 But that's the problem for myself, because for my philosophy, individuality is of no importance, almost. So my identity is my ideas. They are much more important than myself, my personality, my biography, because my biography is my bibliography, I would say. So I'm a philosopher, Russian philosopher. I'm trying to understand the identity of Russia, history, the logic of Russian history. I try to understand the place of modern Russia in the world, and it is impossible without studying the roots of the history of the other nations, other cultures. So I'm trying to understand where we are, who we are, where we are going. That is kind of my presentation. In all my life I do nothing else than trying to understand what is going on and how it has happened and where we are heading for. I am rejecting liberalism, but because liberalism is the universal dogma, so I'm challenging what everybody thinks or the kind of ground, ideological ground of contemporary world. So that is really dangerous if it is successful. For example, if I would be a kind of insignificant insect trying to aggress the huge construction that is prosperous and without problem, I wouldn't be judged dangerous. So that is a real recognition of my efforts in order to put liberalism under question. But the most important and all that why it is really dangerous because I am against all forms of anti-liberalism that belong to the past. And first of all I am anti-communist and anti-fascist because these two forms of anti-liberalism belong to the past and I'm trying to attack liberalism from the future or from the present regarding liberalism as it is and trying to understand his logic, his change in its essence and what could be opposed to it not from the perspective of the past but from a kind of ground, metaphysical ground outside of modernity. It's not before to modernity or into the pre-liberal modernity, modernity of communism or fascism. I like to think outside of the limits of liberalism not trying to reduce its danger parts or to improve or adjust it. I think that liberalism is absolutely wrong not because of liberalism but because of modernity. Because modernity was liberal from the beginning, it was not so clear from the beginning that idealism will win finally over socialism or nationalism, but now it is clear and that was individualistic roots of the Western modernity that is wrong. That the concept of the man or the human being as an individual is wrong. So I'm trying to challenge that, trying to propose alternative anthropology in order to fight against liberalism and if liberals prevailing in the modern world judge me as the most dangerous philosopher, for me it is a pleasure. So first of all I think that liberalism considers the subject of the freedom as an individual. So that is already a limitation of the freedom. Next step, idea of liberalism, it is only negative freedom, that liberty. That negative freedom means that liberals defend all liberty from and not freedom for. That was in the Middle, in the East, in the central founders of liberalism. So a negative kind of freedom is real and has content when you compare liberalism with not liberal system. For example, traditional society or in the modernity with totalitarian regimes as communism or fascism. So in that case liberalism is operative, is working because the negative freedom is the negative from absence of freedom represented in totalitarian or authoritarian regime. So it is something real. But when all these regimes are won by liberalism and that was the case in the 1901 when Fukuyama, with whom I from time to time have debates, very fruitful as long as I consider myself at least. So when he has declared the end of history that was completely rightful remark because that was the end of comparison between liberalism and communism. So from now on there was only one political ideology prevailing on the world scale, that was liberalism. But in that situation there appear the limits of liberalism because the liberty of liberalism is real comparing with communism or fascism, with totalitarianism. When liberalism is compared to itself it becomes totalitarian and it begins to show its inner negativity on one hand and on the other hand. It begins to manifest its totalitarian nature because now you are free in the world with liberalism on the present and that has won. In that position liberalism give us the freedom to be liberal and it takes off the freedom to be illiberal. You could be in the liberal society right liberal, left liberal. You could be far left liberal as Melon Shon or Bernie Sanders. You could be as well in some special cases far right but liberals, but still liberals. You should be, you are free in the realm of liberalism, you are free to be liberal and you are not free to be illiberal or not liberal. So there that is a totalitarianism that appeared after precisely the victory, or lantern victory of liberalism. And we should deal with this status quo, not project the shadows of the past, not compare liberalism with communism or fascism, that all belongs to the past. Now the totalitarianism, the Orwell or rather Huxley is precisely in the liberalism, the challenge to the freedom and the most important enemy of the freedom now is the negative freedom of the totalitarian liberalism. And I am calling that third totalitarianism. First was communist, second fascist. And now when we have done with first and second totalitarianism, we are dealing welcome to the third totalitarianism. And that is my criticism of the politic of globalization of United States of America, that United States of America, at least before Trump came to power, became a kind of symbol of this globalization, of this liberalism, of this unipolarity with one set of values when one American life imposes as something inevitable, as a kind of destiny to all the humanity. And that is why I am against that. But the most important situation that we need to secure the freedom from liberalism, because now liberalism is openly the opponent of the real freedom. But I am absolutely sure that if we make the step behind, so in communism or in fashion, we could not find the real freedom. We need to find real freedom elsewhere, not inside of modernity, not in liberalism, but outside of liberalism, but as well outside of communism and fascism. So that is invitation to think beyond these limits, and that is the sense of my fourth political theory. Both your friends and your enemies claim that Vladimir Putin is listening to you, so it must be true. Why is he listening to you? I am trying first of all to give way to ideas that I am Platonist, so I believe in existence of ideas independently from the man. And I am in service of ideas, and I am Russian, so my ideas are with necessity Russian ideas. So I am trying to give way to Russian ideas, I am trying to help them to appear, and that is the kind of the book of Russian ideas. And Putin looks into these books, not written by Alexander Dugin, but the books of Russian ideas. For me it is important to give way, to explain, to propose not my will or my special conventions, but to reveal what we have forgotten during communism, what we have lost during our party debates between the left and right, communist, sadist, liberals, and I am trying to create a kind of Russian dictionary of ideas. So Putin is regarding there and from time to time takes what he thinks are useful in practice. So I am trying to understand first and to react after, and understanding is the art, is philosophical art. And we could not claim that political leader have the possibility to spend so many time as maybe he would like to in order to this art of understanding.