Douglas Macgregor provides it in his latest article at American Conservative: The War for Globalism in Ukraine Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine is the globalist scheme to transcend the continuity of history, culture, and geography embodied in the nation-state
My Father and I thought GHW Bush a One Worlder and worried about GW who turned out to be just as bad. GW was a big let down as it was hoped at the time he'd stop the flow to China, instead he helped them more then Obama opened the flood gates. We've been greatly ill-served.
After more research. Supposedly, his Mother is from a different branch of the Rothschild Family. From what I can tell, it's based on hearsay. To bad nobody has done a real investigation.
I am so reassured! Classical-as in my favorite Brahms and Beethoven, and Liberalism-as in the right to think and delve into the world of ideas. It would lead us to expect a new Renaissance. Why, then, do I seem to be witnessing old-fashioned power struggles and a general suppression of our fundamental freedoms? It must be my Trumpian mentality and my difficulty in acknowledging "MAGA is the most extreme political organization” in US history. Actually that radical Republican Lincoln said something about government being of, by and for the people.
Classical liberalism is the idea that people should generally be left alone to do what they want. It's associated with laissez-faire free enterprise, and sometimes thought of as libertarian-lite.
It sounds to me more like you are talking about Liberal Interventionism.
"It sounds to me more like you are talking about Liberal Interventionism."
No. I'm talking about Clasical Liberalism, which regards human society as a contractual relationship among autonomous individuals, rather than as an organic expression of human nature.
Interesting - where do you think the Hayekian concept of an "emergent order" fits in? It's not contractual as such, but it overlaps a lot with what I think of as Classical Liberalism.
And, by "extending Classical Liberalism to the world", do you mean a world of classical liberal states (internally liberal, but governed separately, perhaps like Britain and the US in the late nineteenth century), a single classically liberal global state, or a system of classical liberalism among states, where the states are the actors, interacting in a contractual and autonomous way?
I personally think one can have a classically liberal culture in a single nation-state, in which individuals are autonomous and freely contract, but that system only works with people who "believe" in it.
Frankly, as a Canadian, a world of autonomous and freely contracting individuals would be a huge step up from what I am living with now.
I offer one example of how "autonomous and freely contracting individuals" breaks down in real life, and that is the kindergarten teacher in Florida who was recently interviewed in his classroom (when the children were not there), worrying that if the new parental rights law passed, he might lose the ability to share stories with his pupils, not his own children, about various simple and charming domestic joys he experiences with his partner.
Probably also, this teacher and many others want to teach children, not their own children, that a child gets to choose its own gender.
So to put it another way, children are not autonomous and freely contracting individuals, and there are a whole lot of them in a healthy society. Classical Liberalism has no answers.
Except, it has given birth to a revolutionary movement the last hundred years which defines children as "sexual from birth" and treats them accordingly, which is different than treating children as future parents, from birth.
I don't think I follow. I am reading your statement from the perspective of a social contract. Children are not "autonomous and freely contracting individuals" and we have laws that clearly define the age in which they are. Until they are of age, they are the responsibility of the parent(s), the state I suppose if they are orphans, who make decisions for them.
What we do have, as part of the social contract, is a binding of our behavior around agreed upon morals, rights, etc. These are also, often, codified in law. With your example, the social contract is not between the teacher and the students; the students are immature and have no recourse for misbehavior by the teacher unless instigated by a higher authority. The contract is between the parent and the teacher, and the laws and rights that govern our society. Therefore, the teacher has violated the social contract, and probably numerous laws, by discussing sexual explicit experiences. We have not agreed within society at large to allow this type of discussion/behavior. This discussion is not only highly inappropriate and reprehensible, I would also view it as child abuse.
No. We don't have agreed upon morals or rights or laws. Because we no longer agree upon human nature our supposed social contract has devolved into "whatever you can get away with." As Tamsin correctly says, the only reason our Classical Liberal constitutional order has endured to the extent that it has is because there has been a residual general adherence to Christian belief. That is ending and with it any agreed upon morality, and with that any agreed upon understanding of rights, duties, appropriate laws. This is why teachers and other are able to get away with what YOU my think is highly inappropriate and reprehensible conduct, but which judges and lawyers and legislators and--most importantly--organized aberrosexual pressure groups regarded as entirely appropriate. All funded by people who have figured out the moral implications of Classical Liberalism and are milking them for all they're worth.
Well, no. There are some very deep, disturbing trends occurring in the US now, mostly in big cities. But, while things may be evolving, I don't believe that we don't still have a social contract that most adhere to. This is a small minority, and not a majority of people undertaking this behavior.
Just because there are DAs who won't prosecute, judges who won't give adequate sentences to those who violate the law, or legislators who blow with the wind and can't make any decision on where they stand, doesn't mean the rest of us, and I would wager the majority, don't still believe in most of the tenets that hold this society together.
There are even recall movements now against Gascon and Boudin, as people in LA and SF are growing tired of the violence. Hell, even celebrities are coming out against Gascon. And, more people are speaking out against transgender men in womens' sports.
It might get worse before it gets better, but a pendulum swings as a pendulum do. People are slowly rising up against the insanity we now find our nation in.
This definition of globalism as an ideology at war with particularism makes sense of two moments in the recent past that struck me at the time, despite my own lazy anti-patriotism, as weird.
One: Michelle Obama’s disparaging comment regarding the respect shown to the American flag during her husband’s first inauguration parade. See https://youtu.be/dUrsf38xL_Q.
The other: Angela Merkel yanking German flags out of the hands of politicians who were merely expressing a little national pride. See https://youtu.be/9t5fH_ywo_g.
“That Classical Liberalism is a type of religion that spreads war everywhere it goes eludes its devotees.” To this point, liberals do not consider it war it it’s for a good cause. So long as that good cause is defined by them.
Wait a minute! I thought "diversity is our strength"? Now you are telling me that slogan is just a cynical ploy by the political powers that be to keep us divided so we can't form alliances to challenge their power? Nah, they would never lie to us like that. /sarc
My Father and I thought GHW Bush a One Worlder and worried about GW who turned out to be just as bad. GW was a big let down as it was hoped at the time he'd stop the flow to China, instead he helped them more then Obama opened the flood gates. We've been greatly ill-served.
Cernovich
@Cernovich
Regime talking points dropped:
- Bombing fentanyl labs is ORANGE MAN BAD
- Bombing the signature war ship of a nuclear power is good and you should brag about this
The latest Tom Luongo article is troubling. https://tomluongo.me/2022/05/04/the-great-currency-reset-and-why-europe-is-trapped/
And the link to the bio of the head of the WEF family is unbelievable. Seems real, which is mind blowing.
https://humansbefree.com/2022/05/you-cannot-make-this-stuff-up-klauss-schwab-is-a-rothschild-on-his-mothers-side.html
After more research. Supposedly, his Mother is from a different branch of the Rothschild Family. From what I can tell, it's based on hearsay. To bad nobody has done a real investigation.
https://fullfact.org/online/klaus-schwab-rothschild-false/
I am so reassured! Classical-as in my favorite Brahms and Beethoven, and Liberalism-as in the right to think and delve into the world of ideas. It would lead us to expect a new Renaissance. Why, then, do I seem to be witnessing old-fashioned power struggles and a general suppression of our fundamental freedoms? It must be my Trumpian mentality and my difficulty in acknowledging "MAGA is the most extreme political organization” in US history. Actually that radical Republican Lincoln said something about government being of, by and for the people.
because classical liberalism could only survive in a culture of moral and religious people
Classical liberalism is the idea that people should generally be left alone to do what they want. It's associated with laissez-faire free enterprise, and sometimes thought of as libertarian-lite.
It sounds to me more like you are talking about Liberal Interventionism.
"It sounds to me more like you are talking about Liberal Interventionism."
No. I'm talking about Clasical Liberalism, which regards human society as a contractual relationship among autonomous individuals, rather than as an organic expression of human nature.
Interesting - where do you think the Hayekian concept of an "emergent order" fits in? It's not contractual as such, but it overlaps a lot with what I think of as Classical Liberalism.
And, by "extending Classical Liberalism to the world", do you mean a world of classical liberal states (internally liberal, but governed separately, perhaps like Britain and the US in the late nineteenth century), a single classically liberal global state, or a system of classical liberalism among states, where the states are the actors, interacting in a contractual and autonomous way?
I personally think one can have a classically liberal culture in a single nation-state, in which individuals are autonomous and freely contract, but that system only works with people who "believe" in it.
Frankly, as a Canadian, a world of autonomous and freely contracting individuals would be a huge step up from what I am living with now.
I offer one example of how "autonomous and freely contracting individuals" breaks down in real life, and that is the kindergarten teacher in Florida who was recently interviewed in his classroom (when the children were not there), worrying that if the new parental rights law passed, he might lose the ability to share stories with his pupils, not his own children, about various simple and charming domestic joys he experiences with his partner.
Probably also, this teacher and many others want to teach children, not their own children, that a child gets to choose its own gender.
So to put it another way, children are not autonomous and freely contracting individuals, and there are a whole lot of them in a healthy society. Classical Liberalism has no answers.
Except, it has given birth to a revolutionary movement the last hundred years which defines children as "sexual from birth" and treats them accordingly, which is different than treating children as future parents, from birth.
Exactly.
I don't think I follow. I am reading your statement from the perspective of a social contract. Children are not "autonomous and freely contracting individuals" and we have laws that clearly define the age in which they are. Until they are of age, they are the responsibility of the parent(s), the state I suppose if they are orphans, who make decisions for them.
What we do have, as part of the social contract, is a binding of our behavior around agreed upon morals, rights, etc. These are also, often, codified in law. With your example, the social contract is not between the teacher and the students; the students are immature and have no recourse for misbehavior by the teacher unless instigated by a higher authority. The contract is between the parent and the teacher, and the laws and rights that govern our society. Therefore, the teacher has violated the social contract, and probably numerous laws, by discussing sexual explicit experiences. We have not agreed within society at large to allow this type of discussion/behavior. This discussion is not only highly inappropriate and reprehensible, I would also view it as child abuse.
No. We don't have agreed upon morals or rights or laws. Because we no longer agree upon human nature our supposed social contract has devolved into "whatever you can get away with." As Tamsin correctly says, the only reason our Classical Liberal constitutional order has endured to the extent that it has is because there has been a residual general adherence to Christian belief. That is ending and with it any agreed upon morality, and with that any agreed upon understanding of rights, duties, appropriate laws. This is why teachers and other are able to get away with what YOU my think is highly inappropriate and reprehensible conduct, but which judges and lawyers and legislators and--most importantly--organized aberrosexual pressure groups regarded as entirely appropriate. All funded by people who have figured out the moral implications of Classical Liberalism and are milking them for all they're worth.
Well, no. There are some very deep, disturbing trends occurring in the US now, mostly in big cities. But, while things may be evolving, I don't believe that we don't still have a social contract that most adhere to. This is a small minority, and not a majority of people undertaking this behavior.
Just because there are DAs who won't prosecute, judges who won't give adequate sentences to those who violate the law, or legislators who blow with the wind and can't make any decision on where they stand, doesn't mean the rest of us, and I would wager the majority, don't still believe in most of the tenets that hold this society together.
There are even recall movements now against Gascon and Boudin, as people in LA and SF are growing tired of the violence. Hell, even celebrities are coming out against Gascon. And, more people are speaking out against transgender men in womens' sports.
It might get worse before it gets better, but a pendulum swings as a pendulum do. People are slowly rising up against the insanity we now find our nation in.
This definition of globalism as an ideology at war with particularism makes sense of two moments in the recent past that struck me at the time, despite my own lazy anti-patriotism, as weird.
One: Michelle Obama’s disparaging comment regarding the respect shown to the American flag during her husband’s first inauguration parade. See https://youtu.be/dUrsf38xL_Q.
The other: Angela Merkel yanking German flags out of the hands of politicians who were merely expressing a little national pride. See https://youtu.be/9t5fH_ywo_g.
Your writings scare me and make me happy to be old.
“That Classical Liberalism is a type of religion that spreads war everywhere it goes eludes its devotees.” To this point, liberals do not consider it war it it’s for a good cause. So long as that good cause is defined by them.
Wait a minute! I thought "diversity is our strength"? Now you are telling me that slogan is just a cynical ploy by the political powers that be to keep us divided so we can't form alliances to challenge their power? Nah, they would never lie to us like that. /sarc