Klaus Schwab, Transgenderism, and AI | Russian Philosop… — Transcript

Alexander Dugan 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. US 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 Dugan is not a military leader. He's not a close daily adviser 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 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. And so we're happy to have him join us now. Mr. Dugan, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me, and welcome to Moscow, of course. Thank you. Um, so we were talking off camera. Actually, we were having a conversation that we were not going to film, just interested to meet you, but what you said was so interesting, um, 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, and you have this great turmoil, um, and some of the behavior seems very self-destructive. And where do you think, as an observer that comes from—so my—I could just, uh, suggest, uh, express my reading of that. Uh, it demands a little passion. So I think that, um, everything started with individualism. So individualism, uh, that was wrong understanding of the human nature, of the nature of man. When you identify, uh, individualism with the man, with the human, uh, nature, you cut all the relations to everything else. So you—you have 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, uh, put in the center of liberal ideology. And liberalism, as, uh, 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, uh, transcends, uh, individual. And that started with, uh, refuse of Catholic Church as collective identity, uh, of Empire, um, Western Empire as collective identity. Uh, after that, it was revolt against national state as collective identity in favor of purely civil society. After that, uh, that was—there was a big fight of the 20th century between, uh, liberalism, communism, and fascism, and liberalism has won once more. So, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was only liberalism. And Francis Fukuyama has pointed out correctly that no, there are no more any ideologies except of liberalism. And liberalism, that was, uh, liberation of this individual, uh, from any kind of collective identity. There were only two, uh, collective identities to liberate from: uh, gender identity, because it is collective identity. You are man or woman collectively, so you could not be, uh, so liberation from gender, and that has led to transgenders, to LGBT, and new form of sexual individualism. So IND sex is all something optional. And that was not just, uh, um, deviation of liberalism. That was necessary elements of implementation and the victor of this liberal ideology. And the last step that is not yet totally, 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, uh, the last step in this process of, uh, liberalism implementation of liberalism will mean precisely the human optional. So you can choose your individual identity to be human, not to be human. That has a name: transhumanism, posthumanism, uh, singularity, artificial intelligence, uh, Klaus Schwab or Kurzweil or Harari, they openly declare that is inevitable future of humanity. So we arrive, uh, to the historical terminal station that we finally, five centuries, uh, ago, we—we have embarked in this train, and now we're arriving at the last station. So that is my reading. And when, uh, 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 liberate from Empire. And now, uh, national state comes, um, at its turn obstacle. You are liberating from national state, uh, finally family is destroyed in favor of this individualism. And the last things, the sex, that is already almost overcome, sex optional. And in gender politics, there is only one step to to arrive to, uh, 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, to, to have the possibility to choose to be or not to be human. And that is the agenda, political ideological agenda of over the tomorrow. That is why, too, how I see Anglo-Saxon worlds that you have asked of. I think that is just the, uh, avant-garde, vanguard of for that's process, because that started with Anglo-Saxons, imperial empiricism, nominalism, Protestantism, and now you are ahead as, um, Anglo-Saxon more devoted to liberalism than any other Europe being. So you're—I 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 conceive 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. How—and I think most Americans think of it that way. How what's the difference? Very interesting question. Uh, I think that is pro—the problem is in two definitions of liberalism. There is old liberalism, classical liberalism, yes, 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 other. And now we—we have totally, uh, the next station already, next, next phase, new liberalism. Uh, 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 wokism. So you should be so individualistic that you should, uh, criticize not only the state but an individual, uh, the old understanding of individual. So you need now—you—you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality to go further in that direction. So, uh, I—I have spoken with once with Fukuyama, Francis Fukuyama, on TV, and he has said before democracy, uh, 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, uh, rule over majority. Majority, it is not democracy, is already totalitarianism. And now we are not about, uh, defense of the individual freedom but about prescription to be, to be, uh, to be modern, to be progre—

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 murder murdered in Moscow when a car bomb killed her us 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 Dugan is not a military leader he's not a close daily adviser 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 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 been banned in the United

States and so we're happy to have him join us now Mr Dugan thank you very much thank you thank you for inviting me and and welcome to Moscow of course thank you um so we were talking off camera

actually we're having a conversation that we were not going to film just interested to meet you but what you said was so interesting um 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 and you have this great turmoil um and some of the behavior seem

very self-destructive and where do you think as an observer that comes from so my I could just uh suggest uh express my reading of of that uh it Demands a little passion so I think that um everything started with individualism so

individualism uh that was wrong understanding of the human nature of the the nature of man when you identify uh individualism with the man with the human uh nature you cut all the relations to everything else so you you

have very special idea of the subject philosophical subject as individual and everything started in 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 it was the key and is still key concept that was uh put in the center of liberal ideology and liberalism as uh 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 uh transcends uh uh individual and that started with uh refuse of Catholic Church as collective identity uh of Empire um Western Empire as collective identity uh after that it was revolt against

national state as collective identity in favor of purely Civil Society after that uh that was there was a big fight of the 20th century between uh liberalism communism and Fascism and liberalism has won once more so and after the fall of

the Soviet Union there was only liberalism and Francis fukuyama has pointed out correctly that no there there are no more any ideologies except of liberalism and liberalism that was uh liberation of this individual uh from any kind of

collective identity there were only two uh Collective identities to liberate from uh gender identity because it is collective identity you are man or woman collectively so you could not be uh so Liberation from gender and that has led to transgenders to LGBT and new form

of sexual individualism so IND sex is all something optional and that was not just uh um deviation of liberalism that was NE necessary elements of implementation and the victor of this liberal ideology and the last step that is not yet to totally totally made is

Liberation from Human identity Humanity optional and when now we are choosing or you in the west you are you are choosing the sex you want as you want and uh the last step in this process of uh liberalism implementation of liberalism

will mean precisely the human optional so you can choose your individual identity to be human not to be human that has a name transhumanism posthumanism uh Singularity artificial intelligence uh Cloud Schwab or kurile or Harari they openly declare that is

inevitable future of humanity so we arrive uh to the historical Terminal Station that we finally five centuries uh ago we we have embarked in this train and now we're arriving at the at the last station so that that is my reading

and when uh all the elements all the phases of that you cut the 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 uh national state comes um at its turn obstacle you are liberating from National State uh finally family uh is destroyed in favor of this individualism and the last things the sex that is already almost

overcome sex optional and in gender politics there is only one step to to arrive to uh 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 to to have the possibility to choose to be or not to be human and that is the agenda political ideological agenda agenda of over the tomorrow that is why to how I see Anglo-Saxon worlds that you

have asked of I think that is just the uh avanguard uh Vanguard of for that's process because that started with Anglo-Saxons Imperial empirism nominalism protestantism and now you are ahead as um Anglo Saxon more devoted to liberalism than any other Europe being

so you're I what you're describing is 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 liberals so

you think of liberalism as individual freedom and choice From Slavery right so the options as we conceive 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 how and I think most Americans think of it that way how what's the difference very interesting question uh I think that is pro the problem is in

two definitions of liberalism there is old liberalism Classical liberalism yes 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 other and now we we

we have totally uh the next station already next next phase new liberalism uh 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 workism so you

should be so individualistic that that you should uh criticize not only the state but in individual uh the the old understanding of individual so you need now you you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality to go further in in that direction so uh I I

have spoken with once with fukuyama Francis fukuyama on TV and he has said before democracy uh 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 uh rule over majority majority it is not democracy is already totalitarianism and now we are not about uh defense of the

individual freedom but about prescription to be V to be uh to be modern to be Progressive you it is not uh your uh 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 uh to be left liberal you are no more is free enough to be right liberal you should be uh left liberal uh and that is a kind of Duty is it is prescription so

liberalism fought during his it history against against any kind of prescription and now it at its turn became totalitarian prescriptive not not free as it was at in some in some and do you believe that's that was inevitable that process that was always

going to happen I think that is I I perceive here a kind of logic so a kind of logic that is not just perversion or deviation you start with one thing you want to liberate individ ual when you

arrive at the point when when it is possible it is realized so you need to Pro go further so and you start to liberate yourselves from now this time from old understanding of individual in favor of more Progressive um concept so

you could not stop here that is that is my vision so if you say oh I prefer old liberalism they would say the progressives they would say it is not about old liberalism it is about fascism you are defender of traditionalism

conservativism fascism so stop here either be Progressive liberal or or you are done or we we will cancel you that is what we we observe I would well it's certainly what we're living and to see self-described liberals ban your book

which is not a manual for bombing K or invading Ukraine it's a you know these are philosophical Works um tells you that it's not of course it's not liberal uh in any sense I I wonder though like 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 um the pictures American pictures films in many ways so

I think that uh you know that all the all the science fictions almost all of the 19th century were realized to put in the reality in the 20s so there there is nothing more realistic than science fiction and if you consider uh Matrix or

Terminator you have so many so many um more or less coinciding version of the future the future with the posum or human situation or artificial intelligence you Hollywood has made many many many films I think they portray correctly reality o

of of the close future so uh for example uh if we consider the man uh the human nature as a kind of rational rational animals uh so you could now with our technology you could produce them so you

could create um rational animals or or combine them or construct them and artificial intelligence strong artificial intelligence neura Network plus huge database it is a kind of of king of the world I would say that that could not only only manipulate but

create realities because the realities are just uh images just uh just Sensations just feelings so I think that posthumanist futurism is a kind of uh not only a realistical description of the very possible and probable future but as well a a kind of political

manifest so it is not that is kind of visual thinking and the the fact that you have no uh uh bright traditional future described in the films I don't know any any any movie any movie of the future in the west made about return to

traditional life the prosperity the families with many childrens everything is quite quite in Shadow quite quite black so if you if you if you um um if you used to to paint everything black and the future uh especially so this black future when

arrives and I think that is the fact the same fact that that we had we have no other option either Matrix or artificial intelligence or or something um or a Terminator so uh the choice is already outside of the of the limits of humanity

and that is not not just fantasy I think that is a kind of political project uh and it is easily imagin because we we have seen the films they they follow more or less close this this Progressive I would

say agenda so I I've asked you no questions about Russia or Russian politics that 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 you know 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 and 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 at in the year 2000 and they loved Boris yelton 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 what how what was that why the change I think um I think that um first of all Putin is traditional leader so Putin uh when he

came to power from the very beginning he started to uh to to extract the our country the Russia from the global influence so he started to contradict to Global progressist agenda and these people who supported Soviet Union they

were progressist and they are now progressist so they have have felt that now they are dealing they were dealing with someone who doesn't share this progressist uh agenda and who uh tried and with success to restore Traditional Values sovereignty of the state um

Christianity uh traditional family uh that wasn't evident from the beginning from outside but when uh Putin insisted more and more on this traditional agenda I would say on the particularity and speciality of the Russian civilization as some uh

special type of World Vision that um um had and uh has now very little similarities with the progressist progressist idols so I think that they have um discovered they have identified in Putin precisely what Putin is so he

is a kind of um leader political leader defending Traditional Values so I only recently one years ago Putin has made decree of the political defense uh of Traditional Values that was turning point I would say but observers from the uh Progressive

camp in the west I think they have uh they have understood that from the beginning of his rule correctly correctly so this hatred is not just casual something casual or some mood it is not it's not casual it's very serious

it's metaphysical so if you if you're if you're main task and main goal is to destroy traditional value traditional family traditional States traditional relations traditional um beliefs and someone on that with the nuclear weapon that is not not smallest uh at the least

but the last but not least uh arguments someone with nuclear weapon to and strong defending traditional value you you are going to abolish I I think they have some some basis for this uh russophobia and the hatred for Putin so

uh it is not just by the chance it not some irrational irrational uh change from Soviet affilia to to Russia for there it's something deeper I would say it's my guess it's clearly something it's clearly something deeper um we felt it was important for

your ideas to get an airing in English in the United States simply because we believe in the open aing of ideas I guess we're liberals that way um so we're grateful that you took the time M Duan thanks thank you very

much free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization societies are defined by what they will not permit what we're watching is the total inversion of virtue