The New Anti-Racist

On Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory (Part I)

Post author By newantiracist
Post date June 5, 2020
No Comments on On Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory (Part I)

I recently read the book “The Fourth Political Theory” by Vladimir Dugin, a Russian philosopher. Dugin gets a bad rap in the western press, sometimes he is claimed to be the mastermind behind Vladimir Putin. After reading the book, I am sure that that is not true. Dugin is far out there, Putin does mostly nitty-gritty realpolitik.

The book first tries to dismantle the three most influential western political ideologies of the twentieth century, of which one is still influential in the twenty-first. These are, not in any particular order, communism, fascism, and neo-liberalism. He gives a Heideggerian critique of all three. Communism is based on class consciousness, and as an ideology, it directs its subjects to identify with class. Fascism is based (usually) on a strong conscious identification with race. Neo-liberalism is based on a strong conscious identification with one’s own individuality. This last one may sound much nicer than the first two, but the problem is not so much with what we are directed to identify with, but the very fact that we are directed to strongly identify. Heidegger, a student of the phenomenologist philosopher Husserl, was the first to critique the idea that we can find our authentic identity by conscious identification.

The saxophonist/philosopher Gilad Atzmon, in his book “The Wandering Who” does a superb job of bringing this idea widely understandable, not just to experts. When we consciously decide to build an identity, we sacrifice authenticity. Conscious identification means trying to access, but more like build, an identity using artifical means. To start with, we will use language, which itself is already an artificial construct, but we will not be able to put aside other artificial biases. As a simple example (indebted to Gilad again), consider a musician, who is trying to be an authentic musician by worrying about appearance, i.e., in which ear should the earring go, are his blue jeans sufficiently torn, or whether his hair style OK.

Dugin’s point is, and I think this is a very strong one, that, even though the three western ideologies direct towards identities of very different types, in the end all three are doomed due to their lack of authenticity. Class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. exist, and are probably important in some contexts, but it is futile to build political action on them, it only results in identity politics, but this is all the west has to offer. Actually, the parallel between the identity politics of neoliberalism and nazism was also pointed out by Gilad Atzmon: in the end both insist on biological identifications. The former on being a woman, transgender, of a particular sexual orientation, etc., the latter on identifying with one’s race.

To be continued…

Culture Literature Politics

Literary Comparisons: The Epstein Saga

Post author By newantiracist
Post date May 30, 2020
No Comments on Literary Comparisons: The Epstein Saga

The mainstream media often compares convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to Gatsby. I argue below that there are much more apposite literary comparisons: Shakespeare’s Shylock, and Dickens’ Fagin.

Accounts of Jeffrey Epstein in the mainstream media, often compare the convicted paedophile to Jay Gatsby, the protagonist of the novel of F. Scott Fitzgerald. For example, a recent Financial Times article writing about the TV series “Filthy Rich” starts out with this metaphor.

The comparison is usually justified by the fact that Gatsby was immensely wealthy, and the origins of his wealth were murky, and perhaps because Gatsby also held parties on the premises of his estate for the rich, famous and influential. But this justification should be considered shallow at best. The similarities end there, and the differences are much more essential.

The Great Gatsby chronicles the conflict between inherited (Tom Buchanan) and acquired (Gatsby himself) status and wealth, and is partly about how the former seeks to keep the latter down. One could argue that the end summary of the book is when the narrator, Nick Carraway says to Gatsby, “Jay, they are a rotten crowd. You are worth the whole damn bunch put together.” Can anyone imagine saying this about Jeffrey Epstein?

Literature of the English language is rich in characters, and some could likely be more appropriate for the case at hand. The source of Epstein’s wealth was also murky, but it likely goes back to an old method of making money, which appears in “The Merchant of Venice” by William Shakespeare. Shylock did not have “sterile sheep”, but his “ducats multiplied.” This is the economic model on which our system is based. Epstein was a beneficiary of this corrupt system.

Perhaps the most apposite literary character which parallels Epstein is Fagin, from “Oliver Twist” of Charles Dickens. Fagin is the ultimate villain, he exploits children for his own benefit. Fagin was not entirely fictitious either. He was based on the real life character of Ikey Solomon, a British criminal.

Epstein, like Fagin, also exploited children. Epstein was worse though, since he sexually molested his victims. Was this a limitation on the imagination of Dickens? In his times maybe this kind of abuse of children was unthinkable? Had Fagin done such a thing, he would have been, rightfully, stoned to death, even by his criminal neighbors.

Or was it that while the Fagins (or Ikey Solomons) were in their times living on the bottom of society, today the Epsteins are our ruling aristocracy, and this new status gives them the confidence to commit even more extreme crimes than before?

When Fagin’s crimes were discovered, he was immediately executed, while Epstein was barely punished. Fagin did not have the political elite as guests at his abode, and did not have influential lawyers defending him in court. Epstein had all of those things.

This seems to suggest that Fagin as a metaphor for Epstein is limited. But here, the limitations are due to the change in times that occurred between the times in which “Oliver Twist” was written and ours.

Epstein is indeed the Fagin of our age!

Tags Culture, Literature, Politics

Culture Politics Russia

The unexpected relevance of Doctor Strangelove

Post author By newantiracist
Post date August 16, 2019
No Comments on The unexpected relevance of Doctor Strangelove

I recently watched the Stanley Kubrick classic Dr. Strangelove, for the first time, upon a friend’s recommendation. I was shocked by how relevant I found it to be to our world today, even more so, than it was when it was made. For sure Kubrick did not intend this.

What do I mean?

Many, if not all, the characters and events can be made to correpond to real political personalities and events of our time. Not in all, but in certain very essential aspects. Let us do this step by step.

To start, let me make one correspondence which leaves a lot to be desired. The USSR of the movie is the Russia of today. Russia has changed a lot since the times of the USSR, but it is still the number one public enemy in the eyes of many Americans. Perhaps even more so than it was in Kubrick’s time.

America’s attack on the USSR in the movie can be placed in correspondence to the NATO enlargement that has been taking place recently. OK, this is a weaker correspondence, let us hope, for now.

U.S. President Merkin Muffley: He is Donald Trump. When Trump was campaigning, he explicitly stated that he would like to have better relations with the Russians. President Muffley in the movie is way more reasonable towards the Russians than the others present in the Pentagon War Room.

General Turgidson: he likes the idea of war against the USSR. There are simply too many people he could be today, any neo-con pundit, or even someone inside the Trump administration, like Mike Pompeo.

Brigadier General Ripper: Again, too many people are eerily similar to this guy. Let us chose John Bolton, since he is in the current Trump administration. It was Ripper who started the attack on the USSR in the movie, and he was a rabid warmonger. These characteristics do justify placing him in correspondence to John Bolton.

And here is the kicker. Ripper’s justification for starting the war was that “the Russians are poisoning America’s drinking water with fluoride”. The present day analog of this is the Skripal-Novichok story. The Russians are poisoners again. But they tend to recycle this story. There was already one about Yushchenko, which turned out to be a hoax, and now the western media is saying the same about Navalny.

What are the differences between the situation today and the times of Kubrick? There are many. Russia is no longer a “God-hating, commie” country. It is Christian and democratic.

Also, there are no more Kubricks around to speak up against western war-mongering.

They are not so much afraid that they would have to answer to the President of the United States, they fear more that they would have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.