The definition of a linear political spectrum, defined by French Revolutionists in the late 18th Century (grinding their very large axe), is woefully inadequate for any kind of serious or thoughtful discussion; e.g., "...I’d be surprised if 1/2 the far-righters..." I wonder if even 1/2 of those repeating such statements, on either side, have the processing power to understand that they are engaging in logical fallacies? Depending on who you talk to I'm a ultra-right religious whack job because I go to Church or I get lumped in as a tree-hugging weirdo because I'm big on supporting habitat for native animal species. Of course political language is taught to those vulnerable to this kind of indoctrination because it is so effective in promulgating the polarization that sustains the status quo for the ultra-rich who actually control our lives (and, now I'm a commie.) Who knew telling the truth could get you in so much trouble? Oh, that'd be Jesus. (Yes, gun-toting religious freak.) Talk about full circle from the enlightenment!RandomDude wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:39 pmThis is hilarious (except it ain’t).wooley12 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 10:59 amHis books for sale in the US of A
https://www.google.com/search?q=Alexand ... s-wiz-serp
Love it when the far-right whines that the far-left is trying to restrict their freedoms (uncle Joe wont let me buy Dugan’s books in ‘merica), when, in reality … You can. I’d be surprised if 1/2 the far-righters have the processing power to follow Dugan’s thought processes — whether you like him or not, it’s some deep thinking.
But, but, isn’t it the far-right that wants to keep us from reading certain books by taking them out of libraries (but I guess they feel justified in protecting all of us from “wokeness”).
The whole hot mess is a tragic joke on humanity…
Wake me up when we get to the Matrix stop so I can crawl into my comfy non-human dream shell…
Regardless I'm with @fisheater; the fact that Dugin's books are hard to find in the US makes them very appealing. If we're honest with ourselves and take a moment to consider that various world views can both be different and defensible at the same time, nearly every country can make some kind of claim to be the source of moral authority (and most do!) Keeping in mind that defensible doesn't mean right, only that those who subscribe usually have logical reasons for doing so, 'logical' being thought taking one from A to B and hence from B to C and so on. The problem is that many don't take the time to determine if, in fact, A, B, C down to Z are themselves defensible!