending to occupy Romania in 1878, after they had defeated the main Ottoman forces, at which point a smaller war (the "war between allies") started, after which Russia decided the effort isn't worth it and accepted that Romania take part in the peace negotiations.

> 1 hour video of a guy totally biased against him
How do you know? You didn't even watch it.
But it doesn't matter anyway, since you are quite likely a literal paid shill.

Romania wouldn't be (an hasn't been) independent without russian direct involvement in the matter. One year later romania was independent as a condition to end that war. If that's too much for you to take personally because you're emotionally driven by that, it's okay, but that's history regardless.

>How do you know?
I passed through the video and couldn't find anything positive on his review. Me hearing all the biased arguments one by one for 1 hour is a different thing. Just like you wouldn't think it is worth reading his books instead of watching someone else on youtube regurgitate his opinions on the matter, you know.
Also, you still didn't mention anything about his work up to now, after like 10 posts. And you even dare call me a shill. Go figure it.

Dugin x Olavo de Carvalho

Just drop the subject. You know nothing about the history of Romania. Yes, we allied with the Russians in 1877 to get rid of the Ottomans. That does not entitle Russians to eternal gratitude from the Romanians, which you want to posit. We have a much older history of conflict with Russia spanning centuries. There is too much detail to go into and I don't think it'd make much difference if I started to write Tl;DR texts over it since I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is a shill thread.
As a point to that, I brought up the fact that even in the very war of independence, the Russians did not prove trusty partners and we had to claw our independence not just out of Ottoman hands with Russian help, but out of both Ottoman and Russian hands, when Russia decided to do an about-face, reneg on the alliance, and occupy Romania. This is history. Like I said, I am merely correcting your point. The events of 1878 are not why I dislike Dugin. I dislike Dugin, like I said, because he brings the same old Russian millenarian imperialism into the present era.

The entirety of his ideology revolves around reconstructing the Russian empire by any other name and through any means, all this cloaked in all too typical cryptic pomo speech adapted to local needs.

>Just like you wouldn't think it is worth reading his books instead of watching someone else on youtube regurgitate his opinions on the matter, you know.
Another reason I linked the guy is that he knows Russian (while I do not) and has also read Dugin's works in Russian. He makes his point using Dugin's own words. Another tidbit he points out that's quite relevant, is that the English language version of Dugin's books are highly redacted, so as to remove the pointedly imperial-instrumentalist impetus behind it. So in every way, Dugin is an untrustworthy individual.

You're still being emotional instead of being reasonable, didn't link any prove whatsoever for your opinions which are completely irrelevant to matters of actual history and the critical analysis of his work, and still rather rely on a middle man between you and an author that you could read directly if you wanted to.

No wonder you rather write such a massive useless text like that instead of addressing the things I've mentioned many times, like the link that doesn't even exist because that's your opinion on factual historical events, and a reasonable critique of his work.
But if that makes you think you can save face by shitting on the table at a chess match like a pigeon would do, then I'll let you do it without any problems.

Fly free, pigeon bird. But don't forget it was russia that had granted you that freedom, otherwise you'd still be living in a turkish cage.

Linking shit doesn't prove anything. I can give you history references in Romanian, but I doubt you'd be able to read them. Spending time to find an English language source relating the full extent of the events of the independence of Romania is something that is not worth the effort.
Fact: Russia did not grant Romania freedom. Romanians won freedom for themselves.
If you want to turn Romanians into servile fools of "Holy" Russia like the Bulgarians, you'll have to do a whole lot more than invoke an alliance from some 140 years ago which you broke anyway.

tl;dr -- kill yourself you disgusting Duginist shill.

If you read Dugin's debate on the U.S.A, it is clear that he isn't worried about comprehending the world. His goal is tp offer a simple good vs evil narrative in which Russia plays the role of the holy defender of morals and tradition, while the west is the embodiment of everything evil and corrupt. The simplistic nature of his narrative makes anyone who is dissatisfied with his condition or the world, feel sympathy for his cause and join his "fight against modernity". He is really eager to point out any problem in western countries, but acts as if Russia has always done good to the world. In the 20th century, Russia was as imperialistic as the US, they sent spies to every country and were highly responsible for armed conflicts in Africa, South America and Cuba.
Lately he seemed to have changed lots of his opinions, if you see his interview with Alex Jones, he looked much more down to earth, witholding more realistic ambitions.

>Linking shit doesn't prove anything.
For something to be linked at a credible source it has to be true. For your opinions to be true, instead, there's no filter. I hear all bullshit and it is bullshit. You can't prove because that's your opinion, not an event.

Also
>even more emotional posts
Ever thought about therapy? That's not how you make a point, pigeonguy

>Lately he seemed to have changed lots of his opinions, if you see his interview with Alex Jones, he looked much more down to earth, witholding more realistic ambitions.
This is merely a form of PR. Dugin is very eager to shift his apparent beliefs to garner either support for his position, or to turn dupes into useful idiots for his cause (the revival of the Russian Empire).

That's what the "4th political theory" is. Crypto-imperialism by any means. The 'Russia = Good / West = Bad" dichotomy is an important tool used to that end.

...

What other country in the west is fighting the traditional fight? Russia is the only country in europe doing that. It's not that "russia" is perfect, it's that there's no other nation taking that responsibility right now. Naturally, dugin would say good things about russia. He would say it about other countries if they weren't basing their systems on liberalist ideals.
You can't sum up everything he stands for from a few dozen pages debate. He was forced to cut down his explanations, if you really read that debate you do remember that at the preface they explained how the debate worked and that both the authors had a limited set of words allowed to them to write. Obviously his explanations were simplistic, besides that a debate isn't a book.
>In the 20th century,
Read the thread, it wasn't russia, it was the soviet union.

>This is merely a form of PR

That seems the case indeed. During the invasion of Crimea, he used to claim that there was an ongoing genocide against eastern Ukranians, he even claimed that a child was crucified. The guy is really untrustworthy.

>Russia is the only country in europe doing that.
This is plainly untrue. Your stance is transparent as fuck. Try another tack.

>if you really read that debate you do remember that at the preface they explained how the debate worked and that both the authors had a limited set of words allowed to them to write

3) Then, there will be two round of replies. (suggested - but no strict - maximum limit of 120000 characters).

4) And finally the debaters will send their conclusive articles. (maximum limit of 18000 characters, blank spaces counted).

Dugin wrote much less than that. He didn't adress any points, I remember him saying that Germany and Russia were natural allies, as if such a relation could exist between states. When the other side pointed out the conflicts between thetwo countries, he didn't offer a sounding explanation. Also, he said that Brazil was much more similar to Russia than to the "west", his reason for that were really recent economical choices taken by the Brazilian government.
By the way, why did he seem to have changed his opinions so much recently?
His was even speaking about "draining the Russian swamp" with Alex Jones. In the debate, he behaves as if nothing good could come up from the USA.

On the Russian defense of traditional values, I think you have a point though. The EU is a disgrace and the multicultural agenda of the west will only cause harm, the same could be said about gay propaganda, which has reached levels beyond anything acceptable in Sweden and Germany for instance. It seems that countries like Poland are resisting as well, I don't much about Romania, but they seem to be less submissive than Germany, France and the rest.

>Read the thread, it wasn't russia, it was the soviet union.

You are talking as if they were two completely different things. A great part of the Soviet elite still in power in Russia.
Even Dugin says that communism was a product of Russian collectivism.
Anyway, Dugin is really untrustworthy, he has a truth for every audience he wants to convince.

>it's untrue
>don't mention the exception because there's none
Where are those countries, i.e., the natural allies of russia?
Gonna mention the countries that are members of the european union just because they refused to pass some legislation on migrant quotas? Gonna mention a few politicians that didn't even manage to form a decent government because they don't even have enough sovereignty to make such a decision of going against liberal ideals and dogmas?
Now you made a point, you're either going to give me a prove of a country in the west that had faced sanctions on its international defiance to the liberal system or you're going to admit that you're wrong.

>By the way, why did he seem to have changed his opinions so much recently?
Most of the books he's written have been written before the election of donald trump. He probably figured out that snti globalist ideals that are brewing in the west are a source of natural allies against liberalism in the world. Again, dugin doesn't want to take over the world, he just wants to destroy liberalism or create a multilateral world where there are many different spheres of influence and there's balance of power, just like the world was before ww1. This argument about the russian empire is fucked up. Russia doesn't have the logistical and cultural support that is necessary for it to happen even if it was planned. Russia's internal problems are already an issue that would prevent that from happening in any case in the near future.

If your definition of "country fighting for traditional values" is "natural ally of Russia" then of course Russia is the only country in Europe fighting for traditional values. However, with a correct definition, you'd see that the majority of the countries in eastern Europe are fighting for traditional values, some much more fiercely than Russia's mock efforts for geopolitical reasons, like Poland, Hungary, or Romania. Just a couple examples.

You are so transparently full of shit I am now 100% sure you are indeed a paid shill.

The biggest irony of all this is, of course, that the countries fighting for traditional values in Europe are also the ones that are traditionally (and presently) opposed to Russian imperialism (Poland and Romania being great examples).

Talk about doublespeek.
>natural allies of Russia
This is just too funny.

They were different things, are you implying the czar's people were stil in power after lenin took over?
That stalin's purges maintained the same people who were in power before him?
Are you insane?
Communism was a result of a coup. Russia wasn't russia during that time.

No country is traditional if they abide by the laws of the european union. You just admittied you're wrong. Get your shit together.

Honest question: how is Russia fighting against liberalism?

>no EU country is traditional because it's in the EU
Says who, you? Fuck off Duginbot.
It isn't. It's fighting for its own geopolitical interests.

Read dugin's books and you'll know. Not gonna spoon feed you on that.

This has nothing to do with russian imperialism, he doesn't even talk about expanding russian borders. The EU is an active body of the american imperialist system, though.

Yes, yes: Russia good, West bad. We get it.
Try a different tack for fuck's sake.
You're convincing no one.

Says the european union, pigeonguy.
I'll give you another link proving that, because oh, I'm not full of shit like you are.
>According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".[4] The EU's legal foundations are the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, unanimously agreed by the governments of 28 member states.
No sovereignty = no decision making

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law

>Read dugin's books and you'll know. Not gonna spoon feed you on that.

What?
When I pointed out countries that were resisting against liberalism , you said that they were only refusing immigrants, but you can't say what Russia has been doing against liberalism?

All the member states of the EU are sovereign. Your links, as usual, have nothing to do with the matter at hand (in this case traditional values). You're desperately trying to make everything fit into your "Russia good, West bad" Duginist framework. it doesn't. All EU member states are sovereign. The EU complained about Poland's justice system reforms, but Poland went through with them anyway.

Keep your retarded shill points confined to /pol/ They are more susceptible to simplistic black and white thinking.

Give me the source of your claims and I will read it. I gave you the sources, you're a free bird now, I'm no turk to spoon feed you like they did to you before you were free.

Broof a doodle doo :-DDD

Which claim?
You are talking with 2 or 3 different people here, buddy

Just read a few books by him. The counter measures against liberalism are a lengthy topic, there's no way you're going to digest that in a few posts on this thread, or that I'll have the time to write it all. If you're genuinely interest in that, you can read the books about it and understand what's going on in the world.

There is no sovereignty, don't fool yourself. The soviet republics were sovereign as well in their constitution, but in practice they weren't. The EU is an authoritarian state with no transparency and no accountability. There's no traditional nation within a liberal authoritarian state.

>There is no sovereignty, don't fool yourself.
I just gave you an example that proves sovereignty. The EU has no sovereign power. All EU decisions depend on support by the member states, which is why for example, you need individual states (like Germany) pushing for multiculturalist bullshit, because the EU is powerless to do anything about it (much as it would want to).
>The EU is an authoritarian state with no transparency and no accountability. There's no traditional nation within a liberal authoritarian state.
The EU is not a state. Keep this bullshit for the idiotic Anglos/Americans on /pol/ please. It won't fool someone familiar with how things actually are.

In any case, this is now turning into a politics discussion, so

A political union which has its own headquarters, its own monetary system, its own policy maker embodiment, and its own right to veto local authonomy in matters of local decision making liberty, is a state.
The soviet union was a stare. So is the EU. Soon it will have its own army.

You can give beautiful names to things they don't represent, but it doesn't change the nature of the thing. The democratic republic of korea is an example. So democratic, don't you think?

>its own right to veto local authonomy in matters of local decision
The EU has no such veto.
>ts own policy maker embodiment,
The EU can impose no policy on a member state.
>its own monetary system
Which is not even used by all member states.

Try again, Duginbot.

All countries that still retain their own monetary system will need to drop them by 2025.
One of the reasons the united kingdom left the EU was because it couldn't regulate its own fish market by itself. The EU messes up with local sovereignty at an economic and political level.
The EU has indirect ways of imposing its policies on all member states and do it as it sees fit.

Try again, soros.

>gets btfo
>b-b-but muh brexit
Nice desu ne.
>Try again, soros.
False choice. _Both_ Soros and Dugin are cancer.

So when are you going to debate on what makes dugin an evil man?
This whole thread is going on for hours and you still didn't write any valid logical point on that matter

>what makes dugin an evil man
Several people have already pointed out that Dugin is a duplicitous imperialist. You, a duginist, have also been outed as a liar several times.
The case is closed.

I said logical arguments, not ad homonem ridiculous claims
Are you retarded?

and here we see the duginist in his natural environment: the lie.

...

If you're not retarded then prove that you're not by providing logical arguments on specific policies he stands for and why you disagree with them. Otherwise you are indeed retarded, you've done virtually anything in order to avoid and not do that up to now.

>calls it a lie
>doesn't counter argument providing a claim for the truth
You're 12 years old. Go play minecraft or something

...

So you're retarded. That explains a lot

>Several people have already pointed out that Dugin is a duplicitous imperialist.
What's wrong with that?

Everything, unless you're in a position to benefit from it, which I along with tens of millions of others aren't in.

>Everything
That's like saying there is nothing wrong with it. Some reasons, please.
>unless you're in a position to benefit from it
You utilitarian pieces of shit should know that the winners enjoy more than the losers would.

>which I along with tens of millions of others aren't in
So nobody should win because you are a loser?

How in the name of fuck is anything I said in any way utilitarian?
>hurr durr what is so bad about shit that would hurt you
Kill yourself.

>How in the name of fuck is anything I said in any way utilitarian?
You measure 'good' by benefits.

>this thread

So much triggering. I endorse more threads about this meme guy.

>I don't think it'd make much difference if I started to write Tl;DR texts over it
I would read it

youtube.com/watch?v=q6d7jRQ_57E

>When you build an entire ideology around your impotent hatred of Anglos

t. karl marx

Karl Marx worked at the largest whig/republican newspaper in America during the 1850s

Yet he built an entire ideology around his impotent hatred of anglos, just like you said

>not understanding judeo-Atlanticist hegemony

>tfw this thread proves that Veeky Forums would blatantly disregard an author's entire set of ideas and intellectual work just because thet dislike his beard and the history of the nation he was born in