Klaus Schwab, Transgenderism, and AI | Russian Philosopher Aleksandr Dugin
Aleksandr Dugin is the most famous political philosopher in Russia. His ideas are considered so dangerous the Ukrainian government murdered his daughter and Amazon won’t sell his books. We talked to him in Moscow.
Watch more here: https://watchtcn.co/49CDF2t
Subscribe to the new Tucker Carlson Network channel for more exclusive content: https://www.youtube.com/@TCNetwork/featured?sub_confirmation=1
Follow Tucker on X: https://x.com/TuckerCarlson
Text “TUCKER” to 44055 for exclusive updates.
#TuckerCarlson #Russia #AleksandrDugin #JoeBiden #VladimirPutin #KlausSchwab #trans #transgenderism #transgender #news #woke #politics #banned
Alexander Dugin is a 62-year-old Russian academic philosopher.
He spent his life in Moscow.
He was an anti-Soviet dissident as a young man.
And now he is famous the world over, in the English language press anyway, as quote, Putin's brain.
But he is not a political figure here in Russia.
He is once again a philosopher.
And his ideas are deeply offensive to some people.
In August of 2022, his only daughter was murdered in Moscow when a car bomb killed her.
U.S. intelligence says she was murdered by the Ukrainian government, and we take that at face value.
But what's interesting is that once again, Alexander Dugin is not a military leader.
He's not a close daily advisor to Vladimir Putin.
He is a writer who writes about big ideas.
And for this, his books have been banned by the Biden administration in the United States.
You cannot buy them on Amazon, banning books in the United States because the ideas inside are too dangerous.
He's often described, again, in the English language press, as far-right.
We'll let you assess.
But we wanted to talk to him about some of his ideas, these ideas that are so dangerous that his only daughter was murdered over them, and his books have been banned in the United States.
Actually, we're having a conversation that we were not going to film.
I was just interested to meet you.
But what you said was so interesting that we got a couple of cameras and put this together.
And my question to you is, what do you think is happening in the English language countries?
And I said, all of them, United States, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, all at once decided to turn, seemed to, turn against themselves.
You know, it's great turmoil, and some of the behavior seemed very self-destructive.
And where do you think, as an observer, that comes from?
So I could just suggest express my reading of that.
It demands a little patience.
So I think that everything started with individualism.
So individualism, that was a wrong understanding of the human nature, of the nature of man.
When you identify individualism with the man, with the human nature, you cut all the relations to everything else.
So you have a very special idea of the subject, philosophical subject, as individual.
And everything started in the Anglo-Saxon world with Protestant reform and with nominalism.
Before that, nominalist attitude that there are no ideas, only things, only individual things.
So individual, it was the key and is still key concept that was put in the center of liberal ideology.
And liberalism, as in my reading, it is a kind of historical and cultural and political and philosophical process of liberation of individual of any kind of collective identity, collective or that transcend, transcends individual.
And that started with refuse of Catholic Church as collective identity, of empire, Western Empire as collective identity.
After that, it was a revolt against a national state as collective identity in favor of purely civil society.
After that, there was a big fight of the 20th century between liberalism, communism, and fascism.
And liberalism has won once more.
And after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was only liberalism.
And Francis Fukuyama has pointed out correctly that there are no more any ideologies except of liberalism.
And liberalism, that was liberation of this individual from any kind of collective identity.
There were only two collective identities to liberate from gender identity, because it is collective identity.
You are man or woman collectively, so you couldn't live alone.
So liberation from gender, and that has led to transgenders, to LGBT, and new form of sexual individualism.
So sex is something optional.
And that was not just a deviation of liberalism.
That was necessarily elements of implementation and the victory of this liberal ideology.
And the last step that is not yet totally made is liberation from human identity, humanity optional.
And when now we are choosing, or you in the West, you are choosing the sex you want, as you want.
And the last step in this process of liberalism, implementation of liberalism, will mean precisely the human optional.
So you can choose your individual identity to be human, not to be human.
And that has a name.
Transhumanism, post-humanism, singularity, artificial intelligence, Klaus Schwab, Kurzweil, or Harare.
They openly declare that is the inevitable future of humanity.
So we arrive to the historical terminal station that we finally, five centuries ago, we have embarked in this train and now we are arriving at the last station.
So that is my reading.
And when all the elements, all the phases of that, you cut the tradition with the past.
So you are no more Protestant, you are secular, atheist, materialist, you are no more national state that served to liberal, to liberate from empire, and now national state becomes at its turn obstacle.
You are liberating from national state.
Finally, family is destroyed in favor of this individualism.
And the last thing is the sex that is already almost overcome, sex optional and gender politics.
There is only one step to arrive to the end of this process of liberation, of liberalism.
That is the abandoned human identity as something prescribed.
So to be free from to be human, to have the possibility to choose to be or not to be human.
And that is the agenda, political, ideological agenda of tomorrow.
That is why how I see Anglo-Saxon world that you have asked of, I think that is just avant-garde one word of this process,
because that started with Anglo-Saxons' emperorism, nominalism, Protestantism, and now you are ahead as an Anglo-Saxon, more devoted to liberalism than any other European- So what you're describing is clearly happening, and it's horrifying.
But it's not the definition of liberalism I have in mind when I describe myself as what we say in the United States as a classical liberal.
So you think of liberalism as individual freedom and choice from slavery, right?
So the options as we conceived them as I was growing up were the individual who can follow his conscience, say what he thinks, defend himself against the state versus the statism, the totalitarianism embodied in the government that you fought against, the Soviet government.
I think that is the problem is in two definitions of liberalism.
There is old liberalism, classical liberalism, and new liberalism.
So classical liberalism was in favor of democracy, democracy understood as the power of majority, of consensus, of individual freedom that should be combined somehow with the freedom of others.
And now we have totally the next station already, next phase, new liberalism.
Now it is not about the rule of majority, but it is about the rule of minorities.
It is not about individual freedom, but it is about wokeism.
So you should be so individualistic that you should criticize not only the state, but individual, the old understanding of individuals.
So now you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality, to go further in that direction.
So I have spoken with Fukuyama, Francis Fukuyama, on TV, and he has said, before democracy has meant the rule of majority, and now it is about the rule of minorities against majority, because majority could choose Hitler or Putin.
So we need to be very careful with majority, and majority should be taken under control.
And minorities should rule over majority.
Majority, it is not democracy, it's already totalitarianism.
And now we are not about defense of the individual freedom, but about prescription to be woke, to be modern, to be progressive.
It is not your right to be or not to be progressive.
It is your duty to be progressive, to follow this agenda.
So you are free to be left liberal.
You are no more free enough to be right liberal.
You should be left liberal.
And that is a kind of duty.
It is prescription.
So liberalism fought during its history against any kind of prescription.
And now it, at its turn, became totalitarian, prescriptive, not free as it was in some...
Well, it's certainly what we're living, and to see self-described liberals ban your book, which is not a manual for bomb making or invading Ukraine.
These are philosophical works tells you that it's not, of course, it's not liberal in any sense.
I wonder, though, when you reach the point when the individual can no longer liberate himself from anything when he's just not even human, what's the next step after that?
That is described in the pictures, American pictures films in many ways.
So I think that you know that all the science fictions, almost all of the 19th century, were realized in the reality in the 20s.
So there is nothing more realistic than science fiction.
And if you consider Matrix or Terminator, you have so many more or less coinciding version of the future, the future with the post-human or human optional situation or artificial intelligence.
Hollywood has made many, many films.
I think they portray correctly reality of the closed future.
So for example, if we consider the man, the human nature, as a kind of rational animals.
So you could now with our technology, you could produce them.
So you could create rational animals or combine them or construct them.
And artificial intelligence, strong artificial intelligence, neural network, plus a huge database, it is a kind of king of the world, I would say, that could not only manipulate, but create realities, because the realities are just images, just sensations, just feelings.
So I think that post-humanist futurism is a kind of not only realistical description of the very possible and probable future, but as well a kind of political manifest.
So it is not, that is kind of visual thinking.
And the fact that you have no bright traditional future described in the films.
I don't know any movie, any movie of the future in the West made about return to traditional life, the prosperity, the families with many children.
Everything is quite, quite in shadow, quite black.
So if you're used to paint everything black and the future especially, so this black future once arrives.
And I think that is the fact, the same fact that we have no other option, either matrix or artificial intelligence or something or a terminator.
So the choice is already outside of the limits of humanity.
And that is not just fantasy, I think.
That is a kind of political project.
And it is easy to imagine because we have seen the films.
They follow more or less close this progressive, I would say, agenda.
So I've asked you no questions about Russia or Russian politics, and I'm not going to, because I think it's so interesting to see your perspective on countries that you don't live in, because we do gain insight, I think, from the view of outsiders.
My last question to you is how do you explain this phenomenon I have noticed where for over 70 years a group of people in the West, in the United States liberals, effectively defended the Soviet system and Stalinism, and many participated, personally participated in Stalinism, spied for Stalin, supported him in our media.
In the year 2000, and they loved Boris Yeltsin because he was drunk, but in the year 2000, leadership of this country changed and Russia became their main enemy.
So after 80 odd years of defending Russia, they hated Russia.
I think that, first of all, Putin is a traditional leader.
So Putin, when he came to power, from the very beginning, he started to extract our country, Russia, from the global influence.
So he started to contradict to global progressist agenda.
And these people who supported the Soviet Union, they were progressists, and they are now progressists.
So they have felt that now they are dealing, they were dealing with someone who doesn't share this progressist agenda and who tried and with success to restore traditional values, sovereignty of the state, Christianity, traditional family.
That wasn't even from the beginning, from outside.
But when Putin insisted more and more on this traditional agenda, I would say, on the particularity and speciality of the Russian civilization as some special type of world vision that had and has now very little similarities with the progressist ideals.
So I think that they have discovered, they have identified in Putin precisely what Putin is.
So he is a kind of leader, political leader, defending traditional values.
So only recently, one year ago, Putin has made a decree of the political defense of traditional values.
That was turning point, I would say.
But observers from the progressive camp in the West, I think they have understood that from the beginning of his rule correctly, correctly.
So this hatred is not just casual, something casual or some mood.
So if your main task and main goal is to destroy traditional value, traditional family, traditional states, traditional relations, traditional beliefs, and someone with the nuclear weapon, that is not smallest, but the last but not least arguments.
Someone with nuclear weapon to stand strong, defending traditional value, you are going to abolish.
I think they have some basis for this Russophobia and the hatred for Putin.
So it is not just by the chance, not some irrational, irrational change from Soviet affiliate to Russia phobia.