ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 18, 2016

The death of liberalism

Roger Cohen fails to understand what it was, or why it is dead:
Liberalism is dead. Or at least it is on the ropes. Triumphant a quarter-century ago, when liberal democracy appeared to have prevailed definitively over the totalitarian utopias that exacted such a toll in blood, it is now under siege from without and within.

Nationalism and authoritarianism, reinforced by technology, have come together to exercise new forms of control and manipulation over human beings whose susceptibility to greed, prejudice, ignorance, domination, subservience and fear was not, after all, swept away by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As Communism fell, and closed societies were forced open, and an age of rapid globalization dawned, and the United States earned the moniker of “hyperpower,” it seemed reasonable to believe, as Francis Fukuyama argued in 1989, that, “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.” Therefore, per Fukuyama, the end point of history had been reached with “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

This was a rational argument. It made sense. Hundreds of millions of people enslaved within the Soviet imperium had just been freed. They knew — everyone knew — which system worked better. The problem is that the hold of reason in human affairs is always tenuous.

Looking back at human history, the liberal democratic experiment - with its Enlightenment-derived belief in the capacity of individuals possessed of certain inalienable rights to shape their destinies in liberty through the exercise of their will — is but a brief interlude. Far more lasting have been the eras of infallible sovereignty, absolute power derived from God, domination and serfdom, and subjection to what Isaiah Berlin called “the forces of anti-rational mystical bigotry.”
What Cohen thinks is "liberalism" is nothing of the sort. Liberalism wasn't rational. It wasn't immune to greed, prejudice, domination, subservience, or fear. Western liberal democracy was, from the very start, a con job; as we have seen everywhere from Colorado to Dublin, from Amsterdam to Wyoming, there is nothing even remotely democratic about it.

Liberalism is dead because liberalism is, and always was, a lie. And across the West, people have learned to stop falling for it simply because their so-called leaders push it on them.

Labels:

169 Comments:

Blogger Dexter April 18, 2016 1:03 PM  

Whatever else you may say about it, you can have "liberalism" or open borders, but not both. There are billions of people out there who simply do not subscribe to "liberalism", however defined.

Blogger Rantor April 18, 2016 1:09 PM  

I read a great essay yesterday it argued that modern progressive liberalism was infected by the Gramscian philosophies pushed by the Soviet internationalists to destroy the west. And a great job they did. Everything from the acceptance of non-representational art to the belief that Western Culture is uniquely guilty of historical crimes and that other cultures are not. A total effort to make us question our beliefs in Christ, in America, in ourselves. They have succeeded to the point where we have west European liberal women welcoming Muslim invaders despite evidence of their violent and enduring hatred for these women and all they represent.

Western society is suicidal.

Blogger Marissa April 18, 2016 1:10 PM  

"the liberal democratic experiment - with its Enlightenment-derived belief in the capacity of individuals possessed of certain inalienable rights to shape their destinies in liberty through the exercise of their will"

Like that's some kind of unmitigated good. Never you mind moral living, community and the social kingship of Christ. We're all Americans now.

Blogger Ron April 18, 2016 1:18 PM  

Can anyone give a serious definition of Liberalism?

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 1:21 PM  

People have go to stop using democracy and republic interchangeably. The fact that democracies failed... or the fact that the republic that was never designed or intended to be a democracy, is not in fact a democracy, does not mean that the republic has failed as a form of government.

Anonymous BGKB April 18, 2016 1:30 PM  

What the soviets got freed from was liberalism's utopia.

Blogger Teri April 18, 2016 1:34 PM  

Lordy, but I am tired of this "Trump as an authoritarian" meme. Writers like this have been fine with Obama trampling over the constitution and ruling by executive order. There's nothing about the militancy of BLM and the SJWs. And nothing about how we no longer teach the writings and culture that supported the liberal ideas. There's nothing about flooding the country with Muslims. Somehow this wonderful liberal idea died when Trump decided to run for office.

Blogger allyn71 April 18, 2016 1:38 PM  

@5 Doesn't the fact that the representative republic couldn't withstand the pressures of democracy and has become so far from what it was intended to be prove it has failed as a form of government?

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 1:41 PM  

"Can anyone give a serious definition of Liberalism?"

power comes from the consent of the governed vs power comes from the Will to Power

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 1:43 PM  

"5 Doesn't the fact that the representative republic couldn't withstand the pressures of democracy and has become so far from what it was intended to be prove it has failed as a form of government?"

the US is just one example of republican (small r) government. It's fall no more reflects poorly on the type of government than the French Revolution reflects poorly on Monarchy.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 1:46 PM  

Can anyone give a serious definition of Liberalism?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 1:48 PM  

of course the only place that monarchies still exist today are kitty litter box sand pits run by camel herding nomads who only managed to even survive because of the luck of being found on top oil. Even then that oil had to be extracted and marketed by westerners in western systems before the savages could profit from it.

An enormous amount of innovation has taken place in the post monarchy world and while that is not in any way an iron clad case against monarchy... it must in fact be addressed. A counter argument must be made as to why and how such innovation will continue in a post liberal world (and when we say liberal.. just think Magna Carta)

Blogger tz April 18, 2016 1:49 PM  

“the forces of anti-rational mystical bigotry.”
desire for peace, prosperity, liberty, justice, happiness, equality.”
Even a country with a large middle class like Egypt was not ready to accept the mediation of multiple truths through democratic institutions.

There can't be "multiple truths" if you are rational.

His liberalism:

peace - we had to nation build so destroyed Serbia and Iraq and used Drones in Pakistan and Yemen and supported child molesting narco-terrorists in Afghanistan.

prosperity - Bubble, bubble, we toil, but the banks get in trouble and get bailed out while our jobs are destroyed, our savings pilfered.

liberty - The TSA and NSA, know your customer, etc.

justice - no elite goes to jail, ordinary people who did nothing do when they aren't murdered by police "just doing their jobs" "I felt my life was in danger"

happiness - No job, but I have to buy Obamacare or pay a fine, divorce destroys families, nothing to look forward to, no hope.

equality - No respect for true equality, but a series of victim groups that become legally privileged. Treating unequal things equal is irrational.

but nothing is more important for human dignity and decency.

Things like abortion and gay pride parades.

This is the bait and switch. Liberals become totalitarians, and when you object, much less resist, they screech that you are the authoritarian.

The last thing they want is real democracy which Trump and Sanders prove.

They only want crony managed trade.

Blogger Gapeseed April 18, 2016 1:53 PM  

OT - nice haul by the Titans, Nate. Free trade worked in that circumstance, at least.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 1:54 PM  

Liberalism is dead because liberalism is, and always was, a lie.

Liberalism != western liberal representative democracies.

Proclaiming liberalism is dead makes as much sense as proclaiming that God is dead.

Anonymous aegis-1080 April 18, 2016 1:54 PM  

That's a lot of words for being butthurt that Fukuyama was wrong* and that the Roddenberry secular paradise didn't happened because that pesky human nature got in the way.

*Probably lied to kiss Boomer ass and sell books.

Blogger allyn71 April 18, 2016 1:55 PM  

the US is just one example of republican (small r) government. It's fall no more reflects poorly on the type of government than the French Revolution reflects poorly on Monarchy.

True enough in sentiment but I'm not sure in application. I did some quick Google Fu and couldn't come up with a good contemporary example of a working republican government that hadn't succumbed to democracy.

Do you have an example? If I had to guess it would have to be a small country with a homogenous population.

Everything I could find was corrupted as hell, I could have easily missed one though.

Blogger Reallynewguy April 18, 2016 1:55 PM  

It's called Progressivism in America.

Anonymous Eyeroll April 18, 2016 1:59 PM  

Liberalism != western liberal representative democracies.

Proclaiming liberalism is dead makes as much sense as proclaiming that God is dead.


Yes and "true Communism" hasn't been tried yet either. It has just failed everywhere it has been actually tried. Like liberalism!

Anonymous Anon123 April 18, 2016 2:00 PM  

Ive been reading Vox Day's blog posts on evolution. Does anyone have any good books they recommend that shows the failing of the theory of evolution?

Blogger allyn71 April 18, 2016 2:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger allyn71 April 18, 2016 2:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 2:06 PM  

Yes and "true Communism" hasn't been tried yet either. It has just failed everywhere it has been actually tried. Like liberalism!

True liberalism and true communism only works amongst true Scotsmen!

I have offered my understanding of liberalism. You are free to offer your own or argue that my definition is incorrect.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:06 PM  

" I did some quick Google Fu and couldn't come up with a good contemporary example of a working republican government that hadn't succumbed to democracy."

And a quick google fu shows no long term monarchies that have not succumbed to revolt and been over thrown.

No one said that a republic was a perfect form of governemnt that would last forever for all people.

Its a strawman and an idiotic measure.

Hell the founders themselves knew it would be eventually abused and would have to be forced back into shape by armed revolt.

Blogger Otto Lamp April 18, 2016 2:06 PM  

Western liberalism has been reduced to defending the right of boys to use the ladies restroom.

It has abandoned any pretense to being able to handle weightier issues.

Name any issue, then name the liberal focus on that issue.

National defense: gays and women in combat.

Violence: bullying and harsh language.

Health care: free birth control.

Liberalism can no longer do the heavy lifting of actually examining a complex issue. Hence, it focuses on the meaningless minutia.

Blogger allyn71 April 18, 2016 2:07 PM  

@12 A counter argument must be made as to why and how such innovation will continue in a post liberal world (and when we say liberal.. just think Magna Carta)

That is the rub isn't it, without a serious revival were screwed.

The liberal worldview came from Christian teaching it won't survive without it.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:07 PM  

":True liberalism and true communism only works amongst true Scotsmen!"

Hey genius... by your own reasoning... monarchy doesn't work either. If it did... liberalism would never have taken the seat at the head of the table.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 2:08 PM  

And a quick google fu shows no long term monarchies that have not succumbed to revolt and been over thrown.

Obviously no true monarchy would ever succumb to revolt, especially in Scotland.

Anonymous Eduardo April 18, 2016 2:09 PM  

Hey Vox why you bother about the this double dead horse of NYT and liberalism? Isn't it's rotting corpse enough?

Liberalism is just a form of authoritarianism where you have to accept that people hostile to your beliefs can shape your future just as long they have the numbers. Liberalism was dead before it was born because it simply assumed a cultural feature of the Catholic Europe as being an Universal feature of all human beings. Just give a nice try, go anywhere in the globe where there is a locally run politics is a non-Liberal Democracy and try selling the idea that there should be voting to take decisions and that everybody has to be respected just as long they don't put in jeopardy the ruling system. A lot of people will disagree with you right away!

Liberalism is highly modular, you just need to change the values in which the society is ruled and BOOM, say goodbye to your values and your lifestyle! All of them now are deemed against the system, and you are now an evil person. How many times have someone said that one of your values is just straight up evil and we ought to force you to be our way or ostracise you completely?

Liberalism is just a bad idea, created in a world where new ideas were being brought about and all people could see was that the world would be a better place no matter what...

Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:11 PM  

"Liberalism," a political ideology characterized by lockstep belief in Equality (of some aspects of human nature, studiously ignoring others) so intolerant that professions of faithful adherence to doctrine are mandatory for everyone, an intolerance so profound that wars are initiated to spread "liberalism's peace" while Two Minutes Hate episodes are routinely administered to ferret out apostasy.

Say one thing, do the opposite. How profound, unique and original, huh?

Blogger Durandel Almiras April 18, 2016 2:11 PM  

All forms of government fail, because humans are involved. Fallible creatures cannot create infallible things.

Nate, Republic or no, the historical record for Republics is no different than any other form of government. They all fail in time. Monarchal systems seemed to last the longest and perhaps that should be dissected, but the failure of system seems to stem from the problems of the leaders and not the mechanics of the system per se. If the Elite were not Globalists, did not support cultural destruction, family destruction, community and nation destruction, etc. but instead embraced and promoted policies and attitudes that would help the majority prosper and perpetuate, how much of train wreck of today wouldn't exist?


Monarchy or Republic, neither will last long as the family is destroyed, along with morality, life positive values, cultural and religious traditions, myth, etc.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:12 PM  

"Western liberalism has been reduced to defending the right of boys to use the ladies restroom."

The American Democratic Party is to liberal as American Libertarian Party is libertarianism.

The princples of american conservatism (at least the ones it pretends to have) are classic liberal positions. The policies of the american liberal are classic eurotrash authoritarian.

Blogger Mark Citadel April 18, 2016 2:14 PM  

Well, I give props to the article for being another Nostradamus that the Liberals will ignore. Liberalism is imploding under the weight of its own entropy.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:14 PM  

"Nate, Republic or no, the historical record for Republics is no different than any other form of government. They all fail in time."

and again... longevity is a stupid measure because they all fail in the cycle.

What I posit as a much better argument for the Republic is innovation... in the Greeka and Roman republics we saw unheard of innovation. disruptive explosive innovation.

When teh republican form of government finally became the dominant form of government in the world... the innovation all over the world exploded.

Monarchy has no such track record.

Anonymous Eduardo April 18, 2016 2:14 PM  

Putting in a very simple way, Liberalism is meant to be a system where all ideas are liberated. It is basically freedom at it's finest. But of course the system has limits, a lot of limits. So rewritting it becomes the system where you get all sorts of ideas together and at the same time they must respect the ruke of law in order to be accepted by the system.

Blogger Ron April 18, 2016 2:15 PM  

@Nate @Josh

The working definition I need is one that I can apply Vox's statement to.

Vox says "Liberalism" is a lie. I need to know what the definition of Liberalism is to apply the predicate "is a lie" to.

The preamble of the Declaration of Independence is too vague. There are a lot of statements in there.

For example is VD saying that "we hold these truths to be self evident" is a lie? Or "that all men are created equal" is a lie, or that "the creator has endowed all men with certain inalienable rights" to be a lie?


Nate's definition is better, as he has picked out one of those statements as the definition. But the statement he is using also comes directly from the Declaration of Independence, so I don't know if that's specifically his take on it regardless of the Declaration, or if he simply thought that one fit best.

This is what I have now:

"Power comes from the consent of the governed is a Lie"

--Or--

"Power does NOT come from the consent of the governed

Blogger Ron April 18, 2016 2:17 PM  

Or I can just use the wiki definition. Good enough.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:18 PM  

An enormous amount of innovation has taken place in the post monarchy world and while that is not in any way an iron clad case against monarchy... it must in fact be addressed. A counter argument must be made as to why and how such innovation will continue in a post liberal world (and when we say liberal.. just think Magna Carta)

Nate, Hoppe addresses a related issue in his brief discussion of his book, Democracy: The God that Failed.
https://mises.org/library/democratic-leviathan

Money quote (the 1st two paragraphs):
"Theory is indispensable in correctly interpreting history. History--the sequence of events unfolding in time--is "blind." It reveals nothing about causes and effects. We may agree, for instance, that feudal Europe was poor, that monarchical Europe was wealthier, and that democratic Europe is wealthier still, or that nineteenth-century America with its low taxes and few regulations was poor, while contemporary America with its high taxes and many regulations is rich.

"Yet was Europe poor because of feudalism, and did it grow richer because of monarchy and democracy? Or did Europe grow richer in spite of monarchy and democracy? Or are these phenomena unrelated? Likewise, we might ask whether contemporary America is wealthier because of higher taxes and more regulations or in spite of them. That is, would America be even more prosperous if taxes and regulations had remained at their nineteenth-century levels?

Historians qua historians cannot answer such questions, and no amount of statistical data manipulation can change this fact. Every sequence of empirical events is compatible with any of a number of rival, mutually incompatible interpretations."

I think Hoppe's treatment of this is also indispensable for discussion of a lot of the topics covered on Vox Popoli.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:19 PM  

Correction "first three paragraphs."

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 2:25 PM  

Nate could have written:An enormous amount of innovation took place in post Wiemar Germany and while that is not in any way an iron clad case against the republic... it must in fact be addressed. A counter argument must be made as to why and how such innovation will continue in a post national socialist world (and when we say national socialist.. just think "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.")
Two can play that game.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:25 PM  

"Nate, Hoppe addresses a related issue in his brief discussion of his book, Democracy: The God that Failed."

That's not an argument. What we have here is a pattern. It is not iron clad proof... which is what Hoppe is saying. Patterns are not proof. But the fact is the pattern exists. And it must be dealt with. I can think of several mechanisms that would account for this pattern... in terms of monoarchy limiting innovation.

So we have a pattern and we have potential mechanisms.

As I have said... the point is not proven. But it is definitely a strong position to be debated.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:26 PM  

"Two can play that game."

obviously not.

Anonymous Feh April 18, 2016 2:27 PM  

Nate is setting new records for stupid in this thread. Impressively moronic even for him.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:28 PM  

Bottom line:
1. Monopolies are bad (or have serious costs.)
2. Monarchy is not great, but democracy is way worse.

From my point of view, there is no ideal system that can exist in the real world, but any system where people vote for (temporary) rulers is bound to be worst because said rulers are thus part of a shifting alliance with political factions and a Hobbesian state of nature must always result (because all the incentives drive inter-faction warfare.)

PS: I think the delineation between democracy and republic is slight, and if anything, the representative aspect of a republic obfuscates the inter-faction warfare openly expected in direct democracy, enabling such warfare even more.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:32 PM  

"Nate is setting new records for stupid in this thread. Impressively moronic even for him."

Hey.. fucktard... go back to moldbug. You can read run-on sentences and feel smart about yourself.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 2:32 PM  

Two can play that game.

You just went full 1488 retard. You never go full 1488 retard.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 18, 2016 2:32 PM  

"Triumphant a quarter-century ago, when liberal democracy appeared to have prevailed definitively over the totalitarian utopias that exacted such a toll in blood, it is now under siege from without and within."

This only makes sense if he thinks dying more slowly = triumphing. Otherwise, it's idiotic.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 2:34 PM  

Of course the triumph followed by collapse is a pattern that repeats itself throughout history. Partially because of simple reversion to the mean.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:34 PM  

As I have said... the point is not proven. But it is definitely a strong position to be debated.

Wow. How did you miss the point?

Correlation is, as you know, not causation. No matter how much wealth multiplies under central banking regimes, it is (as Hoppe notes) fundamentally impossible to posit that simply instituting a regime of monetary debasement via credit creation was causal. The same holds true for monarchy vs republics.

Nate, you are asking a fundamentally unanswerable question, if your database is history, no different than people who posit that human-industry-produced CO2 is driving global warming...or cooling...or whatever the planet is actually doing. As with planetary temperature, it is impossible to even measure economic output accurately (since GDP includes all activity of government, which is laughably daffy as government is not a producer of goods, it is a consumer.)

Didn't we just have several long threads about "what is science?"

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:34 PM  

" I think the delineation between democracy and republic is slight, and if anything, the representative aspect of a republic obfuscates the inter-faction warfare openly expected in direct democracy, enabling such warfare even more."

Nothing in the definition of republic requires representation.

Republic just means a melding of two or more types of government. IE Aristocracy and Monarchy. Representation is a symptom that often shows up. like feigned public elections.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:36 PM  

"Nate, you are asking a fundamentally unanswerable question"

let me translate.

"WHHAAAAA!!!! THAT'S NOT FAIR!"



Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:39 PM  

There is no pattern. You had feudalism, then monarchy, then whatever you want to call post-monarchy...rentier government of the mob, for the mob, by the mob?

And you had the industrial revolution, then a blossoming of science, more industry and voila! Tim Cook was born...!

Two trends. Probably most people walked under Feudalism, most people rode horses in Monarchy and now most people ride in cars. Shall we render a causal dynamic there?

Blogger dc.sunsets April 18, 2016 2:40 PM  

Let me translate:
"I'm too smart for you dumbasses, so I can type in all caps like a 12 year old girl and I WIN!"

Never ceases to amaze me how many people think they're the smartest person in every room (real or virtual) they enter.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 2:42 PM  

Josh wrote:Two can play that game.

You just went full 1488 retard. You never go full 1488 retard.


you never heard of reducto ad absurdam?
fucking retard.

The point is, Nate, that innovation is not a good measure and is dependent on things other than governance, or at least the external form of governance. German innovation from 1932-1945 was astounding, especially given the very limited funds that could be spent compared to the republics.

And until you can explain that, your correlation is garbage.

Anonymous Eric the Red April 18, 2016 2:44 PM  

Cohen's article is a puff piece, a meaningless filler. He never defines terms, he drones on with vague generalities and cherry-picked history that could have been written by a mediocre AI. Leftists can read it and nod their heads in agreement, the right can read it and nod their heads in agreement, both sides can argue past each other in the comments section, and each side can go home having accomplished exactly nothing. What more could you expect out of Carlos Slim's rag, anyway?

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:44 PM  

"Two trends. Probably most people walked under Feudalism, most people rode horses in Monarchy and now most people ride in cars. Shall we render a causal dynamic there?"

Except you are conveniently looking at one small slice of history and ignoring the entire greco-roman sphere.

Greece was once made up of a bunch of monarchist kingdoms. there was little innovation. The big leaps came in the city-state phase which were republican in form.

Same with rome. The big advancments came as a republic. It fell to squaller under the rule monarchy.

When you see that pattern... then apply it to european history and american history as well... it correlates quite well.

And thus the republican form of government as a booster of innovation is an excellent hypothesis.

Blogger Noah B April 18, 2016 2:46 PM  

German innovation was pretty astounding through the later half of the 19th century, too. It wasn't just under the NSDAP.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2016 2:47 PM  

" German innovation from 1932-1945 was astounding, especially given the very limited funds that could be spent compared to the republics"

No. Actually it wasn't. It was just typical wartime innovation. In fact it was matched and outpaced by american innovation at the time.

A better argument to bolster your claim would be Weimar.

Blogger frigger611 April 18, 2016 2:47 PM  

@2

I agree, Rantor. Modern "liberalism" is an Orwellian lie.

Modern "liberals" are the biggest group of useful idiot stooges the world has ever known. They ARE the cancer.

Here is Yuri Bezmenov describing exactly the process of "idealogical subversion." Modern liberalism is nothing more than the result of a successful propaganda effort,
amounting to little more than the philosophy of zombies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

Blogger frigger611 April 18, 2016 2:48 PM  

And Bezmenov knows of what he speaks, as a KGB defector to the west, long time ago...

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 18, 2016 2:49 PM  

The liberal lie: we are all equal and with the right government we all be equally treated.

THE LIE: We are like the Most High - wr are gods.

Blogger budbrewer April 18, 2016 2:51 PM  

Liberalism is a corrosive force that seeks to bring about burnished, gleaming, uncontaminated totalitarianism. It won't die until this is accomplished.

Blogger Noah B April 18, 2016 2:52 PM  

How about this: innovation is the product of social organization, and the larger scale and more stable that organization is, the greater the resulting innovation. A republic "scales up" to larger populations better than a monarchy because it allows for more people to hold positions of power, and allows people to rise and fall from power by means of economic competitiveness rather than by the use of force alone.

We might even look at innovation as a byproduct of the ever-present economic power struggles that occurs in republics.

Blogger budbrewer April 18, 2016 2:53 PM  

Liberalism is a corrosive force that seeks to bring about burnished, gleaming, uncontaminated totalitarianism. It won't die until this is accomplished.

Blogger Anthony April 18, 2016 2:53 PM  

Without reading past the title, I can tell you that the article doesn't usr one consistent definition of "liberalism". Instead, the author will conflate the ideology of the Declaration of Independence with the latest sjw concerns whenever it makes rhetorical sense to do so. By showing that non-democratic challenges to today's leftism are being successful, he hopes to blame the political failure of liberty on something other than the assault of socialism and radical egalitarianism.

Blogger allyn71 April 18, 2016 2:54 PM  

Same with rome. The big advancments came as a republic. It fell to squaller under the rule monarchy.

When you see that pattern... then apply it to european history and american history as well... it correlates quite well.

And thus the republican form of government as a booster of innovation is an excellent hypothesis.


Can a republican government form under any circumstances? Do you need the right conditions among the population?

Think that is a big issue. A republic can only arises under certain circumstances and only last while those conditions exist.

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” Benjamin Franklin

Think we are going to have to spend 40 years in the desert before we get another shot.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 18, 2016 2:55 PM  

I agree with your correlation, Nate, but wonder if you have it backwards: the degeneration of monarchy into a republic is a First innovation in a cycle, and therefore develops license AND incentive for innovation. This results in a necessarily brief explosion in innovation which ensures that the next revolution will be toward oligarchy, NOT a return to republic.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 18, 2016 2:56 PM  

Oh but will they ever stop falling for it? Seems to me that Mr. Kipling mentioned the problem sometime ago (see below). He was of course by no means the first and he even fell for some of it himself - sending a child to die in the trenches so the Warburgs and their friends could cash in…

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


All they have to do is come up with a fresh way to tell the sheep and bovines that shit is gold and that gold is shit. Maybe some folks will wake up, but Richard Cohen is just doing what any obedient Lügenpresse operative is supposed to (though he's looking a bit like Bagdad Bob in this case): keep on repeating that endless spiel that shit is gold and gold is shit. Like the old Colt 45 Malt-Liquor ad used to say, It works - every time!

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 3:07 PM  

Innovation is actually greatest with smaller political units. Examples: Greek city states, the Italian renaissance, the Dutch renaissance, the hanseatic league, colonial America.

Blogger VFM #7634 April 18, 2016 3:09 PM  

The princples of american conservatism (at least the ones it pretends to have) are classic liberal positions.

I'll go further and state that cuckservatism IS classical liberalism.

Which is why it's as useless as tits on a boar hog. Why it rolls over for the SJWs every time they come into contact. Because equality.

Anonymous Unamused Flyover Resident April 18, 2016 3:10 PM  

I just love the way Cohen implicitly equates "liberalism" with "globalism" without ever bothering to actually make the argument.

One World government or bust. eh?

Blogger Da_Truth_Hurts April 18, 2016 3:15 PM  

Roger (((Cohen)))

Another cohencidence.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 18, 2016 3:17 PM  

Take an individual market: U.S. guns, ca. 1870. Innovation like crazy. But that couldn't go forever, so companies died or consolidated and ossified to meet bureaucratic demands and a mass market.

The republic of guns' innovation stagnated, and the obvious answer was to establish a lordship aristocracy of a few elites. Innovation occurs much more rarely and incrementally, sure, but the fewer companies make a hell of a lot more money than the old gunmakers did as individuals.

Now, the leadership is the power. Where is the incentive, by customers or gunmakers, to demand either a new explosion of innovation or the old style "republic" of gunmakers?

I don't see it. You can't forge a second republic out of a first.

Anonymous kfg April 18, 2016 3:23 PM  

@26: "The liberal worldview came from Christian teaching it won't survive without it."

@30: ""Liberalism," a political ideology characterized by lockstep belief in Equality (of some aspects of human nature . . ."

All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator . . .

Western liberalism sprang from the doctrine of all being equal before God. The tired, the hungry, the poor, the sinner, didn't have to have the resources of Pharaoh to build a pyramid in order to catch the ride to heaven.

Western liberalism is an effect of the west being Christian, where a man could look at a king and think, "at the Pearly Gates, we will be judged to the same standard."

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 3:29 PM  

kfg wrote:Western liberalism is an effect of the west being Christian, where a man could look at a king and think, "at the Pearly Gates, we will be judged to the same standard."
It has devolved from the sinner looking at the saint and saying to himself "you're no better than me" all the way to the useless Atheist parasite destroying good men on the basis that "I'm so much better than he is."

Anonymous kfg April 18, 2016 3:41 PM  

@75: No argument. And what the useless, Atheist parasite will never acknowledge is that the bit of human nature that is equal is the soul.

The idea that there is any empirical equality, by any metric whatsoever, is an idea so absurd it isn't even wrong.

But what many Christians have an almost equally hard time coming to terms with is that liberalism has its seed in Christianity.

The trick for a Christian culture is how to remain Christian without ultimately going bat shit insane.

Blogger tz April 18, 2016 3:41 PM  

@66 40 years in the desert? How long have we been in Iraq?
No, 4 months after a catastrophe brings down the grid. Society is very fragile today, but until something happens it appears to work.
Days of Noah. Sodom and Gomorrah. Pompey and Herculaneum.

Blogger weka April 18, 2016 3:42 PM  

I think I am in the wrong time.

1. What the US calls Liberalism the rest of the world calls Fabian socialism, or social democracy. Fails. All. The. Time.

2. The Liberal used to believe in free markets and a social structure where all men had the same basic dignity: this was the Scots (not the French) enlightenment. Such were the Whigs, and their replacement, the republicans.

3. The Tories believed in God and that the monarch was his magistrate. In the royal republic of the glorious revolution. Most went to Canada: but the US chose to elect a king and limit the term, trying to re establish a Stuart style monarch with checks and balances, rather than the compromise of the Act of Settlement, where Parliament rules and the Monarch reigns.

The Tories also sided with the South in the Civil War. In the rest of the world they exist in parties: in the USA they are akin to Uncle Fester and the Munster family gatherings (Sorry, republican party meetings).

The English speaking peoples historically mistrust democracy. They want a representative republic. They want checks and balances. And they want to be left alone.

We fell when the Englishman's home was no longer his castle.

Anonymous kfg April 18, 2016 3:45 PM  

"We fell when the Englishman's home was no longer his castle."

Capable of defending itself by force of arms.

Blogger CarpeOro April 18, 2016 3:54 PM  

Regarding Cohen's article, when I saw the line calling Francis F. ideas reasonable it immediately got mentally flagged TL:DR. Anyone that ever thinks a question regarding human interactions is settled and people won't go down that road again has failed to grok the history of man.

@73 The French on their 5th attempt at a Republic. You trying to tell me they can't get right by take 7?

Blogger pyrrhus April 18, 2016 3:58 PM  

@38 " We may agree, for instance, that feudal Europe was poor, that monarchical Europe was wealthier, and that democratic Europe is wealthier still, or that nineteenth-century America with its low taxes and few regulations was poor, while contemporary America with its high taxes and many regulations is rich."
Actually, Prof. Clark, in A Farewell to Alms, establishes pretty rigorously that the English working man was better off in much of the feudal middle ages than he was in 1800, or 1850....The Black Death created a labor shortage, which was highly beneficial to wages in real terms ...And feudalism was unable to prevent those market forces from acting..under our democracy, any situation that benefits the lower classes is immediately legislated out of existence by the Oligarchy, and its servants in DC.

Anonymous Eduardo April 18, 2016 4:02 PM  

Pyrrhus that sounds a bit awkward... What do you mean by legislate ot out of existence? Examples?

Blogger CM April 18, 2016 4:03 PM  

From kfg -

Western liberalism is an effect of the west being Christian, where a man could look at a king and think, "at the Pearly Gates, we will be judged to the same standard."

This is so abused currently. We are not created the same, but we are all judged by the same merits come judgement day... and loved by our Creator no matter how high our IQ or how fast we run a marathon, or how many kids we raised or how big our paycheck.

@Allyn71
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” Benjamin Franklin

I was in an argument with a Libertarian over anarchy and how possible it is. A people who can self govern do not need a large government, but most people can not self govern. This breeds chaos, and chaos breeds more government intrusion.

It is the walk from Judges to Ahab to Roman occupation of Judea.

Some might see this as defeatist, but it has been comforting for quite some time. I feel more at peace with the state of the world whenever I remember... there is nothing new under the sun, and governments rise and fall, but God is God. HE wins. And if His day is coming, things will be so much worse than they are now.

So, I'll prepare and pray that His day is near.

Blogger Matt April 18, 2016 4:08 PM  

You completely miss the point of Cohen's article. When he write about 'Liberalism' he is not writing about Democrats / liberal / left political positions. He is writing about western democracy and the forms of government that are the opposite of authoritarian or Islamic or Communist governments. This is one of the problems with this blog; you guys often do not understand what you read. You put a conservative spin on things even when it does not relate to the actual article. Very odd. It would be like if some character on TV said; "I want a liberal dose of whipped cream." And you read it to mean communist whipped cream!

Blogger Melampus the Seer April 18, 2016 4:19 PM  

When this was posted at Instapundit, I posted this query: "Why have conservatives lost almost every institutional and cultural battle? [...] An honest answer to this question would deeply trouble conservatives."

My comment seems to have been removed.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2016 4:31 PM  

> When he write about 'Liberalism' he is not writing about Democrats / liberal / left political positions. He is writing about western democracy and the forms of government that are the opposite of authoritarian or Islamic or Communist governments

Cohen wouldn't know classical liberalism is someone wrote up its tenants, wrapped them around a baseball bat, and clubbed him over the head with it.

> This is one of the problems with this blog; you guys often do not understand what you read.

In this case, we understand it far better than you do.

Anonymous BGKB April 18, 2016 4:32 PM  

Equality for the left means there is no one better than I.

OT When I saw a link about Whores for the War on Cash I thought it would be a HilLIARy story.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/tyler-durden/not-everyone-opposes-war-cash/
"Patrons of the city’s ‘fleshpots’ can attest that payment via PoS has become the preferred payment mode in high-end brothels and strip clubs of Lagos.

“The introduction of PoS is a good one. Me, naturally don’t go out with raw cash,” an old patron, Jeff, testified of the new development."

Blogger Durandel Almiras April 18, 2016 4:47 PM  

@Nate - I agree that innovation happens more under a Republic-ish system than monarchy in history, but is it causal or correlational? Might it be time to come up with a system with the positives of the Republic but has checks against cultural corruption and stupidity?

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 18, 2016 4:47 PM  

Wrong, Matt. Most of the posters here are well aware of the difference, which is merely one of degree. Your post demonstrates the fallacy at the core of liberalism (both classical kind and its Marxist reductio ad absurdam - the belief in equality. The "victors" in Fukuyama's idiotic essay about the end of history, the western "liberal democracies", are not-so-quasi-totalitarian oligarchies whose genocidal objectives are every bit as depraved as any number of authoritarian regimes. You mention Islam but conveniently forgot to mention who is importing Musloids by the millions into west and at whom this invasion is targeted. Those who pull the the strings of the marionette-gargoyle named Merkel obviously intend to genocide Germans (and all Europeans) off the face of the earth. The so-called liberal democracies are neither liberal (in terms of liberty) or democratic. They're rather like the old Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, Roman or an empire). Cohen is just a used rug salesman trying to persuade the morons reading him that the stinking, maggot-festooned pile of shit is gold - because he says so. You'll need to come up with a better sales-pitch.

Blogger rumpole5 April 18, 2016 4:50 PM  

This post is rather frustrating. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism would at least HINT about what a better system might be.

I suggest giving dead people the vote (no, not like they do in Chicago), that is: respect for our traditions and long established customs and laws. Progressives seem to think, like Hamlet, that our customs are more honored in the breach than in the observance, and for this reason we will, like Hamlet, all probably end up dead on the floor along with our fellow actors.

Blogger Eric April 18, 2016 4:55 PM  

These sorts of articles make me laugh. There are no permanent political victories. There are no new political ideas, either - it's just the same old stuff under new names.

The best you can hope for is to hold totalitarianism at bay for a few generations. The power of the state is too seductive to hold at bay forever.

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 5:07 PM  

I read Fukuyama's book. I think its conclusion is mischaracterized. Fukuyama's definition of Western liberalism is two components, free-market capitalism and democracy. He does argue that there really is no alternative that is competitive with free-market capitalism and therefor it has "won". However, he admit that the East Asian people do have a somewhat more autocratic alternative to western democracy and that it, so far, is fully competitive with western democracy.

I am familiar with the pre-amble to the declaration of independence and essentially agree with it. I'm not sure what problem you guys have with it. Perhaps its the statement that all men are equal.

Of course we all know that people are not equal. Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. However, I don't this is what the founding fathers had in mind. I think their definition of "equal" was that all humans are equal, not in capability, but in moral agency and, hence, are equal under the law. Equality under law is not equality in fact. It only means that all people should be held equally accountable for infractions against the law (assuming that they are declared mentally competent by the court of law). I think this is a reasonable preposition. I do not understand why you find this objectionable, unless you believe that some people are inherently mentally incompetent in a manner that does not fit with current legal definitions of such.

As far as defining "liberalism" goes, are we talking about the liberals (who are actually leftist and not liberal in any meaningful definition) or are you talking about the original meaning of classical liberalism? If its the latter and you are seeking to replace classical liberalism with something else, the only something else I can think of is some flavor of Singapore. Singapore is the ONLY example (both today and in history) of a successful non-democratic system in existence.

Whenever I hear the words "alt-right" or "neo-reaction", I assume that you guys want to create some variant of Singapore.

BTW, I've spent time in Singapore and liked it a lot. I think it a good model to emulate for those who are looking for an alternative to what we have in the U.S.

Blogger Rock and Roll Institute April 18, 2016 5:17 PM  

Rock and Roll offers excellent Music based Montessori Courses Teacher Training In Cambridge, MA for all who want to learn Music based Montessori Courses now !

Anonymous kfg April 18, 2016 5:23 PM  

Me: "The trick for a Christian culture is how to remain Christian without ultimately going bat shit insane."

@90: "I suggest giving dead people the vote (no, not like they do in Chicago), that is: respect for our traditions and long established customs and laws."

Aha!

"Progressives seem to think, like Hamlet, that our customs are more honored in the breach than in the observance . . ."

No, they are positively revolted by them.

"Singapore is the ONLY example (both today and in history) of a successful non-democratic system in existence."

And Singapore is an island City-State, not a continental Nation-State.

OpenID aew51183 April 18, 2016 5:27 PM  

The comment section is a zone of zero self awareness.

The author bemoans the destruction of libertarian self governance in favor of authoritarianism and elite rule, and the commenters are all "these proles can't be trusted to live as they wish!"

Absolutely hilarious.

Anonymous Bellator April 18, 2016 5:29 PM  

Are we talking Classical Liberalism (CL) or the cr*p that today calls itself liberalism?
CL -- all individuals should be free to pursue their own economic self interest without government intervention.
CL -- the markets, not government, maximized wealth
CL -- government should be limited to the "common defense", to enforce laws that protected citizens from the violent actions of others, and to promote standard weights and measures.

Classical Liberalism stands in direct opposition to social liberalism.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 5:32 PM  

kurt9 wrote:However, he admit that the East Asian people do have a somewhat more autocratic alternative to western democracy and that it, so far, is fully competitive with western democracy.

They also seem to have come up with a viable alternative to the free market, and to capitalism. We'll see whether it makes it to the 75-year mark, but so far it's drowning our system.

Blogger Chent April 18, 2016 5:38 PM  

@Rantor

Could you provide the name or a link to this essay? I'm interested in reading it. Thank you.

Blogger clk April 18, 2016 5:42 PM  

"..He is writing about western democracy and the forms of government that are the opposite of authoritarian or Islamic or Communist governments. This is one of the problems with this blog; you guys often do not understand what you read."

I don't think its ignorance if that what you claim... I think there is a limitation in the format plus a variation in definitions -- at the very beginning of this thread someone asked for a definition and all we got for the most was a bunch of rhetorical statements ... I wish that VD or someone in the know would jump in at these times and establish a definition/agreement so that all discussions can start at the same point/assumptions... we spend a lot of time arguing things that were the only difference are the definitions.

Blogger frigger611 April 18, 2016 5:45 PM  

@ 97

their economic system seems to be based on the disregard for that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Well, that and a robust supply of nets strung between factories on corporate campuses to catch those "workers" who would launch themselves from rooftops, desperate for the peace that death brings.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 5:47 PM  

kurt9 wrote:Singapore is the ONLY example (both today and in history) of a successful non-democratic system in existence.

So, I'm guessing that history is not your strong point.
The approximately 50-year reign of the Lee family in Singapore is the only known success in human history. We ALL know that say, the Roman Empire was a total failure, as were the Ottomans, the Mughal, Tsars, the Helvetian Confederacy, the Bourbon kings, and the American Canadian and Australian republics. Stablity, order, relative freedomn, prosperity, all meaningless before the organized looting operation of the Lee family.

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 5:52 PM  

They also seem to have come up with a viable alternative to the free market, and to capitalism. We'll see whether it makes it to the 75-year mark, but so far it's drowning our system.

Its called state capitalism (aka crony capitalism) and I do not think it will keep pace with us. Sure we've got our own problems. But the Chinese have a lot of problems as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/13/chinas-leaders-are-blowing-their-last-chance-to-avert-an-economi/

https://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/some-reasons-for-high-vs-low-innovation-levels/

There is no perfect system. Despite its flaws, an open, free market system is superior to others in creating technological innovation and economic prosperity. The fact is that free-market systems are inherently more dynamic than any competing system. Anyone who wants to create a successful competitor to free-market capitalism has to match or exceed its dynamism. I have yet to hear of anything that offers to do such.

"Singapore is the ONLY example (both today and in history) of a successful non-democratic system in existence."

And Singapore is an island City-State, not a continental Nation-State.


That's something to think about, isn't it. Perhaps this is another argument in favor of radical decentralization. Perhaps there is something inherent to all large-scale human institutions that makes them ineffectual.

The biggest error of the alt-right/neo-reaction scene is that too many of its advocates promote top-down centralization (often in the form of religion) instead of decentralized bottom-up spontaneous self-order.

Murray Rothbard had a simple and very clever response to those who argue that the existence of "evil" requires some sort of centralized authority. If humans are by nature good, then any system ought to work, even socialism. However, if humans are inherently bad, what sense is there to put one person or group of persons in charge of all others?

A banking analogy is in order (since our host sometimes talks about banking). Large centralized financial institutions represent a "systemic" risk because when they fail, they take everything else down with them. Likewise, large scale social institutions (and memes) represent a "social systemic" risk. If a bad guy gets in charge of a centralized authoritarian entity, he can do damage that affects everyone else. In a radically decentralized society where there are few to none power structures, if a bad guy gets in charge of such, he can only do damage to those immediate to him, not to everyone else. Hence, there is no "social systemic" risk involved.

Anonymous Eduardo April 18, 2016 5:53 PM  

Actually the cheistians did a pretty good job for 13 centuries during the medieval ages to not go full retard. I think the problem is how you maintain a homogenous society with heterogenous population. We truth is you can only achieve this through dictatorship. Reason why communism always goes straight to dictatorship, because the enemies of the state will change society and you can't have that.

Blogger Rusty Fife April 18, 2016 5:56 PM  

Here is his central complaint:

"all reflect a new impatience with multiple truths"

Y'all are hating on his inability to recognise truth. Or more importantly forcing him to see the real consequences of his actions.

Blogger Matt April 18, 2016 5:59 PM  

89. Gen. Kong
>>‘liberal democracies are neither liberal or democratic’

While Europe or the USA may not be perfect governments I would not trade them for any others. Would you? Also, if you really think Europe is as bad for their citizens as North Korea, the old USSR or many of the countries of Africa or the Middle East then I’m not sure you know the difference between each of them and the western world.

But, anyway, I’m curious, who pulls the strings of the marionette-gargoyle Merkel to ‘import’ Muslims? Do tell? You do know that part of what liberal and democratic governments do is accept immigrants into their country, right? It's not a conspiracy. It's policy and maybe it needs to be reconsidered, yes. But you are leveling your own reductio ad absurdum when you claim immigration is intended to lead to "genocide Germans (and all Europeans) off the face of the earth."

OpenID aew51183 April 18, 2016 6:02 PM  

@105

I would trade them for japan's government.
They seem to do a very good job protecting national and ethnic interests and tend to remain stable for generations.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 6:04 PM  

Matt wrote:It's policy and maybe it needs to be reconsidered, yes. But you are leveling your own reductio ad absurdum when you claim immigration is intended to lead to "genocide Germans (and all Europeans) off the face of the earth."
At normal immigration levels that might be true. But with official government sources not only telling us that the native population will be outnumbered in 20 years, but crowing about replacing the native population, it's not at all a reducto. It's obviously the goal of the policy.

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 6:12 PM  

You guys do realize that we can stop immigration into the U.S. without having to ditch the founding principles of this country (e.g. classical liberalism), don't you? After all, we did not allow any immigration between the years 1924 to 1965, despite being nominally a "classical liberal" country during this time.

Blogger pyrrhus April 18, 2016 6:14 PM  

@82 Tight labor markets that are beneficial to American workers have usually been followed in the US by mass importation of foreign labor, from slaves in the 17th century to the Irish and Chinese in the 19th century, to southern Europeans in the early 20th, to the 1965 Immigration Act that has caused the current debacle...

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 6:15 PM  

Guys, read Machiavelli "The Discourses". In it, he comes to the conclusion that republican forms of government are superior to all others, despite their many flaws.

Blogger Eric April 18, 2016 6:17 PM  

Its called state capitalism (aka crony capitalism) and I do not think it will keep pace with us. Sure we've got our own problems. But the Chinese have a lot of problems as well.

Yes, they do. China was booming because it was full of relatively well educated people willing to work for next to nothing (in dollar terms, anyway). But the trade imbalance has been pushing up the cost of Chinese labor, which is revealing all the problems that had been hidden by the wage differential.

My sister's company decided to move some optics manufacturing from China to Switzerland, of all places. In the past that might have been for quality reasons, but in this case it was a straight cost calculation - Switzerland is cheaper.

Anonymous General Hux April 18, 2016 6:17 PM  

Today is the end of the Republic! The end of a regime that acquiesces to disorder!

Anonymous paradox. April 18, 2016 6:26 PM  

The Swiss republic has the features needed. Homogeneous society, more democratic, local control, creating a functioning feedback loop between citizens and government. And a conscripted militia, which as Taleb would say, the citizens have skin in the game.

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 6:54 PM  

My sister's company decided to move some optics manufacturing from China to Switzerland, of all places. In the past that might have been for quality reasons, but in this case it was a straight cost calculation - Switzerland is cheaper.

Yep. I'm not surprised at all. The energy revolution (frackingm, followed by either fusion or advanced fission power in the next decade) coupled with the automation and robotics revolution will result in a lot of manufacturing returning to the U.S. China is a very corrupt society to do business in (corruption = risk). Cheaper energy costs as well as increased automation (which minimizes the impact of liberal/left labor law) will make the U.S. more attractive for manufacturing.

So, the U.S. ends up being both "Saudi America" with regards to energy exports and "China/Japan/S.Korea" with regards to manufacturing exports by the early part of next decade. This is why I am a LOT more optimistic about the medium-term future of the U.S. than I was 5-6 years ago.

The other reason for optimism is that there are two technology revolutions headed our way that will dwarf the computer/IT revolution. The first is 3-D printing (which I'm told is about the same level of development as computers were in the mid 70's). The second is the bio-engineering revolution, which is also at a "1970's level of development compared to computers.

You know, I agree with you guys about the sad state of affairs in the West. However, I don't think that reconsideration of historical social structures is the right way to go. I think Peter Thiel is correct that technology is self-empowering and hence inherently decentralizing and that the proper approach to dealing with the problems of current society is massive technological innovation on a decentralized level, followed by localized political autonomy. Peter Diamandis talks about this as well. This is the direction we should be going.

Switzerland is certainly an example of a successful society. It is a democracy/republic however and probably does not fit with what the alt-right/neo-reaction people want.

Blogger Harsh April 18, 2016 7:01 PM  

Today is the end of the Republic! The end of a regime that acquiesces to disorder!

Hux was pretty bad-ass for a ginger...

Blogger Matt April 18, 2016 7:18 PM  

107. Blogger Snidely Whiplash
> It's obviously the goal of the policy.

Explain why you think the people making policy would want genocide or even just replacing the native population. What's the reasoning?

Blogger Matt April 18, 2016 7:31 PM  

kurt9
>We did not allow any immigration between the years 1924 to 1965...

I believe that is incorrect. Where did you get this information? The United States did allow immigrants in this period. However, there were times when they limited the numbers that came in at certain points, such as during the Depression. But I see no evidence that the U.S. did not allow immigration for 41 years! It's likely a good number of people you know had grandparents who came to America in that period.

Blogger rumpole5 April 18, 2016 7:49 PM  

Probably, the success of any government is more a function of the virtues of the people it governs than of the technical form the government takes. The magic is in the people, not the dirt or formal laws. As for long lived government, consider ancient Egypt. The old Kingdom lasted for over a thousand years, didn't it?

Anonymous Quartermaster April 18, 2016 8:03 PM  

@2 Soviet Internalists did not push Gramscian communism. Gramsci left the Soviet union when he saw that Stalin was coming to power, at about the same time as Trotsky, and for much the same reason. Mussolini jailed him and had him immured until he died. His writings were smuggled out of prison in Italy.

Blogger lowercaseb April 18, 2016 8:08 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 18, 2016 8:11 PM  

Matt wrote:Explain why you think the people making policy would want genocide or even just replacing the native population. What's the reasoning?
Any attribution of motive is purely conjecture on my part, as the people behind the move are certainly not talking.
It could be that they believe the bullshit that they train the activists and academics to repeat slavishly, that Whitesare inherently violent, ruthless and uniquely evil.
It could be that they belong to a (((different))) ethnicity and are merely destroying their only current rivals in the world domination game.
It could be that they are looking forward to a neo-feudal peasant/noble society and imagine they will remain on top of that pile.
It could be that they are incredibly short-sighted and think they will be able to abscond with the funds before the civil war starts in earnest.
I am not personally acquainted witht he people involved and am not privy to their long-term plans, although theycertainly leave plenty of clues.
Just don't try to tell me that what they are obviously doing, what they tell me they are doing, and what they celebrate at each incremental step is not what they are doing. Don't tell me the urine streaming down my back is just rain.

Blogger Lovekraft April 18, 2016 8:12 PM  

If you want to see someone who enapsulates the current persona of the ultra-liberal, look no further than Canada's Justin Trudeau. Glossy eyed, smarmy, filled with meaningless platitudes.

Blogger pyrrhus April 18, 2016 8:13 PM  

@117 The US allowed only very highly restricted immigration, of Europeans only, during that period. Hence Roosevelt was forced to turn back ships carrying refugees from Nazi Germany.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2016 8:17 PM  

> CONSTRUCTIVE criticism would at least HINT about what a better system might be.

How is pointing out that someone is lying about the system in place criticism of the system it claims to be?

> ... and the commenters are all "these proles can't be trusted to live as they wish!"

You're obviously reading a different thread than the rest of us.

> Are we talking Classical Liberalism (CL) or the cr*p that today calls itself liberalism?

We're talking classical liberalism. Cohen is pulling a bait and switch between the two.

> (frackingm, followed by either fusion or advanced fission power in the next decade)

You do realize that if either Hillary or Bernie is elected you're not going to see either, don't you? They've both already promised to stop fracking.

> The first is 3-D printing (which I'm told is about the same level of development as computers were in the mid 70's).

Seriously? Closer to the 1960's, where all you could buy were kits. We've only recently replaced those kits with off the shelf ready to use units that individuals can afford.

> The second is the bio-engineering revolution, which is also at a "1970's level of development compared to computers.

That's not a field I'm competent to comment on, so you may be right there.

> Explain why you think the people making policy would want genocide or even just replacing the native population. What's the reasoning?

Hatred of the other in some cases, hatred of self in others. But that definitely is the goal.

> Probably, the success of any government is more a function of the virtues of the people it governs than of the technical form the government takes.

"Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure “good” government, it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare — most people want to run things, but want no part of the blame..." Robert Heinlein.

OpenID aew51183 April 18, 2016 8:26 PM  

@124

From the NYT comment section, the #1 NYT pick of the readers' comments, self awareness is in negative territory from said commenter:

"I don't trust the uneducated masses any more than do establishment Conservatives. The lumpen are so often brutal and stupid; give them a loaf and often they'll just gobble it down, resell it, and stick out their hands for more.

Democracy gives that sort of person too much power."

Anonymous Right wing extremist April 18, 2016 8:29 PM  

The problem with liberalism is that it assumes that "good" men can self govern and do not need government. The problem is that "good" men don't exist. Humans are inherently selfish and self destructive, the "good" ones just do it in slow motion.

Anonymous kfg April 18, 2016 8:33 PM  

@95: " . . . the commenters are all "these proles can't be trusted to live as they wish!"

@124: "You're obviously reading a different thread than the rest of us."

From the Thread: "I don't trust the uneducated masses any more than do establishment Conservatives. The lumpen are so often brutal and stupid . . ."

Yes, I believe he is reading a different thread. Go over his comment again and see if it parses a bit differently this time. It was a bit pronoun game ambiguous.

Blogger Josh April 18, 2016 8:39 PM  

The problem is that "good" men don't exist.

That's the whole point of liberalism.

Anonymous kfg April 18, 2016 8:39 PM  

@126:

"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Ergo, as we do not have that sort of government already, we are not ready for it.

Thoreau was far more of a Yankee pragmatist than he is often given credit for.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2016 8:47 PM  

> Yes, I believe he is reading a different thread.

Ah. Yes, that explains it. Two different threads being discussed.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 18, 2016 8:48 PM  

the US is just one example of republican (small r) government.

American republican government failed because it a) extended political power to people who were not used to being held accountable for their decisions, and b) extended political power to such a large number of people that individuals could dodge responsibility by melting back into the mob.

Whether that counts as not standing up to the power of democracy or not is a good question, but there's the mechanism behind how it went wrong.

Blogger Matt April 18, 2016 8:54 PM  

123. pyrrhus

From what I have found the period between 1925 and 1965 saw a restriction of immigrants from other countries other than Europe but not an outright ban. There were quotas from Asia which were quite low for a while. Also some Muslims were allowed in but only those from the Soviet Union. Yes, it all changed with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Blogger Rusty Fife April 18, 2016 9:19 PM  

Matt wrote:123. pyrrhus

From what I have found the period between 1925 and 1965 saw a restriction of immigrants from other countries other than Europe but not an outright ban. There were quotas from Asia which were quite low for a while. Also some Muslims were allowed in but only those from the Soviet Union. Yes, it all changed with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.


Rhetoric != dialectic. Formal dialectic is not the tool for discussing politics; rhetoric is. Just RTFB!

Blogger tz April 18, 2016 9:32 PM  

Murray Rothbard had a simple and very clever response to those who argue that the existence of "evil" requires some sort of centralized authority. If humans are by nature good, then any system ought to work, even socialism. However, if humans are inherently bad, what sense is there to put one person or group of persons in charge of all others?

Rothbard never read Mises? Socialism can't work not because those attempting to manage things aren't good, it is because they aren't psychic so can't replace the information that market prices provide.

You can have a very good person with a 70 IQ, but they won't be able to do a lot of good things if they require any complexity.

If people were inherently bad, they will all seek to be in charge and likely do whatever is needed to accomplish it as they will not have any moral restraint.

The problem is that people are fallen, so are generally safe when they don't get power. The trick is to scatter power or create infighting (multiple branches) so no one can dominate. The evil is always some useful good will arise that requires tearing down the wall keeping things diffuse and scattered, and it will be torn down for that one thing but end up destroying the checks and balances.

The final key is subsidiarity (part of Catholic Social teaching). What monopoly on force? The Feds shouldn't bother citizens (posse commitatus), the states might, but every man and woman should own a gun. No monopoly on the use of force.

Blogger tz April 18, 2016 9:37 PM  

@128 The problem is that "good" men don't exist.

That's the whole point of liberalism.


Exactly, except that the SJWs postulate good women exist (may explain trans-).

Blogger tz April 18, 2016 9:41 PM  

@116 Explain why you think the people making policy would want genocide or even just replacing the native population. What's the reasoning?

See Margaret Sanger and Eugenics.

If the wolves have a bunch of sheepdogs that keep biting when they attack the sheep, you want to get rid of the sheepdogs.

Either the elite or the electorate will be replaced. Immigration is the former replacing the latter.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 18, 2016 10:15 PM  

Soviet Internalists did not push Gramscian communism. Gramsci left the Soviet union when he saw that Stalin was coming to power, at about the same time as Trotsky, and for much the same reason.

Certainly not after Koba the dread came to full power. I wonder if Gramsci's reason for departing the old Soyuz was identical to that of (((Trotsky))), or maybe Gramsci was just playing Lowry to Trotsky's Podheretz. As for the USSA being a republic, the Soviet Union was one too - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The present Zombie-Banana Empire of the Bankstas headquartered in Sodom-on-Potomac has almost as much resemblance to the republic Ben Franklin wondered we could keep as the old USSR did. The USSR leadership was a criminal oligarchy running an empire, while the USSA leadership is a genocidal criminal oligarchy running an empire. Maybe they should get together with Hi-Fellatin' Franny and they could re-crytallize the contraption as the Holy Roman Republic.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 18, 2016 10:40 PM  

Philip Bump just published an article in the Washington Post about how Bernie Sanders doesn't really average $27 per person.

The truth is, Sanders averages $27.59...

To recap, a liberal media is calling a crowdfunded communist a liar because of rounding down...

Liberalism isn't just dead.

It is rotting on the cross of its own making.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 18, 2016 10:48 PM  

"Thoreau was far more of a Yankee pragmatist than he is often given credit for."
Are not not all yankees pragmastists ?
Fuck'em ,every damn one of 'em.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 18, 2016 11:08 PM  

kfg wrote:The trick for a Christian culture is how to remain Christian without ultimately going bat shit insane.
Some of us went atheist just to get away from that insanity.  It does give you the question "what do you replace the dogmas and axioms with?", but at least you have questions you can ask instead of insane dogmas you can't question.

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 11:15 PM  

The Feds shouldn't bother citizens (posse commitatus), the states might, but every man and woman should own a gun. No monopoly on the use of force.

That I fully agree with.

Blogger stevo April 18, 2016 11:15 PM  

A democratic republic could last a whole lot longer if the women couldn't vote

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 11:20 PM  

My correction. We did not stop all immigration during 1924-1965. But we strictly limited it during this period, while still being nominally a "liberal" society.

My point remains. Why do we need to ditch the whole enlightenment/classical liberal world-view just to keep the Muslim invaders out of our country. We managed to "defeat" the mighty soviet union without rejecting classical liberalism. Indeed, Reagan believed that increased individual liberty WAS the correct tool to defeat soviet communism. If it good enough to face off communism, its more than good enough to face off islamism. Pray tell.

Blogger stevo April 18, 2016 11:20 PM  

Or even better only landed gentry

Blogger kurt9 April 18, 2016 11:24 PM  

One other thing. Most of you are too young to remember this. But during the 1970's communism was far more popular among the youth of the world, particularly Western Europe, than Islam is today. By this measure, it is reasonable to say that islamism is FAR LESS a threat to the rest of the world, and the West in particular, than communism was in 1970's when many western young people joined communes and wore Chi Gevera shirts.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 18, 2016 11:25 PM  

kurt9, "liberal" in 1940 is not the same as "liberal" in 1965 is not the same as "liberal" in 1980 is not the same as "liberal" in 2016.

Liberals are people who want open borders. Period. The Muslim invaders are here, and Obama is bringing about 1,000 more just from Syria every. Single. Day. There's 7,000 more Syrian Muslims in the US right now than there were a year ago.

There's now enough Somalis in upstate New York to tip a congressional race in the Buffalo area. None of this is an accident, it's way too big for that, it is population replacement pure and simple.

Liberalism is dead. Liberals killed it.

PS: Invoking Saint Reagan won't get you any points here.

Blogger Doom April 18, 2016 11:28 PM  

After a few discussions and presentations here and elsewhere, and a bit of thinking... For my files, I have decided that liberalism was initially as good as secularism got. When Christianity came, and brought clarity and direction, liberalism was on the ropes. When the majority of Christians realized they couldn't live the saintly life, and demanded (as college kids today) an A... regardless of their success or failure rates, they brought liberalism back as a softball form of Christianity. And they are reaping what they have sewn. There are only two ways to go with it, they know that, but they are trying to hold onto the middle ground while that falls out from under them. There is only in the fire, holding onto their notions of self direction, or through the fire, using forgiveness... but that has to be true to save them, and even they see that. A feign of going through the fire is hell.

Liberalism isn't dead, so much as a false attempt to believe in everything by believing in nothing, which isn't even working, at this point, for the most devoted adherents. I am looking forward to the barbecue. Let's get this thing started, so we can get it over. Messy, but for many it will end up quite satisfying. Then again, I don't call that tune. So... patience while they get their shot at heaven, even knowing most aren't going to make it. I feel like a census taker, for the elderly on a busy NYC intersection... make it or not? I just... take the numbers. I can't even call the ambulance.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 18, 2016 11:29 PM  

Correction to previous comment: there's 7,000 more Syrian Muslims in the US than there were last week, and next week that will grow by 7,000 more. This is an invasion.

kurt9 it doesn't matter how "popular" Islam is now vs. Communism was back when you were young. You're fighting the last war. What matters is demographics.

How many of the Reagan Democrats of 1980 are still alive? Not nearly as many as you think. Who replaced them?

Question for you: do you believe that genes play any role in human behavior? Or are you a "blank slate" believer?

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 18, 2016 11:37 PM  

"Liberalism isn't just dead.

It is rotting on the cross of its own making."
Very good post.
Let us only hope for the end of the other wing of the flea-bitten buzzard.
American jobs, for American people who buy American goods.
Trust me, it works, has been proven to .

Anonymous Satan's Hamster April 18, 2016 11:45 PM  

"The other reason for optimism is that there are two technology revolutions headed our way that will dwarf the computer/IT revolution."

More than two. For example, just as 3D printing is going to end the mass transport of stuff, VR and drones will end the mass transport of people. Why travel, when you can just rent a drone at the place you need to be? And the demise of the airlines will inevitably kill mass immigration, at least in places where the masses can't simply walk over the border.

All the Indutrial Era economies of scale that made big, bureaucratic, centralized government possible are starting to go into reverse. It won't last long, because it can't... unfortunately, the doomed beast will still destroy massive numbers of people in its death throes.

Anonymous Carl Crowe2 April 18, 2016 11:45 PM  

"What Cohen thinks is "liberalism" is nothing of the sort. Liberalism wasn't rational. It wasn't immune to greed, prejudice, domination, subservience, or fear. Western liberal democracy was, from the very start, a con job; as we have seen everywhere from Colorado to Dublin, from Amsterdam to Wyoming, there is nothing even remotely democratic about it."

1. Cohen didn't say Liberalism is immune to greed, prejudice, domination, etc.

2. You are mistaking party dynamics and protocols for something it never promised to be.

3. Those now seemingly embracing nationalism aren't dismissing democracy. They just don't like it when it includes others.

4. When bias, prejudice and hope interrupts analysis you get this kind of post.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 18, 2016 11:57 PM  

150. Satan's Hamster
Well, is that not the way your cuddlebubddy wants it ?
Maybe it is as you proclaim, and maybe it aint.
We surely will see, won't we ?

Blogger Austin Ballast April 19, 2016 12:37 AM  

Speaking of the death of things, I heard Eric Erickson on a radio show today ramble on about how he could not vote for Trump and having Trump vs Hillary would be a sign that Christians should disengage from culture.

This seemed ironic given McCain and Romney were so horrid in past years. So I did a quick search and found he proclaimed the Conservative Movement dead when Romney seemed headed for the nomination last time.

It is a wonder why he still claims to be a conservative if the movement is dead? Perhaps he is one of those media whores Vox was going to write a book about. He was posturing as a devote Christian this time.

Note that I have no belief Trump would be a perfect Christian president, but he is the only one who has any chance of shaking things up and even facing the most important issues. More of the invasion and we won't have a country left as our host here says.

I wanted to write in to the show, but I am sure the host has fully drunk the Koolaide and it would be a waste of time.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 19, 2016 2:01 AM  

Even classic liberalism was only a stalemate between rival european factions. It could only happen because no single nation was able to conquer and hold the others territory.

This is precisely why the current hegemony uses the UN - liberally - and other less savory tactics to impose nuclear non proliferation. The last thing they want is another multiplayer detente.

Blogger rho April 19, 2016 2:02 AM  

In general, liberal/conservative reflects change vs. stasis. In practice, liberal means "everything just like it is now, only I'm in charge," while conservative means "I'm in charge, let's keep everything just like it is now."

(This definition makes Liberals occasionally conservative, and Conservatives occasionally liberal, which conforms neatly to experience.)

Blogger Ahazuerus April 19, 2016 2:26 AM  

Liverpool football club has been charged by UEFA with (among other things) "illicit chanting".

I'd say that qualifies as raping liberalism's corpse.

Blogger rho April 19, 2016 2:34 AM  

Liverpool football club has been charged by UEFA with (among other things) "illicit chanting".

Nobody cares about soccer.

Anonymous Jay April 19, 2016 8:39 AM  

"All great things destroy themselves by an act of self-cancellation. That's what the law of life wills, that law of the necessary "self-overcoming" in the essence of life – eventually the call always goes out to the lawmaker himself, "patere legem, quam ipse tulisti" [submit to the law which you yourself have established]. That’s the way Christianity was destroyed as dogma by its own morality; that’s the way Christendom as morality must now also be destroyed. We stand on the threshold of this event."

Anonymous FrankNorman April 19, 2016 8:59 AM  


My sister's company decided to move some optics manufacturing from China to Switzerland, of all places. In the past that might have been for quality reasons, but in this case it was a straight cost calculation - Switzerland is cheaper.


Swiss companies are also way more likely to still be in business 10 years down the line.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 19, 2016 9:15 AM  

Nate, are republics always characterized by the existence of political factions? If they are (I suspect so) then by definition a republic will always embed schizophrenia as the autarky-faction will demand high tariffs, the LGBT faction will demand hairy males showering next to 7 year old girls, the neocon faction will demand invade-the-world, the multinational faction will demand vast resources be sent overseas, etc., etc., etc. Factions by definition pursue narrow interests, and mixing them into a political stew should have predictable results (with the exception of a place like Switzerland, where a very strong citizen veto probably goes a long way to taming the worst of faction excesses.)

A single mind that remains coherent would produce coherence. A mind divided (intentionally) is the very definition of mental illness. We know that today's republics are schizophrenic.

Perhaps the drive to innovate these last 100 years was due to the growing rapaciousness of the Progressive/Fabian state and the need for people to try to stay out ahead of it. Maybe monarchy fixes people too much in place, so citizens don't strive to innovate (because there's little incentive.) I don't know.

As I see it, the best system appears to be some sort of monarchy (for continuity and an owner-level regard for long term capital value) combined with a degree of democracy where a key component of the democracy is a citizen veto such that even a noticeable minority (20-40%) can outright veto any measure.

The law should only enshrine concepts that are not just popular but near universal acceptance.

OpenID denektenorsk April 19, 2016 9:47 AM  

The west will become more conservative in a generation or two, it is inevitable. The question is will it be via a resurgence of Christianity or demographic changes?

Blogger Jerry27 April 19, 2016 10:26 AM  

“Liberalism is a disease whose first symptom is an inability to believe in conspiracies.”

Friedrich Wilhelm IV (1795-1861)

Anonymous Jack Amo April 19, 2016 10:58 AM  

As I see it, the best system appears to be some sort of monarchy (for continuity and an owner-level regard for long term capital value) combined with a degree of democracy where a key component of the democracy is a citizen veto such that even a noticeable minority (20-40%) can outright veto any measure.

I think there are two different questions that have to be answered - one is how a unit of government makes decisions (e.g. monarchy vs democracy) and two is how subsidiary units relate to one another (republic vs empire).

For a unit of government, I like a limited franchise democracy where it's relatively easy for people to move into (and out of) the franchise, based on their "skin in the game." But it should never be a majority of men with the franchise, and very few women should ever have it.

As to how units of government relate, decentralize, decentralize, decentralize. To use the US as an example, the Federal government's job should be a) keeping the States from going to war with each other, and b) keeping any outside forces from attacking individual states piecemeal.

a) would give the feds occasional power over the States, but it should only be via arbitrating disputes (e.g. Tennessee can't let Memphis dump raw sewage into the Mississippi, etc.).

But there has to be some reset mechanism for both. Well, there is, called "civil war" and "revolution", but maybe something with less death and destruction.

Anonymous kfg April 19, 2016 11:06 AM  

"But there has to be some reset mechanism for both. Well, there is, called "civil war" and "revolution", but maybe something with less death and destruction."

The Athenians invented just such a mechanism. They called it a "Tyrant."

Blogger kurt9 April 19, 2016 11:15 AM  

Liberals are people who want open borders. Period.

If this is the working definition of liberalism in here then you just won the argument with me. Since I'm not an advocate for open borders, you'll get no argument from me.

Anonymous Anonymous April 19, 2016 1:18 PM  

The problem with liberalism is that it got hijacked in the 1960's with a fake civil rights movement by communists and marxists (satanists). Today the terms liberalism, socialism and communism are just about interchangeable and all have proven to be a total fail.

Anonymous bagginz April 20, 2016 8:58 AM  

Same old, same old...

The cyclic process was recognised by the ancient greeks:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Anacyclosis

I'd place western civilisation in the latter, decadent phase of democracy moving into Ochlocracy.

Blogger A 1-In-100 Blogger April 20, 2016 6:52 PM  

Is Roger Cohen even on the same planet as we are? He just made up a new definition of liberalism, and then wrote a story based on his false premise.

Blogger Acton Ace July 08, 2016 5:51 AM  

We are a country, yes. But we are more than that—like a family, we are
bound together by a history and a heritage that includes a set of ideals, values,
and principles that make us who we are and show us who we can become. To
be certain, members of our country, like members of a family, don’t always see
eye to eye. But families remain together when their hearts remain united by
their core principles, values, and standards. Such unity should be the driving
force today, because Reagan is right—America’s inheritance never was or will
be passed down in the bloodstream. Yet it must be passed down, somehow, if
we are to remain united like no other country in the world.
Chris Salamone works to improve the lives of young people around the world through his many philanthropic endeavors Like holding Leadership programs for high School Students. Chris Salamone http://goo.gl/JKSDFj is a noted attorney, entrepreneur, social worker and author or two best seller books, one of them is Rescue America which focus on restructuring America.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts