× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Page 4 of 4 First ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #1
    Array Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61

    Liberal World Order, R.I.P. (OP)


    Salaam

    An establishment take on why the Liberal International order is declining, an interesting read nevertheless.

    Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    America’s decision to abandon the global system it helped build, and then preserve for more than seven decades, marks a turning point, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

    NEW DELHI – After a run of nearly one thousand years, quipped the French philosopher and writer Voltaire, the fading Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Today, some two and a half centuries later, the problem, to paraphrase Voltaire, is that the fading liberal world order is neither liberal nor worldwide nor orderly.

    The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

    To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected. All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the United Nations), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the International Monetary Fund and what years later became the World Trade Organization).

    All this and more was backed by the economic and military might of the US, a network of alliances across Europe and Asia, and nuclear weapons, which served to deter aggression. The liberal world order was thus based not just on ideals embraced by democracies, but also on hard power. None of this was lost on the decidedly illiberal Soviet Union, which had a fundamentally different notion of what constituted order in Europe and around the world.

    The liberal world order appeared to be more robust than ever with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But today, a quarter-century later, its future is in doubt. Indeed, its three components – liberalism, universality, and the preservation of order itself – are being challenged as never before in its 70-year history.

    Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence. Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions. Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies.

    It is increasingly difficult to speak of the world as if it were whole. We are seeing the emergence of regional orders – or, most pronounced in the Middle East, disorders – each with its own characteristics. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise; the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition. There are few rules governing the use of cyberspace.

    At the same time, great power rivalry is returning. Russia violated the most basic norm of international relations when it used armed force to change borders in Europe, and it violated US sovereignty through its efforts to influence the 2016 election. North Korea has flouted the strong international consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The world has stood by as humanitarian nightmares play out in Syria and Yemen, doing little at the UN or elsewhere in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Venezuela is a failing state. One in every hundred people in the world today is either a refugee or internally displaced.

    There are several reasons why all this is happening, and why now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants. Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions. And global institutions have failed to adapt to new power balances and technologies.

    But the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the US. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war. It has raised questions about its commitment to NATO and other alliance relationships. And it rarely speaks about democracy or human rights. “America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.

    My point is not to single out the US for criticism. Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing, or both. But the US is not just another country. It was the principal architect of the liberal world order and its principal backer. It was also a principal beneficiary.

    America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-haass-2018-03
    Last edited by Junon; 03-30-2018 at 10:37 PM.

  2. #61
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Report bad ads?

    Salaam

    Quote Originally Posted by fschmidt View Post
    The word "liberal" has been so badly abused and had so many meanings that it is now a useless word. There is Modern Culture which can be divided into the Modern Left and Modern Right. And there is Traditional America which was Christian and is now dead. Traditional America was a great culture which allowed freedom of religion and economic freedom (capitalism). The freedom enjoyed by Muslims in America is mostly due to laws put in place by Traditional America. Modern Culture is pure evil and hates all forms of freedom including religious freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of speech. This applies equally to the Left and Right. The only reason that the Left supports Islam is as a way of attacking the Right. The Left shares no values with Islam and fundamentally hates tradition and morality. The best path for Muslims is to be nonpartisan. Vote for whoever is most tolerant of Islam and ignore the Left/Right divide.
    This is a point, foundations of America is built on the old culture, whats disturbing with the rise of secularism/liberalism/leftism/(capitalism?) is that now this culture has gone into serious decline we see a corresponding rise of authoritarianism and cultural degradation (In the UK but can apply elsewhere). I agree that the whole Right/Left paradigm is a relic of the 'enlightenment' thought, it should be dispensed with (but I'll use it anyway ).

    I think the main problem with Liberals and Leftists they have a hard time excepting that people might not want to agree with them and want to live in a different way according to their own customs, culture, traditions. I was initially was attracted to them because they were a lot more tolerant and accepting of minorities etc than those on the right but my experience with them left me disappointed, realising how much I would have to 'conform' to gain their 'approval', they are very good at wearing masks and can be very manipulative.

    Contrast this with those on the 'right' who even though we disagreed on a lot of things they were more upfront and direct in many respects.

    In the UK Muslims were an 'approved' minority among liberals while they served their purpose (they thought we were going to over time secularise ourselves out of existence and become 'good' liberals), but now they realise this is going to happen they are now mewling on about 'equality and diversity', 'integration' and 'social cohesion', meanwhile making conditions 'hard' across the board to make Muslims 'conform'.

    Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

    Its all very confusing, I think it will take me a lifetime to understand this .

    Some more book recommendations.

    There was a great review for this book that has since been removed, . he summed the book up nicely that contrary to all the talk of liberals being inherently tolerant and all that, they are more inclined to behave like 'moral totalitarians' particularly when they gain influence and power.

    Blurb

    Mill and Liberalism was first published in 1963. Initial reactions varied from the uncomprehending to the splenetic.

    In the intervening quarter-century the intellectual climate has changed as reflected by its greatest exemplar, to warrant fresh consideration. Unlike many commentators, before or subsequently,

    Maurice Cowling endeavours to view Mill's thought as a coherent whole with a specific proselytising purpose, geared to the emasculation of Christianity and its replacement by a libertarian public doctrine. This interpretation aroused much contemporary hostility, and in a new introduction Cowling locates Mill and Liberalism within the broader intellectual history of post-war Britain, looking at the various strands of the 'new Right' and relating the academic to more specifically journalistic or political manifestations.




    This book really purged my mind of any naive views I had of liberals.

    Blurb

    Dawkins and Hitchens have convinced many western intellectuals that secularism is the way forward. But most people don't read their books before deciding whether to be religious. Instead, they inherit their faith from their parents, who often innoculate them against the elegant arguments of secularists. And what no one has noticed is that far from declining, the religious are expanding their share of the population: in fact, the more religious people are, the more children they have. The cumulative effect of immigration from religious countries, and religious fertility will be to reverse the secularisation process in the West. Not only will the religious eventually triumph over the non-religious, but it is those who are the most extreme in their beliefs who have the largest families.

    Within Judaism, the Ultra-Orthodox may achieve majority status over their liberal counterparts by mid-century. Islamist Muslims have won the culture war in much of the Muslim world, and their success provides a glimpse of what awaits the Christian West and Israel. Based on a wealth of demographic research, considering questions of multiculturalism and terrorism, Kaufmann examines the implications of the decline in liberal secularism as religious conservatism rises - and what this means for the future of western modernity.




    Tim Farron was 'eased' out as leader of the Liberal democrats because of his Christian views.



    One way of dealing with a liberal.

    Last edited by Junon; 11-07-2018 at 01:48 AM.
    1 | Likes fschmidt liked this post

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #62
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Another update

    End of Liberal World Order?

    Though the press is obsessed with President Trump defining a change we are seeing, that is a classic case of mal-educated Amerocentrism. The shift started before him. He is just a symptom, not a cause. It isn’t even an American phenomenon. If anything we are lagging the global trend.

    What period started to come to an end at the start of this century? The end of the post-Cold War as a period by itself? I don't quite buy it. There is a lot of talk of an end to the post-WWII, “Liberal World Order” (LWO). I think that might be right.

    The LWO began at the end of WWII. The period after the fall of the Soviet Union that people call as the Post-Cold War Era wasn't really an era. It was either the final or the penultimate chapter of the long running LWO that the Cold War was just a longer chapter of. Even while the Soviet Union was on its death bed we saw the next chapter, AKA Bush41’s “New World Order” (NWO).

    One could argue the NWO was the penultimate chapter, and 2001-2008 the final chapter of the LWO.

    Hard to say right now, but if forced, I’d put my chips on that argument.

    The NWO lasted less than a decade, if that. It was a period of unchallenged American dominance, but that rode on the back of the “The Liberal World Order” built in the post-WWII period.

    What I would call the final chapter, somewhere from the attacks of September 2001 and the newly elected President Obama's apology tour and welcoming of a rising China, I'm not sure - but it marked a shift to something new. The pivot is not yet complete - it is a slow turn that took awhile to get here.

    The last two chapters of the LWO saw the falling apart of those structures – the EU, ascendency of Western culture, extra-national international legal bodies, American dominance of the high seas - that defined the success of the old age. The vacuum left behind by them, and the fragility of remaining ones like NATO, is feeding change.

    This new era is a movement of returns, reckoning, and realization. Strangely, end of the LWO can probably can be traced back to the Muslim world. They were an the early adopter or canary in the coal mine of the structural culmination of the LWO. There you find the first place where the assumptions of the ruling Western elite began to fail.

    Just look at the pictures of Cairo and Kabul in the 1960s and 1970s. Western dress, cultural norms, secularism, and political systems (socialist, capitalist, or a mixture of both) dominated. At the end of the 1970s the wave crested first there when you saw decades of progress for women in the public space begin to retreat from Islamabad to Alexandria.

    Those were indications that the West had lost its confidence and its appeal. Once that support goes soft, everything it underpins weakens. Much of the weakening started with the anti-Western efforts in our own universities and popular culture. Jesse Jackson’s “Hey, hey, ho, ho; Western Civ has got to go” was just one of a long series of notes to the outside world that things were well along the way to being not quite right.

    If you value Western values of tolerance and progress, how do you expect them to grow and expand abroad when you cannot support them at home? In their absence, something will fill the void.

    https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/10/from-berlin-beijing-to-brasilia-new-era.html

  5. #63
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    MSM are acknowledging it.


  6. #64
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Insight into how the liberal order operates.

    “The Liberal Order Is the Incubator for Authoritarianism”: A Conversation with Pankaj Mishra

    FRANCIS WADE: You have emerged as a prominent critic of empire and its foundations in liberal ideas of freedom and progress. Can you outline how your thinking has evolved, from your early writings on the topic to the present, and describe the major events that either reinforced or altered your position?

    PANKAJ MISHRA: I know from experience that it is very easy for a brown-skinned Indian writer to be caricatured as a knee-jerk anti-American/anti-Westernist/Third-Worldist/angry postcolonial, and it is important then to point out that my understanding of modern imperialism and liberalism — like that of many people with my background — is actually grounded in an experience of Indian political realities.

    In my own case, it was a journalistic assignment in Kashmir that advanced my political and intellectual education. I went there in 1999 with many of the prejudices of the liberal Indian “civilizer” — someone who simply assumed that Kashmiri Muslims were much better off being aligned with “secular,” “liberal,” and “democratic” India than with Pakistan because the former was better placed to advance freedom and progress for all its citizens. In other words, India had a civilizing mission: it had to show Kashmir’s overwhelmingly religious Muslims the light of secular reason — by force, if necessary. The brutal realities of India’s military occupation of Kashmir and the blatant falsehoods and deceptions that accompanied it forced me to revisit many of the old critiques of Western imperialism and its rhetoric of progress. When my critical articles on Kashmir — very long; nearly 25,000 words — appeared in 2000 in The Hindu and The New York Review of Books, their most vociferous critics were self-declared Indian liberals who loathed the idea that the supposedly secular and democratic Indian republic, which prided itself on its hard-won freedom from Western imperialism, could itself be a cruel imperialist regime.

    Writing about Kashmir was a strange and painfully isolating experience, but an absolutely crucial one. It made me see that, whether you are Indian or American, black, brown, or white, it is best not to get morally intoxicated by words like “secularism” and “liberalism” or to simply assume that you stand on the right side of history after having professed allegiance to certain ideological verities. Rather one should try to perceive the scramble for power, the clash of interests, that these resonant claims to virtue conceal; one should ask who is using words like “secularism” or “liberalism” and for what purposes.

    The mendacity and hypocrisy of Indian liberals and even some leftists about Kashmir made me better prepared for the liberal internationalists who helped adorn the Bush administration’s pre-emptive assault on Iraq with the kind of humanitarian rhetoric about freedom, democracy, and progress that we originally heard from European imperialists in the 19th century. It was this experience in Kashmir that eventually led me to examine figures like Niall Ferguson, who tried to persuade Anglo-Americans that the occupation and subjugation of other people’s territory and culture was a wonderful instrument of civilization and that we need more such emancipatory imperialism to bring native peoples in line with the advanced West.

    “Liberal modernity,” you’ve argued, “has prepared the ground for its destruction” by unleashing forces that are “uncontrollable.” Have these forces contributed to the resurgence of the right in countries where, thanks to modern liberalism, a premium is placed on the autonomy of the individual?

    There are many ways to answer this question, and one’s choice will inevitably be determined by the political context of the day. There is no doubt that the individual freedoms central to liberalism ought to be cherished and protected. The question is how, and by whom? Are many self-declared liberals the best defenders of individual liberties? As it happens, many powerful and influential people who call themselves liberals are mostly interested in advancing their professional ambitions and financial interests while claiming the moral prestige of progressivism for themselves. They are best seen as opportunistic seekers of power, and they exist in India as much as in the United States and in Britain. Bush’s “useful idiots” (Tony Judt’s term) had their counterparts in India, where some liberals chose to see Prime Minister Modi as a great “modernizer.” They are happy to whisper advice to power, and they recoil from the latter only when power rejects or humiliates them — as in the case of Trump and Modi, who have no time for eggheads in general. The dethroned “liberal” then transforms himself into a maquisard of the “resistance” and prepares the ground for a Restoration where he’ll likely be hailed as a great hero. It’s a nice racket, if you can get into it.

    As Trumpism and other authoritarianisms become powerful, their liberal critics engage in a kind of moral blackmail based on a spurious history: “Are you against the ‘liberal order’ which guaranteed peace and stability, and other wonderful things for so long?” The obvious answer is that your much-cherished liberal order was the incubator for Trumpism and other authoritarianisms. It made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed. It propagated an ethos of individual autonomy and personal responsibility, while the exigencies of the market made it impossible for people to save and plan for the future. It burdened people with chronic debt and turned them into gamblers in the stock market. Liberal capitalism was supposed to foster a universal middle class and encourage bourgeois values of sobriety and prudence and democratic virtues of accountability. It achieved the opposite: the creation of a precariat with no clear long-term prospects, dangerously vulnerable to demagogues promising them the moon. Uncontrolled liberalism, in other words, prepares the grounds for its own demise.

    Weren’t liberal ideas of freedom and progress, as far back as the 19th century, being explicitly pressed into the service of racialized science, with its demarcation of “civilized” and “non-civilized” peoples?

    Yes, liberalism as an ideology of the propertied white men comes into being together with institutionalized hierarchies of race and class and bogus distinctions between civilized and uncivilized peoples. It was clear, from John Stuart Mill as well as Thomas Jefferson, that individual rights and universal reason were the prerogatives of a tiny minority — settler colonialists who expanded and indulged their freedom at the expense of other people. Their victims, nonwhite peoples, were pointing out these fatal contradictions in the rhetoric of liberalism as early as the 19th century.

    Today, of course, the question of liberalism’s relationship with imperialism — whether the former is contingent on the morally tainted successes of the latter and therefore tends to weaken when the empires totter — has become particularly urgent as non-Western powers emerge and an endless economic and political crisis forces Western liberal democracies to expose their racial and inegalitarian structures, their leaders resorting to explicit appeals to white supremacism. I wrote in 2015, in a survey of liberalism’s record in the non-Western world, that “liberalism” has come to be seen “as an unaffordable plaything of rich Westerners: the elevation into universal values of codes that long favoured a tiny minority, and are unlikely to survive the rise of everyone else.”

    In this regard, one doesn’t need to draw upon the tradition of Asian and African thinkers. Listen to Max Weber in 1906:

    The question is: how are freedom and democracy in the long run at all possible under the domination of highly developed capitalism? […] The historical origin of modern freedom has had certain unique preconditions which will never repeat themselves. Let us enumerate the most important of these. First, the overseas expansions. In the armies of Cromwell, in the French constituent assembly, in our whole economic life even today, this breeze from across the ocean is felt […] but there is no new continent at our disposal.

    The Nigerian scholar Biodun Jeyifo has lamented the state of “arrested decolonization” in which many former colonies find themselves, whereby a native elite has furthered the imperial project by abetting Western economic expansionism. Did the arrival of liberal capitalism not end imperialism but rather extend it — perhaps in a quieter, more insidious way?

    The postcolonial experience is a very complex one. The political movements against capitalist imperialism in Asia and Africa were often led by elites intellectually and emotionally shaped by the ideologies and epistemologies of their masters. At their most antagonistic and hubristic, they wanted to beat the West at its own game. Others wanted to survive in a world made by the West. They were all in a hurry to modernize, industrialize, urbanize, and somehow catch up with the Western powers that seemed to have taken such a long lead over their countries.

    The problem for nearly all of these leaders was the meager resources and often the state of devastation they started out with. Decades, if not centuries, of exploitation has left them in a very poor state. Their social systems had ossified; intellectual life had dwindled. The materials to build a coherent nation-state were often missing. And then the first generation of postcolonial leaders could not, despite their best attempts, shake off their economic dependence on the West — something created by imperialism’s division of the world into center and periphery. Most of them saw virtue in socialism and a strong state control of the economy; hardly anyone in Asia and Africa was enamored of capitalism after the experience of the Depression. By the 1980s, however, decolonization had run into trouble. The structural political and economic problems of many Asian and African societies had become even bigger. At that point, the collapse of communist states brought an unexpected bonanza to Western intellectuals and policy-makers who had for years been arguing for the free flow of capital and goods and railing against the protectionist economies of Asia and Africa. And they were of course helped by a new generation of ruling classes who were ready to embrace the American dream of free markets and private enterprise.

    We still need a sociology of these new elites — their connections to the US and Europe through networks of colleges, universities, think tanks, NGOs, foundations, and fellowships, and their ideological indoctrination at various institutions. Anecdotally, I can confirm that in India a whole new American-educated — or America-philic — class emerged to argue for untrammeled markets and to institutionalize their ideas. They often called themselves liberal, but they were also to be found on the Hindu right, and the traffic between the two camps was brisk.

    Embedded in your critique of liberalism is a deep skepticism of contemporary human rights discourse and its links to a liberal free-market agenda. Are the two wholly at odds, and why does the former so often champion the latter?

    Well, if you have lived in an Asian or African country and are knowledgeable about the history of imperialism, then you are reflexively suspicious of any kind of moralizing discourse about individual rights emanating from powerful countries. Let’s not forget that the French and the British were presenting themselves, as early as the 19th century, as protectors of women’s rights in barbaric nations. The rhetoric of free trade and free markets was very much part of a larger discourse of emancipating the individual.

    In our own time, this discourse has been very useful in not only sanctioning old-style imperialist campaigns (tiresomely disguised, as before, as humanitarian interventions) but also in supplanting the aspirations for justice and equality between and within nations. Many people, especially Samuel Moyn, have argued rigorously and eloquently about the tendency to make a fetish of human rights while limiting its scope of operation to gross abuses by the state, using it to violate the hard-won sovereignty of nations, and giving a free pass to structural forms of violence, such as historically entrenched racial inequality or the inequality perpetuated by global capitalism. In that sense, it was too easy for political and corporate interests to champion human rights: it was a cause that did not challenge their power and influence; in many ways, it preserved them.

    You say that economic inequality has been given a free pass by human rights advocates, but does that erase some of the agency at work here? Has it indeed been willfully neglected?

    Yes, I don’t think inequality was a paramount issue until quite recently, when its politically calamitous consequences began to unfold. We were told, whether in India or the United States, that it is more important to make the economy grow and generate wealth, which will eventually trickle down, than to address substantive issues of inequality, how it comes about, how it perpetuates itself, what we can do to alleviate it.

    One of the main cheerleaders of India’s economic liberalization was a deeply networked Indian American of the kind I mentioned earlier: a Columbia University economist and fellow of the Council for Foreign Relations named Jagdish Bhagwati. Bhagwati, who claimed to be the “world’s foremost free trader,” was as cozy with Modi as he was with the previous, more secular Indian prime minister. This man not only blatantly denied that there had been an increase in inequality or that India was turning into an oligarchy; he not only mocked people like Amartya Sen, who exposed inequality, as a wannabe Rosa Parks; he said that inequality is actually a good thing if you have mobility and that the poor tend to “celebrate” it. Arguing for less protections for labor, he upheld Bangladesh as an example that allows “firms to hire and fire workers under reasonable conditions and maintain a balance between the rights of both workers and employers.” This was after the collapse in April 2013 of a garment factory in Dhaka that killed more than a thousand people and exposed the way many unprotected workers in the globalized economy are reduced to slave-labor conditions. Bhagwati’s response to the decline in Indian calorie consumption, which obviously reflected increased hunger and poverty, was positively Marie Antoinette–ish: the poor were probably consuming more “rice and fruits,” and in any case, “malnourished families should be shifting their diet to more milk and fruits.”

    It is probably unfair to single Bhagwati out, but you can find clones of him among ruling classes everywhere; his ideas bespeak an extraordinary callousness among policy-makers and opinion-makers. Of course, there were many small, under-resourced, and besieged human rights organizations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that struggled against the injustice and inequality generated by neoliberal capitalism. But the well-funded human rights movement originating in the West did not challenge any of the verities of free traders and free marketeers, and the cruelties they perpetuated, until it was too late. Not doing so was a severe dereliction of duty. You could argue that the human rights movement became too much of an elite Western endeavor, naming and shaming selectively, as David Kennedy has put it. It became too aligned with the interests of the West’s political and corporate powers, and lost much of its insurgent energy.

    https://www.lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-liberal-order-is-the-incubator-for-authoritarianism-a-conversation-with-pankaj-mishra

    A critical review

    Shrinivas Sohoni

    One used cordially to dislike Pankaj Mishra's sanctimonious, motivated-sounding essays against India - in which country of his origin he had failed (miserably, despite rather desperate, repeated, and strenuous effort) to enter the corridors of power.

    This one, however, comes across somewhat less dishonest, though not less biased, as he now opens his mouth to rant about Western Liberals, the Anglo-American West, being poorly disguised imperialism..
    Has nothing to suggest, of course, that is constructive or corrective.


    First you identify the problem, then find a solution.

  7. Report bad ads?
  8. #65
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Like to share

    Blurb

    The age of unfettered liberalism is coming to a close. For better and/or for worse. One way or another a corrective will and must occur. For several generations now, all resistance has been quashed outright. Opposition or dissent has been easily labelled as 'reactionary'. But the energy of liberalism is approaching exhaustion.

    Here is an assembly of artists and thinkers (of various viewpoints) who, over the course of the last hundred years, have expressed 'reactionary' or ambivalent stances towards an ascendant or prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

    Most of them are completely mainstream and some of course are enmeshed in the very same liberalism they venture to tame.



  9. #66
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Like to share

    Blurb

    This video attempts to look at some foundational problems with liberal ideology. There is a focus on how liberalism has also effected Muslim community in the West and elsewhere.



    Blurb

    The argument put forth in the article titled 'Biological Leninism', is that the lack of a coherent and unified ruling class under Liberalism is what allows for Leninism (single-party communist rule) to take over. Our question is, can this all be prevented, or is it just part of a natural flow of history and human nature?

    Last edited by Junon; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:17 PM. Reason: Add another update

  10. #67
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Related, like to share.

    Blurb

    Historian Niall Ferguson argues that today’s political polarization echoes the religious polarization of the Reformation. Both were brought about by technological disruption: The printing press, in the case of the Reformation; and the personal computer and internet, in the case of today.


  11. #68
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Like to share. Pithy and to the point.



    Last edited by Junon; 1 Week Ago at 05:48 AM.

  12. #69
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,660
    Threads
    294
    Reputation
    5697
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    337
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    More comment on the nature of liberalism.

    Blurb

    Liberalism is a negative, feminizing, destructive force, divorced from cultural and national allegiances. It attacks human nature at a fundamental level, empowering only the selfish instincts, leaving society atomized and denuded of everything life-giving...


  13. Hide

Page 4 of 4 First ... 2 3 4
Hey there! Liberal World Order, R.I.P. Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Liberal World Order, R.I.P.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Frankie Boyle’s New World Order 2017
    By The Bearded One in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2018, 10:10 PM
  2. The devils deception and the new world order
    By eesa the kiwi in forum Islamic Multimedia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2016, 06:29 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 03:14 AM
  4. new world order?
    By Karl in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 01:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create