>A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human di...

>A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty, in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”

>“Rather than seeing the accumulating catastrophe as evidence of our failure to live up to liberalism’s ideals, we need rather to see clearly that the ruins it has produced are the signs of its very success.”

grim book

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s basically just doomer porn tbh

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He is not wrong.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not entirely disagreeing but spend your life navel gazing about it is moronic

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          He is an academic and someone has to do this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are academics really worth their weight in salt anymore? Any time you ask one about the opinion of the man on the street they vomit forth a bunch of nonsense about why his existence is preventing the rise of socialism or other commie gobbledeasiatic. To be honest I don’t really think academics like average joes and would do anything in power to erase them just so they can stand on the rubble of civilization and say “I finally won, dad, you proud of me now?”

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why? Concerns over the foundations of our political economy is one of the most important things to care about. Perfectly reasonable to spend a lifetime thinking about it, way more important than the usual culture war and election bullshit that people care about

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not what I was implying.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the roots of liberalism are ontological. the universe is ergodic, as is energy consumption.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All past advocates of liberalism made one fatal mistake...

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fine book but I don't think I've ever seen a better example of something being so conspicuous by its absence as something in this book. There's a portion where he's saying we need a return to closely defined forms of identity and then goes on to list like 15 without ever mentioning race or ethnic identity because that is what liberalism is trying the hardest to abolish and you'd lose your professor job for openly pushing back on that. Liberalism doesn't really care about people advocating for muh localism or muh innawoods religious communities because it knows that stuff isn't actually a threat

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/RbXpl65.jpg

      I thought the book was good, particularly the parts where he diagnoses the way liberals respond to the failure of their ideology with a call to more liberalism.
      However he doesn't focus enough on the religious roots of liberalism, nor does he offer an optimistic alternative - instead saying gay boomer shit about how we're probably headed for dictatorships and it's gonna suck

      This is indeed a problem with the book, he doesn’t offer any interesting solutions, but his diagnosis is mostly correct and at least he acknowledges that this book is more of a foundation of a future critique that would bring more benefits
      >“It seems more apparent every day that a comparable epoch-defining book must arise from our age, and I hope some young reader of this book will be the person to write it. And while I also hope to follow this book with one that offers a way out and a way forward, for now the book in your hands aspires to explain why this new departure in the epic form is not only necessary but inescapable.”

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>>“It seems more apparent every day that a comparable epoch-defining book must arise from our age
        lol that's another atheist thing: they want a product of the media industry to tell them how to live. And atheists are the one saying they are the smarter people who ever lived... good thing they stopped reproducing

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          the author is catholic, anon-kun

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That explains a lot, Satan, thanks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What's with this moronic obsession with solutions. There are no solutions, you can only know that retrospectively. Life is not a quiz to be SOLVED.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How could liberalism increase inequality while enforcing uniformity?

    Also, increasing inequality is irrelevant. Even the worst are better off due to liberalism and free trade. Who cares if some got even better?

    Material degradation? There is more high quality shit than ever before.

    Undermines freedom? How would we be more free if the king could have us killed for worshipping the wrong god, or not worshipping at all, or if we still had to fight religious wars?

    The ruins liberalism has produced? Lol show me any system that ever produced more.

    This guy sounds like a moron.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe you should read his book to understand what he meant.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why? Does he at some point admit that nothing he says is consistent with the data and then suddenly argue that liberalism is successful and thriving?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Come to Canada and see for yourself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Even the worst are better off due to liberalism and free trade
      This is temporary.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it goes back

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hope your skin gets infected by botfly larvae today.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty
    Why would this guy write a whole book about a subject he clearly doesn't understand in the slightest?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I was going to write this lol. he made up a fake purpose and imposed it on an ideology then proceeded to attack it.

      liberalism has not failed, countries that have more liberty have financially flourished. communism and red tape corroded and destroyed countries, capitalism made them richer.

      this book is written for morons to read. he starts with liberalism's so called promise of "equity" and then ends with how liberalism fails at providing "equality". I don't think the author is that moronic, he just aims for morons like OP.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i suggest reading the book before posting

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I avoid reading books that can possibly lower my IQ. a scientist doesn't make moronic mistakes and purposefully deflecting statements like this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Perfect Dunning Kruger post

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt your IQ can go any lower

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Chinas the fastest growing economy in the world (or at least was for a while icba to see the statistics) and they rejected liberalism. Supporting freeze peach and "freedom" doesn't seem to have much to do with economic success

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you just get paid to shit up the board, Chang?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I thought the book was good, particularly the parts where he diagnoses the way liberals respond to the failure of their ideology with a call to more liberalism.
    However he doesn't focus enough on the religious roots of liberalism, nor does he offer an optimistic alternative - instead saying gay boomer shit about how we're probably headed for dictatorships and it's gonna suck

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s good he actually takes a stand against liberalism and liberal ideals but he is still a cuckservative with what we can replace it with.
    Not great, but certainly good. A step in the right direction. We could be on the slow road to recovery if his postliberalist philosophy gets traction in the GOP

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand where this idea is coming from that liberalism is what sets a country on the path of economic prosperity rather than economic prosperity engendering liberalism because those classes which gain political power from the wealth they gained from capitalism will assert their interests in the form of political liberalism. Doubly so in case of smaller countries where turning economically liberal can't possibly mean anything else but becoming the economic colony of the biggest economy in the vicinity rather than general prosperity.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      china's economy did better when they switched over to more liberal economic policies in the 80s, now it's in bottleneck after a decade of incessant communist leaning.

      I think you will realize why you are thinking is backwards if you try to find one example that abides your way of thinking. what you will find instead in the history is economic prosperity is always paved by liberalism. simply because free enterprise is more efficient.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How about the german reformation, the french wars of religion, and the english civil war?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Plus the american revolution and the civil war.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are passing over the main reason why the squabbles took place, the common denominator is the economy. policies like less taxation forced themselves into existence, they were not given out freely. I think you are simply misinterpreting still. you can argue the prime mover was societal changes, that will lead to a more detailed two hour historical discussion which I am not willing to take part in.

            Chinas the fastest growing economy in the world (or at least was for a while icba to see the statistics) and they rejected liberalism. Supporting freeze peach and "freedom" doesn't seem to have much to do with economic success

            yeah well you are blatantly lying so there is nothing here to respond.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you think Beard was full of shit?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I take the economics first approach.

            https://i.imgur.com/XPODCVG.jpg

            I am? Macroeconomics was never my strong suit but a 9.5% gdp increase in one year seems pretty crazy to me.

            oh wow a chart, here let me post one too. since you are not good at macroeconomics let me give you a tip, you look for trends. so if you can look very closely you can see the shit is starting to sink. does it look like changing the liberal economic policies for the communist ones doing them a favor?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            American and european countries are stagnating even further, is there any reason to believe that liberalism is much better? Also China already has liberal economic policies, they're unironically probably less regulated than burgerstan (see liveleak for evidence)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Forecast
            HAHAHAHAHA
            Economists are actually moronic

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No they’re just meteorologists but with money and not wind and rain

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/jlkaBlz.png

            I take the economics first approach.

            [...]
            oh wow a chart, here let me post one too. since you are not good at macroeconomics let me give you a tip, you look for trends. so if you can look very closely you can see the shit is starting to sink. does it look like changing the liberal economic policies for the communist ones doing them a favor?

            It seems I misread you but so did you misunderstand the post you originally replied to. It seems both of us agree on ideology being downstream from economics rather than the other way around. That's why I mentioned Charles A. Beard.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            well it's very late so you will have to excuse me.

            American and european countries are stagnating even further, is there any reason to believe that liberalism is much better? Also China already has liberal economic policies, they're unironically probably less regulated than burgerstan (see liveleak for evidence)

            >is there any reason to believe that liberalism is much better?
            yeah, go ask average chinese person how his life is and compare his answer to a european's.

            >China already has liberal economic policies
            had, which as I have demonstrated twice how it took place in their history and the tide has changed, was the sole reason they had an economic boom.

            >less regulated
            I am sure which company is allowed to take on construction projects are more heavily regulated by the government compared to anywhere else in china, and by that I mean only a handful of friends of the state get a pass. there is no market when you are cornered by the state mafia and their friends. they can kill people with construction equipment that hasn't been properly taken care of and the employer won't be charged guilty. is that failure of the state or the market?

            you let me know if you come up with any other flimsy logical fallacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >tide has changed
            Really? To me it just looks like the continuation of an ongoing trend. Capital controls are loosened so that Chinese people can invest in overseas accounts, they've been accepting loans from the World Bank, etc. Maybe you're talking about increased government investment in public infrastructure, but you only need to look at the UK to see how liberalizing that turns out lol.
            >there is no market when you are cornered by the state mafia and their friends
            Sure there is, look at Pinochet era Chile. Free markets can often thrive under repressive environments. Anyways I was moreso thinking of small businesses. In America you have millions of zoning regulations and emission regulations and city/county/state ordinances. These often serve to crush small businesses
            >flimsy logical fallacy
            What fallacies did I use? Even if I'm wrong, if you assume my premises to be correct, then my conclusions are logical. Something can be logical and wrong

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am? Macroeconomics was never my strong suit but a 9.5% gdp increase in one year seems pretty crazy to me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Macroeconomics was never my strong suit
            Yeah no shit moron, if you had even taken Marco 101 you would have heard of the fricking CATCH UP EFFECT

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does it matter that their economic success is tied to the exploitation of their cheap labour by the first world?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        China is more laissez faire than the USA thougheverbeit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        China did better because the us, a liberal power, coaxed it into opening up. That says nothing about the success of liberalism as much as it does the hegemony of the us.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >china's economy did better when they switched over to more liberal economic policies in the 80s, now it's in bottleneck after a decade of incessant communist leaning.
        Well it's a weird situation because they're dealing with a real estate bubble that expanded grotesquely after more than a decade of the government trying to juice economic growth after the 2007-2008 financial crisis. While it's also true that the bubble popping has to do with reversals by the government to halt the flow of cheap credit to these developers, both seem like products of the Chinese government trying to respond to different problems at different times.

        On that, though, I read one theory that the government doesn't just want to give money to people as a form of stimulus, because they would just go out and spend it on whatever, which could work, but their way is to have the government do these big mobilization pushes in particular industries, like a kind of quasi-planning. And the focus now is with new tech, including renewables, but the demand for that cannot match the downturn in real estate because demand in that sector was so huge. I don't think they're going to collapse but growth in the near term is probably in the best-case scenario going to be about average for an economy of that size and level of development instead of exceeding it by a lot. But in the U.S., the business press' coverage of China is that the walls are caving in, and in China, it's like "everything is fine, nothing to see here" but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

        Its because brainlets think communism is the only economic alternative to capitalism, and they ignore that protectionism is better than both.

        >Its because brainlets think communism is the only economic alternative to capitalism, and they ignore that protectionism is better than both.
        A lot of countries are moving to more protectionist policies, re-adopting industrial policies, which I think are good things. But I think generational shifts in political economy (like neoliberalism in the 1970s-1980s) don't involve "choices" that much, but global structural shifts that is beyond the power of individual countries to do much about, as much as adapt to it. I think that's probably true for economic planning in the 1930s/40s where you see countries with very different political systems and ideologies adopt similar policies, fascist, communist and liberal.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Being vulnerable to those global structural shifts is another reason for supporting protectionism. Every nation should be economically self-sufficient.

          [...]
          This is indeed a problem with the book, he doesn’t offer any interesting solutions, but his diagnosis is mostly correct and at least he acknowledges that this book is more of a foundation of a future critique that would bring more benefits
          >“It seems more apparent every day that a comparable epoch-defining book must arise from our age, and I hope some young reader of this book will be the person to write it. And while I also hope to follow this book with one that offers a way out and a way forward, for now the book in your hands aspires to explain why this new departure in the epic form is not only necessary but inescapable.”

          The same critique AND the solutions have already been around for decades on the new right though.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Its because brainlets think communism is the only economic alternative to capitalism, and they ignore that protectionism is better than both.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >protectionism is better
        this board is hopeless.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is he wrong though?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The book lumps liberalism in together with capitalism and suggests that liberal ideology is the facilitator of capitalism rather than the other way around. This is quite common for people to think even if you disagree with it, but I'm curious, do you think the whole purpose of the book is obsolete if it argues in terms of ideological motive instead of economics?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A political philosophy that was launched to... defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs

    Totally bizarre if not full-on deranged statement. Truly the product of the infantile and myopic 21st century mind. No one before 2001 could possibly dream of such a sentence

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But don't you get it that it became the last one standing by being more pacifistic and pluralistic than all its competitors?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What the frick are you talking about

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I should have expected that you would be too autistic to get sarcasm.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your statement still doesn't make sense when said sarcastically. It's a complete non-sequitur

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Liberalism hasn't failed though.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what you anglos call "liberalism" is just cutlural marxism

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nice head canon

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >>A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty, in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”
    liberalism was always about killing monarchies and imposing the humanist dogmas as the norm, killing everybody who disagrees with the bourgeois

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    is that liberalism or what americans call "liberalism"?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because christcuckery ruined it (while, admittedly, helping to create it previously).
    The core moral precept of "treat other the way you want to be treated" is flawed, it's missing an amendment. "Or the way they treat you".
    By applying only the Golden Rule and not the Platinum Addendum we arrived at the inverted clown world where we give people who hate our society and refuse to participate in it all the benefits of it without any responsibility.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >liberalsim
    Which definition are we using again?

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i am happy that the atheists don't breed.
    Then it will be china versus islam. Which side do you support?

    the only thing i like from the chinese bureaucrats is that they dont give a shit about commerce, this means they dont give a shit about usury

    If you want to kill democracy, you only have 2 options: support china or support islamists. I think china is the least evil.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      why are you happy that atheists don't breed? both china and muslim future sounds hellish.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheists are just a modern thing. A bunch of homosexuals that live off the work of all the people that believed in a God and built everything.
        It's really the most edgy thing imaginable.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I understand what you are saying but atheism at least requires a certain degree of modernization. I still would prefer to live in a godless country over a muslim one. that sounds far worse.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >both china and muslim future sounds hellish
        Preferable to an atheist future where we're in pods and being force fed some Rick and Morty tier garbage to keep us pacified.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t think either one is good, honestly. There has to be a third way

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Typical conservative fallacies.

    He beggars the question by claiming liberalism failed, yet conveniently leaves out all of its successes that 3000 years of conservatism never produced before the enlightenment and liberalism were created.

    He cherry picks “The good ole days” conveniently leaving out that one in seven people before 1940 died of tuberculosis, the plight of women, the plight of minorities, religious wars, …, then uses them to compare to magical human qualities he says are no more, that are based in disproven religious and cultural beliefs that he can show absolutely no proof of ever existing.

    He conveniently overlooks that it is conservatism that is continually wreaking liberal programs the second they show success, because conservatism is nothing more than a grift of old white men, and leaves out how every attempt to reign in the problems that he blames liberalism for is quashed by conservatives.

    He then equivocates liberalism with the kind of corrupt capitalist practices, making it look like capitalism itself is liberal, when it is conservatives that leverage capital to exploit, extort, and deceive. He further blurs the lines between what a liberal wants and does and what a conservative wants and does, by defining liberals inconsistently, calling attempts to reign in the authoritarianism of conservatism as being “the bureaucracy,” fooling small minds into thinking all bad policies are on the liberal side.

    Simply put: conservatives are the ones telling you what to do, while liberals are telling them not to, and stupid people cannot see the grift of then saying that liberals are telling conservatives what to do.

    All in all, a typical terrible fallacious and deceptive attempt at promoting conservatism in order to protect the culture and rules that keep old white men in power, typical of every so called conservative intellectual, reminding us that there is no such thing as a conservative intellectual, only grifters and the rubes that fall for their tricks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      trvth nvke

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >beggars the question

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the plight of women, the plight of minorities
      Both those groups are in a much worse state now. They're barely even cattle now.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He cherry picks “The good ole days” conveniently leaving out that one in seven people before 1940 died of tuberculosis, the plight of women, the plight of minorities, religious wars, …, then uses them to compare to magical human qualities he says are no more, that are based in disproven religious and cultural beliefs that he can show absolutely no proof of ever existing.
      Please be a shitpost. There's no way someone can actually be this moronic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think you should aim a 12 gauge at your head if this is a sincere post

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That extract sounds like it's under some kind of assumption that liberalism was some kind of commercialized product that was openly advertised to the public and freely adopted and it gives no thought to consenuality in the fall of monarchies

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >This fricking thread
    Good lord this book is another "End of History" situation where people just read the fricking title and think they know enough about the topic to comment about what the whole book says. Not only is this the lowest IQ shit imaginable but it's especially pathetic for IQfy, a place full of know-it-all pseuds who talk shit but won't even read a basic introductory chapter of a book.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Loser

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      lol which way western man professor homosexual and the Yale University Press' half-assed explanation of why the world sucks or some shitlord who quotes Gladiator going on a revenge quest over a dead cat? At least one of them sounds interesting.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Clickbait political title
    >Le old building on cover to make it look like a smart person book

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *