A dialogue between Haz Al-Din and philosopher Alexander Dugin exploring the transformation of liberalism into fascism, examining its philosophical and political implications.
Sorry, but you are misunderstanding real liberalism. 'Liberalism (Latin liber, libera, liberum 'free'; liberalis 'relating to freedom, liberal') is a fundamental position of political philosophy and a historical and current movement that strives for a liberal political, economic and social order. The basis is the balancing of external effects
Quite interesting study of human political behaviour and their construction of irrational or inhuman ideology.
Not irrational to the power or the elites but to normal people.
This is why I like to call such people at the top of the food chain controlling and suppressing other under him or her «narsopats» because this is clearly also a psychological problem that has become a political and social problem.
That is why it’s necessary to study and understand the core issue of malignant psychiatric disorders hiding in plain sight in society and where they tend to thrive.
This is also the key to understanding evilness in society and politics.
We need to understand that where there is a God there is also a Devil. God is in heaven and the Devil is in Hell on Earth.
Professor Dugin is smeared in the West because his ideas have major conflicts with liberal WOKEism, especially on the front of nationalism and freedom of religion and faith. Fascism was simply the easy pick as the source of smearing is inside the US, and Americans had been brainwashed to believe their Greatest Generation beat Hitler's fascism into the ground, maybe with a little help from Russia. These people could have picked another term without regard to its original meaning. I think propaganda convenience and effectiveness were the top reasons.
Professor Dugin tried to defend his position using academic thoughts and argument, as that is his training and perhaps his nature. For my oversimplified formulation, I claim (1) There are no clearly defined, universally accepted definitions for all ISMs. Your liberalism is my fascism, so what? But this is a convenient way to smear somebody. Any real discussions must come down to public policies.
(2) Many thoughts and ideas span a spectrum, and rarely can there be a dichotomy of either A or B, nothing in between. In gender classification, however, there are only XX and XY, and there is nothing in between. What the woke/libtard people do is argue there is a full spectrum of "genders" when there is a dichotomy, while insisting on the dichotomy in political classification when there is no dichotomy.
(3) Fascism, liberalism, socialism, communism, and barbarism have at least one thing in common. That is they all embed a belief that "I am superior to you all". Libtards believe they hold the universal values and stand on the moral high ground. Socialists and Communists believe they are the fairest and wisest so they should dictate distribution. Fascists believe they know the correct path for the country so they run the country. The Barbarians prove to you they hold absolute superiority in brute force over you. None of these has much to do with social contract, respect for individuals, and freedom of any kind. Theoretical anarchy and democracy need totally self-sufficient individuals, families, or communities, near total agreement on almost everything, and obeying an arbitration when there is no agreement. Since God does not live on Earth, a human or group of humans have to make the arbitration, but only as the last resort. Government should not have been a necessity. Government operated by humans becomes a permanent apparatus and gets more powerful only because more and more people, families, and communities can no longer support, manage, or control themselves. Or worse, when someone holds absolute superiority in brute force.
(4) Theories and ISM are nice subjects for chatting when you are fully stuffed after a good meal and holding a cup of good wines. But for real-life business, we need to discuss specific public policies, not ISMs.
Before 1670 in Colonial America, one in three free black men were married to European women. There was no stigma. They and their children mingled at all levels in society.
Following an uprising on the frontier by European, black, American Indian and mixed-race poor people, the first Race-based laws in human history were written in 1672 in Colonial Virginia. The strategy of keeping poor people divided so they didn't unite against the Oligarchy was originated in this legislation. We see it today as "Affirmative Action, DEI," etc. By 1690 Chatel Slavery became law. Previously, slaves gave birth to free people.
The black slaves, as property, were treated far better than the indentured Irish and Scots, most of whom died. Those who escaped ran away to what's West Virginia today. They're descendents are America's "Hillbillies " and they are the warrior subculture of America. America's frontiersmen and cowboys come from their bloodlines. These are the families who send their sons to serve in the US Military... or used to until recently.
That leaders who called themselves liberals propagated fascistic and racist policies does not void the true meaning of liberalism. Liberalism is about maintaining individual liberty, due process and equality. It stands in opposition to monarchial and authoritarian systems of government. That would include Stalinism, Putin's regime, Xi in China as well as what Trump is attempting to establish in the US.
Liberals have always been fascists. Just name one leader, one elected party throughout Liberal history that did not turn out to be a social cover for the fascist doctrines or Plutocrats.
Sorry, but you are misunderstanding real liberalism. 'Liberalism (Latin liber, libera, liberum 'free'; liberalis 'relating to freedom, liberal') is a fundamental position of political philosophy and a historical and current movement that strives for a liberal political, economic and social order. The basis is the balancing of external effects
Quite interesting study of human political behaviour and their construction of irrational or inhuman ideology.
Not irrational to the power or the elites but to normal people.
This is why I like to call such people at the top of the food chain controlling and suppressing other under him or her «narsopats» because this is clearly also a psychological problem that has become a political and social problem.
That is why it’s necessary to study and understand the core issue of malignant psychiatric disorders hiding in plain sight in society and where they tend to thrive.
This is also the key to understanding evilness in society and politics.
We need to understand that where there is a God there is also a Devil. God is in heaven and the Devil is in Hell on Earth.
Professor Dugin is smeared in the West because his ideas have major conflicts with liberal WOKEism, especially on the front of nationalism and freedom of religion and faith. Fascism was simply the easy pick as the source of smearing is inside the US, and Americans had been brainwashed to believe their Greatest Generation beat Hitler's fascism into the ground, maybe with a little help from Russia. These people could have picked another term without regard to its original meaning. I think propaganda convenience and effectiveness were the top reasons.
Professor Dugin tried to defend his position using academic thoughts and argument, as that is his training and perhaps his nature. For my oversimplified formulation, I claim (1) There are no clearly defined, universally accepted definitions for all ISMs. Your liberalism is my fascism, so what? But this is a convenient way to smear somebody. Any real discussions must come down to public policies.
(2) Many thoughts and ideas span a spectrum, and rarely can there be a dichotomy of either A or B, nothing in between. In gender classification, however, there are only XX and XY, and there is nothing in between. What the woke/libtard people do is argue there is a full spectrum of "genders" when there is a dichotomy, while insisting on the dichotomy in political classification when there is no dichotomy.
(3) Fascism, liberalism, socialism, communism, and barbarism have at least one thing in common. That is they all embed a belief that "I am superior to you all". Libtards believe they hold the universal values and stand on the moral high ground. Socialists and Communists believe they are the fairest and wisest so they should dictate distribution. Fascists believe they know the correct path for the country so they run the country. The Barbarians prove to you they hold absolute superiority in brute force over you. None of these has much to do with social contract, respect for individuals, and freedom of any kind. Theoretical anarchy and democracy need totally self-sufficient individuals, families, or communities, near total agreement on almost everything, and obeying an arbitration when there is no agreement. Since God does not live on Earth, a human or group of humans have to make the arbitration, but only as the last resort. Government should not have been a necessity. Government operated by humans becomes a permanent apparatus and gets more powerful only because more and more people, families, and communities can no longer support, manage, or control themselves. Or worse, when someone holds absolute superiority in brute force.
(4) Theories and ISM are nice subjects for chatting when you are fully stuffed after a good meal and holding a cup of good wines. But for real-life business, we need to discuss specific public policies, not ISMs.
Before 1670 in Colonial America, one in three free black men were married to European women. There was no stigma. They and their children mingled at all levels in society.
Following an uprising on the frontier by European, black, American Indian and mixed-race poor people, the first Race-based laws in human history were written in 1672 in Colonial Virginia. The strategy of keeping poor people divided so they didn't unite against the Oligarchy was originated in this legislation. We see it today as "Affirmative Action, DEI," etc. By 1690 Chatel Slavery became law. Previously, slaves gave birth to free people.
The black slaves, as property, were treated far better than the indentured Irish and Scots, most of whom died. Those who escaped ran away to what's West Virginia today. They're descendents are America's "Hillbillies " and they are the warrior subculture of America. America's frontiersmen and cowboys come from their bloodlines. These are the families who send their sons to serve in the US Military... or used to until recently.
That leaders who called themselves liberals propagated fascistic and racist policies does not void the true meaning of liberalism. Liberalism is about maintaining individual liberty, due process and equality. It stands in opposition to monarchial and authoritarian systems of government. That would include Stalinism, Putin's regime, Xi in China as well as what Trump is attempting to establish in the US.
Liberals have always been fascists. Just name one leader, one elected party throughout Liberal history that did not turn out to be a social cover for the fascist doctrines or Plutocrats.