Millerman Talks #16 Part 3/3: Olavo de Carvalho vs. Alexander Dugin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มี.ค. 2019
- The third and final video in a series of videos on the 2011 debate between Olavo de Carvalho and Alexander Dugin. Here's the original text of the debate, the primary source document for this video series: doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/TheUS...
Olavo de Carvalho left us this morning. Entered into eternity. He died this morning. Rest in peace. It would be interesting to pay tribute.
Good riddance to a dishonest paid subversionist.
Thanks for all of the translation work, talks, and courage so far, Mike. I hope there are many more Millerman talks. Academic intellectuals with balls are hard to find, unfortunately. You've earned my respect for sure.
Clarifying ideologies of the right and having adorable children... this guy can do it all.
An American, a Brazilian, and a Russian walk into a bar...
It strikes me that a lot of Dugin's statements seem very post modern.
Was Dugin sincere in the debate? This is my problem with Dugin. His famous call to destroy Carthage (the USA) is not that of a philosopher, but that of a geopolitician. In other words, it is policy. It is strategy. It is not philosophy.
Exactly commander. Dugin is intellectually inept.
You mean to separate theory and practice, essence and accident, and you realize not this is what the fruit of knowledge of good and evil separation ir duality is about. The West is a decomposing existentialist corpse. Save your soul, read my philosophy of history book, "The Guide of the post-cataclismic Catholic" theguideofthepostcataclysmiccatholic.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-guide-of-post-cataclysmic-catholic_22.html?m=1
his political theories are very self serving
Thank you - these videos are fantastic!
It's frustrating that despite living and teaching in the US none of Carvalho's works are in English.
The existence of an independent thinker like him is only possible in peripherical countries like Brazil. Less prejudices and commitment to the establishment.
There are some articles that are translated but unfortunately no other book of his is available in English.
It's gonna take some decades to translate all his work to English. Considering, that 98% of it is not even written in Portuguese.
@@wanderbedits you mean 98% in portuguese?
Now his book about Machiavelli has been translated, Machiavelli or the demonic confucion
She was gettin' a lil loud, but then you just scooped her right up into your lap and carried on. That was awesome. Cute kid too.
Thanks Michael-saw you on Gonzalo- great work
Great review!
Aaaah, she’s so cute! Let us apply the salve of philosophy.
I love how you pronounce Bolsonaro correctly the first time and the following ones you completely obliterated the pronunciation. Great and beautiful analysis tho
Bulbasaur
Bolsi ☺️☺️☺️
I have never seen an English speaker pronounce Carvalho as well as you did
How is your view on this matters, Michael?
Congratulations for siring and supporting such a beautiful and loving child. Your sponsorship of her in the midst of your effort to characterize a high-level political debate speaks well of you.
I find it interesting that A. Dugin dismisses the thought and actions of those who stand for humane values (charity, moderation, individual liberty), saying that they're a bunch of losers. The Russian intelligentsiia which opposed the tsar and his autocracy, while rejecting revolutionary terrorism, were also political losers, but they constitute an imperishable example for the rest of the world.
When Carvalho attacks Dugin's prioritization of political thinking, I immediately thought of the argument, prominent in the history of science, whether F = ma is politically motivated (the debate hasn't gone well for those who say it is).
You agree with Dugin that all philosophy nowadays is post-Heidiggerian, and neither Carvalho nor I agree with you.
OMG your child is precious.
baby breaks are the best! Happens to me in work zooms :)
Interesting debate. De Carvalho accurately jabs Dugin on all major critical flaws of his eurasian worldview but ultimately derailed on the third section by failing to be charitable to Dugin's Heideggerian concepts. Dugin clearly saw himself as the superior and didn't even bother responding to very important points raised by de Carvalho. Ultimately de Carvalho was right in pointing out the debate wasn't even possible, but it was nice while it lasted. I wonder if it had any long term effects on Dugin's own thinking after all this years, considering de Carvalho passed away and Dugin is the one that remains still writing.
Carvalho was a retarded boomer neocon, nothing special about him. Dugin should have ingnored him.
Dugin spoke to a Brazilian youtuber not too long ago. Their interview is in English, look up "ALEXANDR DUGIN LIVE: THE LIBERAL ANTICHRIST. Behemoth x Leviathan | Apolo, Dionysus and Cibele."
He still considers de Carvalho to be a globalist, etc., I don't think he is fair at all to the man and ultimately Olavo is the best thinker in my view. As much as I disdain modern progressivism, it is still superior to communism, fascisim (which is kind of its brother) and most of what Dugin defends insofar as alternatives.
Dear Michael
I hope you are well . I have been investigating and following Mr. Carvalho for a long time before he became this “ controversial figure “ in a brazilian circle and media “ mainly connected to the rise of neo-conservatism movement in Brazil which is totally chaotic as Mr. Carvalho himself became the main critical of the so-called conservatives in his homeland. I am fluent in all latin dialects, so having a retired brazilian mother that migrated to overseas in late 80’s the dynamics of South America always fascinate me despite the mess and contrasts Brazil has a unique fascinating story. I can assure you he’s an expert of Russian/ pre and pos Communism. Let’s not forget Mr. Carvalho in his early days was a activist communist himself. If you need anything please hit me and will be delighted to help with anything.
Thank you
Best Regards
I don't really get your point from 26:35. There's no misunderstanding between Olavo and Dugin - Olavo was simply responding exactly to what Dugin wrote, which was a single sentence: "The subject/object dualism is rather a specific feature of the West". Dugin didn't make any of the points *you* add here, i.e., that the subject/object dualism wasn't invented by the modern West but has a different 'interpretation' or 'philosophical constitution' with a distinct 'set of axioms about reality and knowledge' - these are ideas *you* are extrapolating from the text. If anything, this part of the debate reveals Dugin's terribly sloppy writing and laziness before an intellectually superior foe. It was Dugin who failed properly to engage in a philosophical discussion, not Olavo.
Also, what do you mean by 'interpretation' and 'philosophical constitution'? Could you give examples of the 'set of axioms' surrounding the subject/object distinction that separate East and West? Olavo never claimed to be an expert on Heidegger - in fact, he said he never paid much attention to him because other philosophers, especially Louis Lavelle, dealt with the same problems in a much better way.
Auwnnn, she is sooo cute! ❤️
I would like to see them debate again today. It would appear that "Russia" has identified the Syndicate, as being centered in Europe, and has it in its cross hairs (WEF). I see a merging of both points of view, as having played out, a decade later. Although painful for America, many here feel that an enemy of my enemy, is my friend, as we watch Globalism crash and burn. I hope that made sense.
Olavo died two years ago, unfortunately.
So right out of left field, the shiny baby of newness won the debate 🤣🤣🏆
Olavo is right. The rise of anti-globalist movement in US proves it.
Dugin’s support on Heiddeger’s philosophy is pure modernism. Olavo is right about that too.
If you didn't notice, anti-globalism has been soundly defeated the US. Even when they won (2016), they still lost as they were completely blocked from implementing their agenda by systemic resistance from the status quo elites.
@@boshi9 the US is the center of new and fresh actually anti-Progressive ideas. Neorreaction was literally born in America. Michael Malice wrote about that in his book The New Right.
Carvalho > Dugin
Dugin said he expected to debate with a traditional brazilian philosopher. Of course he did, it would have been easy.
All of them leaning heavily to the left, but I can't even pick up a name. All of them are intensely mediocre.
13:40 - how about transgender bathrooms? Your assumption that you will be going to a special room made for people like you for a common purpose you all have has been politically called into question. I think a better restatement of "all human thought is politically oriented" would be "all human thought rests on more foundational value assumptions which have political ramifications."
When you eat pasta instead of meat for dinner. For any normal situation, was that politically motivated or with politics involve at all? Biological thinking such as eating or cultivating a family normally are not politically in any aspect.
Dugin's appeals to Orthodox Christianity is absurd and borderline blasphemous. There are several Orthodox nations in NATO: Greece, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Romania come to mind. Also, Orthodoxy is spread all over the world, is Ethiopia a natural ally of Russia because of Orthodoxy? Of course not. Russia has amazing potential, perhaps some of the greatest potential for growth and significance but it's dominated by a cleptocratic elite (much like the US, EU, etc.) but Russia's elite's power is completely centralized around the cult of Putin who is squandering Russia's potential, treasure, and manpower and is doing so at breakneck speed. Brazil's left has strong links with America's left and with regimes like Iran, North Korea, and China - but they see Russia as anathema to their pursuits. Russia will soon find itself fighting the same enemy that the US, EU, and the entire West is fighting: China, that's the great threat to the world. China sees this planet as a province of China, nothing more, nothing less and in 50 years they might achieve their vision.
The Brazilian left has just sold the country to China - and the CCP is already taking possession of it.
Way to be a boomer stereotype. You sound like the ghost of Rush Limbaugh. Somebody watches Fox News 😂
This is amusing
Just finished reading the debate. Carvalho completely obliterated Dugan.
cute kid
Olavo is funny cleaver
Wow... I hadn't looked into Dugin but imagined he was a serious person. He is a complete clown.
I like both Olavo and Dugin and I have learned a lot with both of these men, but the "Olavists" in Brazil, if I can call them that, are very dogmatic and incapable of engaging in any kind of meaningful pedagogical dialectic (they pretty much learned that from what effectively is their guru, and I am not necessarily using this term pejoratively, since I am fine with gurus being there). But the Brazilian anti-establishment Right as a whole has a lot of interesting people and thinkers (Olavo being one of them), but also a lot of sectarianism. I guess that's pretty common around the world when you're dealing with the psychology of dissident circles.
Esse pessoal nem lê o Olavo, na real, Olavo sequer é lido no Brasil, os neocons criaram um espantalho para usar, apenas isso.
This is fair criticism.
Olavo de Carvalho was a pathological liar and an aggressive, unstable man. If these are the most interesting points raised in this "debate", it just confirms to me that there's nothing interesting in it overall and no point in reading the whole thing.
And who the hell are you anyway to say such a thing?
Servus Incognitus: Bring a point you see as a lie and debunk it - or just STFU.
@@sandrothenecromancer6810 like your cult leader Olavo, you're more interested in attacking the person than addressing the argument.
@@baronderochemont8556 sorry to have your little cult leader exposed like that, but it's the truth. From the start of this debate he begins to weave ad hominem fallacies (asserting his opponent is not trustworthy in the pursuit of truth because of political interests, while he himself is) instead of addressing the opponent's arguments themselves in order to preemptively disregard his points and already plant the seed of distrust in the minds of those reading the debate. It's obviously intellectual dishonesty and psychological manipulation (to which his promptly fall for), betraying Olavo's intellectual ineptitude, and showing clearly that he's an ideologue whose main purpose was to maintain the little cult he created around himself, taking care not to let the minds of his followers stray too much from the boundaries of his liberal ideology; as much as he wanted to present himself as an "enemy of ideologies", he was himself an ideologue who used of fallacies psychological tricks to distort reality to the liking of his own mentality.
Later the whole debate degenerates into mere insults and baseless accusations, which shows that these purported "intellectuals" are no better than internet idiots who get into fights in comment sections.
@@baronderochemont8556 sorry to have your little cult leader exposed like that, but it's the truth. From the start of this debate he begins to weave ad hominem fallacies (asserting his opponent is not trustworthy in the pursuit of truth because of political interests, while he himself is) instead of addressing the opponent's arguments themselves in order to preemptively disregard his points and already plant the seed of distrust in the minds of those reading the debate. It's obviously intellectual dishonesty and psychological manipulation (to which his followers promptly fall for), betraying Olavo's intellectual ineptitude, and showing clearly that he's an ideologue whose main purpose was to maintain the little cult he created around himself, taking care not to let the minds of his followers stray too much from the boundaries of his liberal ideology; as much as he wanted to present himself as an "enemy of ideologies", he was himself an ideologue who used of fallacies and psychological tricks to distort reality to the liking of his own mentality.
Later the whole debate degenerates into mere insults and baseless accusations, which shows that these purported "intellectuals" are no better than regular people in the internet who get into fights in comment sections.
Carvalho was an astrologer at some point in his life. As a student of astrology, I had to look at his chart. In it, clearly shows his individualistic and selfish tendencies. His aggressiveness is purely instinctual and self-preserving. On the other hand, Dugin's chart shows his tendency to look down at his opponents. Perhaps that is why he doesn't answer to some of Carvalho's talking points. From an astrological perspective Dugin is at a higher level, than the primordial Carvalho. I think Carvalho has some very interesting takes. But I'm with Dugin on this one.
Kkkkkkkkkkkkk
I've had the privilege of knowing some people here in Brazil who worked with Carvalho back in the 80s and 90s, such as Prof. Mateus Soares de Azevedo, a known figure in the Brazilian perennialist movement, and the consensus among his former peers, people who had worked with him in some of his books and even some members of his family is that he had to have some kind of psychological condition that made him megalomaniacal, explosive and prone to bursts of rage. In fact, he worked with many known Brazilian scholars throughout the years and most of these collaborations ended in controversy and drama.
@@servus_incognitus Yet he was and is right all along.
@@baronderochemont8556 right about what? He was a liberal (heretic), a materialist (heretic) and a proto-protestant (heretic). And ultimately allied himself with the Antichrist, claiming the USA and Israel are representatives of a "Judeo-Christian Tradition" (something that has never existed) while said countries were founded in the denial of Christ and his Church and have been massacring Christians in the Near East for almost 80 years now, not too mention spreading modern liberal ideology throughout the world via American influence and interventionism.
His claim that the US opposes "globalism" is imbecile, as all international organizations are American/western in their foundation and principles and were created to serve American interests. American interventionist foreign policy (which he almost always ignored) proves that Globalism is nothing more than international Americanism.
Then his claim that there are two other "projects of world domination" currently in operation, one islamic and other communist are equally absurd.
The first because there is no such plan in the Islamic world at all. None. Islamic world powers are concerned with fighting off western interventionism in their lands, and not with "islamicizing" the West. Just study Iran's ayatollah's works and the geopolitical behaviour of any other islamic countries to see this. As much as Olavo would want to deny it and come up with his own inventions, it's all there for all to see. And when it comes to certain islamic organizations that have found foothold in western countries, it is almost always the case that they themselves get westernized, and no the West islamicized. When it comes to immigration, obviously none of it is a product of a Islamic master plan, but rather of the destruction of Islamic countries brought about by the West itself that leads to refugees, who are then used to clash with local Western populations for the benefit of international financial elites.
The second, because there is simply no major communist world power today with the resources to operate such a project. China is not communist except in name, and the Soviets lost the Cold War to American liberalism, which has been the single predominant ideology world wide since the fall of the USSR. Not to mention of course, that the Americans did as much as the Soviets, if not more, to subvert and corrupt traditional societies around the world for their own benefit and the dominance of their own worldview. The fact that Olavo was blind to this (or purposefully ignored it) betrays his own allegiance to the demonic liberal ideology.
I'm not even gonna touch all his philosophical errors here, but the fact that he was a self proclaimed liberal (heresy), materialist (heresy) and secularist (heresy) makes it obvious that he cannot defend any "tradition" or "christianity" worth that name.
@@baronderochemont8556 right about what? He was a liberal (heretic), a materialist (heretic) and a proto-protestant (heretic). And ultimately allied himself with the Antichrist, claiming the USA and Israel are representatives of a "Judeo-Christian Tradition" (something that has never existed) while said countries were founded in the denial of Christ and his Church and have been massacring Christians in the Near East for almost 80 years now, not too mention spreading modern liberal ideology throughout the world via American influence and interventionism.
His claim that the US opposes "globalism" is imbecile, as all international organizations are American/western in their foundation and principles and were created to serve American interests. American interventionist foreign policy (which he almost always ignored) proves that Globalism is nothing more than international Americanism.
Then his claim that there are two other "projects of world domination" currently in operation, one islamic and other communist are equally absurd.
The first because there is no such plan in the Islamic world at all. None. Islamic world powers are concerned with fighting off western interventionism in their lands, and not with "islamicizing" the West. Just study Iran's ayatollah's works and the geopolitical behaviour of any other islamic countries to see this. As much as Olavo would want to deny it and come up with his own inventions, it's all there for all to see. And when it comes to certain islamic organizations that have found foothold in western countries, it is almost always the case that they themselves get westernized, and no the West islamicized. When it comes to immigration, obviously none of it is a product of a Islamic master plan, but rather of the destruction of Islamic countries brought about by the West itself that leads to refugees, who are then used to clash with local Western populations for the benefit of international financial elites.
The second, because there is simply no major communist world power today with the resources to operate such a project. China is not communist except in name, and the Soviets lost the Cold War to American liberalism, which has been the single predominant ideology world wide since the fall of the USSR. Not to mention of course, that the Americans did as much as the Soviets, if not more, to subvert and corrupt traditional societies around the world for their own benefit and the dominance of their own worldview. The fact that Olavo was blind to this (or purposefully ignored it) betrays his own allegiance to the demonic liberal ideology.
I'm not even gonna touch all his philosophical errors here, but the fact that he was a self proclaimed liberal (heresy), materialist (heresy) and secularist (heresy) makes it obvious that he cannot defend any "tradition" or "christianity" worth that name.
Dugin smashed Olavo.
Kkkkkkkk
You clearly have no clue what's going on here...