ClubOrlov: The Death of the Liberal Idea
TUESDAY, JULY 02, 2019
The Death of the Liberal Idea
Last week’s G20 gathering in Osaka was a signal event: it signaled how much the world has changed. The centerpieces of the new configuration are China, Russia and India, with the EU and Japan as eager adjuncts, and with Eurasian integration as the overarching priority.
The agenda was clearly being set by Xi and Putin. May, Macron and Merkel—the European leaders not quite deserving of that title—were clearly being relegated to the outskirts; two of the three are on their way out while the one keeping his seat (for now) is looking more and more like a toyboy. The Europeans wasted their time haggling over who should head the European Commission, only to face open rebellion over their choice the moment they arrived back home.
And then there was Trump, let loose now that the Robert Mueller farce has come to its inevitable conclusion. He was running around trying to figure out which of America’s “partners” can still be thrown under the bus before the roof comes down on Pax Americana. It’s a stretch goal because he is out of ammo. He has already threatened all-out war—twice, once against North Korea, once against Iran, but, given the disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, sanity caused him to keep his military Humpty-Dumpty safely seated on the wall.
Trump hasn’t completely given up on trade war yet, but here too he is encountering problems and is being forced to backtrack: Huawei is being recalled from the sanctions doghouse. Trump must knock out another major player—either China, Russia or the EU—before Eurasia becomes cemented together via land trade routes controlled by China, Russia and Iran instead of sea routes patrolled by the US Navy; if he doesn’t succeed, then the US is out of the game, its military might and the US dollar both rendered irrelevant. Of these, the EU seems like the softest target, but even the Europeans somehow managed launch the mechanism that allows them to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. Trump is definitely in a tough spot. What is the author of “The Art of the Deal” to do when nobody wants to negotiate any more deals with the US, now knowing full well that the US always finds ways to renege on its obligations?
And then comes the bombshell announcement. In an interview with Financial Times Putin declares that “the liberal idea... has finally outlived its usefulness” because it no longer serves the needs of the majority of the peoples. Not “people,” mind you, but “peoples”—all different, but all the viable ones united in their steadfast adherence to the principle that family and nation (from the Latin verb nasci—to be born) are über alles. Some might perceive hints of fascism in this train of thought, but that would be akin to arguing that since fascists are known to use toothbrushes, then ipso facto toothbrushes are fascist implements to be outlawed and everyone must go back to cleaning their teeth with twigs and sticks. That Putin was able to utter words to the effect that the liberal idea is dead—something no Western leader would dare say—shows how much the world has changed.
Not that some Western leaders wouldn’t say it, if they only could. “Our Western partners,” Putin said, “have conceded that some elements of the liberal idea are simply not realistic… such as multiculturalism. Many of them conceded that yes, unfortunately it doesn’t work (LOL) and that we must remember the interests of the native population.” Not that Russia doesn’t have its share of problems related to migrants, due to its open border policy with certain former Soviet republics, but it works to resolve them by demanding competency in Russian and respect for Russian culture and traditions, while “the liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done, that migrants can rob, rape, steal, but that we must defend their rights… What rights? You broke a rule—you are punished!”
The migrant crisis is a perfect example of how liberalism has outlived its usefulness. Liberalism offers two ways forward, both of which are fatal to it. One approach is distinctly illiberal: halt the influx of migrants by any means necessary; insist that the migrants already in the country either conform to a strict set of requirements, including demonstrated competency in the nation’s language, detailed knowledge of its laws and administrative systems, strict obedience to its laws and demonstrated preference and respect for the customs and culture of the native population—or be not so much deported as expelled. The other approach is liberal at first: allow the influx to continue, do not hinder the formation of foreign ghettos and enclaves which native citizens and officials dare not enter, and eventually surrender to Sharia law or other forms of foreign dictate—guaranteeing the eventual death of the liberal idea along with much of the native population. Thus, the choice is between killing the liberal idea but saving the native population or letting the liberal idea die willy-nilly, taking the native population along with it. It offers no solution at all.
“We all live in a world based on traditional Biblical values,” quoth Putin. “We don’t have to demonstrate them every day… but must have them in our hearts and our souls. In this way, traditional values are more stable and more important to millions of people than this liberal idea which, in my view, is ceasing to exist.” This is true not just of the believers—be they Christian, Moslem or Jewish—but of the atheists as well. To put it in terms that may shock and astound some of you, you don’t have to believe in God (although it helps if you do—to avoid cognitive dissonance) but if you aspire to any sort of social adequacy in a traditional society you have no choice but to sincerely think and act as if God exists, and that He is the God of the Bible—be He Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus and the Holy Trinity or Allah (that's the Arabic word for “God”).
Putin capped off his argument by ever so gently and politely putting the boot in. He said that he has no clue about any of this “transformer-trans... whatever” stuff. How many genders are there? He has lost count. Not that he is against letting consenting adult members of various minority sexual groups do whatever they want among themselves—“Let everyone be happy!”—but they have no right to dictate to the rest. Specifically, Russian law makes homosexual propaganda among those who are under age illegal. Hollywood’s pro-LGBT mavens must be displeased: their choice is either to redact LGBT propaganda from the script, or to redact it from the finished film prior to its release in Russia (and China).
Here Putin is tapping into something that is fast becoming a political trend everywhere, including that former bastion of liberalism—the West. It is in the nature of democracies that previously repressed minorities tend to clamor for more and more rights up to and often well beyond the point where they begin to impinge on the rights of the majority; but at some point the majority starts pushing back. By now it can be stated with some certainty that in the view of the majority the LGBT movement has gone too far. Opinion surveys attest to this fact: LGBT support crested at well over 50% but has been dropping by roughly 10% per year for several years now.
How far beyond that point has the LGBT movement gone? In some Western countries children as young as three are subjected to “gender reassignment” that follows a sequence of indoctrination, chemical castration and physical castration, even against the wishes of their parents, resulting in a sterile individual. Pray tell, why should any sane parent agree to having their offspring sterilized, thus ending their bloodline? The vast majority of Earth’s population finds such practices appalling, and this is starting to include the home of the now dead liberal idea—the West itself. As a first, timid step of the overwhelming pushback that seems likely ensue, a “heterosexual pride parade” is scheduled to be held in Boston.
Note that the item in question is not “gender” but “sex.” The word “gender” does exist, but the sense in which LGBT activists and feminists use it is an instance of overloading—of linguistic violence. The only sense in which the term is valid is as grammatical gender, which is a feature of most Indo-European languages. In these languages, all nouns are assigned to one of exactly three genders—male, female and neuter—in English identified by the pronouns “he,” “she” and “it” while in Russian they are “on” “oná” and “onó” and, quite typically, “he” (“on”) is the default or unmarked gender while the other two require gender-specific endings (“-a”, “-o”). Male and female nouns and pronouns can denote either animate or inanimate objects, which answer either to “Who?” or to “What?” while neuter nouns and pronouns can only denote inanimate objects, which answer to “What?” (except in poetry, as permitted by poetic license). By the way, this clears away the confusion over alternative “gender-specific” pronouns, be they “ze,” “hir” or “ququuuxx”: in order to function grammatically, they must still make a choice between masculine and feminine, or they indicate that someone is an inanimate being—a “what” rather than a “who.”
The grammatical use of the term “gender” is justified; all others are fanciful efforts to overload the term in a way that does not comport with physical reality. And the reality is this: tissue samples of any specimen of the human species allow the specimen to be readily sexed by looking for an XX or an XY chromosome pair and assigning a corresponding “F” or “M” symbol. In the vast majority of cases, the specimen itself can be sexed by visual inspection, just like a chicken but far more easily—by examining the genitals. Crucially for the survival of the species, an “F” specimen should generally be capable of giving birth after mating with an “M” specimen. There are various abnormalities and pathologies that lie outside this basic scheme, but they are sufficiently rare as to be considered “in the noise” for most purposes.
The outliers certainly deserve the liberty to engage in any hanky-panky that tickles their fancy, but pretending that they belong to a rainbow of fictional “genders” does not help the rest of us at all. Perhaps referring to them all as “pidor,” as the Russians often do, oversimplifies matters a bit. (The word is short for “pederast” which is from the ancient Greeks, who were famous for pederasty, and which literally means “boy-love.”) On the other hand, with most Russians it would probably be a mistake to try to explain to them the difference between Q1 and Q2 in LGBTQ1Q2 because to them this question is sooo interesting! (Italicized phrase is to be read with a groan, a slack-jawed face and an eye-roll.)
That said, you can certainly go on believing in a rainbow of genders, or in elves, or unicorns, for that matter, and those who are kind and polite will tiptoe around your liberal shibboleths while those who are rude and uncouth will laugh in your face or even shove and slap you around a bit in a vain effort to knock some sense into your head. But we should be kind and polite and, as Putin said, “Let everyone be happy.” In turn, we should probably try to avoid being shoved and slapped around by people whose heads are full of outdated, wooly notions. Some of these heads—notably those belonging to snowflakes, who seem congenitally unable to brook any disagreement—will explode on their own.
Most importantly, we should deny these people any and all access to our children. Here, Putin issued a clarion call that should resound around the entire planet: “Leave the children alone!” His call should resonate with the vast majority of humans, of all ethnicities, cultures and faiths, who take the divine exhortation to “be fruitful and multiply” quite literally and wish for their progeny to do the same. When conditions turn for the worse, as they often do, they drop like flies in autumn, but then death is an essential part of life, and they regenerate and live to swarm again once conditions improve.
As an aside, now that liberalism is dead, those who feel that the planet is overpopulated only have the right to speak for themselves. That is, it may very well be the case that Earth is overpopulated with you, but that, of course, is for you alone to decide. If you feel sufficiently strongly about this matter, you should perhaps take charge and rid the planet of your good self, but please allow the rest of us wait to depart this world in some other, more naturalistic and less ideologically motivated manner. In the meantime, the rest of us should be able to have as many children as local conditions warrant. Putin had nothing to say on this question; he is the president of Russia, Russia is not overpopulated, and the rest of the planet didn’t elect him. Likewise, now that liberalism is dead, your opinion on Russia’s demographics matters not at all—unless you happen to be Russian, that is.
There is much more to say about the death of the liberal idea, and this is only the first installment—clearing the decks by throwing some useless baggage overboard, if you will. Far more important is the question of what will replace the liberal idea now that it is dead. Free market capitalism is also dead (just look at all of the financial shenanigans, the sanctions and the tariffs!) and Western free-market conservatives and libertarians should note that ideologically they are still liberals and that their ideology is also now dead.
But what is there to replace liberalism? It seems that the choice is between artificially resuscitated Marxism-Leninism (with Leon Trotsky lurking menacingly and Pol Pot sitting Buddha-like atop a pile of rotting corpses) and shiny, high-tech modern Stalinism (with distinctive Chinese characteristics). Intelligent boys and girls, when offered a false choice by being asked “Do you want an apple or a banana” usually respond “No!” I would like to do the same. But then what other choices are there?
EMAIL THIS BLOGTHIS! SHARE TO TWITTER SHARE TO FACEBOOK SHARE TO PINTEREST
11 COMMENTS :
Tosha said...
Regarding the choice between Marxism-Leninism and high-tech Stalinism I would quote Stalin and say that both are worse.
But I don't think these have to be the only choices. Global ideologies are inherently bad because we are all different people(s). But moving to local Solzhenytsin style ethno-centric ideologies is much more viable(who by the way figured out liberalism was dead in 1978 after living in the West for only a few years, and announced it in a somewhat embarrassing, to liberalism of course, speech in Harvard). In Russia you will get Russian ideology, in China a Chinese one, in Germany you could soon enjoy Sharia law. Whatever fits the local people will work best for them.
So hopefully the ideology of global ideologies would die along with liberalism.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 11:48:00 AM EDT
Dmitry Orlov said...
Tosha—what you propose is an exquisitely bad idea. Without a common set of rules there can be no international relations (that are peaceful) and no international commerce without which millions will die from a wide variety of causes. Working out a new set of rules (since the previous set of rules, where the US gets to decide) is now defunct. This is what is being worked out at the highest level, at meetings such as G20. Most of the efforts have been bilateral, although SCO and other regional organizations, and BRICS+, which is rather amorphous but still useful, are playing a part.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:16:00 PM EDT
Mark said...
The U.S. falls pray to every kind of cultural virus because the U.S. does not have a culture, other than consumerism. It was not necessarily always so, but it has been so for my entire life, and I'm 72. There will be no choice in the future, whatsoever, for Americans to "choose" asa path. It will be chosen for us, happen to us, regardless of what we think, want, or intend.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:27:00 PM EDT
The Seer said...
"But then what other choices are there?"
Anarchism in the form of radical de-centralization and local self-governance. It may seem far-fetched today as we live in an age of unprecedented technocracy with the marriage of state power and hi-tech, but one can always dream.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:36:00 PM EDT
Freddie said...
I like that you castigate the arrogant people who think we need to reduce world population.
"Take one for the team!" is my refrain to people who say that.
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:48:00 PM EDT
Moshe said...
I chose Stalinism with Chinese characteristics.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 1:54:00 PM EDT
Per said...
What other choices are there? After the end of cheap fossil fuels, the Zapatista way of life looks good.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 2:33:00 PM EDT
Ien in the Kootenays said...
There will always be a dynamic tension between the aspirations of the individual and the needs of the community. Ideally both are honoured and efforts are made to find balance. I agree that the pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of the individual, especially in the USA. The psychology industrial complex has much to account for. I have seen perfectly tolerable marriages crumble under the onslaught of so called counselors inciting people to demand endlessly exalted amounts of happiness. In recent years sheer necessity is recreating some balance. I see more three generation families happening.
However, I shudder at the invocation of patriarchal order under whatever name. Handmaid’s tale anyone?
Hell no, we won’t go! In the name of the Mother, the Daughter and the Holy Crone.
Also, agreed this “sexual dysphoria” trans thing has gotten too much attention lately. Agreed with the astute observation on minorities. I call the phenomenon “sproinking.” Energy suppressed is like a coil with a lid on top, such as a Jack in the Box. You know what happens when you take the lid off, right? SPROINK! Don’t stand too close, it will hit you in the face. Will some kids suffer because they are forced to wait till after puberty to fully express their sexual nature? Probably, and so what? Life involves struggle. Being a minority is not the same as being an oppressed minority. Learn the difference.
However, the notion that there is a queer (the alphabeth soup term drives me nuts) agenda to make kids queer is just plain ridiculous. Conversion does not work in any direction. Gay kids are constantly exposed to heterosexual teachers and it does not stop them from being attracted to their own sex. Likewise, a gay teacher would not stop a regular kid from being attracted to the opposite sex. I would be perfectly happy with a queer teacher as long as (s)he is a good teacher.
As for overpopulation, Nature will have the last word. She always does.
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 3:13:00 PM EDT
Arius said...
Orlov: Take a look at The Fourth Political Theory.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 4:07:00 PM EDT
Veronica said...
Always appreciate your point of view, Dmitry, especially when I tend to disagree, as you give me something solid to chew on, and clarify and modify my own thinking on these subjects. I do think that the planet is overpopulated for it's natural carrying capacity, at least within the parameters of what we have come to consider normal, and am saddened at the loss of liveable space for so many species, leaving gaps in the current ecological order which will have as yet unknown knock-on effects. Perhaps the effects will not be systemically destructive, we don't know, it's all a vast experiment. Your point of view seems tacitly to accept that large chunks of humanity will die off, either from environmental degradation, or the wars, famine and pestilence that accrue from it. And, barring some miraculous techno-fix in which I have no faith, that will probably happen. In which case, breed on, because the old order will die, probably sooner than it imagines. In the meantime, the only practical action is for each country to look after it's own balance of nature and live within it, not demanding that others do what they are not prepared to.
Empathy is a mixed blessing - without it much that is beautiful and valuable in human society is lost, but carried to extremes it is paralytic, both emotionally and practically. And it is such a useful lever for anyone wanting to manipulate a population into some direction against their best interests, but profitable for the manipulator.
I don't imagine that liberal ideas are indeed "dead", any more than that conservative ones have "won". These things go in cycles. Any way of thinking that excludes consideration of other points of view will lose effectiveness until it is taken over by some compensating trend. Liberalism, especially neo-liberalism as a political form, seems certainly to have entered that ossified stage, as exampled in the massive confusion about gender and the push by some to force this confusion onto the population as a whole, especially children. "Let everyone be happy" is a fair enough statement, but much more so is "leave the children alone".
But let's at least agree that the tendency to force one's own preferences onto society as a whole has not started with this period in history. With a few notable and short-lived exceptions, we've been battering away at each other in every society that there's a record of, since records began.
Btw, on a different note, we had a perfectly lovely visit to Russia this spring. Just Moscow to St. Petersburg, which is a tiny part of the whole, but everything about it was a pleasure and a privilege. The whole impression was of a spacious, gracious, and welcoming place. The pace and outstanding quality of the rebuilding since the 90s is breathtaking. We hope to come again.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 4:48:00 PM EDT
jal said...
What social/economic system will we have?
Not one kind but may kind.
We have many kinds existing all over the world.
We will still have many kinds in the future.
Yes, the N.Korea examples, the Cuban examples and the capitalist examples, etc., will still be there in the future.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 5:05:00 PM EDT
Post a Comment
And then there was Trump, let loose now that the Robert Mueller farce has come to its inevitable conclusion. He was running around trying to figure out which of America’s “partners” can still be thrown under the bus before the roof comes down on Pax Americana. It’s a stretch goal because he is out of ammo. He has already threatened all-out war—twice, once against North Korea, once against Iran, but, given the disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, sanity caused him to keep his military Humpty-Dumpty safely seated on the wall.
Trump hasn’t completely given up on trade war yet, but here too he is encountering problems and is being forced to backtrack: Huawei is being recalled from the sanctions doghouse. Trump must knock out another major player—either China, Russia or the EU—before Eurasia becomes cemented together via land trade routes controlled by China, Russia and Iran instead of sea routes patrolled by the US Navy; if he doesn’t succeed, then the US is out of the game, its military might and the US dollar both rendered irrelevant. Of these, the EU seems like the softest target, but even the Europeans somehow managed launch the mechanism that allows them to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. Trump is definitely in a tough spot. What is the author of “The Art of the Deal” to do when nobody wants to negotiate any more deals with the US, now knowing full well that the US always finds ways to renege on its obligations?
And then comes the bombshell announcement. In an interview with Financial Times Putin declares that “the liberal idea... has finally outlived its usefulness” because it no longer serves the needs of the majority of the peoples. Not “people,” mind you, but “peoples”—all different, but all the viable ones united in their steadfast adherence to the principle that family and nation (from the Latin verb nasci—to be born) are über alles. Some might perceive hints of fascism in this train of thought, but that would be akin to arguing that since fascists are known to use toothbrushes, then ipso facto toothbrushes are fascist implements to be outlawed and everyone must go back to cleaning their teeth with twigs and sticks. That Putin was able to utter words to the effect that the liberal idea is dead—something no Western leader would dare say—shows how much the world has changed.
Not that some Western leaders wouldn’t say it, if they only could. “Our Western partners,” Putin said, “have conceded that some elements of the liberal idea are simply not realistic… such as multiculturalism. Many of them conceded that yes, unfortunately it doesn’t work (LOL) and that we must remember the interests of the native population.” Not that Russia doesn’t have its share of problems related to migrants, due to its open border policy with certain former Soviet republics, but it works to resolve them by demanding competency in Russian and respect for Russian culture and traditions, while “the liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done, that migrants can rob, rape, steal, but that we must defend their rights… What rights? You broke a rule—you are punished!”
The migrant crisis is a perfect example of how liberalism has outlived its usefulness. Liberalism offers two ways forward, both of which are fatal to it. One approach is distinctly illiberal: halt the influx of migrants by any means necessary; insist that the migrants already in the country either conform to a strict set of requirements, including demonstrated competency in the nation’s language, detailed knowledge of its laws and administrative systems, strict obedience to its laws and demonstrated preference and respect for the customs and culture of the native population—or be not so much deported as expelled. The other approach is liberal at first: allow the influx to continue, do not hinder the formation of foreign ghettos and enclaves which native citizens and officials dare not enter, and eventually surrender to Sharia law or other forms of foreign dictate—guaranteeing the eventual death of the liberal idea along with much of the native population. Thus, the choice is between killing the liberal idea but saving the native population or letting the liberal idea die willy-nilly, taking the native population along with it. It offers no solution at all.
“We all live in a world based on traditional Biblical values,” quoth Putin. “We don’t have to demonstrate them every day… but must have them in our hearts and our souls. In this way, traditional values are more stable and more important to millions of people than this liberal idea which, in my view, is ceasing to exist.” This is true not just of the believers—be they Christian, Moslem or Jewish—but of the atheists as well. To put it in terms that may shock and astound some of you, you don’t have to believe in God (although it helps if you do—to avoid cognitive dissonance) but if you aspire to any sort of social adequacy in a traditional society you have no choice but to sincerely think and act as if God exists, and that He is the God of the Bible—be He Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus and the Holy Trinity or Allah (that's the Arabic word for “God”).
Putin capped off his argument by ever so gently and politely putting the boot in. He said that he has no clue about any of this “transformer-trans... whatever” stuff. How many genders are there? He has lost count. Not that he is against letting consenting adult members of various minority sexual groups do whatever they want among themselves—“Let everyone be happy!”—but they have no right to dictate to the rest. Specifically, Russian law makes homosexual propaganda among those who are under age illegal. Hollywood’s pro-LGBT mavens must be displeased: their choice is either to redact LGBT propaganda from the script, or to redact it from the finished film prior to its release in Russia (and China).
Here Putin is tapping into something that is fast becoming a political trend everywhere, including that former bastion of liberalism—the West. It is in the nature of democracies that previously repressed minorities tend to clamor for more and more rights up to and often well beyond the point where they begin to impinge on the rights of the majority; but at some point the majority starts pushing back. By now it can be stated with some certainty that in the view of the majority the LGBT movement has gone too far. Opinion surveys attest to this fact: LGBT support crested at well over 50% but has been dropping by roughly 10% per year for several years now.
How far beyond that point has the LGBT movement gone? In some Western countries children as young as three are subjected to “gender reassignment” that follows a sequence of indoctrination, chemical castration and physical castration, even against the wishes of their parents, resulting in a sterile individual. Pray tell, why should any sane parent agree to having their offspring sterilized, thus ending their bloodline? The vast majority of Earth’s population finds such practices appalling, and this is starting to include the home of the now dead liberal idea—the West itself. As a first, timid step of the overwhelming pushback that seems likely ensue, a “heterosexual pride parade” is scheduled to be held in Boston.
Note that the item in question is not “gender” but “sex.” The word “gender” does exist, but the sense in which LGBT activists and feminists use it is an instance of overloading—of linguistic violence. The only sense in which the term is valid is as grammatical gender, which is a feature of most Indo-European languages. In these languages, all nouns are assigned to one of exactly three genders—male, female and neuter—in English identified by the pronouns “he,” “she” and “it” while in Russian they are “on” “oná” and “onó” and, quite typically, “he” (“on”) is the default or unmarked gender while the other two require gender-specific endings (“-a”, “-o”). Male and female nouns and pronouns can denote either animate or inanimate objects, which answer either to “Who?” or to “What?” while neuter nouns and pronouns can only denote inanimate objects, which answer to “What?” (except in poetry, as permitted by poetic license). By the way, this clears away the confusion over alternative “gender-specific” pronouns, be they “ze,” “hir” or “ququuuxx”: in order to function grammatically, they must still make a choice between masculine and feminine, or they indicate that someone is an inanimate being—a “what” rather than a “who.”
The grammatical use of the term “gender” is justified; all others are fanciful efforts to overload the term in a way that does not comport with physical reality. And the reality is this: tissue samples of any specimen of the human species allow the specimen to be readily sexed by looking for an XX or an XY chromosome pair and assigning a corresponding “F” or “M” symbol. In the vast majority of cases, the specimen itself can be sexed by visual inspection, just like a chicken but far more easily—by examining the genitals. Crucially for the survival of the species, an “F” specimen should generally be capable of giving birth after mating with an “M” specimen. There are various abnormalities and pathologies that lie outside this basic scheme, but they are sufficiently rare as to be considered “in the noise” for most purposes.
The outliers certainly deserve the liberty to engage in any hanky-panky that tickles their fancy, but pretending that they belong to a rainbow of fictional “genders” does not help the rest of us at all. Perhaps referring to them all as “pidor,” as the Russians often do, oversimplifies matters a bit. (The word is short for “pederast” which is from the ancient Greeks, who were famous for pederasty, and which literally means “boy-love.”) On the other hand, with most Russians it would probably be a mistake to try to explain to them the difference between Q1 and Q2 in LGBTQ1Q2 because to them this question is sooo interesting! (Italicized phrase is to be read with a groan, a slack-jawed face and an eye-roll.)
That said, you can certainly go on believing in a rainbow of genders, or in elves, or unicorns, for that matter, and those who are kind and polite will tiptoe around your liberal shibboleths while those who are rude and uncouth will laugh in your face or even shove and slap you around a bit in a vain effort to knock some sense into your head. But we should be kind and polite and, as Putin said, “Let everyone be happy.” In turn, we should probably try to avoid being shoved and slapped around by people whose heads are full of outdated, wooly notions. Some of these heads—notably those belonging to snowflakes, who seem congenitally unable to brook any disagreement—will explode on their own.
Most importantly, we should deny these people any and all access to our children. Here, Putin issued a clarion call that should resound around the entire planet: “Leave the children alone!” His call should resonate with the vast majority of humans, of all ethnicities, cultures and faiths, who take the divine exhortation to “be fruitful and multiply” quite literally and wish for their progeny to do the same. When conditions turn for the worse, as they often do, they drop like flies in autumn, but then death is an essential part of life, and they regenerate and live to swarm again once conditions improve.
As an aside, now that liberalism is dead, those who feel that the planet is overpopulated only have the right to speak for themselves. That is, it may very well be the case that Earth is overpopulated with you, but that, of course, is for you alone to decide. If you feel sufficiently strongly about this matter, you should perhaps take charge and rid the planet of your good self, but please allow the rest of us wait to depart this world in some other, more naturalistic and less ideologically motivated manner. In the meantime, the rest of us should be able to have as many children as local conditions warrant. Putin had nothing to say on this question; he is the president of Russia, Russia is not overpopulated, and the rest of the planet didn’t elect him. Likewise, now that liberalism is dead, your opinion on Russia’s demographics matters not at all—unless you happen to be Russian, that is.
There is much more to say about the death of the liberal idea, and this is only the first installment—clearing the decks by throwing some useless baggage overboard, if you will. Far more important is the question of what will replace the liberal idea now that it is dead. Free market capitalism is also dead (just look at all of the financial shenanigans, the sanctions and the tariffs!) and Western free-market conservatives and libertarians should note that ideologically they are still liberals and that their ideology is also now dead.
But what is there to replace liberalism? It seems that the choice is between artificially resuscitated Marxism-Leninism (with Leon Trotsky lurking menacingly and Pol Pot sitting Buddha-like atop a pile of rotting corpses) and shiny, high-tech modern Stalinism (with distinctive Chinese characteristics). Intelligent boys and girls, when offered a false choice by being asked “Do you want an apple or a banana” usually respond “No!” I would like to do the same. But then what other choices are there?
EMAIL THIS BLOGTHIS! SHARE TO TWITTER SHARE TO FACEBOOK SHARE TO PINTEREST
11 COMMENTS :
Tosha said...Regarding the choice between Marxism-Leninism and high-tech Stalinism I would quote Stalin and say that both are worse.
But I don't think these have to be the only choices. Global ideologies are inherently bad because we are all different people(s). But moving to local Solzhenytsin style ethno-centric ideologies is much more viable(who by the way figured out liberalism was dead in 1978 after living in the West for only a few years, and announced it in a somewhat embarrassing, to liberalism of course, speech in Harvard). In Russia you will get Russian ideology, in China a Chinese one, in Germany you could soon enjoy Sharia law. Whatever fits the local people will work best for them.
So hopefully the ideology of global ideologies would die along with liberalism.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 11:48:00 AM EDT
Dmitry Orlov said...Tosha—what you propose is an exquisitely bad idea. Without a common set of rules there can be no international relations (that are peaceful) and no international commerce without which millions will die from a wide variety of causes. Working out a new set of rules (since the previous set of rules, where the US gets to decide) is now defunct. This is what is being worked out at the highest level, at meetings such as G20. Most of the efforts have been bilateral, although SCO and other regional organizations, and BRICS+, which is rather amorphous but still useful, are playing a part.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:16:00 PM EDT
Mark said...The U.S. falls pray to every kind of cultural virus because the U.S. does not have a culture, other than consumerism. It was not necessarily always so, but it has been so for my entire life, and I'm 72. There will be no choice in the future, whatsoever, for Americans to "choose" asa path. It will be chosen for us, happen to us, regardless of what we think, want, or intend.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:27:00 PM EDT
The Seer said..."But then what other choices are there?"
Anarchism in the form of radical de-centralization and local self-governance. It may seem far-fetched today as we live in an age of unprecedented technocracy with the marriage of state power and hi-tech, but one can always dream.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:36:00 PM EDT
Freddie said...I like that you castigate the arrogant people who think we need to reduce world population.
"Take one for the team!" is my refrain to people who say that.
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 12:48:00 PM EDT
Moshe said...I chose Stalinism with Chinese characteristics.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 1:54:00 PM EDT
Per said...What other choices are there? After the end of cheap fossil fuels, the Zapatista way of life looks good.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 2:33:00 PM EDT
Ien in the Kootenays said...There will always be a dynamic tension between the aspirations of the individual and the needs of the community. Ideally both are honoured and efforts are made to find balance. I agree that the pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of the individual, especially in the USA. The psychology industrial complex has much to account for. I have seen perfectly tolerable marriages crumble under the onslaught of so called counselors inciting people to demand endlessly exalted amounts of happiness. In recent years sheer necessity is recreating some balance. I see more three generation families happening.
However, I shudder at the invocation of patriarchal order under whatever name. Handmaid’s tale anyone?
Hell no, we won’t go! In the name of the Mother, the Daughter and the Holy Crone.
Also, agreed this “sexual dysphoria” trans thing has gotten too much attention lately. Agreed with the astute observation on minorities. I call the phenomenon “sproinking.” Energy suppressed is like a coil with a lid on top, such as a Jack in the Box. You know what happens when you take the lid off, right? SPROINK! Don’t stand too close, it will hit you in the face. Will some kids suffer because they are forced to wait till after puberty to fully express their sexual nature? Probably, and so what? Life involves struggle. Being a minority is not the same as being an oppressed minority. Learn the difference.
However, the notion that there is a queer (the alphabeth soup term drives me nuts) agenda to make kids queer is just plain ridiculous. Conversion does not work in any direction. Gay kids are constantly exposed to heterosexual teachers and it does not stop them from being attracted to their own sex. Likewise, a gay teacher would not stop a regular kid from being attracted to the opposite sex. I would be perfectly happy with a queer teacher as long as (s)he is a good teacher.
As for overpopulation, Nature will have the last word. She always does.
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 3:13:00 PM EDT
Arius said...Orlov: Take a look at The Fourth Political Theory.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 4:07:00 PM EDT
Veronica said...Always appreciate your point of view, Dmitry, especially when I tend to disagree, as you give me something solid to chew on, and clarify and modify my own thinking on these subjects. I do think that the planet is overpopulated for it's natural carrying capacity, at least within the parameters of what we have come to consider normal, and am saddened at the loss of liveable space for so many species, leaving gaps in the current ecological order which will have as yet unknown knock-on effects. Perhaps the effects will not be systemically destructive, we don't know, it's all a vast experiment. Your point of view seems tacitly to accept that large chunks of humanity will die off, either from environmental degradation, or the wars, famine and pestilence that accrue from it. And, barring some miraculous techno-fix in which I have no faith, that will probably happen. In which case, breed on, because the old order will die, probably sooner than it imagines. In the meantime, the only practical action is for each country to look after it's own balance of nature and live within it, not demanding that others do what they are not prepared to.
Empathy is a mixed blessing - without it much that is beautiful and valuable in human society is lost, but carried to extremes it is paralytic, both emotionally and practically. And it is such a useful lever for anyone wanting to manipulate a population into some direction against their best interests, but profitable for the manipulator.
I don't imagine that liberal ideas are indeed "dead", any more than that conservative ones have "won". These things go in cycles. Any way of thinking that excludes consideration of other points of view will lose effectiveness until it is taken over by some compensating trend. Liberalism, especially neo-liberalism as a political form, seems certainly to have entered that ossified stage, as exampled in the massive confusion about gender and the push by some to force this confusion onto the population as a whole, especially children. "Let everyone be happy" is a fair enough statement, but much more so is "leave the children alone".
But let's at least agree that the tendency to force one's own preferences onto society as a whole has not started with this period in history. With a few notable and short-lived exceptions, we've been battering away at each other in every society that there's a record of, since records began.
Btw, on a different note, we had a perfectly lovely visit to Russia this spring. Just Moscow to St. Petersburg, which is a tiny part of the whole, but everything about it was a pleasure and a privilege. The whole impression was of a spacious, gracious, and welcoming place. The pace and outstanding quality of the rebuilding since the 90s is breathtaking. We hope to come again.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 4:48:00 PM EDT
jal said...What social/economic system will we have?
Not one kind but may kind.
We have many kinds existing all over the world.
We will still have many kinds in the future.
Yes, the N.Korea examples, the Cuban examples and the capitalist examples, etc., will still be there in the future.TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2019 AT 5:05:00 PM EDT
Post a Comment
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.