The Fourth Political Theory： Part Five ｜ Guest： Michael Millerman ｜ 5⧸19⧸23
Episode Stats
Words per minute
187.89565
Harmful content
Misogyny
14
sentences flagged
Hate speech
16
sentences flagged
Summary
Dugan's Fourth Political Theory is the final chapter in the book, and the final addition to the appendices. In this episode, we take a look at the final two chapters, along with two appendices, which introduce some interesting ideas as well.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
We hope you're enjoying your Air Canada flight.
00:00:10.720
Fast-free Wi-Fi means I can make dinner reservations before we land.
00:00:25.260
Wi-Fi available to Airplane members on Equipped Flight.
00:00:33.620
I've got a great stream that I think you're really going to enjoy.
00:00:37.400
Now, we've been working hard on this for a while,
00:00:40.200
but we are finally at our fifth and final episode,
00:00:43.760
going through Alexander Dugan's fourth political theory.
00:00:48.900
We've kind of moved through each chapter, each section of the book here,
00:00:53.160
outlining the different theories that Dugan is expounding,
00:00:56.720
his ideas, where he's going with this fourth political theory,
00:01:01.400
And today, we're going to be taking a look at the last two chapters,
00:01:04.480
along with two appendices, which I think are interesting.
00:01:10.260
And as always, helping me unravel the mystery of Dugan is Michael Millerman.
00:01:18.440
So let's just go ahead and jump in on chapter 13 here.
00:01:22.880
Now, chapter 13 is about gender in the fourth political theory,
00:01:27.220
and this is another one where I'm a little doubtful on some of the things that Dugan asserts.
00:01:34.160
I think it gets a little kind of tricky with his language or doesn't say some things with his language,
00:01:40.260
though he is also, again, of course, looking at Dasein here.
00:01:44.060
And this is a concept I'm not as familiar with.
00:01:48.220
So there might be some insights here that you can unlock for us as we get started.
00:01:54.000
But he talks about early on the gender of politics,
00:01:59.240
how in other political theories, the modern political theories,
00:02:06.380
And for anyone to really participate in politics, to be a person in the political sense,
00:02:14.560
And so even in these different political theories that might challenge the supremacy of males in politics
00:02:24.240
the only thing they end up doing is trying to shift women into the male role
0.94
00:02:29.500
to make them fully human by making them more male.
00:02:32.700
Do you want to expand a little bit on kind of his understanding of the kind of the political gender as male?
00:02:41.100
So you could say his question is kind of like this.
00:02:43.900
Each political theory has its own understanding of what the genders should be.
1.00
00:02:48.280
So he does distinguish at first between biological sex and sociological gender.
00:02:53.280
So we're in the realm here of the political standards, ideals or conceptions.
00:02:57.800
And he does say that according to the classical liberal conception,
00:03:04.780
And that you could imagine a situation where, for example, for the sake of equality,
00:03:09.800
you don't try to make women more like that standard.
0.99
00:03:13.000
Rather, you try to make men more like a female standard, for example.
0.98
00:03:16.240
That would be another way of equalizing the sexes.
1.00
00:03:18.560
So in his analysis, he shows the typical model of the liberal man and woman,
00:03:23.840
the typical model under the communist ideology and the typical models under the fascist ideology.
00:03:30.460
And I think if we ask ourselves, you know, doesn't your conception of the classically liberal man,
00:03:35.220
the communist man and the fascist man, they give you different pictures.
00:03:38.640
And the classically liberal woman and the communist woman, the fascist woman,
00:03:42.520
they would probably also give you different pictures.
00:03:44.460
So that's what he's interested in assessing, how the gender roles differ in those different models.
00:03:51.000
And obviously, because he's rejecting all three of them,
00:03:53.880
he has to think about what an alternative might look like.
00:03:57.180
Right. And so in the kind of the liberal sense,
00:04:00.440
he says that liberalism accepts kind of the urban white male as the core political actor.
00:04:09.240
In the Marxism, it attempts to kind of destroy this idea of gender,
00:04:16.340
And then in fascism, it actually exalts the the white male,
00:04:21.540
the urban white male beyond a the just the actor to kind of the ideal.
00:04:26.740
Yeah, he says the third political theory, it intensifies some of those attributes.
00:04:30.260
So no longer just the white male, but the Nordic white male, no longer just rationality,
0.63
00:04:35.680
but hyper rationality, super rationality or the image of the Superman,
00:04:40.280
not just a man of action, but the man of the will to power.
00:04:44.160
So that kind of carries forward some of the tendencies of the liberal model,
00:04:49.620
but just sort of to the to a higher degree or to a more intense extent.
00:04:54.820
And one place to look for some of these figures, you know, would be in like propaganda posters.
00:04:59.420
You know, you could consider Soviet propaganda posters or communist propaganda posters.
00:05:02.860
And you'll see there that even though there's some attempt to undermine the classically liberal roles,
00:05:09.020
still you have the sort of hardworking soldier like masculine figure.
00:05:14.540
And in some cases, the women presented with the same sort of features.
0.87
00:05:20.240
And one helpful thing I want to mention on the communist side of the equation,
00:05:24.080
this I always found was very profound and insightful.
00:05:27.440
So Leo Strauss, by the way, my view is when we're studying Dugan,
00:05:30.480
it's helpful, as you know, from our previous conversations, in my view, in your view,
00:05:33.780
any support we can get from other thinkers besides Dugan and understanding what he's saying
00:05:39.820
So Strauss one time was lecturing on Marx, and he said that in Marx, the source of the division of
00:05:47.380
labor. So the division of labor is an obstacle to a social equality.
00:05:51.220
And the source of the division of labor is the division into the sexes or the, you know,
00:05:58.000
So if you want to overcome the division of labor, you have to overcome the division between the sexes,
00:06:02.580
which already tells you that in Marxist ideology, broadly speaking, there's a kind of orientation
00:06:08.460
towards overcoming that bifurcation and towards overcoming the firmly rooted roles of men and
00:06:15.820
women, which would be very different from the fascist or the liberal models.
00:06:18.980
So, yes, he also says, you know, fascism has introduced into post-liberal or post-modern
00:06:24.560
interpretations of gender, some like BDSM elements and so on.
00:06:28.700
And all of this discussion, you know, I think there was an article that came out some years
00:06:33.460
ago called Alexander Dugan, queer theorist, question mark, because people read this chapter
00:06:39.000
He wants to overcome, he apparently wants to overcome the classical gender divisions, whether
00:06:45.320
And his proposed solutions, which we'll talk about in a minute, are so suggestive and elusive
00:06:49.760
that people were able to wonder all kinds of things about the meaning of this, of this chapter.
00:06:55.280
But for sure, you know, the idea that you're going to be the white, rational European male
00:07:01.440
of property, who's, you know, that sort of, who cuts that figure, for Dugan, that is just
00:07:06.700
too liberal in the classical sense, too modern, too outdated, and no longer defensible, no longer
00:07:15.040
But so too, the communist and fascist alternatives.
00:07:18.800
Yeah, I can definitely understand looking at this, you know, chapter, how it can easily
00:07:24.700
I mean, he starts out by immediately, like you said, separating biological sex and gender,
00:07:31.440
talking about how, you know, these gender roles are, you know, only understood as valuable
00:07:40.760
It's, you know, like you said, later on, we'll get to some of his solutions that also kind
00:07:44.880
of talk about destroying some of these distinctions.
00:07:47.560
And it does, in many ways, sound like some aspects of modern gender theory, if you're
00:07:54.380
So, you know, that context is certainly very important as we kind of move forward here.
00:08:00.140
So just one, well, quickly, I want to say one, one part of this argument, which we saw earlier
00:08:05.400
versions of, and in the chapters, we're still going to discuss, you see other versions of
00:08:09.540
it, it's very clear that whenever he looks at post-modernity with its, its unique and
00:08:17.520
specific characteristics, which he despises, and, you know, I'll leave it to your viewers
00:08:21.980
and listeners to decide whether they also despise it.
00:08:24.060
There's always the option of a return to the modern, like take one step back.
00:08:30.500
You know, things are getting so crazy in post-modernity.
00:08:34.360
Can't we go back to the good old days of the 80s and 90s or of the, you know, Washington
00:08:38.340
consensus or some, can't we just, just take one step back?
00:08:44.020
And we have to wonder whether there's, you know, whether he has any good reasons behind
00:08:48.260
this, because obviously there are people today who do still prefer the one step back approach.
00:08:52.560
But Dugan's view is that, no, you know, you had the march, there's a logic inherent in
00:08:57.140
this movement and the step from modernity to post-modernity, it brought us to some sort
00:09:01.360
of abyss or precipice, but there's no, there's no turning back.
00:09:04.260
There's somehow only going through, but you can go through in different ways.
00:09:07.760
You can go through in the way of total dark night of the soul of post-modern dissolution,
00:09:12.660
or you can go to some sort of other strange alternative, Dasein, the radical subject, Heidegger's
00:09:19.320
other beginning, but you definitely can't just roll back the clock.
00:09:23.480
So a very interesting phrase here that I think a lot of people will probably raise an eyebrow
00:09:28.220
at when they read this is he has a sentence that says, madness is part of the gender arsenal
0.99
00:09:38.960
So this is a very good point and observation about the different ways you can go when you're
00:09:47.020
And I'm going to say something about both about madness, but also about the sexes and also
0.83
00:09:51.640
about this whole picture, because they're all related in a way.
00:09:54.040
So Dugan does not mean we should all be completely insane, crazy, like on the street corner, you know,
00:09:59.400
attacking people just randomly out of the blue, that kind of deranged mental illness, the kind
00:10:04.780
of insanity that follows to anticipate the collapse of order, you know, or a mind that has sort of
00:10:10.980
become degenerated and decayed and crazy in that sense.
00:10:17.280
But there's a kind of madness that is like Socrates once said, you know, the greatest gift of the gods.
00:10:23.900
There's a kind of madness, which is a divine inspiration, which goes above merely human
00:10:28.900
rationality, or just above sort of mundane, calculative concerns about how what we need
00:10:34.980
to do to stay efficient and well cared for and alive.
00:10:38.800
There's a kind of madness that is Dionysian in the full, beautiful, poetic sense of the word.
00:10:47.740
You know, mere rationality has cut us off from the roots of our deeper humanity.
00:10:52.300
But somehow the madness that is Dionysian in the proper sense, and not just like New York
00:10:58.700
City public transit madness, is the kind of truly genuine, deep human and divine madness.
00:11:07.560
So now on the Dionysian point, this is also very important.
00:11:12.080
So I only want to just suggest something about it here.
00:11:15.240
Dugan says, you can imagine three fundamental ways of interpreting the world.
00:11:19.920
The, what she calls the Apollonian, the Dionysian, and the Sibyllian.
00:11:26.600
Sibyllian is sort of, there's a whole other story about Sibyllian, but Apollonian, Dionysian,
00:11:31.100
He says each of these three different ways of interpreting the world, they have their own
00:11:37.040
So for example, in the Apollonian model, the woman has power and wisdom, kind of like Athena.
00:11:43.680
Athena is a version of a goddess under the logos of Apollo.
00:11:47.460
You know, she has the characteristics of penetrating wisdom and power.
1.00
00:11:52.620
But in the Dionysian world, gender is much more fluid and liminal.
00:11:57.560
And the roles between the male and the female androgynous figure are much differently constituted.
00:12:04.280
And finally, in the logos of the great mother, or in this third way of seeing the world,
00:12:08.420
men become women by way of castration, primarily.
0.68
00:12:11.960
So in later books, that's how he interprets our world.
00:12:14.980
Our world is a world in which the men are being castrated and becoming swallowed by the
1.00
00:12:19.500
great, the dark, the black logos of the great mother.
00:12:22.560
So all of this is to say for him, the, and there are also these different kinds of madness
00:12:27.360
because Apollo, take Apollo as an image of rationality.
00:12:30.880
So as you go up and up and up the chain of rationality, as eventually you have this like
00:12:36.140
beatific vision, you know, or you have this ecstatic moment.
00:12:40.200
And that ecstasy is for him a kind of madness, you know, it's one step beyond our usual limits.
00:12:46.460
So you get a sort of complicated model, much more complicated than just, you know, man and
00:12:51.580
Well, we're talking about Apollonian, Dionysian, Sabellian, but that's sort of what he means.
00:12:56.200
One other thing here too, because in the chapter, he admits that he's saying things that are very
00:13:04.380
And he put, he says, for example, that he's explaining one unknown through another unknown
00:13:08.760
when he says that gender in the fourth political theory is the same as sex in Dasein.
00:13:13.280
That is, we have explained one unknown through another unknown.
00:13:15.920
So he's changing the words, but they remain a puzzle.
00:13:18.740
So one way I think that it's helpful just to like begin to grasp what that might mean.
00:13:24.100
So biologically, let's say it's very straightforward.
00:13:30.680
And sociologically also 99.9% of the time, let's say it's pretty straightforward.
00:13:37.020
What if you believe man is primarily characterized not by his sexual organs and so on, but by
00:13:49.820
And it's very clear somehow that bodies are gendered, you know, that like your biological
00:13:59.560
But if you believe that you're a spirit in a body, is your spirit also gendered in the
00:14:05.280
Like people don't typically think that the soul has sexual genitalia.
00:14:11.760
So how do you start to think about the sexuality of the soul or the sexuality of the spirit?
00:14:17.600
In this case, that's like a hint to why for Dugan, the question of the sexuality of Dasein
00:14:24.300
Because we have the whole problem of how does our body, bodily, biological self, interact
00:14:29.360
with this other transcendent or spiritual dimension of ourselves?
00:14:33.820
So that's sort of what he's trying to puzzle out.
00:14:37.160
And, you know, I'll say this, you know, forgive me for doing this.
00:14:43.180
In this way that we're that we need to separate that these things aren't an interplay.
00:14:48.660
And instead, they need to be separated and understood without context to each other.
00:14:53.480
So again, I only I only suggest about the soul as a like, so that you can get the sense of
00:14:59.300
the problem or the question, because in Heidegger's philosophy, there's not, I mean, the body somehow
00:15:04.600
or the bodily self is under theorized in a way in Heidegger, but he's more interested
00:15:10.140
But there's a all I meant to point to was that kind of question.
00:15:14.520
So not necessarily that we are body, soul and spirit, and we have to figure out where
00:15:19.160
does our masculinity or femininity come from, but that if you consider the human being from
00:15:25.800
some transcendental perspective or existential perspective, like Heidegger does, then it just
00:15:31.920
becomes more complicated than if you're merely looking at, you know, let's say, the other
00:15:37.520
telling signs of sexuality and gender identity.
00:15:41.900
So I also wanted to say really quickly, it's interesting that he brings this example of
00:15:49.160
because he often he references to lose more than you would expect in this.
00:15:54.840
Most people don't put a lot of tie a lot of postmodernism to to lose.
00:15:59.500
And of course, to lose famous for a number of things, but particularly, you know, the fact
00:16:04.060
that schizophrenia is it was what frees you from capitalism keeps you, you know, it might
00:16:08.860
make you the most able to kind of escape these things.
00:16:13.480
So it's interesting that he does introduce madness here as kind of a factor.
00:16:17.080
And he is bringing the lose into this very, very often.
00:16:20.680
He does talk about the body of organ without organs.
00:16:27.240
But he also rejects many of the things that the lose kind of comes to an end with.
00:16:33.120
So he's pulling from some of this Marxist theories pulling from some of this postmodernism,
00:16:43.560
That's right, because any serious analyst of postmodernism or any serious postmodern thinker
00:16:47.840
is saying something deeply true to some extent.
00:16:51.800
And the question for Dugan is always to what extent and how can we borrow profitably from
00:16:57.080
But he has other things in this chapter, he says, which, again, are mysterious, you know,
00:17:02.040
and you sort of have to puzzle through how literally he means them, what exactly he means
00:17:06.840
So he says that the subject of the fourth political theory is a non-adult male, you know.
00:17:12.380
So there's a reference there to the child, to immaturity, to the notion of play and playfulness,
00:17:19.780
because there's a person related to Heidegger who wrote on the world as play.
00:17:25.380
So there's always, like, what he says on the surface, and then all of the implied layers,
00:17:31.000
you know, that have reference to these other philosophers.
00:17:33.400
And then sometimes we're sort of left just having to try to see, is this totally bogus?
00:17:41.940
This chapter leaves a lot of open questions, obviously.
00:17:46.840
But gender does shift under these different ideologies, the gender models and roles and
00:17:52.000
the ideal man and woman, the ideal type changes with the ideology.
00:17:57.980
And so if you're trying to get outside of the ideologies, you're left with the question,
00:18:03.700
And only other thing I want to add on this chapter that I think it's kind of clearer here
00:18:10.120
than it is elsewhere, that not everybody who criticizes postmodernity,
00:18:16.840
and who criticizes the current state of post-liberalism, goes into all of this existentialist,
00:18:25.840
So take, for example, again, my other key point of reference, Leo Strauss,
00:18:29.500
his alternative was to have recourse to the notion of nature, human nature.
00:18:34.680
You know, human, the ideologies may tell you something different.
00:18:38.180
But the underlying human nature doesn't change.
00:18:41.200
All that changes is the way that the ideologies force you to interpret it,
00:18:44.780
or the way they lie about it, or the way they try to push another version of it on you.
00:18:49.320
But you can expel nature with a pitchfork, nevertheless, it returns.
00:18:53.800
But in Dugan, that idea of a constant foundational nature is sort of absent.
00:19:00.340
And it's absent in a way that it is from Heidegger as well,
00:19:03.240
because the history of being and all of these other deep and strange philosophical questions
00:19:08.820
dominate over top of the idea of a stable nature.
00:19:13.780
So all of the weirdness around this discussion, I think, partly reflects that difference as well.
00:19:19.280
So you could say, well, look, the ancient Greek polis, it was neither liberal, nor fascist,
00:19:24.340
nor communist, and it had its own version of men and women.
00:19:27.960
Maybe there's a constant that lies underneath all of those changes.
00:19:32.980
So, as you've hinted at a number of times here, of course, he goes into Dasein once again.
00:19:40.760
And here he talks about Dasein as kind of being androgynous,
00:19:45.460
and that it allows us to kind of move beyond the gender binary.
00:19:50.340
Again, language that I think a lot of people will immediately say,
00:19:53.660
okay, so here we go, you know, the gender theory hitting hard.
0.99
00:20:00.560
But he kind of explains that there's something to be reached when we're no longer looking at the opposites of these two,
00:20:08.900
when we're no longer in the tension of these two, but instead the unity of those two genders.
00:20:18.200
So in one of our previous discussions, in one of the previous chapters,
00:20:21.080
he looked at the question of another binary, of another split, theory and practice.
00:20:26.200
You know, and he tried to understand, okay, how are we going to make fourth political theory practical?
00:20:30.800
And if you remember, he said, post-modernity overcomes that division,
00:20:35.080
but it overcomes it by blurring it horizontally.
00:20:37.540
The fourth political theory overcomes that division by digging to the root, the common root.
00:20:42.760
And in some sense, I think a similar logic applies to his analysis of gender.
00:20:47.140
So post-modernity may start to blur the gender boundaries,
0.82
00:20:52.180
I like to think this is just, I'm sure other people have written about this,
00:20:56.660
but I find it helpful that like post-modernity has closed off the possibilities of self-transcendence.
00:21:00.560
And instead, the transcendence is like you become sexually trans, you know,
0.95
00:21:03.640
you move horizontally from one thing to another, or you're in that sort of murky, horizontal, mixed ground.
00:21:10.120
But Dugan says, yes, we need to overcome the binary.
00:21:13.980
At least we need to think about what it would mean to overcome it.
00:21:16.800
But we have to do that by going not just in the middle and not just, you know, adding them together
00:21:22.780
so that it's a big, you know, mix of things that were already there in the first place.
00:21:27.840
But you need to try to penetrate to the origin of the division.
00:21:30.600
And obviously, he doesn't mean the biological origin of the division.
00:21:33.700
He really is always primarily concerned with the conceptual or the existential dimension of this split.
00:21:40.340
So it is interesting that when Heidegger analyzes the nature of human existence,
00:21:43.920
he doesn't talk about the, you know, it's almost like it applies equally to men and women
00:21:50.960
It's not linked to or indexed to being a man or being a woman.
00:21:55.940
And therefore, it sort of is that kind of open question.
00:21:58.780
But even, yeah, so it's always that idea of can we go deeper down than the division
00:22:03.560
and then come back up instead of some sort of mechanical operation of adding them or combining them.
00:22:10.300
Gotcha. And then he goes ahead and talks about kind of how there are three different approaches
00:22:16.460
to kind of attempting to understand this problem of political gender.
00:22:22.300
He talks about how postmodernism is a maximization of kind of the liberal man.
00:22:29.840
He looks at Marxism and what he describes as the sexless cyborg.
00:22:34.580
And then he talks about how conservatism attempts to basically kind of reassert masculinity,
00:22:40.640
bring us back to continuing modernity by reasserting that classical understanding of masculinity.
00:22:47.680
What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue?
00:22:52.940
A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper
00:22:59.660
A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool.
00:23:04.120
Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered.
00:23:08.280
Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders.
00:23:22.200
Probably all three of them are operating simultaneously.
00:23:27.780
You know, AI and robot technologies are getting to be pretty good.
00:23:30.380
And these sex chatbots and so on from what I see on the Twitter timeline.
00:23:34.020
So that kind of like, you know, androgynous sex with robots or whatever,
00:23:37.300
it's probably maybe people are already doing it as we speak for all I know.
00:23:44.420
And it's very important for him that the conservative response, as he puts it,
00:23:49.860
when conservative forces stand up for this archetype, demand the return of masculinity,
00:23:53.960
they thereby only try to continue modernity through these gender reconstructions.
1.00
00:23:59.560
And here again, the fourth political theory, in our opinion, goes forward.
00:24:02.740
So I would say this, what's good about this chapter and what's good about Dugan's position here,
00:24:08.040
whether we buy into part of it or, you know, all of it or none of it,
00:24:11.780
is that at least it's clearly carving something out.
00:24:15.260
You know, the reassertion of traditional masculinity or of like 80s, 90s or 50s, 60s masculinity or
00:24:22.520
It's carving out a clear position that, and he is saying, no, that's not viable.
00:24:26.800
That's not gonna, we just, you can't roll with that.
00:24:28.960
You know, there's more, there's more happening than meets the eye.
00:24:37.560
He is not ignoring this issue, which I think a lot of people would just like it to go away.
00:24:44.200
Yeah, and if you consider, you know, the Russian version of the book was written in 2009,
00:24:47.580
if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure that I'm not.
00:24:49.520
And he mentions here, you know, all of the transgenderism and all these things that maybe
00:24:53.880
then were less, less a matter of everyday conversation.
00:24:58.740
You know, now we're inundated with these themes and topics.
00:25:01.160
And for him, they were pretty self-evident trends even then, which I think says something
00:25:08.880
Whenever somebody makes at least a solidly predictive statement, you want to make sure
00:25:14.980
you understand kind of some of the logic behind it.
00:25:22.380
And this is the final official chapter of the book.
00:25:27.440
Now, in a lot of ways, I felt like this is pretty much kind of a restated chapter where
00:25:32.540
we're going over a lot of the ideas and summing them up.
00:25:35.900
There's still some, I think, important things to hit here, but he is tying up some of those
00:25:44.060
And the very first thing he kind of steps back into, again, is unipolarity versus multipolarity.
00:25:50.480
And he specifically says a line here, which is very bombastic, which people will want
00:25:58.080
America is the center of the kingdom of the Antichrist.
0.99
00:26:04.480
But I guess we can kind of touch again on his understanding of multipolarity versus unipolarity
00:26:11.400
and how the only way through, if you're going to, the only way out is through, then the American
00:26:16.240
empire kind of as it stands, the global American empire can't continue in its current form.
00:26:21.600
Yeah, I think you could say for him, the America under the rule of the Democratic Party
00:26:26.700
is the kingdom of the Antichrist, because he did support Trump.
00:26:29.780
And in this other book that he put out not too long ago, The Great Reset versus The Great
00:26:33.020
Reawakening, or the other way around, he says that Trump threw a wrench into the whole
00:26:38.120
system of the unipolarity and of The Great Reset and of the forces of the destruction of
00:26:45.180
So he's not against everything happening in the United States.
00:26:47.940
He's against what the United States is when it is run by Clinton, Biden, the Democratic
00:26:54.600
But it's also worth noting, in my opinion, restating, because we said something like it
00:26:59.480
earlier, that even within America and within the West, there are defenders of the pre-modern
00:27:03.740
West, or let's say of the genuine, true roots of American identity.
00:27:09.000
And it's really this hostile takeover of the West and the hostile takeover of America
00:27:14.600
that, in my view, anyway, he's primarily against.
00:27:17.480
So anybody who has that spirit of unipolarity in them would be representing the bad guys
00:27:22.780
But anybody who has the spirit of tradition in them, whether they're inside America or
00:27:29.640
And therefore, he talks about the anti-globalist and anti-imperialist front and this kind of
00:27:34.900
alliance among the different religions, among the different factions, among the different
00:27:41.180
states and civilizations and peoples, because there's a common enemy, in his view, the common
00:27:49.360
So for what it's worth, I mean, I think there are parts of this chapter, of this particular
00:27:54.940
part of the chapter that are important, where he says Muslims shouldn't fight Christians,
00:27:59.640
You know, don't make this a religious holy war, because in fact, when you defend tradition,
00:28:03.380
you're defending somehow the right of each of those other players to have its place in
00:28:08.000
So the common enemy is the one who wants to wipe out the possibility of a tradition, custom,
00:28:17.900
But yeah, I mean, he does say those things against the United States.
00:28:22.020
But in my opinion, they apply with those caveats.
00:28:25.580
Yeah, he does, as he did previously, when he used this kind of language, does specifically
00:28:30.260
say there are people inside the United States who stand against this.
00:28:33.760
They will be essential to kind of opposing this.
00:28:40.640
It does kind of like you said, he frames this as you need to have all people of tradition,
00:28:45.340
all people who would oppose kind of this current ruling order to stop squabbling and move together
00:28:52.520
You do kind of get the feeling of the Lawrence of Arabia, where all the tribes need to be
1.00
00:28:56.700
united to fight against the force that would otherwise kind of collapse their their different
00:29:03.400
But they seem unable to actually, you know, work together.
00:29:06.560
And so they are divided and destroyed individually.
00:29:12.900
I will say, you know, I started working on Dugan in 2011.
00:29:19.120
And since then, I've had a lot of students and professors and people, you know, talk to
00:29:24.440
And I do get the sense, because some of them have been religious Jews, some of them have
00:29:29.760
been Muslims, some of them have been Christians, you know, some of them are traditionalists
00:29:34.400
Some of them just are American patriots who don't like what's happening with the current
00:29:40.840
And everybody has found something valuable in his analysis, even if they don't share it
00:29:45.380
So you get you do I think reading him, you do get the sense he's trying to make sure
00:29:50.680
that he says those things that unite for the most part, the right groups against the wrong
00:29:56.180
groups, the wrong group being, again, the party of unipolarity and so on without at least
00:30:02.080
I don't say this is true of everything he's ever written, you know, but without trying
00:30:05.960
to introduce all kinds of new divisions or new schisms or new factions, because the whole
00:30:11.960
idea, if you remember from earlier in the book, he says it's not it's not just enough
00:30:15.980
to have a great ideology and it's not just enough to have a lot of political power, because
00:30:20.480
if you have a strong state with no great idea or a great idea with no power behind it, you're
00:30:25.320
not actually going to be able effectively to oppose unipolarity.
00:30:27.760
So part of his part of his rhetoric or part of his art of writing, part of the way that
00:30:32.300
he presents his ideas is designed to be able to fashion a consensus among groups that may
00:30:41.020
So maybe, you know, how much of that is strategic, rhetorical, viable and so on, but it's for
00:30:47.400
Yeah, I think that is one of the more interesting parts of this book for me, because many people
00:30:59.500
I'm against this attempt to unify and liquefy nations into kind of this this one global hegemon.
00:31:06.440
But they don't really think about what that would take and what that would entail.
00:31:09.900
And the fact that he stops to remind people like the only thing that's going to most people
00:31:15.460
ignore the problem of the centralization of power.
00:31:17.520
They just say I'm against globalism, but they ignore the fact that a unified global power
00:31:22.320
is going to be stronger than whatever divided nationalism they might embrace.
00:31:27.700
And so the fact that he understands that and he says, OK, there is a way to unify these
00:31:32.480
There is a way to kind of form an opposing position where everyone does not have to agree
00:31:39.120
on the same culture, the exact same tradition, the exact same way of life, but does agree that
00:31:44.800
the existence of those cultural and moral particulars is valuable is important.
00:31:51.400
I think it's a detail that's too often brushed over by the those that oppose globalism, but
00:31:57.040
don't think critically about what actually make would actually take to kind of unify and push
00:32:05.100
And part parts of it may still strike people as unsettling or uncomfortable or unfamiliar,
00:32:11.200
because he says, you know, there should be cooperation between the left and the right.
00:32:14.480
You know, you could combine the ecologists and the orthodox traditionalists.
00:32:18.700
And, you know, so we have to make it's in this sense, it's a big anti liberal or big anti modern
00:32:25.440
tent, because you may have people on the like he puts it here, conscious cooperation of the
00:32:31.200
radical left wingers and the new right, as well as with religious and other anti modern
00:32:35.260
movements, such as the ecologists and green theorists, for example.
00:32:38.600
So nor, you know, normally, let's say you might look at the green theorists and think that
00:32:41.780
they're completely, whatever, right, and they may look to the right and think that those
00:32:48.720
And I think a memorable passage from this chapter, along a couple of other things that are worth
00:32:52.480
discussing where he says that these little group divisions, you know, the hostility of
00:32:57.680
one group to another group, these prejudices are the instruments in the hands of liberals
00:33:02.160
and globalists with which they keep their enemies divided.
00:33:04.580
So we should strongly reject anti communism, as well as anti fascism, both of them are counter
00:33:09.060
revolutionary tools in the hands of the global liberal elite.
00:33:11.700
Very interesting, because on one hand, he's rejected communism and fascism.
00:33:15.200
So he's not for communism, he's not for fascism, but he's also not for anti communism.
00:33:19.640
And he's not for anti fascism, because those movements can be exploited by the central
00:33:25.200
power for the sake of opposing any possible genuine alternative, which is just also intriguing.
00:33:33.500
And I don't think you see that kind of argument necessarily every time you read a criticism of
00:33:39.420
No, I thought that was very interesting, because, for instance, Paul Gottfried has written a whole
00:33:43.780
book about how the American kind of global order is inherently a program of denazification,
00:33:50.820
anti fascist, and it's, you know, it's construction, and that it kind of blinds it to kind of all of its
00:33:57.360
other problems are all the ways that anything might be opposed to it. So I do think that's
00:34:02.720
interesting that he picked up on that strain of thought there. But I also wanted to point out that
00:34:08.860
he encourages the opposition here to be anti capitalist, anti liberal, anti cosmopolitan and
00:34:17.120
anti individualist. Again, a lot of people might read kind of pull back from any one of those
00:34:23.900
assertions. But it is obvious that these are elements that are essential to kind of the current
00:34:29.380
world order. And so if you're looking at something that's beyond it, you are probably going to have
00:34:34.160
to oppose all of these things, at least some way. Yeah, so I haven't read it. But one of his recent
00:34:39.800
books is called anti capitalism from the right. So it's clearly a part of his attack on the modern world
00:34:46.340
isn't it, you know, is a critical assessment of capitalism that he can borrow in part from the
00:34:51.500
leftist tradition, but reinterpret it from a traditionalist, let's say, or right wing perspective.
00:34:57.540
Obviously, people who are all in on the social and political virtues of capitalism won't like that.
00:35:02.680
But even so you learn from people who have criticized your position, and therefore, it's worth considering
00:35:06.880
one thing. One thing I want to say about an earlier page in this chapter, just because I think it's
00:35:13.000
helpful. So way back near the beginning of the book, when he started talking about the
00:35:17.940
towards the fourth political theory, the subject of the fourth political theory, and he said it's
00:35:22.860
going to reject the individual, the class, the race, and the state, it's going to pause at something
00:35:27.920
else. One thing he said, then was, you know, as we look for possible key players of the fourth
00:35:35.880
political theory, ultimately, it's upon that sign. But as we look at it, we can see like combinations.
00:35:40.140
So for example, maybe you, you know, combine, like national Bolshevism, you've somehow you've
00:35:45.180
combined the class concern of communism with the ethnic or state concern of fascism or something
00:35:53.060
like that. So some people who have written about this book are like, yeah, all Dugan's trying to do
00:35:56.560
is to combine the other political theories. But here he says, in my opinion, this is important for
00:36:01.120
understanding him. He says this idea of a combination, I'm not quoting yet, I'll be quoting
00:36:05.640
in a second, the idea of combining the first, second, third political theory, he says, is only
00:36:09.540
the first step, the mechanical addition of deeply revised versions of the anti liberal ideologies
00:36:15.220
of the past. In other words, combining some sort of red brown alliance will not give us a final
0.99
00:36:19.960
result. It's only a first approximation and preliminary approach. So it's kind of like just
00:36:24.900
the first mental exercise to get you outside of the usual way of thinking. But then as he puts it,
00:36:30.120
we must go further and make an appeal to tradition and pre modern sources of inspiration. So you're not
00:36:34.960
going to fight liberalism effectively just by combining nationalism and socialism. Rather,
00:36:40.320
you have to have recourse to Plato, to medieval philosophy, to theology, and to all of these
00:36:45.500
deeper, somehow more serious sources. And therefore, he also puts it, he's not telling us what the theory
00:36:51.980
is and what it's not. It's a kind of invitation and appeal rather than a dogma. So I've always thought
00:36:56.620
that was pretty important as well, both because he's saying there's this preliminary step, like an
00:37:01.900
operation to get us warmed up, then there's a much bigger task. And everybody's invited to participate
00:37:06.640
in that task to develop it to think it through, you know, and what he's really doing is just setting
00:37:11.220
some initial parameters. Yeah, that covers most of the rest of what I was going to say there. I think
00:37:16.840
he yeah, he touches once again, on the synthesis of communism and fascism talking about how you need
00:37:22.660
to discard the the materialism of communism, you need to discard the race obsession of fascism, and you
00:37:28.880
need to kind of take what what else is still left between those two. But as you said that, you know,
00:37:35.640
he then talks a lot about national Bolshevism there. I don't know if you want to touch on any
00:37:41.500
more of that. We mentioned national Bolshevism before and why that might be important to him.
00:37:45.980
I don't think we went into a lot of detail of what it is and kind of how that might connect to the
00:37:50.080
political theory. Yeah, so I'll just say one thing about national Bolshevism, which is Dugan had been
00:37:55.980
involved with this ideological experiment earlier in his career, and it had a political dimension
00:38:01.520
because he was one of the co-founders of the National Bolshevik Party. There's an essay online
00:38:05.820
of his you can find called The Metaphysics of National Bolshevism, which is interesting and worth
00:38:09.380
reading. And what I really like about that essay, as a clear conceptual distinction, he says, you know,
00:38:16.140
there's this book by Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies. So he says, I'm going to define
00:38:21.140
national Bolshevism as the enemies of the open society. So on one hand, you have, okay, and that's
00:38:26.680
that's how he defines it at first in that essay. So that gives you some sense of where he was going
00:38:30.520
with it before the concept developed further. And then I have to say, there are all of these minor
00:38:35.620
details, you know, that point to other arguments in Dugan's work. And there's a very important one at
00:38:41.060
the end of this chapter. So remember, he's against unipolarity geopolitically, ideologically,
00:38:45.520
and spiritually. He defends multipolarity, but he makes this point at the end, he says,
00:38:49.920
multipolarity in all senses can be helpful. And quoting the important concept of nous,
00:38:56.500
intellect developed by the Greek philosopher Plotinus corresponds to our ideal. The intellect
00:39:01.500
is one and multiple at the same time, because it has multiple differences in itself. And then he
00:39:05.920
says the future world should be noetic in some way. Now, I'm going to make one little comment about
00:39:10.620
this. So he's combined multipolarity, which people might normally think of as just geopolitical,
00:39:15.520
with the idea of nous, a purely philosophical concept. And he has a series of books, I think
00:39:21.820
there's 24 of them in total, called Noo Magia. The noo part of that is nous. And the magia part
00:39:28.560
means like war. So wars of nous. And it's his philosophical analysis of civilizational
00:39:34.240
multipolarity. So here he says it in a paragraph, multipolarity must be noetic. Well, what does that
00:39:40.340
mean? Well, he's got 24 volumes on the analysis of civilizational multipolarity based on nous.
00:39:45.560
So in my school, I have a course on the introductory volumes just to get people acquainted before he
00:39:50.820
goes into like civilization by civilization analysis. But it's just another kind of Dugan move,
00:39:57.360
you know, multipolarity, everybody gets it. Oh, that means that, you know, BRICS is going to be
00:40:01.020
something and Shanghai Cooperation Organization is going to be something and Saudi Arabia is getting
00:40:04.480
strong. But that doesn't tell you what he means when he says it must be noetic in some way. And
00:40:09.640
that's where the philosophy comes in. See, I thought like the four volumes of society in the
00:40:13.760
mind were a little excessive, but I guess, you know, I should be grateful I didn't have to go
00:40:17.600
through 24 volumes of it. All right. Yeah. And he said in one of his interviews, he says these 24
00:40:24.400
volumes, they should really just serve as like a table of contents for the real work. So, you know,
00:40:28.920
he's he really wants a rich account of civilizational multipolarity. But, you know, 24 volumes is already
00:40:35.400
a lot. It feels like a decent amount. Yeah. All right. So then we get to our appendices here.
00:40:40.640
And there's two of them. The first one is kind of a sum up of terms that are used in the writing
00:40:48.120
here. He goes through political post-anthropology, political post-humanity and the post-state,
00:40:53.960
the political soldier in the simulacrum, and the alternative in political post-human anthropology,
00:41:00.140
pre-human and PC here. Some of these are just, again, restatements of ideas we've already gotten
00:41:05.680
through in the book. But is there any of this that you want to stop and focus on for a minute?
00:41:09.320
Yeah. So I'll say just like in the case of gender, there was the question, can you return to a standard
0.77
00:41:14.280
classical masculine ideal or something like that? So to here, he says in the post-modern state of
00:41:21.440
affairs, can you just return to the figure of the political soldier, someone who's willing to fight
00:41:26.480
and die for his idea? That's a modern, in his view anyway, you know, there were political soldiers,
00:41:31.880
but in our virtual post-modern state, it would be like a self-parodying weird simulacrum type thing,
00:41:38.840
you know? Like it's, there's no longer a space in the world for genuine political soldier. That would
00:41:44.400
be another example of taking a step back. So that's why I said in the logic of gender, in the logic of
0.91
00:41:48.760
the ideologies, and here in the logic of the figure of the political man, there's no taking a step back.
00:41:54.680
So I think that's a helpful idea. And then there's some things he says that, again, I don't know,
00:42:00.140
the references to Deleuze for sure, but also where he says, you know, the, now how fashion,
00:42:06.140
celebrity, glamour, show business, they're inculcating ideas that to attain material
00:42:10.180
prosperity, one doesn't need to earn money through work. One must instead be recognized by the relevant
00:42:14.540
social set, become a member of the ever-changing glamour network. All of these things, I think, again,
00:42:19.020
trends that he identified there that have continued and gotten even crazier. Actual work is not
00:42:24.080
necessary. It's optional. That made me think of all those TikTok videos of like a day in the work
00:42:27.460
of a Google employee where they're just sitting around looking pretty or whatever. That's, you
00:42:31.060
know, the post, the post state in a nutshell. And then he has other just nice phrases, like it's a
00:42:36.440
sort of pirate republic placed in cyberspace or a Brazilian carnival, a hallucinatory game. So somehow,
00:42:43.720
you know, it's all related to the things he said before in this sort of unreal virtual parody,
00:42:50.100
confused parody of the earlier states of relative normality. But we also just can't return there.
00:42:58.260
Right. So the next appendices is an interesting one. I don't know what the context came in for this.
00:43:05.980
If it was a separate chapter, I know you helped to translate this. So maybe you know better how this
00:43:11.520
kind of ended up where it did, but it's called the metaphysics of chaos.
00:43:14.960
Yeah. So I didn't translate this chapter and I'm not, uh, I wasn't involved with the compilation of
00:43:19.700
the text. So it combined some of the original chapters of fourth political theory with some
00:43:23.140
other ones, but I will say this chaos is a very important theme for Dugan. Some people who have
00:43:30.460
skimmed the surface of his, uh, public profile have said, you know, there's this star, uh, the star
00:43:37.920
that's in the middle of the cover right here. They're like, that's the chaos star. And that proves that
00:43:42.400
Dugan is a Satanist because he follows Alistair Crowley and he's like chaos. You know, I've heard,
00:43:48.080
you can read all kinds of things about the meaning of that star and so on the chaos star. But the,
00:43:52.040
the idea of chaos is actually very important in his work, not only here in this appendix,
00:43:56.660
in his second Heidegger book called Martin Heidegger, the possibility of Russian philosophy.
00:44:01.360
He has a whole section on the meaning of a philosophy of chaos. I translated parts of it and
00:44:08.280
they're available in my book on my second book, which is called, uh, inside Putin's brain,
00:44:13.640
the political philosophy of Alexander Dugan. Uh, if anybody wants, they can reach out and I'll send
00:44:17.560
a free PDF copy or whatever. You don't have to buy it, but it has excerpts of his philosophy of chaos
00:44:22.240
from that book. Uh, another thing I want to say is there's a very nice essay of his available online,
00:44:27.780
which is, he goes over like the original meanings of chaos among the Greek philosophers and
00:44:33.600
pedicles and so on. And there's a lot about this topic. That's very, very, very important.
00:44:38.820
So in this chapter, you start to get a sense, a sense of it, you know, not the last word,
00:44:43.260
like much of this book is like that suggestive, but not the last word, but still a lot, you know,
00:44:48.440
and here the idea, this is the crucial idea is that there is not one chaos. There are two chaoses.
00:44:55.340
There's a chaos that follows the collapse of order. And there's a chaos that proceeds as it were,
00:45:02.320
the birth of order. And that little division, like so many other little divisions in this book,
00:45:08.700
help Dugan to analyze the state of affairs. So if logos or reason or rationality has played itself
00:45:16.700
out to this post-rational, schizophrenic, post-modern, uh, world, uh, playground or nightmare or carnival,
00:45:25.140
depending on how you prefer to see it. So it's going into a chaos. It's becoming chaotic.
00:45:31.220
And that chaos is reflected in all kinds of processes and new technologies and the development
00:45:36.880
of chaos, you know, the mathematics that's appropriate to the study of chaos,
00:45:40.220
but it is all the collapse, a collapse of logos, collapse of reason, dissolution, dissipation,
00:45:48.060
and somehow destruction, but a destruction that's interpreted as progress, as progressive,
00:45:53.020
as better. And Dugan, when he puzzles through philosophically, all of these challenges,
00:45:58.780
you know, what do we need a new philosophy? Are we just, are we just left with what we have now?
00:46:03.600
What are we going to do? He goes all the way back to the beginning, as it were, and says,
00:46:07.640
what about the original chaos? What about the womb of order? What about that, which embraced logos,
00:46:16.940
but wasn't logos, you know? And it's, again, some people might hear that and be like, this is totally
00:46:23.140
abstract. This is totally useless. It doesn't solve any real problems, but it doesn't matter because
00:46:27.360
whenever we think about things like rights or the state or authority, legitimacy, we're always going
00:46:33.640
to be thinking, quote unquote, abstractly, but in ways that do have a lot of relevance. So in the
00:46:39.400
Heidegger book that I mentioned, he says, when he goes through the philosophy of chaos, he's like,
00:46:43.600
from this perspective, we have to reinterpret the whole meaning of Russian history and of world
00:46:47.280
history and so on. So absolutely crucial concept. And not to go on and on, but I want to say one more
00:46:52.980
thing which isn't in the chapter, but which may help people to think about it. The natural opposition
00:46:59.620
is between chaos and order. Like people who read Jordan Peterson or whatever else, you know,
00:47:04.800
may be familiar with that kind of opposition. So if the natural, I mean, in this chapter,
00:47:08.640
he talks about chaos and logos, but another natural opposition to chaos and order. So when we think
00:47:13.700
about international affairs, when we think politically, usually we think in terms of order,
00:47:19.300
new world order, as you mentioned earlier, a fight for the global order, you know, a multipolar world
00:47:24.820
order. And one of the things that Dugan tries to bring out is that it's not just a new order that's
00:47:31.060
at stake. It's not just the nature of order in the world that's at stake right now. It's also the nature
00:47:36.000
of chaos that's at stake. And chaos is related to the processes around these wars because war is
00:47:41.700
chaotic. So it's a huge theme for him, way beyond this chapter. But as I say, this chapter is like a
00:47:48.700
for a good first exposure to it. Yeah, I think that hit most of the notes I had on there is just
00:47:54.920
talking about how logos was kind of the end of European philosophy, kind of the two chaos is the
00:48:02.620
distinction that you talked about there. That's important that I wanted to hit on, you know, logos
00:48:09.040
as the center of a number of religions, especially Christianity and Greek thoughts.
00:48:13.860
And so, yeah, I think that that pretty much it's everything. Conservatism is kind of the
00:48:20.140
restoration of logos. That might be interesting to talk about for just a second. I see a lot of
00:48:23.960
people, Jordan Peterson, others, especially on kind of the the non woke left or the kind of the
00:48:31.680
classical centrist or classical liberal kind of centrist movement, talking about logos as a way to
00:48:39.660
kind of revivify the Western tradition and bring things back. He kind of pre he he predicts this,
00:48:48.980
right? He predicts that this is the route that conservatives will take attempting to kind of
00:48:54.240
rehabilitate logos and bring it back into the kind of the center of the discussion. But every time I hear
00:49:00.380
people talk about this, it's always feels like them trying to do a disembodied rationalist version of
00:49:07.420
Christianity. It always feels like them trying to find kind of the remnants of Christian ethos and
0.84
00:49:15.380
kind of tie it together in a way that will become acceptable for people who are no longer able to be
00:49:20.820
bound by kind of a religious ideal. And I think that might be kind of part of what he's pointing
00:49:26.780
out when he's talking about the kind of these attempts will fail and it has to kind of move
00:49:30.580
beyond that. But I didn't know if you wanted to expound a little bit on that at all.
00:49:34.060
So there would be, in my view, different ways you could try to return to logos, you know, some of
00:49:39.900
them would be a reassertion of a specific kind of rationality, some of them may be an attempt to
00:49:43.820
restore classical learning, you know, the class, let's go back and can't we all just go memorize
00:49:48.060
Dante like we used to or something like that, you know, the classical school model, others may be a kind
00:49:52.420
of watered down Christianity, you know, or very unified or so there are all of these possible ways that
00:49:59.540
you could do it. But Dugan, again, following the logic that you can't take a step back unless you
00:50:05.500
go back to the very origin of the very source. That is always the sort of movement of his thought here.
00:50:11.740
And one of the things that I've observed, a lot of the slightly different from the point you made,
00:50:18.380
but I've observed that a lot of, let's say, conservatives, Republicans, or, you know,
00:50:22.260
defenders of tradition, anti-postmodern thinkers, they want to go back to, let's learn Greek again and
00:50:28.520
Latin again and really let's do this sort of like encyclopedia of the cultural treasures of the
00:50:35.200
Western world, you know, in other words, the whole positive history of Logos. But one of the things
00:50:41.800
that Dugan is so adamant about is that in some way, the postmoderns are right that you have to go to
00:50:49.600
Nietzsche, you have to go to Heidegger, you have to go to those people who saw the end of Logos, or at
00:50:55.660
least who claimed to have seen the end of it, who claimed to have seen the, its total loss of power
00:51:02.720
and legitimacy, and who were able to analyze that process in a lot of detail. So it's kind of like,
00:51:08.940
again, this is the way that I, this is the way that I see things. I think it maps on somehow.
00:51:13.460
German philosophers who, especially, obviously, especially Heidegger, but not only, who looked over
00:51:19.680
the whole process of Western philosophy, they were read by the left postmoderns and not so much by the
00:51:24.920
conservative rightists. And therefore, the combination of a desire to go back to the very
00:51:31.500
origin of the whole drama of reason, of Logos, the whole problem of being and non-being in some sense,
00:51:37.780
the whole problem of chaos and order, to go all the way back to the origin of that problem,
00:51:41.940
the conservative Republican, you know, somehow classically oriented right would have to go where
00:51:47.720
it doesn't want to go into German philosophy. And that's why Dugan represents a very unique
00:51:54.040
alternative. He's combined that concern with German philosophy, but in a way that is unfamiliar,
00:52:00.680
because we, we tend to see that among the French postmodern leftists, not among the, you know,
00:52:06.060
Russian postmodern rightists, as it were. But that's, you know, that's, that's a key and crucial
00:52:12.180
problem. Because even though it would be good, let's say, let's say everybody at the table could
00:52:16.640
agree, you know, it would be much better for people to read the Bible and Shakespeare and Plato and
00:52:22.740
Cicero and all of these other great works, you know, like you can get from a St. John's curriculum
00:52:27.880
or something like that, that, that would be much better than if they constantly read some sort of
00:52:32.560
contemporary ideological trash. That's probably true. They would become more cultivated, more cultured,
00:52:37.780
they'd have more points of reference, and they would understand the whole heritage and the legacy
00:52:43.300
of the Western world in a way that right now is under attack. That's true. But will they have
00:52:51.700
penetrated to the deepest dimension of the most fundamental problems? That's, that remains open.
00:52:57.700
And that's what, that's where Dugan in his constant reference to Heidegger is always looking to go.
00:53:02.500
So that's sort of where, where matters stand, I would say, with the question of chaos. That's what
00:53:07.340
it represents to him. It represents the, the very source and origin of the tradition.
00:53:14.620
All right, well, we can go ahead and probably wrap up here. Before we go to the questions of the
00:53:21.220
people, first, is there anything that we, you know, we've, we've gone through five episodes here,
00:53:26.320
but is there anything that we didn't get to something that we didn't explore in enough depth
00:53:30.680
or something that we need to touch on again that you can think about?
00:53:32.900
No, I think we did a good job. Uh, all credit to you for covering the book, uh, cover to cover.
00:53:38.100
I'll just say for those who are intrigued enough to want to read more, there's definitely more to
00:53:42.580
read. So there's the rise of the fourth political theory, which is part two. There are all of these
00:53:46.320
other books that we referred to of Dugan's ethnos and society beginning, uh, with Heidegger, my book
00:53:52.000
on him. And this, you know, there's a lot that you can read if you want to keep studying Dugan,
00:53:56.000
but this was a great place to, uh, to start. And for many people, a great place to finish too,
00:54:00.040
because it does give you a nice round overview, I think of his major concerns.
00:54:04.740
And let me encourage people. I know, uh, Michael was graciously like, you don't have to buy my book.
00:54:09.200
I'll hand you a copy or whatever, but do buy Michael's book. He's put in the yeoman's work
00:54:13.340
here. Uh, he's given you a masterclass on understanding of this book, uh, throw the man
00:54:18.440
some, some help here. You got to support people who are doing great work. So make sure that you're
00:54:22.520
taking care of those who are, who are putting in the hours like Michael is. Cause I think that's,
00:54:26.620
it's really important. Uh, but that, that said, uh, Michael, where can people find your work if
00:54:32.120
they want to support you? Want to look into what you're doing? So I'm on Twitter, M underscore
00:54:37.280
Millerman. I have a school millermanschool.com, some paid courses, some free courses. I'm on YouTube
00:54:42.820
where I put out lectures on Heidegger, Strauss, Dugan, and other figures. And, uh, you can find some
00:54:48.280
of my books, my two books on Amazon. And, uh, yeah, so just, I'm putting out material on political
00:54:54.280
philosophy and political theory wherever I can. Uh, Millerman school is my main, my main site.
00:54:59.360
Excellent. And guys, I've really enjoyed this, uh, series. I've gotten really good feedback from
00:55:04.500
this. I'm thinking about doing, you know, uh, streams like this as kind of a regular feature.
00:55:09.680
So if there is a work, if there's a thinker, if somebody that you'd like to have a deep dive in
00:55:15.760
kind of a multi-part series, looking at a particular, uh, work, let me know, put those comments down in the
00:55:21.700
description and I'll take those under advisement as I kind of plan out going forward, what we're
00:55:26.120
going to be looking at. Uh, that said, we do have a super chat here. So let me grab it here.
00:55:30.960
Uh, Cripper weirdo here for $5. How do we know this isn't another attempt at enlightened centrism?
00:55:37.260
So yeah, there's a lot of synthesis here, right? There's a lot of, well, we take a little bit of
00:55:41.440
this and we take a little bit of that and you know, we, we pull it all together. Uh, I think there's
00:55:46.640
a couple of obvious answers here, but how do we know that Dugan isn't just pulling a little bit
00:55:49.980
of enlightened centrism, but just kind of, uh, to the, his geopolitical interests?
00:55:55.460
Well, I would say that one way to think about centrism is the kind of moderation. We don't
00:55:59.400
want to go to the extremes. You know, we sort of want to, you don't want to upset the people
00:56:03.140
on the right too much. You don't want to upset the people on the left too much. Let's find this
00:56:06.220
sort of moderate, happy, uh, middle ground. That's not Dugan's view. He's a much more radical thinker.
00:56:12.280
You know, one of the biggest criticisms against him, I think is how, how little moderation
00:56:16.400
matters to him, how extreme he is in wanting to go all the way to the beginning or all the way to
00:56:20.880
the end, or, you know, very much against this or against that. So, um, a centrism would be more a
00:56:26.880
matter of playing it safe here. This is much more revolutionary. It's just not a leftist
00:56:32.500
revolutionary. It's a different kind of conservative revolutionary thought. So I think that would be one
00:56:36.780
way to, uh, to distinguish it. And then also with its interests in mysticism and in madness and in chaos,
00:56:42.940
I think that it goes against the grain of what we would normally consider enlightened,
00:56:47.360
which is sort of like purely rational, uh, and less mystical and less mad and less chaotic.
00:56:53.440
Yeah. I think that, uh, your point of, you know, normally you, you would be trying not to offend
00:56:58.000
anyone and instead Dugan seems to offend everyone, uh, you know, is a, is probably a sign that he's not
00:57:03.160
just aiming for the broadest audience. So, uh, I think that's a, that's a safe bet. Also, I noticed a
00:57:08.440
number of people bringing up the chaos symbol. Yes, guys. I also recognize that symbol from
00:57:13.580
Warhammer 40 K. So, uh, that's, that's where, that's where I knew the chaos symbol from. I knew
00:57:18.820
it immediately. So I hear you. All right, guys, I think that's everything. Once again, thank you to
00:57:24.440
Michael for coming on, did a great job, laid it out in a very helpful way. I know I learned a ton.
00:57:29.600
I got lots of good feedback from other people who learned a lot. So excellent that we were able to go
00:57:34.220
through this. I think it'll be very helpful. Again, guys, just want to remind you, you know,
00:57:38.180
these are not endorsements of ideas. This is not embracing of all of these things. We're looking
00:57:42.740
at a thinker because we want to better understand where they're coming from, the different sources
00:57:46.480
they're pulling together, the thought they're exploring. You don't have to embrace all of this
00:57:50.700
stuff or even any of it to still find value in the points that he's bringing forward. The analysis
00:57:55.400
that is bringing forward. As I pointed out many times, Dugan is often pulling from a lot of different
00:58:00.660
people. A lot of these thoughts aren't new to him, but he's bringing them together in a very
00:58:04.460
interesting way. And there's a lot of value in that. So even if you don't find one thing that
00:58:09.100
Dugan said particularly helpful, remember, he's drawing from lots of other thinkers that you can
00:58:13.540
explore as well to kind of better understand those different pieces of the puzzle that he's
00:58:19.240
pulling together. As always, guys, if this is your first time here, please make sure that you go ahead
00:58:24.440
and subscribe to the channel. And if you'd like to get these broadcasts as podcasts,
00:58:28.200
make sure you subscribe to the Oren McIntyre show on all your favorite podcast networks.
00:58:33.320
Thanks for coming by guys. And as always, we'll talk to you next time.