I stopped reading rihgt here: “Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Charles Murray and Paul Craig Roberts revised the science of racism and called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries”
This progressive trope that Charles Murray is a racist is so tired at this point that I’m not going to bother with anyone who trots it out anymore.
If you call people racists just because you don’t agree with them… you you demonstrate your own foolishness and should be ignored.
That’s exactly where I stopped. I find the use of “black and brown” to describe people as offensive as yellow or red. My immigrant husband’s family were required to go through every legal step – a process that took years – just to get their Green Cards. After being allowed to immigrate to the US, they had to have jobs and sponsors, be healthy and vaccinated (with real vaccines that actually prevented diseases), and had to report in every month to the local police station for a status check. This went on until they became naturalized citizens. It wasn’t “racist”, it was sensible.
And pretending Charles Murray is a racist because he dared to do in-depth scholarship on intelligence with regard to wealth and class is why no one can ever speak honestly about it. It is why we now have the odious neo-Marxist equity industry that pits everyone against the other – and makes a fat pile of cash for those perpetrating the scam.
Oh! Restored! This didn’t appear for hours until I wrote to UnHerd’s tech support. What is going on with their comment section? Please don’t tell me they’ve hired “sensitivity readers”.
three of my last four posts were held back pending “approval”. Pending why, and by whom I do not know.
I have cancelled my subscription and requested a refund.
three of my last four posts were held back pending “approval”. Pending why, and by whom I do not know.
I have cancelled my subscription and requested a refund.
Oh! Restored! This didn’t appear for hours until I wrote to UnHerd’s tech support. What is going on with their comment section? Please don’t tell me they’ve hired “sensitivity readers”.
Also seems to ignore the effective coalition between the sex/gender permissive/indifferent hard market liberals (e.g. Koch foundation) and radical progressives..which is now default position of social democrats/Labour…. who want open borders and free flow of people (free labour markets). AOC is a Neo-liberal for all intents. That she claims to want a welfare state also just shows she’s stupid and cognitively dissonant. The opposition to all of this is now the right which comes in two stripes (1) Christian, conservative, civic nationalists who want a society of individuals leavened by communitarian solidarity below and a protective nation-state above; and (2) Ethno-nationalists who want a strong state… Either way the working class are drifting to the right because that is the only force now willing to embrace the exclusive solidarity of the nation-state. Neo-liberals/neo-cons and never trumpers can’t stand it…They are increasingly homeless and will look to do deals with the Blairites, Clintonites ,,,,people at the slightly less end of the woke spectrum.
Liberals who hated the “religious Right” in the 90’s may pine for the good old days when they meet his younger brother… the “non-religious Right”. Heck, we all may.
Left and Right are turning into mirrors. Left-wing, woke race essentialism and right-wing ethnonationalism are two sides of the same race essentialist coin.
Liberals who hated the “religious Right” in the 90’s may pine for the good old days when they meet his younger brother… the “non-religious Right”. Heck, we all may.
Left and Right are turning into mirrors. Left-wing, woke race essentialism and right-wing ethnonationalism are two sides of the same race essentialist coin.
Immigration from blacker and browner countries: “He [Charles Murray] complains that “the nation’s political ground rules have yet to accept that the intelligence of immigrants is a legitimate topic for policymakers to think about” and eventually concludes “the kernel of evidence that must also be acknowledged is that Latin and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence.”
Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. His warning about the dysgenic impact of Latin American and African immigration is echoed by President Trump, who recently remarked that there are too many arrivals from “shithole” countries, and in the Republican Party’s ongoing conversion to the cause of sharp cuts in legal immigration.” Quote from: ‘The Bell Curve is about policy. And it’s wrong.’ https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong
“Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. ”
What? Murray is somehow to blame for our insane open border policies?
Murray may have been motived by bias or maybe his research led to his logical selective immigration policy position, which by the way numerous nations employ.
Our current immigration policy is designed by progressives who have hated Murray for since the Bell Curve was published 30 years ago. If anything, Murray has likely made open-borders progressives more extreme in their policies, in an effort to distance themselves from him.
“Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. ”
What? Murray is somehow to blame for our insane open border policies?
Murray may have been motived by bias or maybe his research led to his logical selective immigration policy position, which by the way numerous nations employ.
Our current immigration policy is designed by progressives who have hated Murray for since the Bell Curve was published 30 years ago. If anything, Murray has likely made open-borders progressives more extreme in their policies, in an effort to distance themselves from him.
That’s exactly where I stopped. I find the use of “black and brown” to describe people as offensive as yellow or red. My immigrant husband’s family were required to go through every legal step – a process that took years – just to get their Green Cards. After being allowed to immigrate to the US, they had to have jobs and sponsors, be healthy and vaccinated (with real vaccines that actually prevented diseases), and had to report in every month to the local police station for a status check. This went on until they became naturalized citizens. It wasn’t “racist”, it was sensible.
And pretending Charles Murray is a racist because he dared to do in-depth scholarship on intelligence with regard to wealth and class is why no one can ever speak honestly about it. It is why we now have the odious neo-Marxist equity industry that pits everyone against the other – and makes a fat pile of cash for those perpetrating the scam.
Also seems to ignore the effective coalition between the sex/gender permissive/indifferent hard market liberals (e.g. Koch foundation) and radical progressives..which is now default position of social democrats/Labour…. who want open borders and free flow of people (free labour markets). AOC is a Neo-liberal for all intents. That she claims to want a welfare state also just shows she’s stupid and cognitively dissonant. The opposition to all of this is now the right which comes in two stripes (1) Christian, conservative, civic nationalists who want a society of individuals leavened by communitarian solidarity below and a protective nation-state above; and (2) Ethno-nationalists who want a strong state… Either way the working class are drifting to the right because that is the only force now willing to embrace the exclusive solidarity of the nation-state. Neo-liberals/neo-cons and never trumpers can’t stand it…They are increasingly homeless and will look to do deals with the Blairites, Clintonites ,,,,people at the slightly less end of the woke spectrum.
Immigration from blacker and browner countries: “He [Charles Murray] complains that “the nation’s political ground rules have yet to accept that the intelligence of immigrants is a legitimate topic for policymakers to think about” and eventually concludes “the kernel of evidence that must also be acknowledged is that Latin and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence.”
Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. His warning about the dysgenic impact of Latin American and African immigration is echoed by President Trump, who recently remarked that there are too many arrivals from “shithole” countries, and in the Republican Party’s ongoing conversion to the cause of sharp cuts in legal immigration.” Quote from: ‘The Bell Curve is about policy. And it’s wrong.’ https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong
I stopped reading rihgt here: “Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Charles Murray and Paul Craig Roberts revised the science of racism and called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries”
This progressive trope that Charles Murray is a racist is so tired at this point that I’m not going to bother with anyone who trots it out anymore.
If you call people racists just because you don’t agree with them… you you demonstrate your own foolishness and should be ignored.
Matt M
1 year ago
“conservatives like Charles Murray … called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.”
Surely Charles Murray could sue for libel for this sentence. An utterly false defamation of a good man!
I read The Bell Curve when it was first published. I was a new mother to a daughter and a son. I wanted to know what to expect from the schools available to us, and, given my own experience as an adjunct at a teaching college (a mediocre school, it turns out, that still produces drones), my husband and I opted for parochial school (no “country days” were available where we lived).
Murray and Herrnstein were utterly “de-personed” before cancel culture was a thing – for analysis. Because to examine why some cultures didn’t embrace exploration or writing or even the wheel – despite being exposed to it – was and is considered racist. It’s all theater at this point, not unlike the Cold War USSR claiming everything ever invented was Russian.
Isn’t it interesting that BLM got $83 billion from corporations over the last three years? Post-Civil War Americans were warned this would happen – by Frederick Douglass.
It’s Arthur Jensen (1923-2012) who has faced the most determined cancellation despite/because of his intellectual stature, This started in 1969 with his paper, How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement and lasted for the rest of his life and beyond.
I just looked him up (and thank you for the reference). The odious, racist, disgusting Southern Poverty Law Center calls him, in their very first sentence, the father of “modern academic (!) racism”. Well, if the SPLC makes a claim, we all know that we should laugh and laugh, and then dismiss it as utterly lunatic. We all know academia is filled with credentialed morons in search of tenure (Pirandello skewered them with six characters in 1921). I was an adjunct at a local teaching college. I have never, ever met such defiantly stupid people – faculty and student body. Few could write a simple grammatically correct sentence, and they were bored by everything. That was in the mid-2000s. I’d trust the guy who cleaned my AC to give me the facts over everyone at Blank State College (small city in SWNH).
I just looked him up (and thank you for the reference). The odious, racist, disgusting Southern Poverty Law Center calls him, in their very first sentence, the father of “modern academic (!) racism”. Well, if the SPLC makes a claim, we all know that we should laugh and laugh, and then dismiss it as utterly lunatic. We all know academia is filled with credentialed morons in search of tenure (Pirandello skewered them with six characters in 1921). I was an adjunct at a local teaching college. I have never, ever met such defiantly stupid people – faculty and student body. Few could write a simple grammatically correct sentence, and they were bored by everything. That was in the mid-2000s. I’d trust the guy who cleaned my AC to give me the facts over everyone at Blank State College (small city in SWNH).
It’s Arthur Jensen (1923-2012) who has faced the most determined cancellation despite/because of his intellectual stature, This started in 1969 with his paper, How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement and lasted for the rest of his life and beyond.
I read The Bell Curve when it was first published. I was a new mother to a daughter and a son. I wanted to know what to expect from the schools available to us, and, given my own experience as an adjunct at a teaching college (a mediocre school, it turns out, that still produces drones), my husband and I opted for parochial school (no “country days” were available where we lived).
Murray and Herrnstein were utterly “de-personed” before cancel culture was a thing – for analysis. Because to examine why some cultures didn’t embrace exploration or writing or even the wheel – despite being exposed to it – was and is considered racist. It’s all theater at this point, not unlike the Cold War USSR claiming everything ever invented was Russian.
Isn’t it interesting that BLM got $83 billion from corporations over the last three years? Post-Civil War Americans were warned this would happen – by Frederick Douglass.
Matt M
1 year ago
“conservatives like Charles Murray … called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.”
Surely Charles Murray could sue for libel for this sentence. An utterly false defamation of a good man!
Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
This article contains a scurrilous lie about the great Charles Murray. Not worthy of a leftwing student magazine and certainly not welcome over breakfast.
(Btw this is the third time I have tried to comment on this article)
Matt M
1 year ago
This article contains a scurrilous lie about the great Charles Murray. Not worthy of a leftwing student magazine and certainly not welcome over breakfast.
(Btw this is the third time I have tried to comment on this article)
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago
Good grief! What was that all about? I take it to be an anti capitalist and partial view of selected historical events and personalities – but I cannot fathom any purpose in it, other than to provide a negative.narrative. A sign of the times maybe?
I don’t think it has an anti-capitalist steer per se, I think the author hopes to highlight the dangers of corporatism, technocracy and utilitarianism (though, strangely, shied away from using those words).
I found it a refreshing and though-provoking read, quite possibly due to the lack of “-isms” you highlight – I had a work a little harder to understand due to lack of “shortcuts”!
I found it a refreshing and though-provoking read, quite possibly due to the lack of “-isms” you highlight – I had a work a little harder to understand due to lack of “shortcuts”!
I think it’s more of a review piece. I didn’t take fright at the line about Murray and found the article to be a decent exploration of a complex topic. It’s rare to see reasonable discussion of Rothbardian libertarianism. I’ve spent time around such people, have such leanings myself, and found the depiction to be fairly accurate, although in my case said libertarians are all immigrants themselves and don’t talk about borders or immigration much, their focus is all economics. However, US libertarians I think are keener on borders, albeit not as much as social conservatives.
In particular the interaction between country size, number of countries and global freedom is a topic that is usually “unherd” in the media with people like Thiel largely ignored by mainstream punditry. So I felt it definitely worthy of being published here.
I don’t think it has an anti-capitalist steer per se, I think the author hopes to highlight the dangers of corporatism, technocracy and utilitarianism (though, strangely, shied away from using those words).
I think it’s more of a review piece. I didn’t take fright at the line about Murray and found the article to be a decent exploration of a complex topic. It’s rare to see reasonable discussion of Rothbardian libertarianism. I’ve spent time around such people, have such leanings myself, and found the depiction to be fairly accurate, although in my case said libertarians are all immigrants themselves and don’t talk about borders or immigration much, their focus is all economics. However, US libertarians I think are keener on borders, albeit not as much as social conservatives.
In particular the interaction between country size, number of countries and global freedom is a topic that is usually “unherd” in the media with people like Thiel largely ignored by mainstream punditry. So I felt it definitely worthy of being published here.
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago
Good grief! What was that all about? I take it to be an anti capitalist and partial view of selected historical events and personalities – but I cannot fathom any purpose in it, other than to provide a negative.narrative. A sign of the times maybe?
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
States will get smaller not because of ideology but because technology has made large ones obsolete. This is a good thing: democracy works better when political power is dispersed.
In the long run I agree with you, but it’s worth remarking that the staying power of failed authoritarian political experiments can last a human lifetime, sometimes more.
In the long run I agree with you, but it’s worth remarking that the staying power of failed authoritarian political experiments can last a human lifetime, sometimes more.
Very true. The most representative govt is the most local. Supra-national orgs like the UN and EU are the most technocratic, least representative and most dangerous.
Very true. The most representative govt is the most local. Supra-national orgs like the UN and EU are the most technocratic, least representative and most dangerous.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
States will get smaller not because of ideology but because technology has made large ones obsolete. This is a good thing: democracy works better when political power is dispersed.
Saul D
1 year ago
Well that’s a history I don’t recognise. The US beat the Soviets on economics, and leveraged the civil society groups like Solidarność, with help from people like George Soros https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/fa141f34-3f1e-43b3-ac95-eff80f39cdc8/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe-20191106.pdf), fracturing the communist states from 1989,
The general direction from the mainstream was towards more integration, and free movement of capital.
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap (and the rise of the oligarchs). Manufacturing was in the early days of outsourcing to Asia with the rise of global supply chains – ultimately benefiting China. International co-operation on the environment, first on acid rain, then on the ozone hole was creating supra-national bodies. Events like Live Aid, and then the arrival of the world-wide wide, made the world seem like a connected village.
EU and UK was pushing towards the Euro with the UK tumbling out of the ERM on Black Monday. Consequently there was a lot of 1990s debate on the level of integration across Europe. The mainstream capitalists and serious money were pushing for more, faster for ever richer pickings.
It wasn’t the neoliberals ringing the alarm bells, or yearning for self-determination. It was more often the left-wingers, worried about factories closing as manufacturing left for cheaper countries, and shop-keepers and local businesses worried about loss of control over the money in their pockets, who wanted to keep things small. “Smallerism” and localism was a thing in environmental circles. The traditionalist right were at odds with the neolib/neocon right, worried about the loss of control, and cultural change. But they were steamrollered into silence by the one-world financiers.It’s only now, after 2008 and the popping of the free-money-for-all bubble, that the little folk regained their political voice. Sovereignty versus economics, and the neoliberals have never been on the side of sovereignty.
Just a small point- ‘ big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap’ isn’t quite right. They stole them.
Saul D
1 year ago
Well that’s a history I don’t recognise. The US beat the Soviets on economics, and leveraged the civil society groups like Solidarność, with help from people like George Soros https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/fa141f34-3f1e-43b3-ac95-eff80f39cdc8/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe-20191106.pdf), fracturing the communist states from 1989,
The general direction from the mainstream was towards more integration, and free movement of capital.
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap (and the rise of the oligarchs). Manufacturing was in the early days of outsourcing to Asia with the rise of global supply chains – ultimately benefiting China. International co-operation on the environment, first on acid rain, then on the ozone hole was creating supra-national bodies. Events like Live Aid, and then the arrival of the world-wide wide, made the world seem like a connected village.
EU and UK was pushing towards the Euro with the UK tumbling out of the ERM on Black Monday. Consequently there was a lot of 1990s debate on the level of integration across Europe. The mainstream capitalists and serious money were pushing for more, faster for ever richer pickings.
It wasn’t the neoliberals ringing the alarm bells, or yearning for self-determination. It was more often the left-wingers, worried about factories closing as manufacturing left for cheaper countries, and shop-keepers and local businesses worried about loss of control over the money in their pockets, who wanted to keep things small. “Smallerism” and localism was a thing in environmental circles. The traditionalist right were at odds with the neolib/neocon right, worried about the loss of control, and cultural change. But they were steamrollered into silence by the one-world financiers.It’s only now, after 2008 and the popping of the free-money-for-all bubble, that the little folk regained their political voice. Sovereignty versus economics, and the neoliberals have never been on the side of sovereignty.
Amy Horseman
1 year ago
Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was against German reunification because she foresaw that a tension must exist to maintain equilibrium and stability in the world, and if that tension was removed on the east-west divide in Germany, it would simply spring up elsewhere. In other words, she felt we were better off with that divide existing a little closer to home than any closer to Moscow. “Not one step further east” was the NATO promise to Russia. Breaking that promise has gradually pushed the “east-west” dividing line so far away from us in Britain that it is almost out of sight and, thus, out of control. The chips are about to fall. In recent years, the majority of “the west” has merely identified as a democracy whilst behaving as a totalitarian behemoth. Let’s hope it hasn’t entirely gutted itself and there are enough traditional tenets left to defend itself with when those chips start raining down on us. One thing is for sure, you can’t change human nature and the natural order of the world.
She was against German reunification because she (and Mitterand and Gorbachev shared similar qualms) were worried about the return of Prussian militarism and revanchism as were many others of their generation in Europe. Not any of the elaborate and florid fiction you have posited here that is entirely at odds with her policy in places such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary where she most certainly agreed with Churchill’s grim lament for the iron curtain of tyranny placed over ancient European capitals.
Very well said, Amy Horseman. Your comment on the west behaving as a totalitarian behemoth is spot on target. It has proven it self to be just that. We are not governed, but ruled. My biggest fear lies in not knowing what comes next.
She was against German reunification because she (and Mitterand and Gorbachev shared similar qualms) were worried about the return of Prussian militarism and revanchism as were many others of their generation in Europe. Not any of the elaborate and florid fiction you have posited here that is entirely at odds with her policy in places such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary where she most certainly agreed with Churchill’s grim lament for the iron curtain of tyranny placed over ancient European capitals.
Very well said, Amy Horseman. Your comment on the west behaving as a totalitarian behemoth is spot on target. It has proven it self to be just that. We are not governed, but ruled. My biggest fear lies in not knowing what comes next.
Amy Horseman
1 year ago
Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was against German reunification because she foresaw that a tension must exist to maintain equilibrium and stability in the world, and if that tension was removed on the east-west divide in Germany, it would simply spring up elsewhere. In other words, she felt we were better off with that divide existing a little closer to home than any closer to Moscow. “Not one step further east” was the NATO promise to Russia. Breaking that promise has gradually pushed the “east-west” dividing line so far away from us in Britain that it is almost out of sight and, thus, out of control. The chips are about to fall. In recent years, the majority of “the west” has merely identified as a democracy whilst behaving as a totalitarian behemoth. Let’s hope it hasn’t entirely gutted itself and there are enough traditional tenets left to defend itself with when those chips start raining down on us. One thing is for sure, you can’t change human nature and the natural order of the world.
Last edited 1 year ago by Amy Horseman
Barry Dixon
1 year ago
Maybe the author does not appreciate the distinction between free market capitalism and corporatism?
Barry Dixon
1 year ago
Maybe the author does not appreciate the distinction between free market capitalism and corporatism?
Jay Chase
1 year ago
I like seeing new writers contributing to Unherd but this is another complete dud from an insufferable marxist rabble-rouser and a very unpleasant read, I couldn’t be bothered to finish it. I would love it if Doris Lessing was still around to critique the dude’s writing style.
I am taking it that the evil “fragmentation” he refers to is actually cohesive small-scale societies where people have common values and a strong social fabric. The rise of globalhomo mass culture and the dissolving of borders has been a disaster for humanity, resulting in much weaker social bonds, increasing loneliness and shortened lifespans. The left’s attempt to divert attention from this fact and deny human nature by whining about “zones” in obscure language shouldn’t fool anyone.
Jay Chase
1 year ago
I like seeing new writers contributing to Unherd but this is another complete dud from an insufferable marxist rabble-rouser and a very unpleasant read, I couldn’t be bothered to finish it. I would love it if Doris Lessing was still around to critique the dude’s writing style.
I am taking it that the evil “fragmentation” he refers to is actually cohesive small-scale societies where people have common values and a strong social fabric. The rise of globalhomo mass culture and the dissolving of borders has been a disaster for humanity, resulting in much weaker social bonds, increasing loneliness and shortened lifespans. The left’s attempt to divert attention from this fact and deny human nature by whining about “zones” in obscure language shouldn’t fool anyone.
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
I think the criticism of libertarians and free trade is wrong. Free trade is not about open border, it is about no taxation and state control of trade.. The consumer rules.
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
I think the criticism of libertarians and free trade is wrong. Free trade is not about open border, it is about no taxation and state control of trade.. The consumer rules.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
“revived race science to support their claims”
“hoary theories of genetically determined intelligence and ignorance?”
Actually race science is like gravity — always there whether one chooses to ignore it or not. Gravity, too, is ‘hoary’ — tired, warn. Evil people ‘trot out’ gravity when they point out that if some kid decides to transition to being an eagle, that’s wonderful, but they’d still better not jump off a bridge. Gravity has no ideology and it doesn’t care what your Way Of Knowing is. Gravity is a System Of Oppression to be sure.
And no, intelligence isn’t ‘determined’ by race, however the bell-curves of the distribution of intelligence are quite different for different races. As for ‘ignorance’ that is determined by what one puts into one’s head. In the case of the author, his ignorance is a deliberate choice notwithstanding his probably superior intelligence.
‘His ignorance is a deliberate choice…’ – that’s a very modern way of saying ‘I disagree with him’.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
“revived race science to support their claims”
“hoary theories of genetically determined intelligence and ignorance?”
Actually race science is like gravity — always there whether one chooses to ignore it or not. Gravity, too, is ‘hoary’ — tired, warn. Evil people ‘trot out’ gravity when they point out that if some kid decides to transition to being an eagle, that’s wonderful, but they’d still better not jump off a bridge. Gravity has no ideology and it doesn’t care what your Way Of Knowing is. Gravity is a System Of Oppression to be sure.
And no, intelligence isn’t ‘determined’ by race, however the bell-curves of the distribution of intelligence are quite different for different races. As for ‘ignorance’ that is determined by what one puts into one’s head. In the case of the author, his ignorance is a deliberate choice notwithstanding his probably superior intelligence.
Did anyone actually read it? You did not have to go far to see it was lots of words and few coherent thoughts.
R Wright
1 year ago
This article is a load of tat.
Andrew Figueiredo
1 year ago
It’s wild to me how everybody here is freaking out about the Charles Murray quote and ignoring the rest of the article. I thought UnHerd was a place for people who could think critically and engage in good faith with perspectives they disagree with…
I can explain this for you, dude’s a bitter marxist with nothing interesting to say and uses tortured academic prose. Unworthy of further comment.
Andrew Figueiredo
1 year ago
It’s wild to me how everybody here is freaking out about the Charles Murray quote and ignoring the rest of the article. I thought UnHerd was a place for people who could think critically and engage in good faith with perspectives they disagree with…
Don P
1 year ago
I’d like to see some receipts for the notion that paleo-libertarian and conservative intellectuals “called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.” Gimme a break.
Last edited 1 year ago by Don P
Don P
1 year ago
I’d like to see some receipts for the notion that paleo-libertarian and conservative intellectuals “called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.” Gimme a break.
Last edited 1 year ago by Don P
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
Multi-National corporations pit nation states against each other to achieve control. If you think you are living in a democracy you are a fool. Mouthing off on social media gives you the illusion you are free. You are living under corporate tyranny and have been for more than 50 years.
“It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.”
Paddy Chayefsky 1976
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
Multi-National corporations pit nation states against each other to achieve control. If you think you are living in a democracy you are a fool. Mouthing off on social media gives you the illusion you are free. You are living under corporate tyranny and have been for more than 50 years.
“It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.”
Paddy Chayefsky 1976
Mr. Swemb
1 year ago
Marxist haven’t written anything interesting since 1848. This particular piece could have been written by Chat GPT 4.
Mr. Swemb
1 year ago
Marxist haven’t written anything interesting since 1848. This particular piece could have been written by Chat GPT 4.
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
A recent Charles Murray book makes clear just how opposed he is to “tribalism.” The very purpose the the American experiment, he said, is to carve out an oasis in the tribalism forest. That said, Mr. Slobodian’s comments can be hardly all be written off on this score alone. His analysis of environmentalism is bang on, as is his analysis of global supply chains. I recall George the first using the expression “new world order” and immediately getting sick in the stomach. I now know better why that happened.
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
A recent Charles Murray book makes clear just how opposed he is to “tribalism.” The very purpose the the American experiment, he said, is to carve out an oasis in the tribalism forest. That said, Mr. Slobodian’s comments can be hardly all be written off on this score alone. His analysis of environmentalism is bang on, as is his analysis of global supply chains. I recall George the first using the expression “new world order” and immediately getting sick in the stomach. I now know better why that happened.
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago
There are two reasons to fragment the big 19th century nation-state: Either to increase the power of voters, who are more directly connected to political power in a smaller polity; or – and this was the objective of various neoliberals and neolibertarians – to make the state, the only bulwark of voters against the overweening power of multinational organisations (public and private), so weak that the state can no longer resist the multinational.
So the question is not whether big or small is better – the question is to what end. In our modern society, the organised, unideological state is the only remaining power centre capable of protecting the individual, we cannot afford to lose it, too.
Much of the rhetoric of these multinationalists is built on an Orwellian repurposing of liberal political buzzwords, and a deliberate, ideologically informed misconstruction and misrepresentation of the Middle Ages.
Like all ideologically motivated constructs, the New World Order will have a short life, and we are witnessing its self-destruction in real time. The question is whether we can build back better.
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago
There are two reasons to fragment the big 19th century nation-state: Either to increase the power of voters, who are more directly connected to political power in a smaller polity; or – and this was the objective of various neoliberals and neolibertarians – to make the state, the only bulwark of voters against the overweening power of multinational organisations (public and private), so weak that the state can no longer resist the multinational.
So the question is not whether big or small is better – the question is to what end. In our modern society, the organised, unideological state is the only remaining power centre capable of protecting the individual, we cannot afford to lose it, too.
Much of the rhetoric of these multinationalists is built on an Orwellian repurposing of liberal political buzzwords, and a deliberate, ideologically informed misconstruction and misrepresentation of the Middle Ages.
Like all ideologically motivated constructs, the New World Order will have a short life, and we are witnessing its self-destruction in real time. The question is whether we can build back better.
James Hodges
1 year ago
Great thought provoking essay, sorry for all the strange comments by touchy people. One day, hopefully, people will remember again that pieces of work like this are important to provoke thought , instead of (left or right leaning) snowflakes getting upset you said bad things.
Last edited 1 year ago by James Hodges
James Hodges
1 year ago
Great thought provoking essay, sorry for all the strange comments by touchy people. One day, hopefully, people will remember again that pieces of work like this are important to provoke thought , instead of (left or right leaning) snowflakes getting upset you said bad things.
Last edited 1 year ago by James Hodges
Peter Kettle
1 year ago
The author has done some good work – he has persuaded me that his books and articles may be ignored in future. What a chump.
Peter Kettle
1 year ago
The author has done some good work – he has persuaded me that his books and articles may be ignored in future. What a chump.
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
I quit reading when the author conflated and saddled Charles Murray with the racist musings of others…
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
I quit reading when the author conflated and saddled Charles Murray with the racist musings of others…
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
As a racist-sexist-homophobic insurrectionist I have a problem with “neoliberalism.” I experience it as a pejorative against anyone who isn’t a card-carrying member of the global lefty educated ruling class, the class that believes in World War Climate and World War Anti-racism.
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
As a racist-sexist-homophobic insurrectionist I have a problem with “neoliberalism.” I experience it as a pejorative against anyone who isn’t a card-carrying member of the global lefty educated ruling class, the class that believes in World War Climate and World War Anti-racism.
rick stubbs
1 year ago
Thought the attempt at a grand theme narrative turned very quickly into gibberish..
Last edited 1 year ago by rick stubbs
rick stubbs
1 year ago
Thought the attempt at a grand theme narrative turned very quickly into gibberish..
Last edited 1 year ago by rick stubbs
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago
I was wondering what happened to the Hayek huns. This analysis,Quinn, rings true, and ties together a few loose ends for thus of us who pay attention merely for the sake of understanding the world, not monetizing it.
However, we should not overlook disastrous impact of that unexpected, non-creative interloper– the self-obsessed power-monger who hijacked that neoliberal platform, and replaced it with his own name brand of pseudo-neoliberal anarchy.
All this American observer can say is: God save the King and Mitt Romney.
I stopped reading rihgt here: “Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Charles Murray and Paul Craig Roberts revised the science of racism and called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries”
This progressive trope that Charles Murray is a racist is so tired at this point that I’m not going to bother with anyone who trots it out anymore.
If you call people racists just because you don’t agree with them… you you demonstrate your own foolishness and should be ignored.
Can i print this article on paper in soft rolls? It will then at least have a purpose….
That’s exactly where I stopped. I find the use of “black and brown” to describe people as offensive as yellow or red. My immigrant husband’s family were required to go through every legal step – a process that took years – just to get their Green Cards. After being allowed to immigrate to the US, they had to have jobs and sponsors, be healthy and vaccinated (with real vaccines that actually prevented diseases), and had to report in every month to the local police station for a status check. This went on until they became naturalized citizens. It wasn’t “racist”, it was sensible.
And pretending Charles Murray is a racist because he dared to do in-depth scholarship on intelligence with regard to wealth and class is why no one can ever speak honestly about it. It is why we now have the odious neo-Marxist equity industry that pits everyone against the other – and makes a fat pile of cash for those perpetrating the scam.
Oh! Restored! This didn’t appear for hours until I wrote to UnHerd’s tech support. What is going on with their comment section? Please don’t tell me they’ve hired “sensitivity readers”.
three of my last four posts were held back pending “approval”. Pending why, and by whom I do not know.
I have cancelled my subscription and requested a refund.
three of my last four posts were held back pending “approval”. Pending why, and by whom I do not know.
I have cancelled my subscription and requested a refund.
Oh! Restored! This didn’t appear for hours until I wrote to UnHerd’s tech support. What is going on with their comment section? Please don’t tell me they’ve hired “sensitivity readers”.
Also seems to ignore the effective coalition between the sex/gender permissive/indifferent hard market liberals (e.g. Koch foundation) and radical progressives..which is now default position of social democrats/Labour…. who want open borders and free flow of people (free labour markets). AOC is a Neo-liberal for all intents. That she claims to want a welfare state also just shows she’s stupid and cognitively dissonant. The opposition to all of this is now the right which comes in two stripes (1) Christian, conservative, civic nationalists who want a society of individuals leavened by communitarian solidarity below and a protective nation-state above; and (2) Ethno-nationalists who want a strong state… Either way the working class are drifting to the right because that is the only force now willing to embrace the exclusive solidarity of the nation-state. Neo-liberals/neo-cons and never trumpers can’t stand it…They are increasingly homeless and will look to do deals with the Blairites, Clintonites ,,,,people at the slightly less end of the woke spectrum.
Liberals who hated the “religious Right” in the 90’s may pine for the good old days when they meet his younger brother… the “non-religious Right”. Heck, we all may.
Left and Right are turning into mirrors. Left-wing, woke race essentialism and right-wing ethnonationalism are two sides of the same race essentialist coin.
Liberals who hated the “religious Right” in the 90’s may pine for the good old days when they meet his younger brother… the “non-religious Right”. Heck, we all may.
Left and Right are turning into mirrors. Left-wing, woke race essentialism and right-wing ethnonationalism are two sides of the same race essentialist coin.
You mean the unmistakeable sound of an axe being ground at the bottom of a barrel.
Immigration from blacker and browner countries: “He [Charles Murray] complains that “the nation’s political ground rules have yet to accept that the intelligence of immigrants is a legitimate topic for policymakers to think about” and eventually concludes “the kernel of evidence that must also be acknowledged is that Latin and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence.”
Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. His warning about the dysgenic impact of Latin American and African immigration is echoed by President Trump, who recently remarked that there are too many arrivals from “shithole” countries, and in the Republican Party’s ongoing conversion to the cause of sharp cuts in legal immigration.” Quote from: ‘The Bell Curve is about policy. And it’s wrong.’ https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong
“Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. ”
What? Murray is somehow to blame for our insane open border policies?
Murray may have been motived by bias or maybe his research led to his logical selective immigration policy position, which by the way numerous nations employ.
Our current immigration policy is designed by progressives who have hated Murray for since the Bell Curve was published 30 years ago. If anything, Murray has likely made open-borders progressives more extreme in their policies, in an effort to distance themselves from him.
“Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. ”
What? Murray is somehow to blame for our insane open border policies?
Murray may have been motived by bias or maybe his research led to his logical selective immigration policy position, which by the way numerous nations employ.
Our current immigration policy is designed by progressives who have hated Murray for since the Bell Curve was published 30 years ago. If anything, Murray has likely made open-borders progressives more extreme in their policies, in an effort to distance themselves from him.
Kindred Spirits…
Can i print this article on paper in soft rolls? It will then at least have a purpose….
That’s exactly where I stopped. I find the use of “black and brown” to describe people as offensive as yellow or red. My immigrant husband’s family were required to go through every legal step – a process that took years – just to get their Green Cards. After being allowed to immigrate to the US, they had to have jobs and sponsors, be healthy and vaccinated (with real vaccines that actually prevented diseases), and had to report in every month to the local police station for a status check. This went on until they became naturalized citizens. It wasn’t “racist”, it was sensible.
And pretending Charles Murray is a racist because he dared to do in-depth scholarship on intelligence with regard to wealth and class is why no one can ever speak honestly about it. It is why we now have the odious neo-Marxist equity industry that pits everyone against the other – and makes a fat pile of cash for those perpetrating the scam.
Also seems to ignore the effective coalition between the sex/gender permissive/indifferent hard market liberals (e.g. Koch foundation) and radical progressives..which is now default position of social democrats/Labour…. who want open borders and free flow of people (free labour markets). AOC is a Neo-liberal for all intents. That she claims to want a welfare state also just shows she’s stupid and cognitively dissonant. The opposition to all of this is now the right which comes in two stripes (1) Christian, conservative, civic nationalists who want a society of individuals leavened by communitarian solidarity below and a protective nation-state above; and (2) Ethno-nationalists who want a strong state… Either way the working class are drifting to the right because that is the only force now willing to embrace the exclusive solidarity of the nation-state. Neo-liberals/neo-cons and never trumpers can’t stand it…They are increasingly homeless and will look to do deals with the Blairites, Clintonites ,,,,people at the slightly less end of the woke spectrum.
You mean the unmistakeable sound of an axe being ground at the bottom of a barrel.
Immigration from blacker and browner countries: “He [Charles Murray] complains that “the nation’s political ground rules have yet to accept that the intelligence of immigrants is a legitimate topic for policymakers to think about” and eventually concludes “the kernel of evidence that must also be acknowledged is that Latin and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence.”
Murray’s intellectual influence on the current trajectory of American immigration policy is obvious. His warning about the dysgenic impact of Latin American and African immigration is echoed by President Trump, who recently remarked that there are too many arrivals from “shithole” countries, and in the Republican Party’s ongoing conversion to the cause of sharp cuts in legal immigration.” Quote from: ‘The Bell Curve is about policy. And it’s wrong.’ https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong
Kindred Spirits…
I stopped reading rihgt here: “Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Charles Murray and Paul Craig Roberts revised the science of racism and called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries”
This progressive trope that Charles Murray is a racist is so tired at this point that I’m not going to bother with anyone who trots it out anymore.
If you call people racists just because you don’t agree with them… you you demonstrate your own foolishness and should be ignored.
“conservatives like Charles Murray … called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.”
Surely Charles Murray could sue for libel for this sentence. An utterly false defamation of a good man!
Yes completely stupid. Could do with a little editorial moderation
I read The Bell Curve when it was first published. I was a new mother to a daughter and a son. I wanted to know what to expect from the schools available to us, and, given my own experience as an adjunct at a teaching college (a mediocre school, it turns out, that still produces drones), my husband and I opted for parochial school (no “country days” were available where we lived).
Murray and Herrnstein were utterly “de-personed” before cancel culture was a thing – for analysis. Because to examine why some cultures didn’t embrace exploration or writing or even the wheel – despite being exposed to it – was and is considered racist. It’s all theater at this point, not unlike the Cold War USSR claiming everything ever invented was Russian.
Isn’t it interesting that BLM got $83 billion from corporations over the last three years? Post-Civil War Americans were warned this would happen – by Frederick Douglass.
It’s Arthur Jensen (1923-2012) who has faced the most determined cancellation despite/because of his intellectual stature, This started in 1969 with his paper, How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement and lasted for the rest of his life and beyond.
I just looked him up (and thank you for the reference). The odious, racist, disgusting Southern Poverty Law Center calls him, in their very first sentence, the father of “modern academic (!) racism”. Well, if the SPLC makes a claim, we all know that we should laugh and laugh, and then dismiss it as utterly lunatic. We all know academia is filled with credentialed morons in search of tenure (Pirandello skewered them with six characters in 1921). I was an adjunct at a local teaching college. I have never, ever met such defiantly stupid people – faculty and student body. Few could write a simple grammatically correct sentence, and they were bored by everything. That was in the mid-2000s. I’d trust the guy who cleaned my AC to give me the facts over everyone at Blank State College (small city in SWNH).
I just looked him up (and thank you for the reference). The odious, racist, disgusting Southern Poverty Law Center calls him, in their very first sentence, the father of “modern academic (!) racism”. Well, if the SPLC makes a claim, we all know that we should laugh and laugh, and then dismiss it as utterly lunatic. We all know academia is filled with credentialed morons in search of tenure (Pirandello skewered them with six characters in 1921). I was an adjunct at a local teaching college. I have never, ever met such defiantly stupid people – faculty and student body. Few could write a simple grammatically correct sentence, and they were bored by everything. That was in the mid-2000s. I’d trust the guy who cleaned my AC to give me the facts over everyone at Blank State College (small city in SWNH).
It’s Arthur Jensen (1923-2012) who has faced the most determined cancellation despite/because of his intellectual stature, This started in 1969 with his paper, How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement and lasted for the rest of his life and beyond.
Yes completely stupid. Could do with a little editorial moderation
I read The Bell Curve when it was first published. I was a new mother to a daughter and a son. I wanted to know what to expect from the schools available to us, and, given my own experience as an adjunct at a teaching college (a mediocre school, it turns out, that still produces drones), my husband and I opted for parochial school (no “country days” were available where we lived).
Murray and Herrnstein were utterly “de-personed” before cancel culture was a thing – for analysis. Because to examine why some cultures didn’t embrace exploration or writing or even the wheel – despite being exposed to it – was and is considered racist. It’s all theater at this point, not unlike the Cold War USSR claiming everything ever invented was Russian.
Isn’t it interesting that BLM got $83 billion from corporations over the last three years? Post-Civil War Americans were warned this would happen – by Frederick Douglass.
“conservatives like Charles Murray … called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.”
Surely Charles Murray could sue for libel for this sentence. An utterly false defamation of a good man!
This article contains a scurrilous lie about the great Charles Murray. Not worthy of a leftwing student magazine and certainly not welcome over breakfast.
(Btw this is the third time I have tried to comment on this article)
This article contains a scurrilous lie about the great Charles Murray. Not worthy of a leftwing student magazine and certainly not welcome over breakfast.
(Btw this is the third time I have tried to comment on this article)
Good grief! What was that all about? I take it to be an anti capitalist and partial view of selected historical events and personalities – but I cannot fathom any purpose in it, other than to provide a negative.narrative. A sign of the times maybe?
I don’t think it has an anti-capitalist steer per se, I think the author hopes to highlight the dangers of corporatism, technocracy and utilitarianism (though, strangely, shied away from using those words).
I found it a refreshing and though-provoking read, quite possibly due to the lack of “-isms” you highlight – I had a work a little harder to understand due to lack of “shortcuts”!
I found it a refreshing and though-provoking read, quite possibly due to the lack of “-isms” you highlight – I had a work a little harder to understand due to lack of “shortcuts”!
I think it’s more of a review piece. I didn’t take fright at the line about Murray and found the article to be a decent exploration of a complex topic. It’s rare to see reasonable discussion of Rothbardian libertarianism. I’ve spent time around such people, have such leanings myself, and found the depiction to be fairly accurate, although in my case said libertarians are all immigrants themselves and don’t talk about borders or immigration much, their focus is all economics. However, US libertarians I think are keener on borders, albeit not as much as social conservatives.
In particular the interaction between country size, number of countries and global freedom is a topic that is usually “unherd” in the media with people like Thiel largely ignored by mainstream punditry. So I felt it definitely worthy of being published here.
I don’t think it has an anti-capitalist steer per se, I think the author hopes to highlight the dangers of corporatism, technocracy and utilitarianism (though, strangely, shied away from using those words).
I think it’s more of a review piece. I didn’t take fright at the line about Murray and found the article to be a decent exploration of a complex topic. It’s rare to see reasonable discussion of Rothbardian libertarianism. I’ve spent time around such people, have such leanings myself, and found the depiction to be fairly accurate, although in my case said libertarians are all immigrants themselves and don’t talk about borders or immigration much, their focus is all economics. However, US libertarians I think are keener on borders, albeit not as much as social conservatives.
In particular the interaction between country size, number of countries and global freedom is a topic that is usually “unherd” in the media with people like Thiel largely ignored by mainstream punditry. So I felt it definitely worthy of being published here.
Good grief! What was that all about? I take it to be an anti capitalist and partial view of selected historical events and personalities – but I cannot fathom any purpose in it, other than to provide a negative.narrative. A sign of the times maybe?
States will get smaller not because of ideology but because technology has made large ones obsolete. This is a good thing: democracy works better when political power is dispersed.
Great point! Subsidiarity is essential for human flourishing. Top-down, heavy-handed authoritarianism will always ultimately fail.
In the long run I agree with you, but it’s worth remarking that the staying power of failed authoritarian political experiments can last a human lifetime, sometimes more.
In the long run I agree with you, but it’s worth remarking that the staying power of failed authoritarian political experiments can last a human lifetime, sometimes more.
Very true. The most representative govt is the most local. Supra-national orgs like the UN and EU are the most technocratic, least representative and most dangerous.
Great point! Subsidiarity is essential for human flourishing. Top-down, heavy-handed authoritarianism will always ultimately fail.
Very true. The most representative govt is the most local. Supra-national orgs like the UN and EU are the most technocratic, least representative and most dangerous.
States will get smaller not because of ideology but because technology has made large ones obsolete. This is a good thing: democracy works better when political power is dispersed.
Well that’s a history I don’t recognise. The US beat the Soviets on economics, and leveraged the civil society groups like Solidarność, with help from people like George Soros https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/fa141f34-3f1e-43b3-ac95-eff80f39cdc8/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe-20191106.pdf), fracturing the communist states from 1989,
The general direction from the mainstream was towards more integration, and free movement of capital.
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap (and the rise of the oligarchs). Manufacturing was in the early days of outsourcing to Asia with the rise of global supply chains – ultimately benefiting China. International co-operation on the environment, first on acid rain, then on the ozone hole was creating supra-national bodies. Events like Live Aid, and then the arrival of the world-wide wide, made the world seem like a connected village.
EU and UK was pushing towards the Euro with the UK tumbling out of the ERM on Black Monday. Consequently there was a lot of 1990s debate on the level of integration across Europe. The mainstream capitalists and serious money were pushing for more, faster for ever richer pickings.
It wasn’t the neoliberals ringing the alarm bells, or yearning for self-determination. It was more often the left-wingers, worried about factories closing as manufacturing left for cheaper countries, and shop-keepers and local businesses worried about loss of control over the money in their pockets, who wanted to keep things small. “Smallerism” and localism was a thing in environmental circles. The traditionalist right were at odds with the neolib/neocon right, worried about the loss of control, and cultural change. But they were steamrollered into silence by the one-world financiers.It’s only now, after 2008 and the popping of the free-money-for-all bubble, that the little folk regained their political voice. Sovereignty versus economics, and the neoliberals have never been on the side of sovereignty.
Just a small point- ‘ big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap’ isn’t quite right. They stole them.
Just a small point- ‘ big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap’ isn’t quite right. They stole them.
Well that’s a history I don’t recognise. The US beat the Soviets on economics, and leveraged the civil society groups like Solidarność, with help from people like George Soros https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/fa141f34-3f1e-43b3-ac95-eff80f39cdc8/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe-20191106.pdf), fracturing the communist states from 1989,
The general direction from the mainstream was towards more integration, and free movement of capital.
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to big investors moving in to acquire soviet assets on the cheap (and the rise of the oligarchs). Manufacturing was in the early days of outsourcing to Asia with the rise of global supply chains – ultimately benefiting China. International co-operation on the environment, first on acid rain, then on the ozone hole was creating supra-national bodies. Events like Live Aid, and then the arrival of the world-wide wide, made the world seem like a connected village.
EU and UK was pushing towards the Euro with the UK tumbling out of the ERM on Black Monday. Consequently there was a lot of 1990s debate on the level of integration across Europe. The mainstream capitalists and serious money were pushing for more, faster for ever richer pickings.
It wasn’t the neoliberals ringing the alarm bells, or yearning for self-determination. It was more often the left-wingers, worried about factories closing as manufacturing left for cheaper countries, and shop-keepers and local businesses worried about loss of control over the money in their pockets, who wanted to keep things small. “Smallerism” and localism was a thing in environmental circles. The traditionalist right were at odds with the neolib/neocon right, worried about the loss of control, and cultural change. But they were steamrollered into silence by the one-world financiers.It’s only now, after 2008 and the popping of the free-money-for-all bubble, that the little folk regained their political voice. Sovereignty versus economics, and the neoliberals have never been on the side of sovereignty.
Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was against German reunification because she foresaw that a tension must exist to maintain equilibrium and stability in the world, and if that tension was removed on the east-west divide in Germany, it would simply spring up elsewhere. In other words, she felt we were better off with that divide existing a little closer to home than any closer to Moscow. “Not one step further east” was the NATO promise to Russia. Breaking that promise has gradually pushed the “east-west” dividing line so far away from us in Britain that it is almost out of sight and, thus, out of control. The chips are about to fall. In recent years, the majority of “the west” has merely identified as a democracy whilst behaving as a totalitarian behemoth. Let’s hope it hasn’t entirely gutted itself and there are enough traditional tenets left to defend itself with when those chips start raining down on us. One thing is for sure, you can’t change human nature and the natural order of the world.
She was against German reunification because she (and Mitterand and Gorbachev shared similar qualms) were worried about the return of Prussian militarism and revanchism as were many others of their generation in Europe. Not any of the elaborate and florid fiction you have posited here that is entirely at odds with her policy in places such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary where she most certainly agreed with Churchill’s grim lament for the iron curtain of tyranny placed over ancient European capitals.
Very well said, Amy Horseman. Your comment on the west behaving as a totalitarian behemoth is spot on target. It has proven it self to be just that. We are not governed, but ruled. My biggest fear lies in not knowing what comes next.
She was against German reunification because she (and Mitterand and Gorbachev shared similar qualms) were worried about the return of Prussian militarism and revanchism as were many others of their generation in Europe. Not any of the elaborate and florid fiction you have posited here that is entirely at odds with her policy in places such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary where she most certainly agreed with Churchill’s grim lament for the iron curtain of tyranny placed over ancient European capitals.
Very well said, Amy Horseman. Your comment on the west behaving as a totalitarian behemoth is spot on target. It has proven it self to be just that. We are not governed, but ruled. My biggest fear lies in not knowing what comes next.
Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was against German reunification because she foresaw that a tension must exist to maintain equilibrium and stability in the world, and if that tension was removed on the east-west divide in Germany, it would simply spring up elsewhere. In other words, she felt we were better off with that divide existing a little closer to home than any closer to Moscow. “Not one step further east” was the NATO promise to Russia. Breaking that promise has gradually pushed the “east-west” dividing line so far away from us in Britain that it is almost out of sight and, thus, out of control. The chips are about to fall. In recent years, the majority of “the west” has merely identified as a democracy whilst behaving as a totalitarian behemoth. Let’s hope it hasn’t entirely gutted itself and there are enough traditional tenets left to defend itself with when those chips start raining down on us. One thing is for sure, you can’t change human nature and the natural order of the world.
Maybe the author does not appreciate the distinction between free market capitalism and corporatism?
Maybe the author does not appreciate the distinction between free market capitalism and corporatism?
I like seeing new writers contributing to Unherd but this is another complete dud from an insufferable marxist rabble-rouser and a very unpleasant read, I couldn’t be bothered to finish it. I would love it if Doris Lessing was still around to critique the dude’s writing style.
I am taking it that the evil “fragmentation” he refers to is actually cohesive small-scale societies where people have common values and a strong social fabric. The rise of globalhomo mass culture and the dissolving of borders has been a disaster for humanity, resulting in much weaker social bonds, increasing loneliness and shortened lifespans. The left’s attempt to divert attention from this fact and deny human nature by whining about “zones” in obscure language shouldn’t fool anyone.
I like seeing new writers contributing to Unherd but this is another complete dud from an insufferable marxist rabble-rouser and a very unpleasant read, I couldn’t be bothered to finish it. I would love it if Doris Lessing was still around to critique the dude’s writing style.
I am taking it that the evil “fragmentation” he refers to is actually cohesive small-scale societies where people have common values and a strong social fabric. The rise of globalhomo mass culture and the dissolving of borders has been a disaster for humanity, resulting in much weaker social bonds, increasing loneliness and shortened lifespans. The left’s attempt to divert attention from this fact and deny human nature by whining about “zones” in obscure language shouldn’t fool anyone.
I think the criticism of libertarians and free trade is wrong. Free trade is not about open border, it is about no taxation and state control of trade.. The consumer rules.
I think the criticism of libertarians and free trade is wrong. Free trade is not about open border, it is about no taxation and state control of trade.. The consumer rules.
“revived race science to support their claims”
“hoary theories of genetically determined intelligence and ignorance?”
Actually race science is like gravity — always there whether one chooses to ignore it or not. Gravity, too, is ‘hoary’ — tired, warn. Evil people ‘trot out’ gravity when they point out that if some kid decides to transition to being an eagle, that’s wonderful, but they’d still better not jump off a bridge. Gravity has no ideology and it doesn’t care what your Way Of Knowing is. Gravity is a System Of Oppression to be sure.
And no, intelligence isn’t ‘determined’ by race, however the bell-curves of the distribution of intelligence are quite different for different races. As for ‘ignorance’ that is determined by what one puts into one’s head. In the case of the author, his ignorance is a deliberate choice notwithstanding his probably superior intelligence.
‘His ignorance is a deliberate choice…’ – that’s a very modern way of saying ‘I disagree with him’.
‘His ignorance is a deliberate choice…’ – that’s a very modern way of saying ‘I disagree with him’.
“revived race science to support their claims”
“hoary theories of genetically determined intelligence and ignorance?”
Actually race science is like gravity — always there whether one chooses to ignore it or not. Gravity, too, is ‘hoary’ — tired, warn. Evil people ‘trot out’ gravity when they point out that if some kid decides to transition to being an eagle, that’s wonderful, but they’d still better not jump off a bridge. Gravity has no ideology and it doesn’t care what your Way Of Knowing is. Gravity is a System Of Oppression to be sure.
And no, intelligence isn’t ‘determined’ by race, however the bell-curves of the distribution of intelligence are quite different for different races. As for ‘ignorance’ that is determined by what one puts into one’s head. In the case of the author, his ignorance is a deliberate choice notwithstanding his probably superior intelligence.
This article is a load of tat.
Did anyone actually read it? You did not have to go far to see it was lots of words and few coherent thoughts.
And an incorrect date for German reunification.
And an incorrect date for German reunification.
Did anyone actually read it? You did not have to go far to see it was lots of words and few coherent thoughts.
This article is a load of tat.
It’s wild to me how everybody here is freaking out about the Charles Murray quote and ignoring the rest of the article. I thought UnHerd was a place for people who could think critically and engage in good faith with perspectives they disagree with…
I can explain this for you, dude’s a bitter marxist with nothing interesting to say and uses tortured academic prose. Unworthy of further comment.
I can explain this for you, dude’s a bitter marxist with nothing interesting to say and uses tortured academic prose. Unworthy of further comment.
It’s wild to me how everybody here is freaking out about the Charles Murray quote and ignoring the rest of the article. I thought UnHerd was a place for people who could think critically and engage in good faith with perspectives they disagree with…
I’d like to see some receipts for the notion that paleo-libertarian and conservative intellectuals “called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.” Gimme a break.
I’d like to see some receipts for the notion that paleo-libertarian and conservative intellectuals “called for the revision of immigration laws to discriminate against people from blacker and browner countries, revived race science to support their claims.” Gimme a break.
Multi-National corporations pit nation states against each other to achieve control. If you think you are living in a democracy you are a fool. Mouthing off on social media gives you the illusion you are free. You are living under corporate tyranny and have been for more than 50 years.
“It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.”
Paddy Chayefsky 1976
Multi-National corporations pit nation states against each other to achieve control. If you think you are living in a democracy you are a fool. Mouthing off on social media gives you the illusion you are free. You are living under corporate tyranny and have been for more than 50 years.
“It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.”
Paddy Chayefsky 1976
Marxist haven’t written anything interesting since 1848. This particular piece could have been written by Chat GPT 4.
Marxist haven’t written anything interesting since 1848. This particular piece could have been written by Chat GPT 4.
A recent Charles Murray book makes clear just how opposed he is to “tribalism.” The very purpose the the American experiment, he said, is to carve out an oasis in the tribalism forest. That said, Mr. Slobodian’s comments can be hardly all be written off on this score alone. His analysis of environmentalism is bang on, as is his analysis of global supply chains. I recall George the first using the expression “new world order” and immediately getting sick in the stomach. I now know better why that happened.
A recent Charles Murray book makes clear just how opposed he is to “tribalism.” The very purpose the the American experiment, he said, is to carve out an oasis in the tribalism forest. That said, Mr. Slobodian’s comments can be hardly all be written off on this score alone. His analysis of environmentalism is bang on, as is his analysis of global supply chains. I recall George the first using the expression “new world order” and immediately getting sick in the stomach. I now know better why that happened.
There are two reasons to fragment the big 19th century nation-state: Either to increase the power of voters, who are more directly connected to political power in a smaller polity; or – and this was the objective of various neoliberals and neolibertarians – to make the state, the only bulwark of voters against the overweening power of multinational organisations (public and private), so weak that the state can no longer resist the multinational.
So the question is not whether big or small is better – the question is to what end. In our modern society, the organised, unideological state is the only remaining power centre capable of protecting the individual, we cannot afford to lose it, too.
Much of the rhetoric of these multinationalists is built on an Orwellian repurposing of liberal political buzzwords, and a deliberate, ideologically informed misconstruction and misrepresentation of the Middle Ages.
Like all ideologically motivated constructs, the New World Order will have a short life, and we are witnessing its self-destruction in real time. The question is whether we can build back better.
There are two reasons to fragment the big 19th century nation-state: Either to increase the power of voters, who are more directly connected to political power in a smaller polity; or – and this was the objective of various neoliberals and neolibertarians – to make the state, the only bulwark of voters against the overweening power of multinational organisations (public and private), so weak that the state can no longer resist the multinational.
So the question is not whether big or small is better – the question is to what end. In our modern society, the organised, unideological state is the only remaining power centre capable of protecting the individual, we cannot afford to lose it, too.
Much of the rhetoric of these multinationalists is built on an Orwellian repurposing of liberal political buzzwords, and a deliberate, ideologically informed misconstruction and misrepresentation of the Middle Ages.
Like all ideologically motivated constructs, the New World Order will have a short life, and we are witnessing its self-destruction in real time. The question is whether we can build back better.
Great thought provoking essay, sorry for all the strange comments by touchy people. One day, hopefully, people will remember again that pieces of work like this are important to provoke thought , instead of (left or right leaning) snowflakes getting upset you said bad things.
Great thought provoking essay, sorry for all the strange comments by touchy people. One day, hopefully, people will remember again that pieces of work like this are important to provoke thought , instead of (left or right leaning) snowflakes getting upset you said bad things.
The author has done some good work – he has persuaded me that his books and articles may be ignored in future. What a chump.
The author has done some good work – he has persuaded me that his books and articles may be ignored in future. What a chump.
I quit reading when the author conflated and saddled Charles Murray with the racist musings of others…
I quit reading when the author conflated and saddled Charles Murray with the racist musings of others…
As a racist-sexist-homophobic insurrectionist I have a problem with “neoliberalism.” I experience it as a pejorative against anyone who isn’t a card-carrying member of the global lefty educated ruling class, the class that believes in World War Climate and World War Anti-racism.
As a racist-sexist-homophobic insurrectionist I have a problem with “neoliberalism.” I experience it as a pejorative against anyone who isn’t a card-carrying member of the global lefty educated ruling class, the class that believes in World War Climate and World War Anti-racism.
Thought the attempt at a grand theme narrative turned very quickly into gibberish..
Thought the attempt at a grand theme narrative turned very quickly into gibberish..
I was wondering what happened to the Hayek huns. This analysis,Quinn, rings true, and ties together a few loose ends for thus of us who pay attention merely for the sake of understanding the world, not monetizing it.
However, we should not overlook disastrous impact of that unexpected, non-creative interloper– the self-obsessed power-monger who hijacked that neoliberal platform, and replaced it with his own name brand of pseudo-neoliberal anarchy.
All this American observer can say is: God save the King and Mitt Romney.