Dugin: Anglo-Saxon Liberalism is to Blame For Child Cyborg Trannies in the West

Tucker was not convinced.

Tucker Carlson spoke to Alexander Dugin for half an hour on his Twitter show.

Dugin’s main point was that where the West is now with transhumanism and ladyboy children twerking for loose change is a direct result of Liberalism. I agree with his point somewhat, actually, and I am no fan of Liberalism. But I also think it is a strange argument to make in front of a Western audience in the context of basically making your first pitch to them and trying to get them to take you and your ideas seriously.

Many Westerners like Tucker seem to think that Liberalism is not about children sucking off strangers at the public library while piggers snipe down concerned parents from rooftops who protest the proceedings. Thus, Dugin set a hard task for himself to explain how the English Civil War led to this point, essentially, and why what we have now in the West is a logical progression from, not a deviation or perversion of “Anglo-Saxon Liberalism”.

IMPORTANT LINK EXPLAINING THE ETERNAL ANGLO CONSPIRACY HERE

As just an objective fact, whatever we had previous to this paradigm did indeed lead us here. So, even on that simply level, Dugin’s point can be proven incontrovertibly, I suppose. But Dugin goes further and tries to explain how the spirit and logic of Liberalism began badly and had a logical terminal point and we are fast approaching it.

This begs several questions though:

What is Liberalism though?

Is it about freedom from tyranny?

Is it about the right to choose one scoop of ice cream or two?

Most definitions of any ideology are infantile because, essentially, they state that the ideology is all for the good things and against all the bad things. Thus Liberalism is for Freedom Happiness YES Human Rights Love Good and the only problem with this assertion is that, again, all ideologies and religions claim to be for the good things and against the bad things. Communism states that it stands for Sharing Much Familial Love Cordiality Brotherly Nations. So, how we actually define good and bad or freedom and tyranny is where the rubber meets the road, but very few people ever get that far in their inquiries, unfortunately.

As Dugin explains, according to Liberalism, “tyranny” means anything that limits the expression of one’s “individualness”. That is, all constraints on individuality are inherently bad within a Liberal moral paradigm.

Let us start there and explore the implications of this “freedom”.

This can mean that, say, the clan or the tribe that demands an individual’s loyalty and contribution to its survival is tyrannical. Nowadays, this is a commonly used argument or injunction used against Swarthland interlopers in our Liberal countries. These people refuse to surrender their non-Liberal allegiances and “assimilate”. They choose to retain their old clan and tribal and religious loyalties despite the fact that they now live amongst us and we live in societies that have effectively outlawed such organizations. Thus, because they retain their membership in such in-group structures, they retain an advantage over the natives — one that they are loath to surrender. Because the Liberal individualism of the locals makes us such easy pickings for them. The natives (us) have been “freed” from our obligations to such structures and as a result, we have lost the advantages that membership in such an organization can confer as well.

Now, Dugin didn’t go this far, and simply stated that wanting to change your gender or stick a chip in your brain is an attempt to reach an extreme level of “individualism”.

But the intermediary step would be to explain that the state Leviathan “freed” us from these older “restraints” so that it could enjoy a monopoly of control over our social and political and economic lives. And, it is the watchful state with its spook armies of Guardians and its strict monopoly on violence that prevents us “free” citizens from re-tribalizing or re-clanning and creating parallel structures of loyalty and community.

George Bush Jr. said it best when he quipped that *heh* “freedom ain’t free”.

To maintain Liberal freedom, human nature has to be ruthlessly surpassed with terrorism tactics used against a hapless majority. Almost no “anti-Globalist” or “anti-Statist” today seems to understand what I am saying, least of all the Libertarians, who want to double down on Liberalism by atomizing still further into individualism to protest the Leviathan . This is total nonsense though, because the state wants nothing more than to keep us as individuals and to prevent us from reforming into local ethno-communities, which is as natural to humans as hibernating in winter is to bears.

To be fair, most White people refuse to admit that they want to live in an ethno-community, and so will instead attempt to build ideology-based communities that seek to break free of the Leviathan. The irony in this is that individuals with similar genes are attracted to similar ideologies and so they end up achieving the same result and then scratching their heads about why they ended up looking like an SS summer retreat or something. As another example, if you decide to make a conscious community based around the ideology of smoking crack and playing basketball, you’re going to end up with a 99% Afro-American community even if you never explicitly stated such an intention. Hippies are yet another perfect example of what I am talking about. Occasionally, you get the odd Indian or Indonesian among them because of the quasi-Hindu stuff that they’re into and the New Age aesthetic, but these eccentric individuals who travel around the world to live together all end up looking very similar to one another somehow.

But Dugin didn’t say all this in broken English during the brief thirty minutes he had with Tucker, I’m just building on his core argument a bit here and making it relevant by saying the edgy parts that Dugin would never dare say anymore.

Mostly, Dugin stressed that Liberalism came from Protestantism and that it was an Anglo-Saxon development. Further down the line, Protestantism led to nominalism and the so-called school of Anglo-Empiricism. Even if you don’t know what Empiricism as a school of thought is, I assure you, almost all modern Westerners (and many Easterners) believe most of its core tenants. In colloquial shorthand, it can be referred to as “materialism” and Dugin says that the West has been on a logical and philosophical path of destruction of all non-material values and realities for the last 500 years and that it has finally arrived at the end station on a very long commuter line.

And that is pretty much all that was covered in the interview, philosophy-wise.

Now, Dugin is either obfuscating or simplifying to the point of distortion with his arguments.

First of all, there is nothing really “Anglo-Saxon” about Protestantism or Liberalism, really. Even if I agree, like most scholars and philosophers concerned with the development of social and political thought, that Protestantism lead to nominalism and Liberalism and eventually to nihilism and civilizational Armageddon, I am able to state the obvious here while Dugin is not. Protestantism was originally called “Old Testamentism” and it came about when Europeans began reading the Bible for the first time, (and in Hebrew to make things worse), and applying the Torah to themselves and their own communities in a fundamentalist way.

Before we got Liberalism out of this process though, we had an intermediary step by which we got Capitalism first. This came about because the god of the Torah, Yahweh, is a rat fink loan shark who encourages all sorts of anti-social behavior among his Chosen nation of priests. The Protestants, under the guidance of Calvin, a converso, decided to become loan sharks too, and that was the birth of Capitalism in the West, in places like Holland first, actually, and the south of France, Germany, some cantons in Switzerland, in Scandinavia, and yes, eventually in Scotland and England.

To ideologically justify their behavior theologically, Protestants simply cited the Torah, which is a perverted and debased screed that promotes the filthiest and most anti-spiritual behavior known to mankind. In it, Yahweh demonstrates his love and affection by rewarding his favored followers with gold, land, cows, slaves and so on. Thus, to prove that one was beloved by G-d, one had to accumulate as much wealth as possible by any means necessary. This is called the doctrine of The Elect and is at the core of Calvinist-derived Protestantism and the modern reboot that is sometimes referred to as the “Prosperity Gospel”. Thus, spirituality became a never-ending game of dog-eat-dog Monopoly for many Western peoples, including the Anglo-Saxons.

And all the while, high-intensity religious civil wars raged nonstop for almost a century in Europe after the invention and adoption of Protestantism.

It was to come up with some kind of cease-fire compromise that most of the core tenants of what we now know as Liberalism were proposed, which was essentially just proto-secularism that Europe adopted as a defense mechanism to stem the unhinged Abrahamic bloodletting. Because Christianity was the source of so many problems, Europe’s intellectuals essentially embraced full-on secularism, and then eventually, rejected all non-material realities all-together. Europe became “Liberal” as an alternative to tearing itself apart over Bible squabbles. And thus, the West lost its “soul” and began to look East for inspiration. It found it in Russia at first, where mysticism and all sorts of eastern stuff circulated more-or-less freely and gurus came out of the Imperial territories to teach in the West, essentially laying down the roots for New Age thought (Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Mouravieff to name just a few).

Famously, the West turned to India and to China and to Japan as well at the end of the 19th century and again in the 50s and 60s. However, these eastern schools of thought were completely at odds with the entire philosophical tradition of the “West” since it started embracing secularism, nominalism, and “materialism”. Irony of ironies, most of these “Eastern” ideas were actually native to Europe and Europeans at one time, but were now too steeped in foreign culture to be of much use to modern Europeans trying to decode them. As a result of the cultural barrier mostly, Liberalism has managed to retain an edge in the minds of Westerners to this day.

But, fascinating as it is, the history of Liberalism as a school of thought and how it eventually led to state-mandated child castration in the public schools in the West is only part of the story.

A deeper “secularizing” strain can be traced further back to Aristotle, who was adopted lock stock and barrel by Aquinas, who then laid the seeds for nominalism/materialism by crafting a totally non-mystical approach to religion that relied on logic and theology entirely, to the exclusion of everything else. But I plan to cover the Aquinas-Aristotle-Augustine deception in my Metaphysics Conspiracy series though. And Dugin didn’t mention any of this in his interview with Tucker either, so I really should get back on track here.

I think Dugin’s message is very hard for Westerners to hear, but that it also misses the mark totally and has absolutely no appeal.

Like, everything that I wrote above is only about half of the equation when it comes to understanding what went wrong with America. Liberalism has hollowed out the “Anglo-Saxons” and by that I think that Dugin just means America, really. Sure, most of these bad ideas came from the British Isles (geographically at least), but I’ve found that British society has largely recovered from this mental disease. British society, warts and all, has plenty of traditions (far more than the Slavlands do thanks to Communism) and this is because they suffered through and overcame fundamentalist revolutionary Liberalism like you would smallpox or acne as a teenager. It was the Americans who really implemented these ideas wholesale as a kind of foundation of their new national identity. And even then, America was on the brink of becoming a true nation and a true people despite all of this by the turn of the 20th century if not earlier.

More than anything, Dugin is obfuscating the issue with his Putin-esque style “let me go back 500 years to the Dutchy of Livonia where it all began or 5000 years before that to the cave of Yakub where the Anglo-Saxon was first spawned.” Previously:

Sure, yes, Liberalism has weakened Western society.

But what we have going on is a one-two punch. The knock-out blow is coming from Communism, clearly. Right now, America is in the full swing of a vicious Trotskyite social revolution. The language that is used for the judeo-tranny-mulatto supremacy ideology is all Marxist. They’re not speaking the language of Locke or Mill or Hobbes, are they? Much as I loath these philosophers, they aren’t the chief culprits here. At worst, they are trotted out and used selectively by Conservatives to justify doing nothing and letting the Marxists take over society. In that sense, Liberalism simply doesn’t have much “bite” because it was built on promoting religious tolerance and with a focus on doing business and making money as a more certain path by which to get to heaven rather than through Crusade.

Complaining about Cromwell or Hobbes now is like giving a lecture about cutting carbs and controlling one’s blood sugar to someone who is bleeding out on the sidewalk from a knife wound.

American society would have survived for a while yet limping along on Liberalism (or rather assimilated Liberalism) and so Tucker’s incredulous reaction to Dugin’s claim that Locke is to blame for “Teenage Twink Story Time Diddle” is perfectly understandable. When we are talking about the revolutionary and destructive ideas of Liberalism, most of them have been incubated and rendered less potent and “Anglocized” in the same way that Communism was “Russified” and thereby made less deadly for the afflicted society. Or, the final example, how Christianity was “paganized” or “Greekified” which mitigated its original, destructive, semitic character somewhat.

I think the way that Dugin’s argument starts to work is if Liberalism is presented not as the force destroying America but as a weak defense against the neo-Trotskyist onslaught. That should make Americans sit up and take notice.

The Constitution and tolerance and firm handshakes and reasonable debate and tax cuts won’t save you from the gang of brown psychos and their shtetl slave-masters!

But Dugin will never say anything bad about Communism (or Christianity for that matter) anymore because he fears repercussions from the FSB.

In the very last part of the interview, Dugin said that the West hated Putin because he was building a traditional Russia. This is patently untrue. The West put Putin in power because he was a Western-phile and a sellout and like the Grim Reaper, they are simply coming to collect on their due. Also, the people in charge of the White House are the descendants of the original Bolsheviks who terrorized Russia a century ago.

Simple, really.