The New Republic: The Collapse of Neoliberalism

Is there anything more obvious than the fact that the advance of liberalism is synonymous with disorder and cultural degeneration?

It dissolves our culture. It dissolves national borders. It dissolves communities. It dissolves castes. It dissolves marriage and the family. It dissolves the gender binary. It dissolves the sexes. It dissolves races. It dissolves man’s relationship with the divine.

New York Times:

“What damaged Ms. Merkel was the sense of chaos and loss of control. But Mr. Orban understood, Mr. Tusk said, that “the first condition is order, absolutely.”

And that brought Mr. Tusk, as a liberal democrat, to what he describes as his nightmare. “The biggest fear today, not only in Europe, is that people think that liberalism is a synonym for vulnerability and disorder and chaos and weakness,’’ he said.

“Liberal democracy must be also strong and decisive and sometimes even ruthless in protecting, you know, their own people, borders, territories, etc.,’’ he added. ‘‘If people start to believe that there is no possibility to combine freedom and a liberal set of values with safety and security and order, then we have no chance to survive.’’

Then, the field will be open to even more dictatorial populist politicians, he said. …”

I like the phrase “national oligarchy.”

This is how I would describe the Trump and Johnson governments. These regimes are outwardly nationalist and populist. They seek to harness the resentments of the public, but they are inwardly oligarchic and cater to the interests of a tiny handful of wealthy donors.

The New Republic:

“With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. “Laissez-faire is finished,” declared French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash “called into question the prevailing neoliberal economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years—the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem which has been visited upon us.” …

On the right, the response to the crash went beyond ostrichlike blindness in the face of the shattering of the assumptions undergirding their public policy views. Indeed, most conservatives seized the moment to double down on the failed approaches of the past. The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction—and with it failing at every turn—you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn’t, and many still haven’t. …

The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community. And the solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to confront the fusion of oligarchic capitalism and nationalist authoritarianism that has now captured major governments around the world—and that seeks to invade and undermine democracy from within. …”

What is Trump even doing?

If he wins the 2020 election, what will he do with a second term in office? He will just carry on with neoliberalism and Zionism.

About Hunter Wallace 9521 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

14 Comments

  1. “””…If he wins the 2020 election, what will he do with a second term in office?…”””

    Good question. As we all read recently, one guy got lifetime imprisonment for car crash and the other guy got 16 years for burning very disgusting item and so one.

    100 ears ago, we here down here in Eastern Europe had one of the weakest and incompetent leaders in this era, Alexander Kerensky. Everybody hated him and wanted him to lose so our republican finally understood something.

    You know what happened. Kerensky and his republicans did not came in mind. Instead of we got 70 years of democratic party and Gulag and 50 million deaths.

    For general information, quit talking about firearms. We all have weapons given by God himself. 2 hands and 2 legs and head strike and teeth . And how many of us dares pick up the school fight or street fight ???????

    Let`s be honest. White people are too scared to fight.

    Every last gun owner gave up his free speech because nobody dared to be racist and every last gun owner will give up his weapons because he does not to be gunnist or because of weaponally correctness.

    Do you see, how gun owners is running when the snowflake school bully is commanding.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/19/switzerland-votes-in-referendum-on-tighter-gun-laws

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-zealanders-turn-in-more-than-50000-guns-in-assault-weapon-buyback/

    You must vote for Donald because he is the last line against full communism.

    • Jury, I think that You are slightly full of Shiza. And don’t know a Damn thing About Us Southern Americans. We ain’t giving up a damn thing. We ain’t like you p wipped panzy assed Euorpeans. We saved your asses many times. Merry Christmas

      • Trump will rock in 2nd term. A lot of shaking out and behind the scenes attacks have hindered 1st term. He’ll likely pardon James Fields too. All this merely buys us time. Time to do what ? Good question, cause we aint doin S except talk. If all we do is talk … at LEAST get the Confederacy 2.0 TALK going. Good damn grief !!!!

    • ” You must vote for Donald because he is the last line against full communism. “

      Closer to reality then we even care to think about !

  2. I don’t like the Democrats, but I am actually hoping that Trump loses in 2020. Why? He hasn’t kept his promises to his base, and his losing the election would be his punishment. He hasn’t had the border wall built, he hasn’t sent the illegals back to their own homelands, he hasn’t fought to end birthright citizenship. He seems concerned about the interests of nonwhites, who will never vote for him in any appreciable numbers, but totally unconcerned about his white base, who are the ones who can reelect him. I can’t ever remember him saying anything positive about our people. It’s as if he forgot that we exist—except when it comes time to fighting imaginary “white supremacism”.

    • Republicans run to the right to get elected, then when in office they ignore Whites in favor of minorities, and the party goes back to losing again.

  3. Is there anything more obvious than the fact that the advance of liberalism is synonymous with disorder and cultural degeneration?

    That’s not obvious to me at all. We had hundreds of years of liberalism and we still had strong families, strong borders, a “gender” binary and a healthy culture.

    It was something else besides “liberalism” that caused these problems.

    Seems obvious to me what it was. The advent of television in the 1960s. The rise of the World Wide Web post-9/11 is when we started to see the first real push back against the TV era. This is typically what happens when communications technology advances. It was the printing press that really triggered the Reformation, for instance.

    Liberalism is a red herring.

    Trump’s regime is no more oligarchic than was Obama’s or Bush’s or Reagan’s. Trump didn’t spend a dime on TV commercials but social media like Facebook and websites like Breitbart.com were instrumental to his win – not to mention old fashioned rallies which Trump pulled off masterfully.

    P.S. Marriage is a huge deal in neo-right circles. The breakdown of marriage is directly related to the television, because TV shows changed the status system. But deindustrialization, which destroyed the economic foundations of housewifery, not to mention reliable birth control, made the new sexual regime possible.

    Again, nothing to do with “liberalism.” Frankly, “free trade” and “neo-liberalism” weren’t even particularly liberal. Read any so-called “free trade agreement” and it’s the exact and direct opposite of anything “free market.”

    I’m not a libertarian ideologue, I like tariffs and protectionism. But these are all red herrings. Ideologies hardly ever drive anything, there is always, always, a fundamentally materialist dynamic to social changes. The ideologies get fitted on later.

    • You can’t draw a line from Wilson’s “internationalism” (globalism) to where we are now? Social and cultural changes don’t become instantly comprehensive.

      • @Boomer X

        You can’t draw a line from Wilson’s “internationalism” (globalism) to where we are now?

        “Internationalism” and “globalism” are right-wing euphemisms for the correct term: imperialism.

        If we use the correct word, we can certainly see how Wilson’s imperialism helped change the material circumstances that allowed and/or caused a lot of our modern problems. Certainly, I agree.

        But America was doing quite well under the early stages of Wilson’s imperialism. We had a growing White population, strong marriages, strong families, no LGBT nonsense. And Woodrow Wilson was a liberal racist, in fact, so sympathetic with Dixie he fired every Negro in the federal government. All of the Progressives of the Woodrow Wilson era were perfectly white supremacist.

        Why make this more complicated than it is? It was the rise of Television that started off white decline, and we know who was in control of the Television: ABC, CBS, NBC, right from the beginning.

        Obviously there are many complicated factors, but why does everyone always ignore the elephant in the room?

        • I appreciate your detailed response, BH. Mass media is a major indoctrination tool, of course. Movies and radio were also used in this regard, but starting in the Sixties it certainly was TV that had the biggest impact. That the process was started long before then was my minor point.

          Indoctrination went beyond TV, though. Institutions, from think tanks to colleges to corporations, started to adapt the Marxist critiques of society by writers like Marcuse and Foucault back in the Sixties for their own purposes. A guiding philosophical structure is needed, after all, for comprehensive cultural reordering. Anything that could be used to encourage consumption and self-indulgence for its own sake was promoted. The atomization brought about by social division served (and continues to serve) their interests quite well. The order of cohesive community that the elites replaced with the chaos of extreme individualism needs to be resurrected if our civilization is to be saved. It’s fortunate that the tribalism human nature naturally adheres to can’t be forced down forever.

  4. As usual, The New Republic is pure nonsense.

    The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community. And the solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to confront the fusion of oligarchic capitalism and nationalist authoritarianism that has now captured major governments around the world—and that seeks to invade and undermine democracy from within.

    This is word-salad.

    Everyone and their brother knows exactly what caused the “fraying” of the “social fabric” and the loss of “civic community.” The people at the New Republic know it too. Here’s a simple hint: take the subway in Baltimore. If you survive, see if you can figure out why people have been retreating from public spaces and the “civic community.” Repeat this experiment in Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis or any Northern rust-belt city.

    The New Republic is also printing nonsense with the phrase “‘nationalist authoritarianism.” Trump isn’t even a tiny bit more “authoritarian” than Obama was. Was it “authoritarian” and “oligarchic” when the Supreme Court – the nation’s most oligarchic institution – overruled every single state democratic election and imposed “same sex marriage” against the directly expressed will of the majority of voters?

    Why, yes, that is a great example of “authoritarianism” and a direct example of “oligarchical” overruling of the will of the people.

    The New Republic is suggesting that this “authoritarianism” “invaded and undermined democracy.” This is straight out of Orwell’s 1984. The (utterly minor) changes that Trump has suggested making are far more in line with the “democratic” will of the people than anything that Obama did.

    When the New Republic claims something as “authoritarian” and “anti-democratic” they are literally reversing the dictionary definitions of those words.

    Of course, reactionaries always fall for this nonsense. The New Republic claims democracy is anti-democratic, so a reactionary reacts and says, “well then I’m against democracy!”

    I mean, just appreciate the wonderfully insane propaganda of the phrase “captured major governments.” What they mean is “the parties we didn’t like won democratic elections in many countries” therefore, that’s “anti-democratic.”

  5. ” And that brought Mr. Tusk, as a liberal democrat, to what he describes as his nightmare. “The biggest fear today, not only in Europe, is that people think that liberalism is a synonym for vulnerability and disorder and chaos and weakness,’’ he said.

    “Liberal democracy must be also strong and decisive and sometimes even ruthless in protecting, you know, their own people, borders, territories, etc.,’’ he added. ‘‘If people start to believe that there is no possibility to combine freedom and a liberal set of values with safety and security and order, then we have no chance to survive.’’

    Then, the field will be open to even more dictatorial populist politicians, he said. …” “

    Mr Tusk (a Pole) and to ALL the “tusks” of the world.

    That bird, the so called “liberal democracy” and its so called “values”, well that bird HAS FLOWN its coup !!

    National Populism and Ethnocentric Nationalism is now on the world stage “menu”. And the people of the Western European world CRAVE FOR IT !!!

    Tomorrow belongs to US, dear Tusk !!

  6. No matter which slice of the kosher sandwich “wins” the election, the war on White Folks will accelerate.
    Considering what’s happening in VA now, they will have no choice.
    They know that they are losing.
    They hear the Thunder.

  7. >The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade.

    Forget that.
    https://imgflip.com/i/3kdw5a

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. The New Republic: The Collapse of Neoliberalism | CENSORED.TODAY

Comments are closed.