This book just BTFO'd the Western model of society that has existed since the start of the 20th century (though it's antecedent was the French revolution). How will Jow Forumstards ever recover?
>Has liberalism failed because it has succeeded? Of the three dominant ideologies of the twentieth century—fascism, communism, and liberalism—only the last remains. This has created a peculiar situation in which liberalism’s proponents tend to forget that it is an ideology and not the natural end-state of human political evolution.
>As Patrick Deneen argues in this provocative book, liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history.
>Here, Deneen offers an astringent warning that the centripetal forces now at work on our political culture are not superficial flaws but inherent features of a system whose success is generating its own failure.
This book just BTFO'd the Western model of society that has existed since the start of the 20th century (though it's...
Other urls found in this thread:
libgen.pw
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
smithsonianmag.com
scientificamerican.com
psychologytoday.com
twitter.com
The continuum fallacy is marxist, not liberal.
If the book doesn't start and end with "Jews", then it doesn't explain shit.
Keep coping, brainlets.
No seriously, if it doesn't cover the Jewish question, then it has no idea how a liberal society gets infected.
You're a low IQ pleb that thinks in terms of secret boogeymen and not in systems. Jews are just like any other group, jumping into the system and grabbing their slice of the pie. Jews had the advantage of being used by European kings and nobles as money lenders, since it was illegal for europeans, so they were able to get their foot into the liberal system once it got going.
Feel free to cite the great mainline liberal thinkers that believed in the end of history nonsense. The marxist view of class struggle and historical materialism is pretty hard baked into the theory.
I think you are incorrect. Western Liberalism is fundamentally flawed anyway. Just because we have a whole bunch of traitors undermining the society as well, doesn't mean that a book which shows the flaws of said liberalism needs to name the banker.
Apologies for meme flag but Jews are a separate question.
Not entirely true, they are worse than that .
>Immediately goes for ad hominem
No work see this book appeals to you
Are you retarded? The "end of history" idea of liberalism becoming the defacto system of humanity was promoted by primarily your right-wing government and RIGHT-WING American intellectuals after the fall of the soviet union. Read Francis Fukuyama and learn some history to retarded cunt.
>gets stuck at the ad hominem and ignores the schooling I just gave him
I can see why low IQ boogeymen appeal to you
They are "worse" because they are extremely good at using the system. And there are reasons for that, read the culture of critique.
The enlightenment and French Revolution killed the West. We are finally throwing off the shackles.
So one guys treatise written in the high of the Berlin wall falling that appropriates a concept from Marxism that he then backs away from by 1995?
Garbage. a bunch of poli-speak that will be forgotten in a year.
We need to bring back fascism, I don''t think it got a fair shake. All I hear is how bad it was, but as far as I could tell the death toll from Fascism is about 12.
Read it faggots.
libgen.pw
Mate, you're an absolute tard. He isn't using "end of history" in the same sense that the Marxists did.
Liberalism is just a recent aberration in Western civilization. Most people here don't buy into the Jewish "democracy" meme and are fascists or libertarian. I think you're a newfag who just arrived yesterday and needs to lurk more.
Fascism is dead and it ain't coming back, at least not how it was.
Libertarianism is hyper-liberalism. Literally.
Well this is reasonably stated.
And I've been on this board since 2012, though I am ashamed to admit it. And there are plenty of people here who support the current political-economic order, they just believe it has been tainted by Jews, niggers, or whatever. They don't understand that the "taint" is a natural product of the system itself, not an infection from outside.
You're a low IQ pleb who thinks in terms of minecraftian
>muh systems
and not biology. There's a biological basis in whites that creates these "systems".
Every form of society is a failure. Because humans are meant to destroy and cull each other for evolution. Society itself is a temporary truce in this game. They all fall and all are shit.
Liberalism as is commonly understood features a powerful State that intervenes in the economy and social affairs according to the will of the majority. Libertarians are just permissive socially but want to do away with the State almost completely.
The only difference is the supposed end point. Do you know what deterministic means?
>The enlightenment and French Revolution killed the West.
Unironically this, Edmund Burke was 100% right about everything, and we should have listened to him.
Why is it not a taint of human nature, but instead, the system?
why are Jow Forumsacks so opposed to patrick deneen? just look up some book reviews and you'll see how butthurt he made libshits with this book.
do you guys just blame the failures of liberalism on niggers and jews?
Let me guess.
In this new paradigm Jews will still control finance.
This thread is a failure and so is the abandoning op
Show me the specific gene that leads to the creation and management of liberalism, dick head. Your biological spooks add nothing to the discussion and answer no questions. Literal non-answer that you threw in to sound smart.
Fukuyama and the people from his side that used the term "end of history" were not using it as some grand teleological concept, you complete mongoloid, as I've already told you. They did not argue that liberalism was establioshed by some deterministic process of dialectical materialism or any such nonsense. The argument was that all alternatives had failed in a battle of ideas/systems, leaving only liberalism as the viable system after the collapse of communism. Fukuyama using the term "end of history" was more of an ironic quip against leftists.
But seriously, are you autistic, seriously? Why are you latching onto some irrelevant detail?
Had to address your autism twice now. Seriously fuck off if you don't have anything to say.
Pretty much
What OP doesn't understand is the whites do t want to destroy other societies as a religious model. Jewish believe everyone else.is their servant, so purposefully subvert and destroy with their powers when they are allowed to be part of society. This is not a natural state of all races. Especially whites.
Define human nature. Right now you're just using a buzzword.
No idea what you're going on about. Read the book. Someone already linked it up above for free.
so all the author has managed to do was stake an objective look at our mainstream political ideology for a second.
something anyone could have done by simply reading the fascist doctrine.
bravo he learned how to actually stop and question things.
next read the rise and fall of elites by Vilfredo Pareto.
>s-show me the gene
>m-muh systems
>m-muh minecraft
Explain why whites reproduce pretty much the same system everywhere they go, but when they give the same system to Central America and Africa, the spics and niggers can't make it work. Hint: it's because the biological system is what matters.
Liberalism is a disease to society,and jews and niggers are parasites,both weaken and ultimately kill the host they infect,the particualr problem with jews is that they are greatly responsible for infecting other nations with liberalism,basically they are parasites that carry the diseases.
>has existed since the start of the 20th century (though it's atecedent was the French Revolution)
absolutely basic bitch understanding of history
You claimed liberalism is the result of genetics.
Show me the genes.
Our instinctual selfish motivation. Any society with leaders expose themselves to destruction via anyone in power without the best interests of society in mind. This is not a flaw of any system since any and all systems are exposed to it.
/Thread
I care not to read a long-winded book.
However, it's obvious that Jews have everything to gain and nothing to lose by misdirecting responsibility for the end of the current system / ideological order.
This is why they are so desperate to put tribesman in front of any turmoil they see to act as leaders.
One fallacy I see right away.
Results in material inequality?j just because people have equal rights?
Liberalism does not promise that.
>s-show me the genes
No - look at brain scans of shitlibs, examine the heritability factor of political views and then prove it's environmental. Ironically, assuming environment is exactly what a shitlib would do - vestigial egalitarianism.
Liberalism is thoroughly a European invention.
Okay, let's assume that true, and I would personally accept that assertion, that does mean that a system cannot fail for other reasons, reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with selfishness. Other reasons which could be embedded into the system itself (in its orginisation, ideological assumptions, and so on).
It's always yanks coming out with these stale 12 year old "muh selfishness!" arguments. Seriously dude, that's kiddy shit.
Very well stated.
The problem with this book is that it assumes Liberalism has failed because of all those problems it states. The truth is the exact opposite: liberalism has been a resounding success for what it was designed to do, not only that, but it's gaining power each and every day.
Liberalism is a merchant's philosophy, when a merchant speaks of freedom, what they are referring to is the power to purchase and control things that were previously off limits. For anyone doubting this, James Denham Steuart defines the concept of liberty in his book "Political Economy" as the ability to convert a piece of land into money, and then convert that money back into a piece of land.
Liberalism is alienation through monetization. The goal is to tear people from natural dependencies like land, family, nature, and community, while replacing those natural dependencies with artificial dependencies like the market and the state, which the liberal can then derive a profitable rent from.
In these terms, not only is liberalism a smashing success, but it's continuing unabated whether through communism, socialism, or capitalism.
>I care not to read a long-winded book.
Then fuck off out of the thread you twat.
>makes stupid assertion
>refuses to back it up and goes off on an tangent after being called out on it
>Human corruption is kiddie shit
Ok
Yet it's the catalyst this entire book seems to be based on. How the nature of man can exploit this particular system. So what? It was and does exploit every system. If you're looking for the root problem, it is leadership. And every society has to have leadership. It's a conundrum. Mock it all you want, brainlet.
So what do you suggest to replace liberalism?If you say marxism,after claiming that fascism is dead,i will consider you a /trannypol/ retard.
I see nothing wrong with this. Liberalism is pure cancer.
oh it goes even further than that.
the real heart of the flaw is actually how relatively new and acute human consciousness is as an adaptation for survival, and I suspect humans are not yet at the stage of being able to balance the fact that they are shaped by their environment and simultaneously sharpers of their environment.
sort of we create an r selective environment and the become r selective and take on that survival strategy.
a lot of people misunderstand r vs K theory, their simply strategies for survival based on the environment. the genetic aspect is when the species begins to adapt to this role given enough time. human may not be strictly an r or a K species but they begin to adapt to that role, it may not be genetic yet for it to still affect things.
>look at brain scans of...
When you try to eliminate explicit and well-defined hierarchical relationships, informal ones are bound to appear. However, there will be no accountability and a fog about who actually controls what - only those who effectively control know.
But can you really say that liberalism has "failed" if all competing systems have been destroyed?
global papal empire, obviously
>it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality
literally not a contradiction unless you believe that rights and material wealth are the same thing
>its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism
Laws and taxes are your civic commitments.
>in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history
liberal countries get rich, big money equals big income from tax, big tax income makes it easy for big state. This really doesn't mean anything unless you want to promote the idea that countries should be small to prevent big government, which is stupid
sounds like some guff a dirty marxist would write desu
>assumes people are equal
>doesn't provide evidence
A bear is different from an eagle in various ways. You
>s-show me the genes! Until then a bear and an eagle are the same thing. Only a gene diff file will give the evidence!
Fuck off, nigger. You're making extreme demands for evidence that's not needed to make the case. Again, look at brain scans, look at heritability factors, and so forth.
There is probably going to be no replacement, at least nothing that is going to be better than what we have. The advacement of AI/robotics over the next 100 years will change things, that's without a doubt. But we are also facing environemental catastrophes of various kinds in or around the same timeframe. All the elites are already building bunkers, they know shit is going down.
Find something to give you meaning and live out your existence to the best of your ability.
For me personally, it's religion.
Go to bed, Soigon. You don't understand these things as well as you think.
Both liberalism and marxism are failures. Feudalism is the only guaranteed success because the simple fact is that a warlord/king that was raised to rule is going to be better than the majority of people's opinions when the average person gets swayed by an unsubstantiated article on something.
>wayed by an unsubstantiated article on something.
You mean like 90% of you do on this board?
Usually it's something even less an article, a fucking twitter/instagram screenshot.
OP's post reads like nothing more than a subtle advertisement for the book. It makes sense to me - the kind of people who browse Jow Forums are the target audience for a book like this.
>No systems work
No shit. So what's the point of this book? It's like writing a book on why some huge mechanical machine that runs on water doesn't work well in the dessert, and going into mechanical detail on it's major schematic failures. Meanwhile it's the god damn sun.
>liberalism failed
Correct
How does any of that having to do with a genetic cause for liberalsim? Seems to me like you don't understand that "conversvtism" and "liberalism" stem from the same source.
Take your meds.
I don't even agree with the book in its entirety.
Just thought I'd help you brainlets learn some actual facts about the current state of things, instead of leaving you to wallow in your blacked fetishes, women hate threads, and all the other shit you faggots love.
I said infect,not invent,communism and socialism also pre-date Marx,didn't stop jews from infecting other nations with these.
Finally we can have a god emperor.
Sucks to be OP then. A copy of it is already on the Jow Forums book club's .onion stash.
>o what's the point of this book?
The people who rule over you believe this system works and do everything in their power to support it, jackass.
You shouldn't lose hope user,there is always a brighter future if you have hope.
>The people who rule over you believe this system works
That's because it does work. It works for them.
>poltards will never recover
what are you talking about? there's lots of nrx and fascist types who hate liberalism here.
There's literally working class lads in france meeting up regardless of left right shit to burn stuff down and the commies all think it's problematic and nationalist. Might not become fascism but people want a third way.
Technically what we have today is Neo-Liberalism,it's still cancerous though
But the entire edifice of liberalism - media, courts, government, universities, you name it - claim that it oes work for us or that it can work for us. That's the point of this book, to address the claims of the ideologues.
>there is always a brighter future if you have hope
I recently started smoking cigarettes specifically because I HOPE it will shorten my life. Should I still have hope? Does this make my future brighter?
Yep
>muh systems
>muh castles in the sky
>t-they're the same, don't you see?
>even though science can provide evidence for a biological distinction
t. nobrainminecraftniggermonkey
>Majority of Western existence involved racial segregation, homosexual shunning, and absence of welfare safety nets
>Attribute it's success to a short 50 year interpretation on a buzzword most people will attribute to Left wing ideology.
And you're suggesting this state of affairs is unique to the west?
>Jow Forums book club's
What's that?
If you think women are actually human and not a poor facsimile you are simply ignorant
Wouldn't it be faster if you just went out a hero and decided to kill some high ranking jew/traitor?
No?
Go tell your mother/grandmother that. Film it so I can see the response.
>That's the point of this book, to address the claims of the ideologues.
The thing about most of these people is that they aren't necessarily ideologues. They are merely cowards who are to afraid to face the logical conclusions of their whole world being a lie. It's a coping mechanism for living in an insane world. Additionally, they are terrified of the social isolation that comes with having an improper opinion, so they self-censor any thought before it can take root.
>Wouldn't it be faster if you just went out a hero
But I'm not the kind of person who could ever be a hero, just a mediocre scrap of nothingness impatiently waiting for the sweet release of death.
>Liberalism
>Failed
Have people seriously not read Locke?
Islam is having a pretty good resurgence.
That’s one redpilled image
Pretty much everything comes down to immigration
It hasn't and is dying worldwide, authoritarian state capitalism (often with a controlled opposition like in Russia or Turkey) is becoming the system of choice. Even neo"liberals" are keeping their ideology alive through mass censorship and suppression, not exactly liberal values.
The only havens of liberal democracy are western europe and the anglosphere, of those the US is obviously still the US, western europe excluding Germoney is dying in global relevance and Australia/NZ/Canada have been completely cucked by the Chinese. Once the boomer generation dies off and AOC becomes the model democrat in the US "Liberalism" will die in the United states as well.
Liberal societies have very little means of combating subversion. All societies have an organic set of values, traditions, beliefs etc.-- an established order-- that rests at the foundations of society. If this foundation destroyed, the society crumbles. Liberalism has a difficult time restricting attacks on these foundations without contradicting its own values and destroying itself. The post war period in the west is exhibit A of this. We are in a similar place now. Everything is heading towards an illiberal trajectory. Some states are already becoming politically illiberal and other states that are still liberal states are becoming more illiberal to fight the illiberalism that threatens liberalism. It is all very interesting.
Goddamnit user,start to workout,sleep 7 hours a day and eat properly,i believe in you,you can become an ubermensch.
Haha you wear glasses you fucking nerd
>replacing one sexually deviant elite with another
this is why the reformation happened, germans didn't want your faggot popes ruling over them
So is this book worth reading, lads?
This is true. But we have to assume liberalism and multiculturalism are one. They're not. However I understand the argument can be made that liberalism inevitable leads to multiculturalism. I'm citing multiculturalism because subversion is an outside variable that is brought in. An ethno state liberal society would not be as exposed. Plus it would have the added benefit of ousting internal corruption. But the entire foundation a society like this would be it's people. Thus the best people would be required to have the best shot. This means ethno state, and degeneracy expelled. A liberal society can still have such qualities.
>coping
ha ha ha ha ha
>t. kike